Beullogeo's

The Madoff Circle: Who Knew What?, by Jake Bernstein, ProPublica:

What these men undeniably shared were similar backgrounds and interests. Based largely in New York and South Florida, they moved through parallel milieus of affluent Jewish country clubs and synagogues. They were active in similar philanthropies and served on the boards of foundations, universities and yeshivas.

The cast of characters, spelled out mostly in complaints filed by the trustee and the SEC, includes: Carl Shapiro,, 97, a Boston-based philanthropist who made one fortune in ladies dresses and a larger one with Madoff; Robert Jaffe, 66, Shapiro’s son-in-law; Maurice “Sonny” Cohn, 79, a onetime Madoff neighbor turned business partner; Stanley Chais, 83, a close friend of Madoff’s for more than 50 years and one of his earliest investors; and Jeffry Picower, a lawyer and accountant, who recently died of a heart attack at 67.

None of these men has been charged criminally. Thus far, federal authorities have indicated in court filings that just one of them – Chais – is the subject of a criminal inquiry. A year ago, The Wall Street Journal, citing anonymous sources, reported that the U.S. Attorney's Office in Manhattan was investigating at least eight investors, including Picower, Chais and Shapiro.

All have denied being anything but victims of Madoff’s.

Chais, Cohn and Jaffe have drawn considerable ire from investors for running so-called feeder funds that channeled huge sums into Madoff’s investment business. Jaffe alone funneled more than $1 billion of investor money to Madoff, according to the SEC. He worked with Cohn in a business called Cohmad – a contraction of Cohn and Madoff – that operated out of Madoff’s offices. Contrary to what some investors in the funds believed, it appears the men did little to manage the money beyond simply collecting it for delivery to Madoff.

Members of this circle not only did far better than other investors, who averaged 10 percent to 12 percent returns annually, they also had a highly unusual level of input into the nature of their returns.

	Bernie Madoff His scheme is alleged to have been helped by wealthy investors who "knew or willfully ignored" signs that it was a fraud.
	Jeffry Picower, 67 This lawyer, accountant, and noted philanthropist is alleged to have reaped the most from Madoff's scheme – $7.2 billion. He died recently of a heart attack.
	Carl Shapiro, 97 A Boston-based philanthropist who made a fortune in ladies fashion and allegedly as much as $1 billion from Madoff.
	Stanley Chais, 83 A close Madoff friend for more than 50 years. He and his family are alleged to have withdrawn approximately $200 million more than they invested with Madoff.
	Robert Jaffe, 66 Shapiro's son-in-law is believed to have funneled more than $1 billion of investor money to Madoff.
	Maurice Cohn, 79 Madoff's former neighbor and business partner, he worked with Jaffe at a business called Cohmad, which allegedly did little else for investors beyond sending money to Madoff.

Illegal immigrant population in Georgia doubles, confirms changing migration trends - latimes.com:

In the years since [the Olympic Games came to Atlanta in 1996], the number of illegal immigrants living in Georgia has skyrocketed, more than doubling to 480,000 from January 2000 to January 2009, according to a new federal report. That gave Georgia the greatest percentage increase among the 10 states with the biggest illegal immigrant populations during those years.

The article concerns a new federal report, but it does not link it, provide a title, or reveal which government agency produced it. I checked google news and the top immigration websites I know and couldn't find any other mention of it. The main purpose of this AP article is put a positive spin on immigration.

The main point of the article is that immigration is good for "the economy". This claim was dubious even before the housing/securitization pyramid scheme collapsed. It is beyond mendacious now.

"In a way it could be a sort of badge of success to have a higher undocumented immigrant population" because it means the economy is strong, [Demographer William] Frey [of the Brookings Institution] said.

Hospitals closing, prisons overflowing, schools failing, higher taxes, more graffiti, White flight, all brought by an alien underclass that resents the formerly safe communities to which they have immigrated. None of this would be different if their immigration were legal. Obviously aliens think immigrating is good for them, otherwise they wouldn't do it and they wouldn't stay. The problem is that what is good for them or "the economy" isn't good for the rest of us.

The article concludes with this gem:

"The only way you're going to get the illegal immigrant population in Georgia to go down is to legalize them or get rid of the jobs," said Dowell Myers, a specialist in demographic trends at the University of Southern California.

The jobs, and that excuse for immigration, are gone. But hey, we can still use this brilliant specialist's logic to solve all our other problems. Let's start by reducing the murder, rape, and robbery rates by legalizing murder, rape and robbery or getting rid of the victims.

The people propagandizing in favor of immigrants and "the economy" are aiding and abetting our displacement and dispossession. It's genocide. That they do it for profit or prestige and have the intelligence and power to define it as legal does not excuse this, it makes it worse.

Send California inmates to Mexico, says Schwarzenegger - Yahoo! News, Jan 25:

"I think that we can do so much better in the prison system alone if we can go and take, inmates for instance, the 20,000 inmates that are illegal immigrants that are here and get them to Mexico," Schwarzenegger said.

"Think about it -- if California gives Mexico the money. Not 'Hey, you take care of them, these are your citizens'. No. Not at all.

"We pay them to build the prison down in Mexico. And then we have those undocumented immigrants down there in prison. It would half the costs to build the prison and run the prison. We could save a billion dollars right there that could go into higher education."

California has some of the most overcrowded prisons in the United States, with an estimated 170,000 inmates housed in facilities designed for 100,000 people, according to 2007 figures.

Yes, think about it. The cost of the alien invasion never came up during the budget crisis just a few months ago, and here we're getting just a small glimpse of it.

What Schwarzenegger admits is that about 12% of the prisoners in California are known to be illegal alien mexicans who cost the state some $2B per year. This does not account for the cost of criminal aliens who aren't here illegally or aren't mexican. It also doesn't account for the cost to apprehend and prosecute these aliens, nor the costs to their many victims in human and financial terms.

California has been overrun by non-White aliens. Now it's bankrupt. And the other most populated, most invaded states - Texas, Florida, New York - are following California's lead. There is no clearer example than this that our government is corrupt and illegitimate. In any other time or place a governor worthy of the title would indeed say, "Hey, you take care of them, these are your citizens", and he would have said it while sending them home, before they had a chance to do us any harm.

I ran into an interesting statement in the February issue of Wired that neatly captures the essence of the plutocracy's current dilemma. The statement came from Peter Thiel - "billionaire", "staunch libertarian", and "VC philanthropist" - in Utopian Pessimist Calls on Radical Tech to Save Economy:

Wired: What happens if we don’t get the growth everyone expects?

Thiel: If it doesn’t happen, people will go bankrupt in retirement. There are systemic consequences, too. If we don’t have enough growth, we will see a powerful shift away from capitalism. There are good things and bad things about capitalism, but inequality becomes completely intolerable to society when everything’s static.

"The economy", such as it is today, is essentially a pyramid scheme. Its "health" hinges entirely on growth. More people, more consumption, more loans, more interest, and more profits, especially for those on top. The plutocrats fear that if the growth ever stops, or even pauses for any length of time, the jig is up.

Is Thiel, like so many other "philanthropist" plutocrats, jewish?

He's hated for supporting NumbersUSA and has written a book criticizing multiculturalism, two things rather untypical of jews.

With friends like these ... Tom Hodgkinson on the politics of the people behind Facebook, 14 January 2008:

But Thiel is more than just a clever and avaricious capitalist. He is a futurist philosopher and neocon activist. A philosophy graduate from Stanford, in 1998 he co-wrote a book called The Diversity Myth, which is a detailed attack on liberalism and the multiculturalist ideology that dominated Stanford. He claimed that the "multiculture" led to a lessening of individual freedoms. While a student at Stanford, Thiel founded a rightwing journal, still up and running, called The Stanford Review - motto: Fiat Lux ("Let there be light"). Thiel is a member of TheVanguard.Org, an internet-based neoconservative pressure group that was set up to attack MoveOn.org, a liberal pressure group that works on the web. Thiel calls himself "way libertarian".

Thiel says that PayPal was motivated by this belief: that you can find value not in real manufactured objects, but in the relations between human beings. PayPal was a way of moving money around the world with no restriction. Bloomberg Markets puts it like this: "For Thiel, PayPal was all about freedom: it would enable people to skirt currency controls and move money around the globe."

Thiel is #377 on the 2009 Forbes 400, but he isn't counted as jewish ("either personally or in their giving") by Jacob Berkman in Jewish Philanthropy Navigates The Economy’s Rough Seas.

The authors of Jews On The Internet and The Jewish hand behind Internet come from polar opposite views on jewish influence, but they both agree Thiel is a jew.

George Soros, another plutocrat who definitely is a jew, was quoted in the news today offering his underling in the White House some public advice.

Davos Soros: Obama reform plan not tough enough - Times Online:

Mr Soros told delegates: "To tax the banks when they are doing everything they can to get out of a hole is the exact opposite of the policy you are trying to pursue...This development came too soon because the banks are not out of the woods.”

Mr Soros also said governments around the world needed to continue spending, even if they had sizeable budget deficits, to avoid the risk of a double dip recession.

What Soros is saying is: tax and indebt the masses, not the plutocrats.

Other bankers expressed concern over "stifling growth".

As Hunter Wallace put it:

Democracy: the theory that you have as much power and influence as George Soros.

You could say the same about any plutocrat. But the power and influence of Thiel, Soros, David Gelbaum, and other jewish plutocrats is compounded by its tribally-networked nature. What comes through clearly in the Berkman article is the "supremacism" with which jews view their collective power, and the unapologetically "racist" way in which they direct so much of their "philanthropy" to fellow jews. What should make this situation troubling for any White, rich or poor, is that jews do it under the aegis of a regime which favors and defends jews and jewish interests even as it directs fear and hatred toward Whites.

Where are the mainstream media's fierce critics, the speakers of truth to power? Like the figureheads in our illegitimate government they'll bash powerless White "teabaggers" with glee, but they're afraid to question their jewish overlords.

Jewish "social critic" James Howard Kunstler has specialized in ridiculing suburbia while paying relatively little attention to the non-White immigration, non-White sociopathy, and forced integration motivating Whites to flock there. The disproportionately jewish race-hustlers, developers, and financiers enriching themselves in the process also get a pass. Kunstler's made a living hyping a variety of threats, like Y2K and depleted uranium, and warning most recently that "peak oil" will cause a "long emergency". The effect, if not intent, has been to direct attention away from the more immediate and more substantial problems for more Americans, especially White Americans - the displacement and dispossession caused by genocidal levels of immigration and systemic financial fraud, each fueling the other.

Lately Kunstler has been keeping a nervous eye on a particular facet of the fraud. In Thinking the Unthinkable he writes:

How bad is the situation 'out there' really? In my view, things are veering toward such extreme desperation that the US government might fall under the sway, by extra-electoral means, of an ambitious military officer, or a group of such, sometime in the near future. I'm not promoting a coup d'etat, you understand, but I am raising it as a realistic possibility as elected officials prove utterly unwilling to cope with a mounting crisis of capital and resources. The 'corn-pone Hitler' scenario is still another possibility - Glen Beck and Sarah Palin vying for the hearts and minds of the morons who want 'to keep gubmint out of Medicare!' - but I suspect that there is a growing cadre of concerned officers around the Pentagon who will not brook that fucking nonsense for a Crystal City minute and, what's more, would be very impatient to begin correcting the many fiascos currently blowing the nation apart from within. Remember, today's US military elite is battle-hardened after eight years of war in Asia. No doubt they love their country, as Julius Caesar and Napoleon Bonaparte loved theirs. It may pain them to stand by and watch it dissolve like a castle made of sugar in a winter gale.

I do believe it might pain Kunstler to watch israel dissolve. It certainly doesn't pain him to watch and snark at "the morons" while it happens to America. Does he think what Goldman Sachs and friends have been doing is unethical, unfair, unjust, immoral, illegal, indefensible, or just plain slimy? Maybe. But for sure he's concerned how the rubes will react when they find out. He's afraid it might be bad for jews. And he thinks that's unthinkable.

This isn't the first time Kunstler has expressed such fears. Hunter Wallace (formerly Prozium) wrote about Kunstler in Cornpone Nazism toward the end of July, linking to a Kunstler essay titled Evil Syndicated. I'll excerpt a few bits to illustrate how Kunstler recognizes Goldman is creating a problem, but that the real problem is the potential backlash.

By now, everyone in that fraction of the world that pays attention to something other than American Idol and their platter of TGI Friday's loaded potato skins knows that Goldman Sachs has been caught at another racket in the stock market: front-running trades. What a clever gambit, done with the help of the markets themselves - the Nasdaq in particular - in which information on trades is held back a fraction of a second from public view, while the data is shoveled to the computers of privileged subscribers who can execute zillions of programmed micro-trades before the rest of the herd makes a move. This allows them to vacuum up hundreds of millions of dollars by doing absolutely nothing of value.

Don't mistake Kunstler's accurate description here for disapproval. If anything he sees it as a "clever" way to shear "the herd".

In any sensible society - i.e. a society with an instinct for self-preservation - it would be against the law and the people doing it would be sent to prison.

Maybe the larger question is: since when did we become a society lacking the instinct for self-preservation - that is, a society bent on suicide?

Yes, a sensible society would have stopped Madoff and Hasan too. Whites have an instinct for self-preservation. We express it all the time, even though doing so has long been pathologized and is becoming increasingly criminalized. Since when? It's been getting worse ever since jewish emancipation. The proper word for what's happening, by the way, is genocide, not suicide. It's done over our objections. Jews like Kunstler aid and abet the crime by hyping symptoms rather than causes, and misdirecting blame. They see "anti-semitism" everywhere because they're not suicidal.

I think the larger question for Kunstler is: what's best for jews? The larger question for me is: when will Whites take note of this jewish obsession with themselves and their own interests? And when will we see through the dissembling of jewish "social critics" who ridicule and pathologize everything we do to resist what they misrepresent as "suicide"?

As we turn the corner toward autumn, President Obama looks increasingly like a dupe, a tool, or a co-conspirator of Goldman Sachs.

What bothers me is that, sooner or later, the conduct of Goldman Sachs will lead the growing ranks of the unemployed, foreclosed, disentitled, and hopeless into the hands of a savage right wing seeking mindless vengeance, for instance, against "the Jews," (as represented by Goldman Sachs), or brown-skinned people (as embodied by a vilified president).

"It's that brown-skinned guy's fault! Blame him!"

What bothers me is that Kunstler is saying that blaming the group who is responsible is "mindless", because he's acutely mindful that it might be bad for "the jews" and "brown-skinned people". Note however that even as Kunstler does this he feels perfectly free casting aspersions on Whites (as represented by "the savage right wing"), and white-skinned people (as embodied by the "evil syndicated"/"cornpone nazis"). What we have here is a conflict of group interests. Rather than addressing it honestly Kunstler tries to obscure and caricaturize it, advising those who already have their hands on "the growing ranks of the unemployed, foreclosed, disentitled, and hopeless" how to best manipulate them.

Readers of this blog know I'm allergic to conspiracy theories. But surveying the scene out there, it is hard to not conclude that Goldman Sachs has become the "front-runner" of a criminal syndicate defrauding US taxpayers.

Kunstler knows it's hard because he's tried. Now he's trying something more familiar and easier: scapegoating Whites.

In the meantime, the US economy gives the illusion of recovery - but to what? Back to a "consumer" credit card shopping orgy? Another house-buying fiesta?

There you go. One last kick in the nuts for the evil morons. Pay no mind to the hedge fund managers who might be called to account for ripping off the evil morons, if only in Kunstler's nightmares.

Kunstler's not the only "social critic" who's thinks it's important to suppress/redirect the backlash.

Oy! Noam Chomsky Compares Right-Wing Media To “Nazis”:

The memory that comes to my mind — I don’t want to press the analogy too hard, but I think it’s worth thinking about — is late Weimar Germany. There were people with real grievances, and the Nazis gave them an answer. ‘It’s the fault of the Jews and the Bolsheviks and we’ve got to protect ourselves from them, and that will take care of them.’ And you know what happened…

[...]Germany in the 1920s was at the peak of Western civilization. A decade later, it was at the pits of human history.

Chomsky's characterization of those two decades is from a jewish point of view, which is likely the opposite of how a contemporary native German would have described them.

Unless an answer can be given to these people, unless they can be led to understand what’s really happening to them, we could be in for trouble.

"We" could be in for trouble? Me and mine are already in trouble. We are ruled by a corrupt and illegitimate regime whose highest priority is to drown us in "people of color", each and every one of which is afforded special rights over Whites. To even question this is considered a crime. Why should we care about the trouble the fraudsters and the "social critics" spinning excuses for them might suffer? They don't care about our troubles.

UN wants new global currency to replace dollar - Telegraph:

In a radical report, the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has said the system of currencies and capital rules which binds the world economy is not working properly, and was largely responsible for the financial and economic crises.

It added that the present system, under which the dollar acts as the world's reserve currency , should be subject to a wholesale reconsideration.

Although a number of countries, including China and Russia, have suggested replacing the dollar as the world's reserve currency, the UNCTAD report is the first time a major multinational institution has posited such a suggestion.

In essence, the report calls for a new Bretton Woods-style system of managed international exchange rates, meaning central banks would be forced to intervene and either support or push down their currencies depending on how the rest of the world economy is behaving.

So much for that old amero "conspiracy theory". Globalists, demonstrating how to not waste a crisis, are now openly proposing a global currency. And even if this radical proposal goes nowhere it helps make the relatively less radical amero (which will remain a "conspiracy theory" right up until it or the UNo becomes reality) that much more likely.

The news and commentary below could easily have been appended to Jewish Supremacists Bribing Politicians and Laundering Proceeds of Criminal Activity or Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. Two weeks ago I really had no idea how common jewish fraud was. Now I find a simple news search for "rabbi" regularly turns up more.

Money-Laundering Rabbi Case in Los Angeles Echoes N.J. Scandal - Bloomberg.com:

In Los Angeles, U.S. prosecutors charged Naftali Tzi Weisz, grand rabbi of a Brooklyn-based Orthodox Jewish group, seven other people and five charities with a scheme to evade taxes through use of phony donations. Weisz and four other defendants are scheduled to plead guilty today.

The case may prove a window onto New Jersey’s scandal. Defendants in California were charged with tax fraud, an accusation not yet made in New Jersey, and prosecutors in Los Angeles have targeted 100 more co-conspirators. Later indictments in California also provided enhanced details of illegal methods and of people and banks involved.

“The 2007 charges were the beginning of a much larger case we’re investigating,” said Assistant U.S. Attorney Daniel O’Brien, who is overseeing the Los Angeles case.

The organization charged has worked with related religious groups “to move money internationally,” he said.

The window this scandal provides is onto the tip of an iceberg of jewish fraud. Here's how a jewish charity facilitated tax evasion:

Even after paying Spinka a 20 percent commission, a donor in a 30 percent tax bracket would come out ahead, keeping $80,000 of a $100,000 donation in cash and getting $30,000 because of the offset of the tax deduction.

NY-based rabbi pleads guilty in LA fraud case - San Jose Mercury News:

Naftali Tzi Weisz, 61, entered his plea to one count of conspiracy and could face up to five years in prison at his scheduled sentencing on Nov. 16.

Others who pleaded guilty to conspiracy charges were Yaacov Zeivald, 44; Yosef Nachum Naiman, 57; Alan Jay Friedman, 45; and Moshe Arie Lazar, 62, all of Los Angeles. They are scheduled to be sentenced in November.

Spinker Tzadick – Here is one of the best articles w/pictures! « Heimisheh Scandals, dated 18 months ago, has more details about the Spinka rabbi-criminal cabal:

While [assistant U.S. attorney in the major frauds section Daniel J.] O’Brien said he has documentation that the Spinka institutions took in about $750,000 through the scheme — then writing receipts for $8.7 million — in 2007 alone, the assistant U.S. attorney believes the fraud has been going on for decades: “I believe this goes on beyond living memory,” possibly for generations.

This is certainly not the first time an ultra-Orthodox sect has been accused of attempting to break the laws of the secular government — aramos, or schemes, were perpetrated over the centuries in the shtetls of Europe. In the last decade, arrests have occurred in religious communities in Brooklyn, Lakewood, N.J., and upstate New York.

However, this particular case has shocked Los Angeles’ ultra-Orthodox community, not only because Los Angeles had largely been exempt from such cases in the past, but also because some of the city’s prominent members have been charged as being at the center of the scheme.

As a result, the case has sparked a fierce debate about the type of behavior that is acceptable for observant people and what type of religious community Los Angeles would like to be. But there’s also debate about the laws of a moser, an informant, because one person who was not charged was the primary source of information for the federal case — though he allegedly started out as one of the perpetrators.

The article offers some samples of this "fierce debate" (my emphasis toward the end):

CRIME IS NOT SO BAD

“There are a million ways that religious institutions defraud the government,” said one Brooklyn accountant who asked that his name be withheld. However, it’s not just the Jews, he claimed, “churches do the same thing.” Churches and synagogues are exempt from filing tax returns — although many do — and the government usually does not audit unless it has probable cause. As a result, this can make fraud easier.

In the last decade or so, a number of Chasidic institutions on the East Coast have been charged with such crimes, including the 1997 case against the Skverer Hasidim in Rockland County, N.Y., where four men were found guilty of defrauding the government of millions of dollars in federal Pell Grants. But in the Orthodox community, many defended them, despite the crime, because the money was used to support needy yeshiva students.

“Nobody here owns a yacht,” a resident reportedly said, and the feeling then — as with many such institutional fraud cases — that if the money is used to help the community and not line someone’s pockets, it’s not so bad.

That, in fact, is a pervasive attitude these days in Brooklyn, where the Spinka case raised fewer eyebrows than in Los Angeles, because the attitude is everyone does something. This kind of discussion has been a hot topic on many Internet blogs that discuss the ultra-Orthodox community.

“The government are thieves, what gives them the right to take 40 percent to 50 percent of someone’s income? Anyone who can save yiddishe gelt from going down that toilet is doing a mitzvah,” one contributor wrote on the Vosizneias (Yiddish for “What Is News?”) blog.

The blog comments, though, seem to be about evenly divided between two camps: On one hand are those castigating the government or the bloggers posting the news for spreading gossip; on the other are those demanding that the community finally put a stop to criminal behavior.

One particularly poignant plea came from New York white-collar defense attorney Joel Cohen, in an essay published in 2006 titled, “Jewish Felons: The Problem of Criminality in Observant Communities.” Cohen described witnessing a disturbing rise in crime among Orthodox and Chasidic Jews.

“The problem in the observant community, however, is not merely occasional, nor does it often make headlines. Daily, in metropolises around the country, yarmulka-wearing criminal defendants appear before the bar of justice,” he wrote.

Some prisons — especially in New York, Los Angeles and Miami — have daily minyans, visiting rabbis, kosher food, classes and Shabbat meals, Cohen wrote. “The most common charge is fraud: against businessmen and run-of-the-mill citizens alike, most frequently involving victims outside of the Jewish community, against the government, against insurance carriers, against banking institutions, health care fraud, money-laundering and stock-swindling.”

Here's another criminal rabbi. Ex-Chicago rabbi indicted in tax-fraud case arrested in Israel -- chicagotribune.com:

A former Chicago rabbi and nine of his family members and associates have been indicted in connection with a tax-fraud ring that allegedly used the stolen identities of thousands of federal prisoners to file bogus tax returns.

Marvin Berkowitz, 62, who fled to Israel to avoid a tax fraud case in 2003, was arrested in Jerusalem on Sunday night, federal authorities said. Berkowitz allegedly recruited members of the conspiracy to travel to federal courthouses to gather information about prisoners to use in the scheme.

The ring, broken up by the IRS Criminal Investigation Division, submitted fraudulent documents using the stolen identities seeking $35 million, and caused $4 million in refunds to be issued to bank accounts it controlled, authorities said. Berkowitz then allegedly directed $800,000 to be paid to his family members.

It was unclear when Berkowitz might be returned to Chicago, where in the late 1980s he also was convicted of stealing documents from the U.S. attorney's office in yet another fraud case. He eventually was sentenced to 5 years in prison for that crime.

More criminal rabbis. Unorthodox-Jew A Critical View of Orthodox Judaism: Jewish Felons: The Problem of Criminality in Observant Communities:

There is no shortage of high-profile Jewish crime. Take the infamous New Square scandal, in which four Hassidim were convicted for defrauding the government of $11 million by setting up a fictitious yeshiva to receive federal student aid money. Or the case in Williamsburg, New York, in which the rabbi of a Jewish day school stole 6 million dollars from the Board of Education over several years by falsely identifying more than eighty individuals as school employees.

Here's some classic anti-anti-semitic apologia for jewish fraud. Z Magazine - Bernard Madoff - Wall Street swindler inadvertently strikes powerful blows for social justice? James Petras turns reality on its head in two separate ways:

Point number nine is that Madoff struck a severe blow against anti-Semites who claim that there is a "close-knit Jewish conspiracy to defraud the Gentiles," laying that canard to rest once and for all. Among Madoff's principle victims were his closest Jewish friends and colleagues, people who shared Seder meals and frequented the same upscale temples in Long Island and Palm Beach.

Madoff was discriminating in accepting clients, but it was on the basis of their wealth, not their national origin, race, religion, or sexual preference. He was very ecumenical and a strong backer of globalization as he defrauded the Anglo-Chinese bank HSBC of $1 billion, the Dutch arm of the Belgian bank Fortes of several billion, the Royal Bank of Scotland, the French bank BNP Paribas, the Spanish bank Banco Santander, and the Japanese Nomura of a total of $1.4 billion—not to mention hedge funds in London and the U.S., which have admitted holdings in Bernard Madoff Investment Securities.

Can't you just see Petras smiling smugly to himself and wiping his hands after writing "once and for all"?

First is the typical anti-anti-semitic canard that the long list of indictments and convictions of close-knit jewish conspiracies to defraud non-jews is a "canard" concocted by "anti-semites". Why would somebody attempt to so blatantly not just deny reality but invert it? For one thing it justifies seeing the prosecution and reporting of jewish crimes as "anti-semitic", which in turn allows talmudic scholars to rationalize that jewish crime is not really criminal.

Second is the patently false kneejerk assertion that the fraud of close-knit jewish conspiracies has nothing to do with jewishness. With the criminal rabbi cases I've cited the central role of jewish networking is crystal clear. In Madoff's case, his closest jewish friends and colleagues were generally the earliest ones in on the pyramid scheme, the contributions were relatively small and their payouts relatively early. Many knew or suspected what was going on, which is why they called it The Jewish Bond. The big international funds came later, bringing in largely non-jewish money (as opposed to "yiddishe gelt") which was paid out largely to earlier "investors", like Madoff and his closest jewish friends and colleagues. In the end Madoff kept his mouth shut and went to jail claiming only he knew. I'm sure the jews who lost money have names for what Madoff did. Moser isn't one of them. Madoff's real crime, according to the many very vocal jews who obviously don't think jewishness is irrelevant, is the supposed damage he did to jewish "philanthropy". There are similar laments from extremely self-conscious and thoroughly self-interested jews concerning their ever more numerous criminal rabbis.

A natural and healthy response from a secular government to the revelation of this pattern of fraud posing as religious philanthropy would be to subject all jewish charities to extra regulation and scrutiny. Such a response would undoubtedly be crimped if not completely stymied by the older, even stronger pattern of jews uniting to decry, pathologize and punish such normal, healthy responses as irrational jew-hate.

By continuing to treat each incident of jewish financial fraud as an independent case of religious philanthropy gone bad media and government both commit their own fraud. Whether motivated by sympathy, fealty, or fear the behavior is inexcusable, but not inexplicable. The government's duty to prosecute crime conflicts with it's special self-appointed "need to combat anti-Semitism". The government's drive to defend jewish interests is so strong that it manifests as anti-Whitism. This arises in part from the canard-inverting propaganda discussed above, in part from jewish lobbying, and as a result of jewish political contributions. It is reasonable to also suspect the kind of graft the syrian criminal rabbis are accused of using. When philanthropist-plutocrats talk, politicians listen.

The bottom line is that the more jews are convicted of grubbing too much too blatantly, the louder and more urgent the cries to criminalize "anti-semitism" become. Meanwhile, in contrast, jewish "philanthropy" continues unmolested. This is not at all a coincidence.

Via John Robb on Tribalism at The Occidental Quarterly I followed a link to Robb's blog Global Guerrillas where he focuses on:

Networked tribes, systems disruption, and the emerging bazaar of violence. Resilient Communities, decentralized platforms, and self-organizing futures.

Here's his About page.

I'm not sure what to make of Robb, but here's what I think so far. His analysis of globalism is broad, incisive, and critical, and comes from a technologically informed point of view outside the false dichotomy of partisan politics. He provides interesting opinions and links, though his writing is larded with jargon. Only cryptically, by reading between the lines, can he be understood to recognize the tribal jewish influence that so dominates the West's politics, finance, and media. He seems a typical deracinated White, for whom even a keen interest in tribalism and communities and opposition to globalism appears not at all motivated by an overt awareness of or sympathy for his own tribe.

His essay Containing Chaos (unfortunately no longer freely visible in it's entirety) begins:

We are now engaged in a conflict that will dictate whether we succeed or fail in the 21st century. Our adversary in this conflict is, in short, the threat posed by globalization.

and concludes (my emphasis):

Disruptions that result in societal and economic chaos occur most readily in societies where the health and vigor of a society has decayed. In other words, the social and economic system that the nation-state administers must be seen as fair and just, and it must deliver tangible results to the greatest number of people possible. Anything less than this and societal breakdown becomes extremely likely should disruption occur, since the allure of participation in oppositional groups, from black-market crime to guerrilla/terrorist groups, will outweigh outcomes available through participation in the status quo. In short, the nation-state will lose its legitimacy with large subsets of its population.

Here's an example of not delivering results: The incomes of the bottom four-fifths of Americans have fallen 10 percent, adjusted for inflation, over the last three decades, despite massive improvements in worker productivity. For an example of not being just and fair, we need not go far: Self-dealing financial elites defrauded markets and the government of trillions of dollars realized during the 2008 financial panic, and not one of them went to jail.

In order to retain legitimacy at a level that allows some freedom of action, the government must endeavor to deliver real economic progress to its constituents. That means that every policy should be slaved to increasing incomes in line with increases in worker productivity, and improving the long-term financial wealth of the greatest number. (The best way to measure the success of government efforts in this regard are increases in the median incomes of individuals.) One method of achieving this, already mentioned above, is to remove barriers to community resilience. Community resilience has the potential to substantially improve the incomes and quality of life for the greatest number by reducing end-user costs, creating jobs, and spurring massive leaps in innovation.

The greatest threat to achieving this outcome lies in the potential for parasitic interests to gain control of government function, since one of the quickest routes to illegitimacy is through the appearance of corruption. This unfortunate outcome was evident in the 2008 financial meltdown, as special interests proved capable of snaring trillions in subsidies from the public treasure for no apparent improvement in the lives of most citizens.

Robb's analysis is clouded by his conflation of both pro-globalist "self-dealing financial elite" tribalists and anti-globalist al-qaeda-like tribalists (mentioned earlier in his essay) as "parasitic interests". While Robb sees the jihadi threat clearly enough he seems unwilling or unable to confront the implications of his own analysis regarding the "parasitic interests" who control finance and drive globalism. That their fraud going unpunished implies not the potential to gain control of government function, but that they have already gained it. That this control goes unheralded and uncriticized in the mainstream media implies that the "parasitic interests" also effectively control media function.

The "parasitic interests" who illegitimately control the Eurosphere's government, finance, and media have made it clear that their most feared and detested enemies are White tribalists. For us repression and punishment are considered normal and deserved, especially in response to opposition to the "parasitic interests" whose genocidal immigration policies are swamping our homelands with hostile non-White tribalists.

UPDATE 16 July 2009: A bit more of Robb's essay Containing Chaos is available at The Occidental Quarterly Online, including this paragraph:

News in the age of the global supernetwork is often startling. It features an endless procession of crushing financial panics, unexpected food shortages, sharp commodity price spikes, brazen terrorist attacks that have shut down major cities from New York to Sao Paulo to Mumbai, and much more. These extreme events form a pattern of behavior that should serve as an alarm. They are an indication that the system we have come to rely upon, the global supernetwork that connects us to each other and all manner of goods and services is entering a period of extreme turbulence, where we careen from crisis to crisis at an increasing rate and incremental severity. At worst, it may even be an indication of a looming catastrophic failure of indeterminable duration.

Media moguls rediscover scepticism:

Rupert Murdoch, chairman of News Corp, said the business outlook for the next three to five years was “unanimously bearish”.

Deal talk, once the sport of choice, was nowhere to be found among the gathered media moguls at the conference, which is sponsored by Allen & Co. It was replaced by hand-wringing and cynicism over social media, an interesting but revenue-challenged section of the business.

“A lot of people are doing very well making very little money,” quipped Howard Stringer, chief executive of Sony, speaking of social media. “It’s not a club I want to join.”

Twitter, the extremely popular online service that allows users to broadcast short text messages, was forecast to be the belle of the ball.

But any chatter about the micro-blogging service, which played a pivotal role in the dissemination of news in the recent Iran elections, soon turned to how it was unlikely to make money in the near future.

“Everyone is talking about it. I don’t know if it is monetisable,” said John Malone, chairman of Liberty Media. His sentiment was echoed by a panel of media executives that included Barry Diller, chief executive of IAC, the internet group.

Evan Williams, chief executive of Twitter, sat quietly as executives puzzled over the financial future of his company, and shied away from reporters for most of the week.

When Mr Murdoch, the consummate dealmaker whose 2005 purchase of MySpace helped burnish his image among the digerati, was asked whether he would be interested in Twitter, he had a one-word answer.

He said: “No.”

It would be bad enough if one group of influential people saw economic prospects are bleak and will be for some time, while another saw "green shoots" everywhere. Here we can see that many of the former employ or lend a megaphone to many of the latter. Something to keep in mind the next time a talking head tells you that now is a great time to buy.

The poor media moguls must be pickled with envy when they look at the financial moguls at Goldman Sachs. In the middle of the "failure" of the financial "industry" that got "fixed" by a bum rush bailout that put taxpayers on the hook for multiple trillions of dollars, Goldman Sachs partners somehow ended up swimming in money from selling stock (at bargain prices, because they, like their media mogul cousins, don't swallow the "green shoots" swill) and awarding themselves record bonuses (because otherwise they'd be tempted to leave and use their big brains to wreak havoc in another "industry").

So what's keeping the media moguls, especially in their current desperation, from succumbing to the temptation to exploit the "monetisable" popular resentment that even the finance moguls recognize?

In "Greenspan to testify on immigration" Steve Sailer wrote:

The Open Boarders (sic) crowd isn't even trying to make sense these days, are they?

My comment got lost/filtered:

In identifying them, "Genocidal Immigrationists" comes closer to the truth. For example, with that understanding of their intent, their nonsense makes perfect sense.

When something doesn't make sense it's often because you're view is distorted or incomplete. But sometimes it's willful. Sailer himself likes to call attention to and ridicule this kind of willful ignorance, categorizing his observations under "political correctness makes you stupid".

Recognizing that many of the wealthy, intelligent, educated, and well-informed progressivist globalist administrators of the world actively perpetrate genocide and many more acquiesce to and abet it is apparently something Sailer finds too dangerous to permit his commentariat to try and deride or dispute.

Then again, maybe Blogger just dropped my comment.

- - -

There has been no substantial criticism of Genocidal Immigrationists, though the accusation is quite explicit. Beside the relatively light volume of visitors here I attribute this mainly to the accusation's validity. At best the most ardent supporters of mass immigration simply don't care who suffers the consequences, and at worst they intend them. Their justification usually hinges on claims that immigration is profitable overall. When they respond to those who object it is only to smear us as losers, haters, or some combination of the two - another sign of their bad faith and ill will.

I learned only recently from a post at Majority Rights titled ‘La Loi’ de Frédéric Bastiat that there's an old name for the mendacity I had long noticed genocidal immigrationists indulging in, particularly those of the economist persuasion. It's called the Broken Window Fallacy, which is the idea that any economic activity whatsoever is more desirable than none. For example, when our genocidalist administrators permit thousands of aliens to flood into our countries to the point that they overload our schools, hospitals, courts, prisons, housing, utilities and roads we shouldn't see that as bad. No, it's a wonderful boon. We're so very lucky because it means lots of jobs and increases the globalist economist's holiest of holies, the Gross Domestic Product. Never mind that the lives and efforts of some of our finest men and women end up flowing down a rat hole or into aiding those who hate us.

Globalism is in essence a world-scale pyramid scheme. It can only exist because the kind of economic wisdom contained in Bastiat's essay What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen has for too long not been seen.

- - -

In their initial responses to the Swine Flu various globalist mouthpieces again reveal their genocidal motivations, falling over themselves as they have not to calm the public, or to announce measures that would slow or blunt the impact of the outbreak. No. Instead their first reactions have been to announce loudly and clearly that closing borders and restricting travel would most definitely NOT happen - and that only xenophobes and nativist loser-haters who would think such measures might help. Of course if your main concern is continuing to flood the West with third worlders, then an outbreak of infectious disease isn't important to you except as a threat to trade and travel.

Here's one typical example from Monday:

Swine Flu Border Closures are Political, WHO Says

Travel restrictions under consideration by the U.S. to prevent the spread of a new flu virus may be influenced by politics more than science, the World Health Organization’s chief said today.

WHO doesn’t recommend closing borders or restricting the movement of people or goods, Margaret Chan, director-general of the United Nations agency told leaders from health groups around the world in a conference call today. The disease, which may have caused more than 100 deaths and sickened more than 1,000 people, has spread too far and would be impossible to contain by closing borders, she said.

“By definition, pandemic influenza will move around the world,” Chan said in the call today. “Does that mean we are going to close every country? Does that mean we are going to bring the world’s economy to a standstill?

“We know from past experience that transmission of influenza or the spread of new influenza disease would not be stopped by closing borders and would not be stopped by restricting movement of people or goods,” Chan said.

Note the numerous hysterical exaggerations. "Impossible to contain", "every country", "bring the world’s economy to a standstill". Note also the inversion in the headline. It is WHO who is driven by politics more than science. The fact is that the rate and extent of the spread of an epidemic is directly related to the frequency and intimacy of contact among people. Reducing interaction slows the rate of infection, stretching it over time, reducing the severity of the impact (so all the cops, firefighters, doctors, and nurses aren't sick at once) and making it more likely medicine can be produced and distributed.

I don't think a world-class executive like Chan or her advisors fail to understand this. Instead it seems they are motivated by different priorities that override any such understanding.

Travel to Asia plunged during in the 2002-2003 outbreak of severe acute respiratory disease, or SARS.

SARS, which killed 770 people, reduced passenger air traffic 19 percent in Asia and 8.2 percent worldwide. Malaysia shut its borders to travelers from China and Hong Kong, and other countries instituted health checks at airports and borders. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention discouraged travel to some affected countries and said it might screen travelers in a bird flu epidemic.

“When we talk about travel advisories, we cannot think of the old days when we were dealing with SARS,” Chan said today. “It’s a totally different ballgame now.”

Calling 2002-2003 "the old days" and claiming the SARS outbreak is "totally different" is a transparently lame attempt to deny that closing borders and reducing travel might help. "Who cares how many people die", seems to be the thinking.

- - -

Contrast the current reaction with the reaction of the US government in 1976 to a single death from Swine Flu. Advisors feared a pandemic because "[t]he virus isolated at Fort Dix is antigenically related to the influenza virus which has been implicated as the cause of the 1918-1919 pandemic which killed 450,000—more than 400 out of every 100,000 Americans":

Then President Ford, on the same March 24, 1976, only one day after his surprise loss to Ronald Reagan in the North Carolina Republican presidential primary, announced on national television his recommendation to the American public for a crash nation-wide influenza vaccination program to include “every man, woman and child.” Congress responded promptly to the president’s call for funds (appropriations were voted by the Senate April 9, by the House April 12, and signed into law April 15, 1976). Vaccine was produced, field tested, and evaluated in April, May and June. There were problems with producing the vaccine. Nevertheless, between October 1 and December 16, 1976, the U.S. Public Health Service, through state and local public health department “public sector providers,” rapidly spread out among the citizenry to successfully vaccinate 85% of 40 million voluntary vaccinees in 10 weeks (the other 15% of the 40 million voluntary vaccinees received their vaccinations from “private sector providers”).

It seems we're heading for something closer to a repeat of 1918 than 1976.

- - -

This morning I was listening to NPR and was quite surprised to hear the commentator declare that the common thread in the outbreak so far was a connection to Mexico.

A minute later they mentioned that the israeli health minister found the word swine offensive to jews and muslims and suggested calling it mexican flu instead, which offended mexicans. That made me laugh quite a bit, though I sobered up when I realized it's only a matter of time before the selfless advocates for all "people of color" decide to call it White flu and blame blue-eyed people for engineering it. Nobody will care if that causes us any offense.

- - -

In "Swine flu" Sailer writes:

Some people are puzzled as to how human, pig, and bird strains of the flu have mixed together, but if you have spent any time in rural Mexico the answer is obvious: these creatures all live together in close quarters.

Commenter El Caudillo quotes this and suggests a more accurate term would be mestizo flu. I didn't bother testing if Sailer would permit a comment suggesting genocidal globalist flu is even more accurate. Ben Tillman said as much in a subtle way:

It's the evolution of virulence through horizontal transmission. Immigration policy is designed to foster such increased virulence.

Indeed, that's the science of it. Obviously the politics are instead driven by what is financially and biologically profitable for the mendacious few at the tip of the pyramid. The rest of us be damned.

View From the Top - Part 1, January 29 2009:

Mort Zuckerman, co-founder and chairman of Boston Properties, talks to Chrystia Freeland, US managing editor, and the economic crisis, the credit crunch and what government intervention should look like.

At about 3:20:

Zuckerman: ...some how or another the federal govt is going to have to join in some way with guaranteeing bank loans. Not the full amount but let's just say that commercial banks would make loans for 10 or 15 or 20...

Freeland: Guarantee new loans?

Z: New loans, not old loans. Because we must find a way to start credit flowing in the economy again or else we stand a chance of a real bust. So some how or another we have to get the government involved.

F: Wouldn't that impose a risk of moral hazard? Isn't that sort of Fanny Freddization all over again...

Z: Moral hazard, ideology, these are the things we can no longer think about - when you're talking about saving the system. I wouldn't care if we save the system by violating concerns about moral hazard or ideology.

F: If the govt has to intervene even more deeply in the financial system how much extra money do you think it's going to end up spending on that?

Z: Well I saw where Larry Summers estimated that it would take somewhere between a trillion and a half dollars and three trillion dollars just in a sense to refloat the financial system. I think that's a very good range. If anything I would come out near the top end of the range.

F: Of government money?

Z: Or government credit.

F: And do you think the American people, the American political system, is prepared to sign off on that amount of money?

Z: I think when they see what the alternatives are I think they'll be prepared to do that.

At about 6:45:

Z: ...because without that confidence nothing will work. No matter what this is a consumer led economy. 72% of our economy is based on consumption. If the consumer holds back and pulls back - which he or she can do - people can live very well with alot of what they already have other than food and drink and fuel.

F: No one needs to buy a new a car this year, no one needs to buy a new TV set.

Z: Right. A lot of people can live - it's the TV programming that needs to be changed not the TV set. And I'll tell ya, this is going to be an extraordinary year in American public life no matter who is in the Congress and who is in the White House.

View From the Top - Part 2, January 29 2009 begins:

F: You're also a publisher. How is the print publishing business doing?

Z: Well the print publishing business is an oxymoron. It is no longer a business. It is an advertising driven business and the advertisers have driven elsewhere.

Zuckerman goes on to claim that almost every major newspaper is losing money, but that he didn't get into the business to make money, he's just addicted to journalism.

At about 8:05:

F: Has the Madoff affair had a particular impact on the American jewish community?

Z: Well I suppose on some level it is, the fact is that what he did was completely against jewish values, against not only the way jews contribute to a community in human terms but in financial terms - he robbed alot of charities of the funds which they are contributing to...

F: Specifically actually jewish charities that he was involved in.

Z: Yeah, alot of jewish charities, yes. My charity isn't specifically a jewish charity - I mean I support cancer research, and scholarships, and things like that, but having said that, but you know as I said Ponzi, last time I checked, was an Italian and he was the person who gave the name to this kind of thing and it doesn't mean that all Italians are involved in this. So the fact that he happens to be jewish, he's also a sociopath, and that was the dominant feature of this man, who was willing to damage all sorts of people almost without remorse.

Freeland would seem to disagree. She's concerned about the particular impact on jews, and specifically actually jewish charities.

It's easy to imagine Madoff, at least up until December 2008, was thinking about his private pyramid scheme along the same lines Zuckerman is still thinking about the larger consumer-based economy: moral hazard, ideology, these are the things we can no longer think about - when you're talking about saving the system.

Jewish charities. Keep people spending. Save the system. This is how jews really contribute to a community in financial terms.

Ponzi, last time I checked, was a piker compared to Madoff. From here on Madoff should be the person who gives the name to this kind of thing. As Zuckerman should readily agree, nobody will think that means all jews are involved.

We start with some facts as recovered from many sources sprinkled across the philo-semitic media. My emphasis.

'All Just One Big Lie'
Bernard Madoff was a Wall Street whiz with a golden reputation. Investors, including Jewish charities, entrusted him with billions. It's gone.

It may be the largest fraud in the history of Wall Street, authorities said. Madoff is charged with stealing as much as $50 billion, in part to cover a pattern of massive losses, even as he cultivated a reputation as a financial mastermind and prominent philanthropist.

Madoff's investors included a number of prominent hedge funds and the firm of Fred Wilpon, the owner of the New York Mets. Several may have sustained billions of dollars in losses.

But the damage appears to be deepest in the small world of Jewish philanthropy, where Madoff was a leading figure. The North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System said it lost $5 million. The Julian J. Levitt Foundation, based in Texas and focused on Jewish causes, lost about $6 million. Yeshiva University, a New York institution where Madoff served on the board, said it was examining how much money it invested with his firm.

Madoff's own $19 million foundation, which gave to a range of New York and Jewish causes, also was wiped out.

Madoff's alleged $50 billion fraud hits other investors

"Madoff's investors included captains of industry, corporations -- some of which are publicly traded -- that used Madoff almost as a high-yielding cash management account, endowments, universities, foundations and, importantly, many high-profile funds of funds," said Douglas Kass, who heads hedge fund Seabreeze Partners Management.

"It appears that at least $15 billion of wealth, much of which was concentrated in southern Florida and New York City, has gone to 'money heaven,'" he said.

Federal agents arrested Madoff at his apartment on Thursday after prosecutors said he told senior employees that his money management operations were "all just one big lie" and "basically, a giant Ponzi scheme."

One woman said that when she called the firm's offices on Thursday she was told it was "business as usual."

Another investor groused, "Business as usual? Of course it's business as usual. We're getting screwed left and right."

"I expect to get back zero," said Floridian Susan Leavitt, who invested through Madoff. "When he tells the feds he has $200 million to $300 million left out of billions, what can you expect?"

Madoff said "there is no innocent explanation" for his activities, and that he "paid investors with money that wasn't there," according to the federal complaint.

Prosecutors also accused Madoff of wanting to distribute as much as $300 million to employees, family members and friends before turning himself in.

Charged with one count of securities fraud, he faces up to 20 years in prison and a $5 million fine. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed separate civil charges.

Madoff is a member of Nasdaq OMX Group Inc's nominating committee. His firm has said it is a market-maker for about 350 Nasdaq stocks.

He is also chairman of London-based Madoff Securities International Ltd, whose chief executive, Stephen Raven, said the firm was "not in any way part of" the New York-based market-maker.

Fund Fraud Hits Big Names

Details emerged Friday of how Mr. Madoff ran the alleged scam, fostering a veneer of exclusivity and creating an A-list of investors that became his most powerful marketing tool. From New York and Florida to Minnesota and Texas, the money manager became an insider's choice among well-heeled investors seeking steady returns. By hiring unofficial agents, tapping into elite country clubs and creating "invitation only" policies for investors, he recruited a steady stream of new clients.

During golf-course and cocktail-party banter, Mr. Madoff's name frequently surfaced as a money manager who could consistently deliver high returns. Older, Jewish investors called Mr. Madoff " 'the Jewish bond,' " says Ken Phillips, head of a Boulder, Colo., investment firm. "It paid 8% to 12%, every year, no matter what."

One of the largest clusters of Madoff investors was in Florida, where losses could be substantial. Mr. Madoff relied on a network of friends, family and business colleagues to attract investors. According to investors and agents, some of these agents were paid commissions for harvesting investors. Others had separate, lucrative business relationships with Mr. Madoff.

"If you were eating lunch at the club or golfing, everyone was always talking about how Madoff was making them all this money," one investor says. "Everyone wanted to sign up."

Jeff Fischer, a top divorce attorney in Palm Beach, says many of his clients were also Mr. Madoff's clients. "Every big divorce that came through my office had portfolio positions with Madoff," he says.

Two of his investors said that among his clients, Mr. Madoff was considered a money-management legend; they would joke that if Mr. Madoff was a fraud, he'd take down half the world with him.

Mr. Madoff's main go-between in Palm Beach was Robert Jaffe, say several investors. Mr. Jaffe is the son-in-law of Carl Shapiro, the founder and former chairman of apparel company Kay Windsor Inc. and an early investor and close friend of Mr. Madoff's. Mr. Jaffe, a philanthropist in Palm Beach, attracted many investors from the Palm Beach Country Club in Palm Beach, Fla.

"He was a low-key guy," Ms. Manzke says. "He would say, 'Look, I'm a market-maker, and I don't want anyone to know I'm running money.' It was always for select people. He was always closed, he wasn't taking new money."

The federal complaints against Mr. Madoff allege his fraudulent activities came through a secretive private wealth-management wing of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, the investment firm he founded in 1960. On Wall Street, his company was perhaps better known for its operations in market-making -- the business of serving as a middleman between buyers and sellers -- and proprietary trading.

Through those higher-profile parts of his operation, Mr. Madoff was a pioneer in trading New York Stock Exchange shares away from the exchange. He is a past chairman of the board of directors of the Nasdaq Stock Market as well as a member of the board of governors of the National Association of Securities Dealers and a member of numerous committees of the organization, according to his firm's Web site.

Mr. Madoff owns a home in Roslyn, N.Y., records show, and an elaborate beachfront home and grounds in Montauk on Long Island.

Mr. Madoff and his wife live in an apartment building on Manhattan's Upper East Side where property records list individual apartments valued at more than $5 million. One property database estimated the 2008 market value of Mr. Madoff's two-floor unit to be roughly $9 million. For years he has served as president of the building's co-op board, according to a tenant.

Madoff's arrest in billion-dollar fraud case shocks Palm Beach investors

Bernard Madoff didn't accept money from just anyone. Clients ideally had to have at least $10 million to open an account with his New York investment firm.

While such wealthy people don't turn up just anywhere, the Palm Beach Country Club provided enough to make Madoff's membership in the predominantly Jewish club worthwhile.

Investing with Madoff also was attractive because the returns were so high, Rampell said. Even in recent years, when other securities tanked, returns were as high as 11 percent to 15 percent, he said.

"There is no innocent explanation," Madoff told FBI agents, according to court documents. He told the agents he "paid investors with money that wasn't there," that he was "broke" and that he expected to go to jail.

The only bright spot for investors is that they may be able to get tax refunds if the investment returns were bogus, Rampell said. But, he acknowledged, that would be little compensation, either financially or psychologically, for those who knew him at the country club.

The auto industry may have to grovel for government money, but "bright spots" magically appear for the members of Madoff's network.

Madoff Investors May Be Protected By Government
Judge Says Those Duped Need Aid Under The Securites Investor Protection Act

Meanwhile, a federal judge on Monday threw a lifesaver to investors who may have been duped, saying they need the protection of a special government reserve fund set up to help investors at failed brokerage firms.

U.S. District Judge Louis L. Stanton ordered that clients of Madoff's private investment business seek relief under a federal statute created to rescue cheated investors. Stanton also ordered that business be liquidated under the jurisdiction of a bankruptcy court and named attorney Irvin H. Picard as trustee to oversee that process.

Stanton signed the order after the Securities Investor Protection Corporation asked that steps be taken to protect investors in the scheme, which has ensnared several major banks and prominent figures as victims and could result in as much as $50 billion in losses.

Congress created the SIPC in 1970 to protect investors when a brokerage firm fails and cash and securities are missing from accounts. Funds can be used to satisfy the remaining claims of each customer up to a maximum of $500,000. The figure includes a maximum of up to $100,000 on claims for cash.

SIPC President Stephen Harbeck said in a statement that the fund's task will be harder than in other bankruptcies because of the size of the misappropriation and the condition of the defunct firm's records.

Harbeck said it would be unlikely that the trustee can transfer the firm's customer accounts to a solvent brokerage firm. He added that it was impossible at this point to determine what share each investor might hold in any remaining assets.

From its inception through December 2007, the SIPC has advanced $507 million and made possible the recovery of $15.7 billion in assets for an estimated 626,000 investors, the fund said on its web site.

If the SIPC bails out the Madoff scheme "investors" it will amount to roughly the sum total the SIPC has paid out over its entire 38 year lifetime. Sure, that's reasonable. Ben Bernanke will just have to print another $15B.

Sailer's Bernie Madoff as an "affinity scam" is noteworthy mainly for its comments, including:

up yours new yawk said...

What's interesting about this Madoff scandal is the growing list of liberals and neoconservatives who felt that involvement with charities that work to keep the Jewish bloodlines clean are respectable enterprises to be involved with.

How many Jews are castigating whites for the slightest hint of racial identity and then at the same time funding various "keep it Jewish" charities?

And links in the comments, including I Knew Bernie Madoff Was Cheating, That's Why I Invested with Him:

So why did these smart and skeptical investors keep investing? They, like many Madoff investors, assumed Madoff was somehow illegally trading on information from his market-making business for their benefit.

Auster writes in Catalog of believers:

Here is a story from today's New York Post that names many of Bernard Madoff's clients along with how much they lost. It seems that virtually 100 percent of his believers/followers/marks were Jews and Jewish organizations, and many of them believed in him so much that they had given 100 percent of their investment capital to him.

And from Madoff discussion:

Mark P. writes:

I'm still amazed that a handful of Jews managed to amass $50 billion...

It's like some kind of...overclass...

(wink) (wink)

He links a video of a round table discussion featuring Madoff discussing his business in October 2007, Bernie Madoff on the modern stock market. Watch this video and note the similarity to the financial bullshit shoveled on your TV every evening. The jargon. The confidence. "We make money by taking risks." Risk? What risk? When these brainiacs get in trouble their cronies in government put taxpayers on the hook to bail them out.

One thing that could be revealed by this scandal, but probably won't be, is just how much wealthy jewish "philanthropy" actually goes to exclusively jewish causes. Sailer commenter "up your new yawk" notes the double standard. For jews it is considered perfectly normal to support jewish causes, but the idea of Whites contributing to or participating in or even saying nice things about exclusively White causes is grounds for an accusation that you want to load all the non-Whites onto boxcars and gas them.

A theme that is coming through, loud and clear in what I've heard from the MSM, Auster, and Michael Savage, is sympathy for the "investors". It's disgusting. The people who participated in this scam, whining now that they've lost everything, don't deserve any sympathy. They're like the border-running aliens packed in a van that veers off a cliff trying to escape the police. They're like the bank robbing accomplices who get cheated out of their share by their crooked ringleader.

For years these "investors" thought they were golden, wringing their soft greedy hands with glee over the returns from their invite-only too-good-to-be-legal "jewish bond". It paid them far more than the lowly nobody putzes, ie. the rest of us, could make via honest means, and they knew it. We nobodies must accept a return that is stable but doesn't even beat inflation, or we play 401K roulette and take on real risk. Hands up, how many of you lost big money in your 401K this year and can expect the government to bail you out? Hands up, how many don't have any savings?

This Madoff scheme is being described as the "biggest fraud in history". No, that would be the September bailout as a whole. Madoff is but a small window into finance capitalism's corruption and insolvency. Even so, Madoff's collapse exposes a few major lies upon which the thoroughly judaized progressivist-globalist regime is based: "we're all equal, but some of us are more equal", "we deserve these big profits because we take big risks", and "trust us, we're really smart and know what we're doing".

The white-collar criminals have been running amok for some time. The rest of us have only recently been informed that we and our children will be paying the bill, and though we don't know what the total is we can be sure it's enormous. The brainiacs told us we needed millions of aliens to build homes for millions of aliens. Now we have too many homes and the next thing they'll be telling us we have to legalize all the aliens, right away, and import even more in order to save the Holy Economy - that mother of all pyramid schemes.

Now come these poor jewish millionaire "investors" - "getting screwed left and right". It's perfectly natural for us to wonder, how did a handful of jews manage to amass so many billions? And it's perfectly natural to conclude that it involved screwing the rest of us left and right.

Steve Sailer has written several essays noting the disproportional large involvement of "minorities" in the housing bubble that triggered the Wall Street bailout, and noting the disproportionately small amount of attention the media has paid to it. More specifically he has focused on the role of "NAMs", non-asian minorities, the euphemism he and his regular commenters use for blacks and latinos.

Sailer attributes the past decade of frenzied borrowing and spending in large part to the trendy but misplaced faith among our politically correct managerial class that relatively poor, uneducated, irresponsible blacks and latinos would pay back loans at the same rate as relatively wealthy, educated, responsible Whites. He labels this zeitgeist The Bullshit Years and calls the resulting bubble-bailout The Diversity Recession.

As usual there are some misguided souls who spring forth to defend the "brown people". Often their argument is based on the rationale that putting minorities in a negative light, i.e. discriminating against them, is nothing but a nefarious attempt to blame everything on them, to make them scapegoats, because this is the only thing racists driven mad by hatred can think to do.

This is a dishonest but predictable response made by seemingly intelligent people. It epitomizes the prevailing political correctness and actually helps demonstrate Sailer's point that "the Establishment" is infected with a mental disease which causes them to deliberately deny certain facts, as well as the consequences of this denial - and to villify anyone who will not behave likewise.

The fact is the plutocrats and their managerial class are more than willing to discriminate, to see minorities and their disproportions, even to the point that this willingness motivates offical policies which disproportionately aid minorities, even to the point where such policies are obviously detrimental to indigenous Whites.

Yesterday Sailer posted a reader's more intelligent objection to his ideas. The argument in The Diversity Recession: A debunking is not based on the virtue of ignoring minorities, or the evil of not ignoring them, but instead aims at denying that minorities were disproportionately involved.

In accepting the validity of discussing disproportion such an argument is a small concession to the truth, and possibly even made in good faith, but the net result is the same: it is an attempt to defuse and deflect attribution of blame away from where it rightfully belongs. When "the Establishment" wishes to do favors for minorities there is little hesitation not only to fudge the numbers in whatever way is required to produce disproportions that need correcting, but also to blame those disproportions, sometimes explicitly, sometimes by implication, on the machinations of Whites who are ostensibly disporportionately "racist".

In the case of Sailer's would-be debunker, if the argument that blacks and latinos were not disproportionately involved in housing bubble foreclosures is correct, then by implication Whites and/or asians must have been. Sailer and his commenters have already provided plenty of evidence countering this debunking, and at any rate it seems a moot point. Under the leadership of Carter, Clinton, and Bush the government stated its belief that blacks and (later) latinos were disproportionately suffering injustice and explicitly sought to right that wrong by applying new, discriminatory standards. Those are the facts.

Sailer's point, which several of his commenters have pointed out to his you-just-want-to-blame-brown-people critics, is not that the "NAMs" conspired to enrich themselves. The point is that intelligent non-"NAMs" in positions of authority consciously chose to pander to "NAMs" and pursue related fiscal policies that on their face would seem highly unintelligent because the macroeconomic consequences are turning out, as some predicted, to be incredibly bad.

This begs the question: why assume these otherwise supra-intelligent people in government and finance were behaving stupidly? Obviously some people got wealthy in the feeding frenzy leading up to the collapse. Some are now getting wealthy shorting and speculating during the collapse. Still more stand to get wealthy by securing taxpayer subsidies for themselves. There are plenty of people who simply do not care how much the macroeconomy suffers as long as their microeconomy gains.

Indeed Sailer and many of his commenters don't really seem to assume "the Establishment" is stupid. They insinuate that the negative results of the malfeasence were mostly unintentional and attribute the blame in part to short-sighted greed and in part to the hopeless naivete of "whiter people" - i.e. liberal, politically correct "whites".

For me this also is only a partial and thus unacceptable concession to the truth. The truth is there is another minority embroiled in this scandal. A minority whose participation nobody seems to want to note. I posted the following comment to The Diversity Recession: A debunking, but it did not make it past moderation:

As long as we're examining disproportions of minorities, what about the disproportion of jews who:

A) argue any disproportion perceived as harmful to a minority is caused by White racism (described variously as redlining, institutional racism, White privilege)

B) "innovated" ways around regulation and created new forms of leverage built on the loosened lending resulting largely from A (described variously as mortgage-backed securities, credit default swaps, collateralized debt obligation)

C) advocate taxpayer-funded subsidies for private enterprises (described variously as loans, buyouts, bailouts)

D) enriched themselves via A, B, or C

E) are in positions of authority and oversight, and should now be seeking to ferret out and punish wrongdoing rather than what they are doing, which is trying to find some way, any way to provide more C

I have a theory that explains why the disproportionate involvement of the jewish minority goes even less frequently mentioned than the disproportionate involvement of either blacks or latinos. It has to do with the phrase "anti-semitism".

First, obviously, anyone who would mention the jewish minority in such a negative light can expect it to be denounced as "anti-semitism" (refer to item A). Second, but more important, this same defensive tendency means that if even a relatively small number of the jewish minority perceived that the effects of either the housing bubble or the bailout were bad for themselves or jews in general (disproportionately or not) then they would have already blamed either situation on "anti-semitism".

My theory is that the general jewish perception is that they have participated and benefited disproportionately. But most pundits, even the non-jewish ones who realize this and are un-PC enough to attribute blame to other minorities, dare not even mention jewish involvement for fear of the consequences of criticizing the most powerful and favored minority of all.

Perhaps someone here would do those of us in the White soon-to-be-minority who have been disproportionately defrauded the favor of trying to debunk this theory.

To support my assertion of jewish disproportions I direct the reader to look into the matter for themselves. This would involve familiarizing yourself with the concept of disproportion, jewish population statistics, and the rather laborious process of finding and reading wikipedia and NNDB biographical entries of the principals involved. The most common objections are likely to be based on either innumeracy or an inability to discriminate.

These obstacles should not impede Sailer or his disproportionately intelligent commenters. They have already expended great energy researching and arguing statistics concerning "NAM" disproportions. News From The West has started the task, but it's only the very tip of the jewish-disproportion iceberg. If jews are not disproportionately benefiting, then why haven't they been complaining about disproportionately suffering? It's fairly obvious that jews comprise more than 3% of the reality-twisting race hustlers, government officials who legislated that hustle, financiers who built the house of cards on top of it, economists who validated it, bureacrats and advisors negotiating a "fix" for it, and political and market pundits whose words and voices are right now so overwhelmingly shilling in favor of that fix. Are we to believe that jews enjoyed precisely 3% of the loosened lending largesse and 3% of the financial wizardry profits, and stand to receive only 3% of the bailout money and pay only 3% of the taxes that will fund it?

Hypothetically, if a disproportion of blacks and latinos in "the Establishment" had arranged to dole taxpayer money out to a disproportion of black and latino borrowers and then reward disproportionately black and latino financiers for "failing" because of those policies, then I trust intelligent and honest people would notice and discuss it as the ethnically motivated scandal it would be. Is the fact that the actual circumstances involve a jewish minority indirectly disproportionately enriching themselves by first lobbying for and then leveraging the disproportionate enrichment of blacks and latinos really so much harder to understand or accept?

Come now, what's constraining this discussion of minorities and disproportions?