The Wall Street Journal has finally done it. Run a piece that somewhat explores the Jewishness of the Madoff scandal, by Ronald Cass, former dean of the Boston University School of Law.
Steven Spielberg. Elie Wiesel. Mort Zuckerman. Frank Lautenberg. Yeshiva University. As I read the list of people and enterprises reportedly bilked to the tune of $50 billion by Bernard Madoff, I recalled a childhood in which my father received bad news by asking first, "Was it a Jew?" My father coupled sensitivity to anti-Semitism with special sympathy for other Jews. In contrast, Mr. Madoff, it seems, targeted other Jews, drawing them in at least in some measure because of a shared faith.
Cass describes Madoff's circle as a "network of trust." This is very helpful, and answers Scott McConnell's statement on this blog a few days ago: "the Madoff event may be the greatest example of intelligent people being blinded by ethnocentrism I've ever seen."
But Cass/the WSJ leave out an important element in all this. The network of trust that was violated here is one that is essential to Israel's support in the U.S. politically, and a network that plays a large role in what we quaintly used to call the ruling class. Mort Zuckerman owns the Daily News and U.S. News Etc., Steven Spielberg is as I recall a big deal in Hollywood. Our informant here, Cass, is a former law school dean. This isn't Philip Roth's Newark. It's Gentleman's Agreement crossed with Isaac Bashevis Singer's Father's Court. Can someone please explain this to me? Or do I have to just keep notioning?
I knew Cass in college – not a guy who wore his Jewishness very obviously. Very intelligent, engaging, a sort of quiet intelligence, non-threatening guy. Then I saw him years later from afar as Chair of the ABA's Administrative Law Section – competent, doing good work.
I don't think he left out the part of the story that you see. I think you see everything in terms of your issue, which, I agree, is the most important issue of our time, but it is not the only issue. It will be interesting to learn what we can about Madoff, how and why he made his decisions. I'm pretty sure your issue won't be too prominent in his life. Once he got himself committed to his fraudulent ways, it would've been all about keeping it going. That he was successful among Jews just shows me that Jews are more like everyone else than some on this blog think. It's embarrassing to be swindled, particularly when the numbers get big and people owed others fiduciary duties. Particularly when someone holds himself out as being smart about such things. This is a lesson in universality, the limits of tribalism. I also applaud Cass for his main point – let's enforce the laws and regulations we have, not hamstring everyone with burdensome but meaningless additional hoops to jump through, which, so far as the fraudsters are concerned, just redefines the lay of the land on which they operate. And let's smack down those who claim special privilege to ignore the law because of who they are.
It's not hard to guess that most of these tribal losers felt they were
somehow profiting handsomely from insider information, and that
no Jew would violate the many religio-tribal prohibitions against
scamming a fellow Jew; as for how they got the money to invest in the first place, "some people count, some don't" like the prick
MOT frat boy told Baby in Dirty Dancing.
Doppler,
Couldn't agree more. Well said.
Doppler:
Couldnt agree more. Very smart. Thank you; you've aided my understanding.
Phil
"My father coupled sensitivity to anti-Semitism with special sympathy for other Jews."
Translation: My father was a bigot.
Third compliment for Doppler for a very good comment.
Madoff can o
Madoff can only be one of many, somehow the carpet was pulled out from under him, no doubt for political reasons (what his money was doing). . . . . . . .. . .. The story of his children ratting on him, can only be a line (to save them). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The whole episode could be just to 'soak' up some lose money, a kind of tax. . . .. .. . . .. . While there is every possibility that he worked in a secret way, away from the authorities, does anyone really imagine anyone can act with such huge sums in a secret way from the intel agencies? The whole thing must be political.
I think it's call a pratfall
The important question regarding the Madoff affair is who are the beneficiaries.
One thing that characterizes a Ponzi scheme is that it is essentially a transfer of money from late investors to early.
The big question is who are the early investers that realized 40%/year on their money?
Was Madoff the controller of the swindle, or the agent of it? Did some of the early investors design the swindle? Did they know that they were the beneficiaries of a swindle?
How is this affair different from other swindles that are essentially transfers?
Well Rich, news of it comes at a time when many average Americans are questioning the role of elite finance, both private and governmental, and let's add that the sum of money says is involved
is quite high, certainly much higher than Ponzi ever envisioned. But, you are correct when you ask, who are the big beneficiaries?
Wanna bet we will never know?
This year has been the most destructive in world financial markets since before the First World War. But no one guessed that amid the detritus of the sub-prime mortgages and the banking system there lurked the greatest fraud of all time.
If this were to mean the end of hedge funds, few ordinary consumers would mourn the passing of these havens for the greedy investor. The trouble is that an already precariously-weak financial system can ill afford yet another shock so hard on the heels of those it already has suffered.
Now if only we could get Pat Roberson and the other TV God Merchants and Faith healers who bilk their tribal followers out of millions every year.
They are even more disgusting,praying on ignorant people's faith, than the crook who uses his ethnic name and greed appeal on his followers.
someone should remind the world at this point that the global gold market is controlled by various rothschild proxies, because the mass media is going like the Saudis have bought the State Dept.:
"WASHINGTON (AP) â Former President Bill Clinton laid out a list of big-ticket donors to his foundation Thursday that is heavy with foreign governments and business interests sure to have a stake in the policies that Hillary Rodham Clinton carries out as secretary of state. Saudi Arabia and other foreign governments gave at least $46m, while corporate donors included Blackwater. The contributions went to the William J. Clinton Foundation, a nonprofit created by the former president to finance his library in Little Rock, Ark., and charitable efforts to reduce poverty and treat AIDS. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia gave $10m to $25m to the foundation, and other government donors included Norway, Kuwait, Qatar, Brunei, Oman, Italy and Jamaica. The Dutch national lottery gave $5m to $10m. The Blackwater Training Center donated $10k to $25k."
This is interesting too, I think, at any rate if you like to read tea leaves : Oman has criticized the US for sponsoring a meeting on Persian Gulf security to which Washington did not invite Iran. The NY meeting, the first of its kind, was held on Tuesday with the presence of several permanent members of the UN Security Council and several Arab foreign ministers. Oman and Qatar, however, boycotted the meeting because the US refrained from inviting Iran. Omani Foreign Minister Yousuf Bin Alawi explained in an interview with the Arabic-language al-Hayat newspaper that Persian Gulf littoral states must themselves ensure the security of the strategic Hormuz waterway and not Western countries, Fars News Agency reported. "We see no benefit in the meeting because Persian Gulf security is not a matter of concern for the UN Security Council," Gulf News reported Alawi as saying, "and if there was any relation, it (the meeting) would be held in the presence of the 15 members of the UN Security Council," he added. After the meeting, Condoleezza Rice announced that Arab states had agreed to discuss the Iranian nuclear issue with the West "on a regular basis." "All there expressed their concern about Iran's nuclear policies and its regional ambitions," Reuters quoted the US echelon as claiming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc_Oeu3bJ54
oh, and, you remember my query about the jewish charities figures? what Iâm saying is, the artificially low figure of only 20% of all Jewish American charity as being donated to specifically âJewishâ causes is obtained by not counting donations to non- religiously Jewish causes, such as, âfor example, Jewish studies programs at universities.â
Amen, American.
My previous attempt at this seems not to have appeared and anyway it had a wrong figure. The 'artificially low figure' for the percentage of 'all jewish american giving' that is 'to jewish causes' is not 20% but 25%, but the figure excludes 'jewish causes' that are not 'jewish' religiously spinking, such as jewish studies departments in universities, in the US, though they are included as 'jewish' if in Israel.
Speaking of shoes dropping, the Iraqi journalist's defiant, shoe-hurling message to President Bush is quickly gaining iconic status. There's something about the incident that resonates far and wide. Some don't like our President being publicly disrespected. Some see it as a thankfully harmless way to shatter the dissonance between Bush's view of his legacy and what he believes were noble efforts consistent with America's great history, and the enormous and unnecessary and counterproductive pain and suffering he's inflicted on innocent Iraqis. I just wish someone could throw a shoe so effectively at the Neocons who want to attack Iran as well.
Doppler: "That he was successful among Jews just shows me that Jews are more like everyone else than some on this blog think."
–
rabbi kook: "It's not hard to guess that most of these tribal losers felt they were somehow profiting handsomely from insider information, and that no Jew would violate the many religio-tribal prohibitions against
scamming a fellow Jew"
—
I've got to side with the rabbi on this one. Madoff was basically guaranteeing 10-12% annual returns in up or down markets, and he had a Jewish clientele list a mile long, and everyone knew it. Apparently the way to invest with him was to have big bucks, or know a Jew who knew a Jew. So it was basically a Jewish version of a Masonic order. And the returns were so unbelievable that, given the context, investors HAD to assume there was some inside information and SEC string-pulling going on somewhere. They just didn't care, because it was coming at the expense of the larger community of goyish kattle. The investors got exactly what they deserved.
And I have to wonder if Madoff didnât exploit the fact that there were charities steeply invested with him to extend out the swindle and manipulate the SEC longer than he might have otherwise been able to. What a low life. What a collection of lowlifes, using charities to cover up their scam. "Sure, we impoverish millions. But just look at our charity work. At least we throw them some table scraps after we've bankrupted them."
Let me get this straight: suppose that we added all the jewish causes that are religiously jewish in the USA (which is what the 25% excludes) we might reach 50%. Secular Jewish welfare organisations abound overwhelmingly, and none of them are included, from jewish studies departments at (secular) universities, outwards.
Reading through the comments they would suit an epitaph, in the future when people ask about what happened to the jewish empire, what it did wrong. . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . The big wigs are so clever, the Madoff thing is actually a smokescreen, I have no idea for what – many Europeans got soaked, particularly banks.
Reading through the comments they would suit an epitaph, in the future when people ask about what happened to the jewish empire, what it did wrong. . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . The big wigs are so clever, the Madoff thing is actually a smokescreen, I have no idea for what – many Europeans got soaked, particularly banks.
Damn, I meant "that are NOT religious." My brains are over-stretched today.
Real Madoff figure closer to 100 billion . . .. . . . . . . . . A European bank executive has said early this morning that the Banks involved in Madeoff's fund were exposed through loads and leveraging and that these loans will be repaid in full from Israel. . . . . . . . . … . . .All of the charities involved have Israeli offices, so they also are of an understanding that their money is now available there. . . . . . . . . . . ..Sources say that Madeoff has a base in Israel and that he will offer all clients his services there as a continuem to his services in New York. . . . . . . . .. . . .. Speculation has it that he is advising transfer of client's funds into physical gold holdings in coded safety deposit boxes. This advise jives with the notion that the money needed to be taken out of the US on fear of collapsing US dollar and seizure of funds by IRS and courts for frauds committed during the sub prime bubble. . . . . . . . .. . www.rense.com/general84/mado.htm
"I recalled a childhood in which my father received bad news by asking first, 'Was it a Jew?'"
D-i-s-g-u-s-t-i-n-g.
You don't have a clue about Jewish charity, "Rowan".
It includes what you would call "tribal", but extends FAR beyond it.
When a story is unknown, and people speculate as to its "import", its illustrative of their biases.
Ronald Cass approvingly quotes his father as asking "was it a Jew?" when told of someone else's misfortune. I hope Cass has other good reasons to admire his dad because I sure don't see the nobility in worrying about your own tribe first.
Richard, I have never once used the adjective 'tribal' on here. It's a demeaning cliché, and in my view, even when Jews archly refer to themselves as 'members of the tribe' it is demeaning.
But, you still don't have a clue about charity by Jews.
Looking at some of the above comments makes me wonder why there is no link to the Stormfront site from this page. Some of you guys have a real issue with Jews and Jewish culture. Do you have problems with proud Italians, Brits, Greeks, etc. too? Look inside.
- Look daddy, bad news from Iraq!
- Was it a Jew?
- No, but…
- Was it for the jews?
- Well, yes daddy, but…
- Ah, then it is good news, son!
Pellam: "Do you have problems with proud Italians, Brits, Greeks, etc. too?"
I have a problem with proud tribalists of any stripe.
>"Do you have problems with proud Italians, Brits, Greeks, etc. too?"
>I have a problem with proud tribalists of any stripe.
Duscany,
I have no problem with ethnic pride. I think it helps kids stay grounded in providing additional identity.
But, my guess is your problem is more with Jewish ethnic pride than others. Prove me wrong by pointing me to a post somewhere on the whole world wide web where you had posted against a non-Jew's ethnic pride. If you can't do it, then you're not a redneck, you're an antisemite.
"If you can't do it, then you're not a redneck, you're an antisemite."
Pellam, how are you occupying the moral high ground here? If you are going to bash someone for being intolerant, you shouldn't use bigotry as a weapon.
"Pellam, how are you occupying the moral high ground here? If you are going to bash someone for being intolerant, you shouldn't use bigotry as a weapon."
Todd,
Google Jeff Foxworthy. You obviously missed the cultural reference.