Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.

For The Record  

FTR #658 Update on the Meltdown

MP3: Side 1 | Side 2

With the upheaval of the mar­ket econ­omy, we begin to rec­og­nize the mon­u­ments of the bour­geoisie as ruins, even before they have crumbled.

Wal­ter Ben­jamin (circa 1937),
“Black sheep” of the Frank­furt School

Indeed. Although Mr. Emory does not sub­scribe to Marx­ist eco­nomic the­ory, it is dif­fi­cult to dis­count Benjamin’s elo­quent obser­va­tions. As Barack Obama pre­pares to assume the helm of the ship of state, the eco­nomic waters are very trou­bled and alto­gether perilous.

Explor­ing aspects of the eco­nomic col­lapse, this pro­gram begins by not­ing that banks are declin­ing to say how they are spend­ing the tax­payer money they have received as part of the bailout. Author/commentator David Sirota pro­vides insight as to a pos­si­ble rea­son for the banks’ ret­i­cence. Rel­e­vant data sug­gest that the premise for the bailout might not be “as adver­tised”! In addi­tion, Sirota notes that, tak­ing the erro­neous data at face value and then draw­ing the wrong con­clu­sions from it, many states are insti­tut­ing dra­con­ian bud­get cuts that will be coun­ter­pro­duc­tive. Adding to the flood tide of bad eco­nomic news was the rev­e­la­tion that the hedge fund run by Bernard Mad­off was actu­ally a huge Ponzi scheme. (Emphat­i­cally spec­u­la­tive in nature, the analy­sis of the Mad­off affair occu­pies the bal­ance of the pro­gram.) Although he claims to have acted alone, there is rea­son to view Mad­off — “Lee Har­vey Mad­off” as we might call him — as the vis­i­ble ele­ment of a much larger oper­a­tion. Note­wor­thy is the fact that the cast of char­ac­ters impli­cated in one aspect or another of this oper­a­tion includes the Attor­ney Gen­eral of the U.S., who has recused him­self from the inves­ti­ga­tion, because his son rep­re­sents one of the prin­ci­pals. The col­lapse has raised many impor­tant ques­tions, includ­ing queries as to where the money went. What the bril­liant Lucy Komisar calls “off­shore” is one pos­si­biltiy, with Swiss banks com­ing into focus. Another pos­si­bil­ity is that Mad­off clients received much of the money–clients that included the Thyssen fam­ily, mary ele­ment of the Under­ground Reich and long­time allies of the Bush fam­ily. Among the vic­tims are many Jew­ish char­i­ties and indi­vid­u­als who con­tribute to Israeli infra­struc­ture, includ­ing the non-profit of Nobel Prize win­ner and Holo­caust Elie Wiesel. Exam­in­ing the milieu involved with the Mad­off affair, the pos­si­bil­ity that Mad­off (like a num­ber of Jews) fronted for the Bor­mann cap­i­tal net­work must be seri­ously con­sid­ered. Clos­ing with an apoc­a­lyp­tic vision, the broad­cast notes an Army War Col­lege report indi­cat­ing that an eco­nomic col­lapse might all but destroy the United States.

Pro­gram High­lights Include: The sus­pi­cious “sui­cide” of a key hedge fund man­ager, Mad­off investor and mem­ber of the French eco­nomic elite; the fear of a Mad­off critic — artic­u­lated in a 2005 report on to the SEC on Madoff’s operation–that he was afraid for his and his family’s safety because of his warn­ings about the fund; links of the Mad­off milieu to John J. McCloy II; links of the Mad­off milieu to for­mer SEC head and Car­lyle group asso­ciate Arthur Levitt; the ridicu­lously small, sin­gle audi­tor over­see­ing the Mad­off fund; review of the Bor­mann cap­i­tal network’s use of Jews as fronts for their oper­a­tions; review of the Bor­mann cap­i­tal network’s con­trol over the French eco­nomic elite.

1. The pro­gram begins by not­ing that banks are declin­ing to say how they are spend­ing the tax­payer money they have received as part of the bailout.

“It’s some­thing any bank would demand to know before hand­ing out a loan: Where’s the money going?

But after receiv­ing bil­lions in aid from U.S. tax­pay­ers, the nation’s largest banks say they can’t track exactly how they’re spend­ing the money or they sim­ply refuse to dis­cuss it.

‘We’ve lent some of it. We’ve not lent some of it. We’ve not given any account­ing of, ‘Here’s how we’re doing it,” said Thomas Kelly, a spokesman for JPMor­gan Chase, which received $25 bil­lion in emer­gency bailout money. ‘We have not dis­closed that to the pub­lic. We’re declin­ing to.’

The Asso­ci­ated Press con­tacted 21 banks that received at least $1 bil­lion in gov­ern­ment money and asked four ques­tions: How much has been spent? What was it spent on? How much is being held in sav­ings, and what’s the plan for the rest?

None of the banks pro­vided spe­cific answers.

“‘We’re not pro­vid­ing dollar-in, dollar-out track­ing,’ said Barry Kol­ing, a spokesman for Atlanta, Ga.-based Sun­Trust Banks Inc., which got $3.5 bil­lion in tax­payer dollars.

Some banks said they sim­ply didn’t know where the money was going.

‘We man­age our cap­i­tal in its aggre­gate,’ said Regions Finan­cial Corp. spokesman Tim Deighton, who said the Birm­ing­ham, Ala.-based com­pany is not track­ing how it is spend­ing the $3.5 bil­lion it received as part of the finan­cial bailout. . . .”

“Banks Keep Bailout Spend­ing Secret”

2. Author/commentator David Sirota pro­vides insight as to a pos­si­ble rea­son for the banks’ reticence.

“Please, for­give me for say­ing it. I know it’s a tad annoy­ing, but it has to be said to America’s rul­ing class in this hum­ble col­umn space. Because if it’s not said here, then you can bet it won’t be said any­where else, and it needs to be said some­where on behalf of the mil­lions of cit­i­zens who were right.

We told you so.

In the slow-motion train wreck that became the eco­nomic melt­down, our bipar­ti­san polit­i­cal estab­lish­ment and the syco­phan­tic pun­dit­buro have been wrong over and over and over again. They told us that evis­cer­at­ing con­sumer pro­tec­tions would unleash the market’s benev­o­lent power and boost the econ­omy. They told us that a trillion-dollar Wall Street bailout would solve a credit cri­sis. They told us that bailout would be sub­jected to intense over­sight and scrutiny. Wrong, wrong and wrong — and when crit­ics pre­dicted just that, sneer­ing com­men­ta­tors and con­gres­sional lead­ers berated us as know-nothing Lud­dites, con­spir­acy the­o­rists or both.

But with the release of three new reports, there’s no debate any­more. The stud­ies prove that the crit­ics were right and the ide­o­logues of Wash­ing­ton were wrong.

When in 2005 Con­gress over­whelm­ingly passed a credit-card industry-written bill gut­ting bank­ruptcy laws, pro­gres­sives were right to try to stop it — and not just because it was an immoral move to legal­ize usury. We were right because as the New York Fed­eral Reserve Bank reports, the bill played an inte­gral role in the fore­clo­sure surge that crushed the economy.

In the past, bank­ruptcy laws made sure debtors first and fore­most con­tin­ued pay­ing their mort­gages so that they could stay in their homes. But the 2005 leg­is­la­tion effec­tively com­pels debtors to first pay off their credit cards, mean­ing many then have no money left to pay their mort­gages. The Fed’s report esti­mates that the bank­ruptcy bill is caus­ing 32,000 more fore­clo­sures per quar­ter than the econ­omy would have already generated.

We told you so.

When almost every media voice in Amer­ica was sound­ing the alarm of finan­cial panic and demand­ing a Wall Street bailout plan, when bailout oppo­nents were roundly ridiculed as ‘irre­spon­si­ble’ by politi­cian and pun­dit alike — those oppo­nents were nonethe­less right to say then what a study from the Min­neapo­lis Fed­eral Reserve Bank says now: that the case hadn’t been made.

While reporters and the Bush admin­is­tra­tion fran­ti­cally insisted that bank-to-business lend­ing had ceased, inter-bank lend­ing had stopped, and short-term ‘com­mer­cial paper’ loans had dried up, the Min­neapo­lis researchers tell us that ‘all three claims were false’ and con­tinue to be false; that ‘nobody has explained how the money sys­tem has frozen when the data says it has not’; and that ‘a trillion-dollar inter­ven­tion warrant(ed) a bit more seri­ous analysis.’

We told you so.

When law­mak­ers said the bailout included strict over­sight mea­sures, skep­tics were right to say that claim was patently untrue. Accord­ing to a new analy­sis by fed­eral offi­cials at the Gov­ern­ment Account­abil­ity Office, nonex­is­tent over­sight means ‘tax­pay­ers may not be ade­quately pro­tected’ and that the bailout’s stated goal of fix­ing the econ­omy ‘may not be achieved in an effi­cient and effec­tive manner.’

Yes, we told you so.

And so now, even though these damn­ing reports have gar­nered scant news cov­er­age, per­haps there will be a change. As we — the prag­matic pro­gres­sive major­ity — demand tough new finan­cial reg­u­la­tions; job-creating invest­ments in pub­lic infra­struc­ture; labor law reforms; uni­ver­sal health care; revised trade poli­cies; a repeal of the odi­ous bank­ruptcy bill and an end to Wall Street wel­fare — maybe our humil­i­ated rulers will start listening.”

“Polit­i­cal Estab­lish­ment Trashed Con­sumer Pro­tec­tions — and Look What We Got” by David Sirota; San Fran­cisco Chron­i­cle; 12/15/2008.

3. In addi­tion, Sirota notes that, tak­ing the erro­neous data at face value and then draw­ing the wrong con­clu­sions from it, many states are insti­tut­ing dra­con­ian bud­get cuts that will be counterproductive.

” . . . That’s what’s going on in revenue-starved states right now: gov­er­nors are prepar­ing to slash middle-class pro­grams and are resist­ing calls to raise taxes on the wealthy. Nowhere is this class war more pro­nounced than in New York — the home of the finan­cial thieves who killed the econ­omy. Hav­ing halved its top tax rate over the last three decades, New York today faces a $15.4 bil­lion deficit. In response, Gov. David Pater­son, a Demo­c­rat, might have asked his state’s Gor­don Gekkos to pay higher taxes, espe­cially con­sid­er­ing the idea’s pop­u­lar­ity in polls and the news that Wall Street’s elite are still swim­ming in money. Indeed, accord­ing to CBS News, the allegedly belea­guered finan­cial indus­try is so flush with cash it plans to dole out $14 bil­lion in exec­u­tive bonuses this year.

Yet, far from forc­ing rob­ber barons to pay their fair share, Pater­son told the New York Times that tax­ing mil­lion­aires is ‘the last place you want to go.’ Instead, he pro­poses to pun­ish Joe and Jane Six-pack by hik­ing the taxes and cut­ting the pro­grams that dis­pro­por­tion­ately impact them. Specif­i­cally, he wants to increase sales taxes, col­lege tuitions and licens­ing fees and slash edu­ca­tion and low-income health programs.

Pater­son defended his pro­pos­als by telling PBS’ Bill Moy­ers ‘that when you tax the wealthy in the down­turn of an econ­omy, you have an auto­matic link of a loss of job oppor­tu­ni­ties and then a loss of pop­u­la­tion.’ The ratio­nale sounds intel­li­gently prag­matic — until you peruse the rel­e­vant data.

When New Jer­sey recently raised taxes on the wealthy, Prince­ton Uni­ver­sity researchers found that most of those who later left the state moved to places with higher taxes, mean­ing there is no causative link between levies on the rich and res­i­den­tial flight. Like­wise, when New York tem­porar­ily raised high-income taxes after 9/11, the state added 127,000 jobs, mean­ing no link exists between higher taxes on the rich and job loss.

Dur­ing times of sur­pluses, gov­er­nors could get away with the unsub­stan­ti­ated non­sense Pater­son is ped­dling. But now, 43 states con­front short­falls, and because states can­not run deficits, the dol­lars and sense of these argu­ments mat­ter. Law­mak­ers must choose what pol­icy will cre­ate the best chances for eco­nomic recov­ery: spend­ing cuts or tax increases, and if the lat­ter, on whom?

The answer isn’t rocket sci­ence. As Nobel Prize-winning econ­o­mist Joseph Stiglitz says, ‘Reduc­tions in gov­ern­ment spend­ing on goods and ser­vices (are) likely to be more dam­ag­ing to the econ­omy in the short run than tax increases focused on higher-income families.’

That’s because gov­ern­ment cuts auto­mat­i­cally decrease the con­sump­tive spend­ing pro­grams that broadly stim­u­late the econ­omy whereas tax increases, when aimed at the wealthy, more often impact funds socked away in savings.

‘The more that the tax increases (are) focused on those with lower propen­si­ties to con­sume (i.e., the rich),’ Stiglitz notes, ‘the less dam­age is done to the weak­ened economy.’

Incred­i­bly, Pater­son acknowl­edges how destruc­tive his bud­get is, admit­ting that his own ‘edu­ca­tion cuts are dra­con­ian, the health care cuts are pro­hib­i­tive [and] the taxes that are being levied ... are not fair.’

So why would he — or any gov­er­nor — nonethe­less try to leg­is­late such idiocy? Because mil­lion­aires are the ones who finance guber­na­to­r­ial can­di­da­cies, and their cam­paign con­tri­bu­tions buy tax pro­tec­tion. The result is what another New York roy­al­ist promised.

‘Only the lit­tle peo­ple pay taxes,’ said Leona Helm­s­ley — a doc­trine that will exac­er­bate this reces­sion if states keep mak­ing it true.”

“Eco­nomic Death and Mil­lion­aire Taxes” by David Sirota; San Fran­cisco Chron­i­cle; 12/26/2008.

4. Next, the pro­gram explores the death of a blog­ger who posted under the name “Tanta.” An expert on eco­nomic mat­ters who fore­told much of the fis­cal unpleas­ant­ness that has tran­spired, her death was cer­tainly timely for the male­fac­tors involved in its creation.

“The blog­ger Tanta, an influ­en­tial voice on the mort­gage col­lapse, died Sun­day morn­ing in Colum­bus, Ohio.

Tanta, who wrote for Cal­cu­lated Risk, a finance and eco­nom­ics blog, was a pseu­do­nym for Doris Dungey, 47, who until recently had lived in Upper Marl­boro, Md. The cause of death was ovar­ian can­cer, her sis­ter, Cathy Stick­el­maier, said.

Thanks in large part to Tanta’s con­tri­bu­tions, Cal­cu­lated Risk became a cru­cial source of pre­scient analy­sis as the hous­ing mar­ket at first fal­tered, then col­lapsed and finally spawned a full-blown credit cri­sis.

Tanta used her exten­sive knowl­edge of the loan indus­try to com­ment, cas­ti­gate and above all instruct. Her fans ranged from the Nobel lau­re­ate Paul Krug­man, an Op-Ed colum­nist for The New York Times who cited her in his blog, to ana­lysts at the Fed­eral Reserve, who cited her in a paper on ‘Under­stand­ing the Secu­ri­ti­za­tion of Sub­prime Mort­gage Credit.’ . . .”

“Doris Dungey, Pre­scient Finan­cial Blog­ger, Dies at 47″ by David Stre­it­feld; The New York Times; 11/30/2008.

5. Much of the pro­gram focuses on the Bernard Mad­off scan­dal, the biggest Ponzi scheme in his­tory. Dubbed “Lee Har­vey Mad­off” by Mr. Emory, Madoff’s claim to be the only one involved is highly dubious.

“Like the con­clu­sion that Lee Har­vey Oswald was a lone gun­man, the the­ory that Bernard Mad­off acted alone is hard to swallow.

True, Mad­off has allegedly con­fessed that he per­pe­trated a mas­sive fraud that left behind $50 bil­lion in losses; and he claimed to have done this all alone.

But this is a man who kept false records, sent bogus doc­u­men­ta­tion, bilked investors for bil­lions, lied for years to friends and know­ingly harmed char­i­ties. It’s within the realm of accept­able behav­ior to cast a jaun­diced eye upon his confession. . . .”

“Did Mad­off Act Alone?” by Katie Ben­ner; money.cnn.com; 11/30/2008.

6. The sus­pi­cious “sui­cide” of a Mad­off investor from France raises sus­pi­cions. Part of the French power elite, de la Ville­huchet invested money with Mad­off on behalf of wealthy Euro­pean clients. In this con­text, it is impor­tant to under­stand the deci­sive influ­ence of the Bor­mann cap­i­tal net­work on the French power elite. FTR #305 goes into this at some length.

“But after los­ing more than $1 bil­lion of his clients’ money to Bernard Mad­off, Rene-Thierry Magon de la Ville­huchet had enough. He locked the door of his Madi­son Avenue office and appar­ently swal­lowed sleep­ing pills and slashed his wrists with a box cut­ter, police said.

A secu­rity guard found his body Tues­day morn­ing, next to a garbage can placed to catch the blood. . . The bloody scene marked a grisly turn in the Mad­off scan­dal in which money man­agers and investors were ensnared in an alleged $50 bil­lion Ponzi scheme. De la Ville­huchet is believed to have lost about $1.4 bil­lion to Madoff.

No sui­cide note was found, said NYPD spokesman Paul Browne.

De la Ville­huchet, 65, was an esteemed financier who tapped his upper-crust Euro­pean con­nec­tions to attract clients. It was not imme­di­ately clear how he knew Mad­off or who his clients were.

He grew increas­ingly sub­dued after the Mad­off scan­dal broke, draw­ing sus­pi­cion among jan­i­tors at his office Mon­day night when he demanded that they be out of there by 7 p.m. Less than 13 hours later, his body was found. . . .De la Ville­huchet (pro­nounced veel-ou-SHAY) comes from rich French lin­eage, with the Magon part of his name refer­ring to one of France’s most pow­er­ful fam­i­lies. The Magon name is even listed on the Arc de Tri­om­phe in Paris, a mon­u­ment com­mis­sioned by Napoleon in 1806.

‘He’s irre­proach­able,’ said Bill Rapavy, who was Access International’s chief oper­at­ing offi­cer before found­ing his own firm in 2007.

De la Villehuchet’s firm enlisted inter­me­di­aries with links to wealthy Euro­peans to gar­ner investors. Among them was Philippe Junot, a French busi­ness­man and friend who is the for­mer hus­band of Princess Car­o­line of Monaco, and Prince Michel of Yugoslavia. . . .”

“Sui­cide Mad­off Investor Was ‘Hon­or­able Man’” [AP]; msnbc.msn.com; 12/24/2008.

7. De la Villehuchet’s biceps were lac­er­ated. That’s quite a miss for some­one try­ing to cut his wrists.

” . . . His wrists and his left biceps were slashed, said Paul Browne, a New York police spokesman. A waste­bas­ket had been placed under his bleed­ing biceps, Browne said. . . .”

“Financier Is Found Dead in Mad­off After­math” by Zachary Kouwe and Michael Wil­son; Inter­na­tional Her­ald Tri­bune; 12/24/2008.

8. Among the wealthy investors who were involved with Mad­off were the Thyssen fam­ily, long time sup­port­ers of Hitler and prin­ci­pals in the Under­ground Reich.

“Thyssen Fam­ily. Source sends the following:

Thybo Invest­ments grew out of a fam­ily office for Thyssen. They have been in fund of funds it seems since 1989.

Thybo Inter­na­tional is a “proper” fund of fund but it’s newer share class G invests only in one man­ager — and i’m 99% sure it’s Mad­off as the returns are almost the same. Some more info:

The fund started in Jan 2007.
Ernst & Young. Lux­em­bourg are the audi­tors.
UBS Lux­em­bourg is the administrator. . . .”

“Bernie Madoff’s Vic­tims: The List”; Investorshub.advfn.com; 12/14/2008.

9. Whistle­blower Harry Markopo­los stated that he feared for his safety and that of his fam­ily because of the fact that he alerted the SEC about Mad­off years in advance of the break­ing of the scandal–to no avail. Per­haps he knew that his “biceps” might become “lac­er­ated” as well!

“The man who tried unsuc­cess­fully for almost a decade to spur fed­eral secu­ri­ties reg­u­la­tors to inves­ti­gate Bernard L. Mad­off did not ini­tially dis­close his own iden­tity to reg­u­la­tors because he feared for his life, accord­ing to tes­ti­mony he has appar­ently pre­pared for a Con­gres­sional hear­ing Wednes­day morning. . . .”

“Mad­off Wit­ness Tells of Fear for Safety” by Diana B. Hen­riques; The New York Times; 2/3/2009.

10. Then Attor­ney Gen­eral Michael Mukasey recused him­self from the case because his son Mark rep­re­sents Frank DiPas­cali, one of the prin­ci­pals in the case.

” . . . The case took another twist Wednes­day when the Jus­tice Depart­ment said that Atty. Gen. Michael B. Mukasey had recused him­self from the Mad­off probe. Mukasey’s son, Mark Mukasey, is a defense lawyer rep­re­sent­ing one of the offi­cers at Madoff’s firm. . . .”

“SEC Fail­ures Spur Calls for Agency Over­haul” by Jim Puz­zanghera and Wal­ter Hamil­ton; Los Ange­les Times; 12/18/2008.

11. Much of the money appears to have gone “off­shore” as Lucy Komisar puts it. Swiss banks are also com­ing into focus.

” . . . Now, as the links between Bernard L. Mad­off and elite pri­vate banks like Geneva-based Union Ban­caire Privée emerge, this well-polished rep­u­ta­tion has been tar­nished by the $50 bil­lion Ponzi scheme that Mr. Mad­off has been arrested for and accused of running.

L’Affaire Mad­off, as it has become known here and in Geneva, has cast an unwanted spot­light onto the nor­mally shad­owy world of pri­vate bankers in Switzer­land and other cozy hid­ing places of off­shore wealth, like the Cay­man Islands and Luxembourg. . . .”

“Mad­off Deal­ings Tar­nish a Pri­vate Swiss Bank” by Nel­son D. Schwartz; The New York Times; 12/23/2008.

12. One of the inter­est­ing per­son­ages involved with Mad­off was John J. McCloy, son of War­ren Com­mis­sion mem­ber, U.S. High Com­mis­sioner for Ger­many and archi­tect of the Black Eagle Fund John J. McCloy.

” . . . ‘As we know, Walter’s suc­cess came after sev­eral thin years,’ wrote John J. McCloy, a banker from Green­wich who described him­self and his wife, Laura, as the Noels’ ‘best friends for more than 30 years,’ in May in a let­ter rec­om­mend­ing the Noels to mem­ber­ship in a pri­vate club. . . .”

“In Fraud Case, Mid­dle­men in Spot­light” by Eric Konigs­berg; The New York Times; 12/16/2008.

13. Another sig­nif­i­cant per­son­age allegedly asso­ci­ated with Mad­off is for­mer SEC head and Car­lyle Group asso­ciate Arthur Levitt.

” . . . Ex-Securities and Exchange Com­mis­sion boss Arthur Levitt yes­ter­day fired back at crit­ics try­ing to lay at his feet some of the blame for the Bernie Mad­off scan­dal, say­ing he wasn’t asleep at the switch.

‘At this point, I don’t see any evi­dence that the SEC dropped the ball,’ Levitt, who’s now an adviser to private-equity shop Car­lyle Group, told The Post.

The 78-year-old Levitt also denied alle­ga­tions that he had a chummy rela­tion­ship with Mad­off, who last week was arrested on charges of hav­ing mas­ter­minded a $50 bil­lion Ponzi scheme that has touched every­thing from hedge funds to char­i­ties to Euro­pean banks.

Some have sug­gested that Levitt and Mad­off were close enough dur­ing the eight years that Levitt was SEC chair­man that it might have skewed his over­sight of the com­pany. Addi­tion­ally, Levitt said he’s never been ‚an investor in Madoff’s advi­sory busi­ness. . . .“

“Madoff-SEC’s Very Cozy Tie?” by Frank James; chicagotribune.com; 12/17/2008.

14. Many indi­vid­u­als and insti­tu­tions that invested in Israeli infra­struc­ture were severely dam­aged by Mad­off as well.

” . . . Many of the investors allegedly swin­dled by Wall Street Jour­nal money man­ager Bernard Mad­off are, like him, Jew­ish, and for many of them, con­tribut­ing to Jew­ish causes is a cru­cial part of their cul­ture. The effect of their losses on the Jew­ish phil­an­thropic world is being seen as noth­ing less than cat­a­strophic. . . . Experts esti­mate that about 5 per­cent of all money donated by Amer­i­can Jews–and 20 per­cent donated to Jew­ish causes–goes to Israel, where hos­pi­tals, uni­ver­si­ties, syn­a­gogues and other non-profit orga­ni­za­tions depend on Amer­i­can phil­an­thropy. While these insti­tu­tions had been suf­fer­ing from the eco­nomic down­turn well before the Mad­off  scan­dal broke, his arrest and the col­lapse of his invest­ment firm has has­tened the end for some.

One foun­da­tion that con­tributes to many causes in Israel, the Chais Fam­ily Foun­da­tion, has had to shut down due to its losses with Mad­off. ’ We are now inform­ing all those won­der­ful projects that there will be no more funds avail­able,’ said its pres­i­dent, Avra­ham Infeld, in Israel.”

“Jew­ish Char­i­ties Lose Big with Mad­off Invest­ments” [AP]; San Fran­cisco Chron­i­cle; 2/17/2008; p. C2.

15. One of the biggest losers in the Mad­off affair was the non-profit of Holo­caust sur­vivor and  Nobel-Prize win­ner Elie Wiesel.

” . . . Wiesel, whose char­i­ta­ble foun­da­tion was wiped out by Mad­off, has until now mostly kept quiet about the alleged $50 bil­lion Ponzi scheme. But today, the Holo­caust sur­vivor and Nobel Peace Prize recip­i­ent spoke pas­sion­ately about his betrayal by Mad­off, whom he referred to var­i­ously as ‘a crook, a thief, a scoundrel,‘as well as a ‘swindler’ and ‘evil.’

Wiesel acknowl­edged that in addi­tion to hav­ing lost his foundation’s assets, he lost his per­sonal wealth to Mad­off. ‘All of a sud­den, every­thing we have done in 40 years—literally, my books, my lec­tures, my uni­ver­sity salary, everything—was gone,’ he said dur­ing a panel dis­cus­sion hosted by Condé Nast Portfolio.

His foun­da­tion, the Elie Wiesel Foun­da­tion for Human­ity, lost sub­stan­tially all of its $15.2 mil­lion in assets to Mad­off; includ­ing his per­sonal invest­ments, total losses may be as high as $37 mil­lion. ‘We gave him every­thing, we thought he was God, we trusted every­thing in his hands,’ Wiesel said. . . .”

“Wiesel ‘Lost Every­thing’ to Mad­off”; Yahoo.com; 2/27/2009.

16. The col­lapse of the Mad­off oper­a­tion has fed anti-Semitism.

” . . . Remem­ber the spike in anti-Semitism after the finan­cial melt­down? This will be sim­i­lar, but with the poten­tial to be a lot more dam­ag­ing because Mad­off is actu­ally being charged crim­i­nally. In the above arti­cle, Rob Esh­man points to the com­ments left on the site dealbreaker.com, which iden­ti­fied some of Madoff’s investors. Here’s a few of the remarks that will give many Jews chills:

“LOL Jews!...“
“Looks like a lot of Jews might be con­vert­ing to Mus­lim soon….in prison….“
“Now that the JEW has been thrown down the well, is our coun­try free? LETS THROW A BIG PARTY!!!“

I remem­ber that last line. Only it’s fun­nier as a joke, com­ing from Borat. . . .”

“Bernie Mad­off Gives Ammo to Anti-Semites Every­where” by Brad A. Green­berg; The Jew­ish Jour­nal; 12/12/2008.

17. Mr. Emory opines that the Mad­off oper­a­tion may well have been a Bor­mann front. The Thyssens may well have been among the Mad­off clients that got money out of the oper­a­tion. The French elite may well have invested as well. In this con­text, one should not lose sight of the fact that the Bor­mann net­work uses Jews as front men. There are a num­ber of things to be gained from such a gam­bit. First, a Nazi money laun­der­ing oper­a­tion would be superbly cam­ou­flaged by Jew­ish front oper­a­tors. Sec­ondly, the money paid by the Bor­mann net­work to the sup­port of Israel helps buy silence on the part of would-be Israeli Nazi hunters. Thirdly, it can lend sup­port to the anti-Semitic the­ory that Jews “con­trol the finan­cial sys­tem.” For more about “Bor­mann Jews” check out FTR #305.

18. Clos­ing with an apoc­a­lyp­tic vision, the broad­cast notes an Army War Col­lege report indi­cat­ing that an eco­nomic col­lapse might all but destroy the United States.

“The United States could be sleep-walking into its next cri­sis, a mil­i­tary report said.

The report by the U.S. Army War College’s Strate­gic Insti­tute, said that a defense com­mu­nity par­a­lyzed by con­ven­tional think­ing could be unpre­pared to help the United States cope with a series of unex­pected crises that would rival the Al Qaida strikes in 2001, termed a “strate­gic shock.”

The report cited the prospect of the col­lapse of a nuclear state lead­ing to mas­sive unrest in the United States, Mid­dle East Newsline reported.

“Wide­spread civil vio­lence inside the United States would force the defense estab­lish­ment to reori­ent pri­or­i­ties in extremis to defend basic domes­tic order and human secu­rity,” the report, authored by [Ret.] Lt. Col. Nathan Freir, said.”

“Dooms­day: Report Warns of ‘Strate­gic Shock’ Lead­ing to Mas­sive Unrest”; World Tri­bune; 12/15/2008.


Comments are disallowed for this post.

Comments are closed.