Re: [lm-sensors] spam

* Re: [lm-sensors] spam
@ 2009-01-20 13:46 Pouchard, Line Catherine
  2009-01-20 14:15 ` Jean Delvare
                   ` (8 more replies)
  0 siblings, 9 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Pouchard, Line Catherine @ 2009-01-20 13:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: lm-sensors

 Dear list organisors:

Is it possible to keep this kind of spam of the list?  Maybe restricting
access?

Thank you for your efforts.

Line Pouchard
Computer Science and Mathematics
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
P.O. Box 2001
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6367
865- 574-6125
http://www.csm.ornl.gov/~7lp

-----Original Message-----
From: lm-sensors-bounces@lm-sensors.org
[mailto:lm-sensors-bounces@lm-sensors.org] On Behalf Of Lawrence Auster
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 6:46 PM
To: lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
Subject: [lm-sensors] Israel's Inalienable Rights -- The problem with
intellectually insecure whites -- More on Madoff

Israel's Inalienable Rights
Posted by Charles Glass on January 19, 2009

Self-evident Truths: For Barack Obama on the Eve of His Inauguration as
President of the United States.

* Israel has the inalienable right to pursue terrorists in the Gaza
Strip and everywhere else they are hiding.

* Israel has the inalienable right to attack houses, mosques, churches,
United Nations shelters, schools and hospitals to kill terrorists.

* Israel has the inalienable right to expropriate the land of
Palestinian farmers for Israeli Jewish settlers.

* Israel has the inalienable right to arrest, torture and brutalise
Palestinians who resist the expropriation of their land.

* Israel has the inalienable right to restrict the movement of
Palestinians from one place to another in order to protect the
settlements it has built on land expropriated, by inalienable right,
from Palestinians.

* Israel has the inalienable right to demolish the houses of
Palestinians, provided: the land on which the houses stand are needed
for Israeli settlement; the owners of the houses are related to
terrorist suspects; or Israeli military commanders determine that
demolition is necessary.

* Israel has the right to erect concrete walls within the occupied
territories to put more land on the Israeli side of the line for future
use by Israeli settlers.

* Israel has the inalienable right to establish road networks that
non-Israeli residents of the occupied territories are forbidden to use.

* Israel has the right to instruct the President of the United States
how the Secretary of State must vote at the United Nations, which
criminals must be granted presidential pardons and how he should treat
other nations of the Middle East.

* Israel has the inalienable right to a minimum of $1,500 per Israeli
Jewish citizen every year from the American Treasury.

* Israel has the inalienable right to the most sophisticated and lethal
American weaponry.

* Israel has the right to deploy any and all American weapons on
terrorists, whether in violation of international law or agreements with
the United States not to deploy phosphorous and cluster bombs against
civilian populations.

* Israel has the inalienable right to defy United Nations resolutions
and World Court rulings. (A corollary of this right means that United
Nations resolutions do not apply to Israel.)

* Israel has the inalienable right to accuse those who disagree with its
occupation "anti-Semites," unless the dissenters are Jewish, in which
case Israel has the inalienable right to declare them "self-hating."

* Israel has the inalienable right to demand the dismissal of American
academics, journalists and politicians who voice opinions that question
any of Israel's inalienable rights.
* Israel has the inalienable right to invoke the memory of the victims
of Nazi persecution to exempt itself from blame for any of its actions.

* Israel has the inalienable right to determine what rights the
Palestinians have.

Thus,

* The Palestinians have no right to resist military occupation,
confiscation of land, seizure of their water supply, collective
punishment, arbitrary taxation, torture, public beatings, school
closures and the destruction of crops and orchards.

* The Palestinians have no right to disobey Israeli soldiers' orders or
to appeal for outside assistance.

* The Palestinians have no right to non-violent civil disobedience, to
armed struggle or to international representation to present their case.

* The Palestinians have no right to withhold taxes that pay for the
Israeli occupation.

* The Palestinians have no rights, except those granted to them by the
Israeli authorities, whose inalienable rights may not be contested.

http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/israel_inalienable_rights/
-----

The problem with intellectually insecure whites By Kevin MacDonald
January 19, 2009

 America will soon have a white minority. This is a much desired state
of affairs for the hostile elites who hold political power and shape
public opinion. But it certainly creates some management issues - at
least in the long run. After all, it's difficult to come up with an
historical example of a nation with a solid ethnic majority (90% white
in 1950) that has voluntarily decided to cede political and cultural
power. Such transformations are typically accomplished by military
invasions, great battles, and untold suffering. 

And it's not as if everyone is doing it. Only Western nations view their
own demographic and cultural eclipse as a moral imperative. Indeed, as I
have noted previously, it is striking that racial nationalism has
triumphed in Israel at the same time that the Jewish intellectual and
political movements and the organized Jewish community have been the
most active and effective force for a non-white America. Indeed, a poll
in 2008 found that Avigdor Lieberman was the second most popular
politician in Israel. Lieberman has advocated expulsion of Arabs from
Israel and has declared himself a follower of Vladimir Jabotinsky, the
leading pioneer of racial Zionism. The most popular politician in the
poll was Benjamin Netanyahu - another admirer of Jabotinsky. Prime
Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni are also
Jabotinskyists.

The racial Zionists are now carrying out yet another orgy of mass murder
after a starvation-inducing blockade and the usual triggering assault
designed to provoke Palestinian retaliation - which then becomes the
cover for claims that Israel is merely defending itself against
terrorism. This monstrosity was approved by overwhelming majorities of
both Houses of Congress. The craven Bush administration did its part by
abstaining from a UN resolution designed by the US Secretary of State as
a result of a personal appeal by the Israeli Prime Minister. This is yet
another accomplishment of the Israel Lobby, but one they would rather
not have discussed in public. People might get the impression that the
Lobby really does dictate US foreign policy in the Mideast. Obviously,
such thoughts are only entertained by anti-Semites.

But I digress.

In managing the eclipse of white America, one strategy of the mainstream
media is to simply ignore the issue. Christopher Donovan  ("For the
media, the less whites think about their coming minority status, the
better") has noted that the media, and in particular, the New York
Times, are quite uninterested in doing stories that discuss what white
people think about this state of affairs.

It's not surprising that the New York Times - the Jewish-owned flagship
of anti-white, pro-multicultural media - ignores the issue. The issue is
also missing from so-called conservative media even though one would
think that conservatives would find the eclipse of white America to be
an important issue. Certainly, their audiences would find it
interesting.

Now we have an article "The End of White America" written by Hua Hsu, an
Assistant Professor of English at Vassar College. The article is a
rather depressing display of what passes for intellectual discourse on
the most important question confronting white people in America.

Hsu begins by quoting a passage in F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great
Gatsby in which a character, Tom Buchanan, states: "Have you read The
Rise of the Colored Empires by this man Goddard?" ... Well, it's a fine
book, and everybody ought to read it. The idea is if we don't look out
the white race will be-will be utterly submerged. It's all scientific
stuff; it's been proved."

Buchanan's comment is a thinly veiled reference to Lothrop Stoddard's
The Rising Tide of Color which Hsu describes as "rationalized hatred"
presented in a scholarly, gentlemanly, and scientific tone. (This
wording that will certainly help him when he comes up for tenure.) As
Hsu notes, Stoddard had a doctorate from Harvard and was a member of
many academic associations. His book was published by a major publisher.
It was therefore "precisely the kind of book that a 1920s man of
Buchanan's profile - wealthy, Ivy League-educated, at once pretentious
and intellectually insecure - might have been expected to bring up in
casual conversation."

Let's ponder that a bit. The simple reality is that in the year 2009 an
Ivy League-educated person, "at once pretentious and intellectually
insecure,"  would just as glibly assert the same sort of nonsense as
Hsu. To wit:

The coming white minority does not mean that the racial hierarchy of
American culture will suddenly become inverted, as in 1995's White Man's
Burden, an awful thought experiment of a film, starring John Travolta,
that envisions an upside-down world in which whites are subjugated to
their high-class black oppressors. There will be dislocations and
resentments along the way, but the demographic shifts of the next 40
years are likely to reduce the power of racial hierarchies over
everyone's lives, producing a culture that's more likely than any before
to treat its inhabitants as individuals, rather than members of a caste
or identity group.

The fact is that no one can say for certain what multicultural America
without a white majority will be like. There is no scientific or
historical basis for claims like "the demographic shifts of the next 40
years are likely to reduce the power of racial hierarchies over
everyone's lives, producing a culture that's more likely than any before
to treat its inhabitants as individuals, rather than members of a caste
or identity group."

Indeed, there is no evidence at all that we are proceeding to a color
blind future. The election results continue to show that white people
are coalescing in the Republican Party, while the Democrats are
increasingly the party of a non-white soon-to-be majority. 

Is it so hard to believe that when this coalition achieves a majority
that it will further compromise the interests of whites far beyond
contemporary concerns such as immigration policy and affirmative action?
Hsu anticipates a colorblind world, but affirmative action means that
blacks and other minorities are certainly not treated as individuals.
And it means that whites - especially white males - are losing out on
opportunities they would have had without these policies and without the
massive non-white immigration of the last few decades.

Given the intractability of changing intelligence and other traits
required for success in the contemporary economy, it is unlikely that 40
more years of affirmative action will attain the outcomes desired by the
minority lobbies. Indeed, in Obama's America, blacks are rioting in
Oakland over perceived racial injustices, and from 2002-2007, black
juvenile homicide victims increased 31%, while black juvenile
perpetrators increased 43%. Hence,  the reasonable outlook is for a
continuing need for affirmative action and for racial activism in these
groups, even after whites become a minority. 

Whites will also lose out because of large-scale importation of
relatively talented immigrants from East Asia. Indeed, as I noted over a
decade ago, "The United States is well on the road to being dominated by
an Asian technocratic elite and a Jewish business, professional, and
media elite."

Hsu shows that there already is considerable anxiety among whites about
the future. An advertizing executive says, "I think white people feel
like they're under siege right now - like it's not okay to be white
right now, especially if you're a white male. ... People are stressed
out about it. 'We used to be in control! We're losing control'" Another
says, "There's a lot of fear and a lot of resentment."

It's hard to see why these feelings won't increase in the future.

A huge problem for white people is lack of intellectual and cultural
confidence. Hsu quotes Christian (Stuff White People Like) Lander
saying, "I get it: as a straight white male, I'm the worst thing on
Earth." A professor comments that for his students "to be white is to be
culturally broke. The classic thing white students say when you ask them
to talk about who they are is, 'I don't have a culture.' They might be
privileged, they might be loaded socioeconomically, but they feel
bankrupt when it comes to culture ... They feel disadvantaged, and they
feel marginalized."

This lack of cultural confidence is no accident. For nearly 100 years
whites have been subjected to a culture of critique emanating from the
most prestigious academic and media institutions. And, as Hsu points
out, the most vibrant and influential aspect of American popular culture
is hip-hop-a product of the African American urban culture.

The only significant group of white people with any cultural confidence
centers itself around country music, NASCAR, and the small town values
of traditional white America. For this group of whites - and only this
group - there is  "a racial pride that dares not speak its name, and
that defines itself through cultural cues instead-a suspicion of
intellectual elites and city dwellers, a preference for folksiness and
plainness of speech (whether real or feigned), and the association of a
working-class white minority with 'the real America.'"

This is what I term implicit whiteness - implicit because explicit
assertions of white identity have been banned by the anti-white elites
that dominate our politics and culture. It is a culture that, as Hsu
notes, "cannot speak its name."

But that implies that the submerged white identity of the white working
class and the lack of cultural confidence exhibited by the rest of white
America are imposed from outside. Although there may well be
characteristics of whites that facilitate this process, this suppression
of white identity and interests is certainly not the natural outcome of
modernization or any other force internal to whites as a people. In my
opinion, they are the result of the successful erection of a culture of
critique in the West dominated by Jewish intellectual and political
movements.

The result is that educated, intellectually insecure white people these
days are far more likely to believe in the utopian future described by
Hsu than in hard and cautious thinking about what the future might have
in store for them.

It's worth dwelling a bit on the intellectual insecurity of the whites
who mindlessly utter the mantras of multiculturalism that they have
soaked up from the school system and from the media. Most people do not
have much confidence in their intellectual ability and look to elite
opinion to shape their beliefs. As I noted elsewhere,

A critical component of the success of the culture of critique is that
it achieved control of the most prestigious and influential institutions
of the West, and it became a consensus among the elites, Jewish and
non-Jewish alike. Once this happened, it is not surprising that this
culture became widely accepted among people of very different levels of
education and among people of different social classes.

Most people are quite insecure about their intellectual ability. But
they know that the professors at Harvard, and the editorial page of the
New York Times and the Washington Post, and even conservative
commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are all on page when it
comes to racial and ethnic issues. This is a formidable array, to the
point that you almost have to be a crank to dissent from this consensus.

I think one of the greatest triumphs of the left has been to get people
to believe that people who assert white identity and interests or who
make unflattering portrayals of organized Jewish movements are morally
degenerate, stupid, and perhaps psychiatrically disturbed. Obviously,
all of these adjectives designate low status. 

The reality is that the multicultural emperor has no clothes and,
because of its support for racial Zionism and the racialism of ethnic
minorities in America, it is massively hypocritical to boot. The New
York Times, the academic left, and the faux conservatives that dominate
elite discourse on race and ethnicity are intellectually bankrupt and
can only remain in power by ruthlessly suppressing or ignoring the
scientific findings.

This is particularly a problem for college-educated whites. Like
Fitzgerald's Tom Buchanan, such people have a strong need to feel that
their ideas are respectable and part of the mainstream. But the
respectable mainstream gives them absolutely nothing with which to
validate themselves except perhaps the idea that the world will be a
better place when people like them no longer have power. Hsu quotes the
pathetic Christian Lander: ""Like, I'm aware of all the horrible crimes
that my demographic has done in the world. ... And there's a bunch of
white people who are desperate - desperate - to say, 'You know what? My
skin's white, but I'm not one of the white people who's destroying the
world.'"

As a zombie leftist during the 1960s and 1970s, I know what that feeling
of desperation is like - what it's like to be a self-hating white. We
must get to the point where college-educated whites proudly and
confidently say they are white and that they do not want to become a
minority in America.

This reminds me of the recent docudrama Milk, which depicts the life of
gay activist Harvey Milk. Milk is sure be nominated for an Oscar as Best
Picture because it lovingly illustrates a triumph of the cultural left.
But is has an important message that should resonate with the millions
of whites who have been deprived of their confidence and their culture:
Be explicit. Just as Harvey Milk advocated being openly gay even in the
face of dire consequences, whites need to tell their family and their
friends that they have an identity as a white person and believe that
whites have legitimate interests as white people. They must accept the
consequences when they are harassed, fired from their jobs, or put in
prison for such beliefs. They must run for political office as openly
pro-white. 

Milk shows that homosexuals were fired from their jobs and arrested for
congregating in public. Now it's the Southern Poverty Law Center and the
rest of the leftist intellectual and political establishment that
harasses and attempts to get people fired. But it's the same situation
with the roles reversed. No revolution was ever accomplished without
some martyrs. The revolution that restores the legitimacy of white
identity and the legitimacy of white interests will be no exception. 

But it is a revolution that is absolutely necessary. The white majority
is foolish indeed to entrust its future to a utopian hope that racial
and ethnic identifications will disappear and that they won't continue
to influence public policy in ways that compromise the interests of
whites. 

It does not take an overactive imagination to see that coalitions of
minority groups could compromise the interests of formerly dominant
whites. We already see numerous examples in which coalitions of minority
groups attempt to influence public policy, including immigration policy,
against the interests of the whites. Placing ourselves in a position of
vulnerability would be extremely risky, given the deep sense of
historical grievance harbored by many ethnic activists and organized
ethnic lobbies.

This is especially the case with Jews. Jewish organisations have been
unanimous in condemning Western societies, Western traditions, and
Christianity, for past crimes against Jews. Similar sentiments are
typical of a great many African Americans and Latinos, and especially
among the ethnic activists from these groups. The "God damn America"
sermon by President Obama's pastor comes to mind as a recent notorious
example.

The precedent of the early decades of the Soviet Union should give pause
to anyone who believes that surrendering ethnic hegemony does not carry
risks. The Bolshevik revolution had a pronounced ethnic angle: To a very
great extent, Jews and other non-Russians ruled over the Russian people,
with disastrous consequences for the Russians and other ethnic groups
that were not able to become part of the power structure. Jews formed a
hostile elite within this power structure - as they will in the future
white-minority America; Jews were "Stalin's willing executioners." 

Two passages from my review of Yuri Slezkine's The Jewish Century seem
particularly appropriate here. The first passage reminds me of the many
American Jews who adopt a veneer of support for causes of leftist
versions of social justice and racial tolerance while nevertheless
managing to support racial Zionism and the mass murder, torture, and
incarceration of the Palestinians. Such people may be very different
when they become a hostile elite in a white-minority America.

Many of the commentators on Jewish Bolsheviks noted the "transformation"
of Jews [after the Bolshevik Revolution]. In the words of [a] Jewish
commentator, G. A. Landau, "cruelty, sadism, and violence had seemed
alien to a nation so far removed from physical activity." And another
Jewish commentator, Ia. A. Bromberg, noted that:

the formerly oppressed lover of liberty had turned into a tyrant of
"unheard-of-despotic arbitrariness".... The convinced and unconditional
opponent of the death penalty not just for political crimes but for the
most heinous offenses, who could not, as it were, watch a chicken being
killed, has been transformed outwardly into a leather-clad person with a
revolver and, in fact, lost all human likeness. ...

After the Revolution, ... there was active suppression of any remnants
of the older order and their descendants. ... The mass murder of
peasants and nationalists was combined with the systematic exclusion of
the previously existing non-Jewish middle class. The wife of a Leningrad
University professor noted, "in all the institutions, only workers and
Israelites are admitted; the life of the intelligentsia is very hard"
(p. 243). Even at the end of the 1930s, prior to the Russification that
accompanied World War II, "the Russian Federation...was still doing
penance for its imperial past while also serving as an example of an
ethnicity-free society" (p. 276). While all other nationalities,
including Jews, were allowed and encouraged to keep their ethnic
identities, the revolution remained an anti-majoritarian movement.

The difference from the Soviet Union may well be that in white-minority
America it will not be workers and Israelites who are favored, but
non-whites and Israelites. Whites may dream that they are entering the
post-racial utopia imagined by their erstwhile intellectual superiors.
But it is quite possible that they are entering into a racial dystopia
of unimaginable cruelty in which whites will be systematically excluded
in favor of the new elites recruited from the soon-to-be majority. It's
happened before.

Kevin MacDonald is a professor of psychology at California State
University-Long Beach.  

URL with hyperlink sources:

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-Hsu.html

-------

------

Bernie Madoff's Ethno-Nepotistic Ponzi Scheme

James Murray

January 4, 2008

Haaretz has run an article claiming that anti-Semites will jump on
Madoff's $56 billion fraud against Jewish investors to besmirch the good
name of Jews. Some Jews have proclaimed Madoff's fraud to be a new
Kristallnacht. The Jewish Journal connects Madoff to the perpetrators of
the Holocaust. Some Jews even insist that "Christmas came early" for
anti-Semites because of the collapse of the Madoff scheme, implying that
some Jews think that Christmas is a holiday of pure hatred toward Jews.
Perhaps.

However, the demographics of the Madoff scheme deserve some ethnic
analysis: Was this really a story about how a Jewish turncoat victimizes
Jewish-millionaire Holocaust survivors, leading to gloating among
anti-Semites at Christmastime? Or ... could it be that the dirty little
secret of the Madoff scheme that Jews are desperate to conceal is that
Jews were not the victims but rather the beneficiaries of the scheme?

First, it is important to realize that Jews lost only a relatively small
amount of the money in Madoff's fraud scheme. As the New York Times
shows, those who invested early and withdrew profits - many of them
presumably Jews - did not lose a penny but rather profited rather
grandly.

Second, a quick glance at the table in the December 17, 2008 Wall Street
Journal (reproduced below) makes clear that of the top 30 investors in
the fund, only 2 are Jewish, and relatively small investors at that.
Granted, the list is incomplete. It omits, for the sake of respect I
suppose, the $37 million reportedly lost by Elie Wiesel and his
foundation (modestly named after himself). (As an aside, it should be
noted that Wiesel, the Holocaust promoter and Jewish moralizer, is
absolutely indifferent to the extermination of the Palestinians.)

Although many other versions of this table have appeared (and many major
investors who lost will try to keep their identity secret), it is worth
noting that the identifiable Jewish share of monies lost through Madoff
in this compilation of victims is precisely 2.31%. While this omits the
Jewish petty-millionaires who were the mainstay of Madoff's scheme for
decades, even if there are 1000 Jewish petty-millionaires, the Jewish
share of the Ponzi scheme is surely less than 5%. And since the best
compilation so far argues for only 2.31% of the victims being Jewish,
are the crocodile tears of Jewish columnists for the Jewish
millionaire-victims really appropriate? One
is reminded of the Jewish book on the Katyn Forest Massacre, in which
20,000 Polish Catholics and a few   identified Jews were slaughtered: Of
course, that book, written by a Jew, focuses only on the few Jewish
victims. The non-Jewish victims are simply meaningless. Then and now.

There are many articles about Jewish petty-millionaries who have lived
on their profits from Madoff for years or decades of retirement (10-20%
a year in payouts). (See here, here, and here.) These articles make the
structure of this Ponzi scheme immediately clear. That there was
something wrong was certainly clear to many investors; they just did not
know what was wrong. Anecdotally, many Jewish investors thought they
were buying into a long-lived insider trading scam. Does the fact that
some of Madoff's early Jewish investors always believed that their
"profits" were derived from financial crimes make them more or less
sympathetic?

Madoff is described as having spent decades building a carefully
structured Ponzi scheme (which large European investors note was one of
the American investments highest rated for return and being risk-free
for decades by the SEC and rating services). Yet, Madoff's scheme was
something else and something more: It was, in fact an
Ethno-Nepotistic-Ponzi scheme, a Ponzi scheme where most of the payouts
were to the investors of the same ethnicity as the conspirators.

And here is how it worked:

In the first period (perhaps two decades), beginning in the 1960s,
Madoff ran a carefully structured Ponzi scheme, possibly beginning when
he really could not get the returns he thought he could get by
legitimate means. But once started, there was no turning back. Madoff's
genius (linked to guaranteed super-safe investment ratings from the
rating agencies) was to have the larger investors reinvest a lot of
their imaginary "profits", while using their money to keep the scheme
going. Madoff carefully structured his scheme and limited the number of
investors. (He was notorious for refusing to accept all potential
investors-many relate how they begged him for years before he allowed
them to invest; many joined his country clubs just to stalk him. And I
suspect he required a high rate of reinvestment). Madoff was therefore
able to meet the payouts he promised since so much of the imaginary
"profits" were simply reinvested and because bigger non-Jewish investors
were brought in to keep the scheme going.

If investors could be held to 1% a month payoffs (and this was a typical
rate of payoffs), it would take 8 years, 4 months before a given
investor would use up their own money in "profit" payouts. If Madoff
could convince an investor to take only 0.5% a month in payouts (or
less: many Jewish charities appear to have taken such lower rates of
"profit" payouts), Madoff would have 16 years, 8 months before he would
have to use someone else's money to maintain the stream of "profit"
payouts. These modest, if impossibly consistent returns, differentiate
Madoff from normal Ponzi schemes that pay out big early on but crash and
burn within a year or two.
Madoff built his scheme to run for decades. These long term horizons -
on the order of a decade or so - required that Madoff restructure his
scheme periodically.

The first decade or two saw Madoff operate real money-making securities
services and begin to collect his portfolio of million-dollar investors.
At the beginning of this period he built an innovative, heavily
computerized and successful financial services business. On top of this
real and profitable business, he slowly started building a portfolio of
unsophisticated Jewish investors, many of whom placed their life savings
with him. These are the Jewish petty-millionaire ($1-3 million)
investors everyone has been crying about in the newspapers. Many of them
drew substantial cash payoffs for decades - payouts that were often
multiples of what they invested.

Towards the end of this period, Jewish-Zionist charities and
Jewish-segregated schools came into the system, but few were as large as
$10 million, and all can be presumed to have profited from Madoff's
fraud. For example, Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organization, was one
charity that came in at this time: Its initial $7 million investment in
1988 would be supplemented by $33 million over the next decade until
1998. By including paper profits, Hadassah would ultimately claim to
have lost $90 million with Madoff; that is: 7 + 33 = 90.

It is actually worse than this, since Hadassah may have actually lost
nothing at all. A quick and dirty estimate of Hadassah "profits"
suggests that if Hadassah had averaged $23.5 million in 1988-1998 and
left all its "profits" with Madoff, there should have been about $64
million in their account, not $40 million in 1998 as reported,
suggesting that Hadassah could have drawn as much as $24 million in
"profits" in the first decade. Similarly, if Hadassah had started 1998
with $40 million as they report, 1% per month would yield $110 million,
not $90 million as they report now, suggesting that Hadassah withdrew as
much as another $20 million in the second decade with Madoff. Hadassah
could have withdrawn as much as $44 million from the $40 million they
invested with Madoff, and this would mean that Hadassah's losses are not
the $40 million actually invested, or the $90 million as they now claim,
but rather no more than zero.

(Incidentally, some newspapers are so terrified of Jews that they will
not even print the word "Zionist" unless it is in the address of a
letter to the editor from an imperious Zionist organization: The
cringing, terrorized Seattle Post-Intelligencer will only call Hadassah,
which is officially "The Women's Zionist Organization of America,"
"a Jewish women's charity.")

Interestingly, Madoff was so immune from regulatory oversight that he
would not even be correctly registered as an investment firm until 2006,
when SEC investigators were credibly informed that Madoff had committed
numerous violations but settled for asking him to please, please, please
register his firm in an appropriate manner... after it had been
operating outside the law for over 40 years!!!! (Madoff would marry off
a daughter, Shana, to one of the investigators in that 2006 inquiry.)

The second decade or so began with the need for investors at least in
the $10 million range, since the costs of the scheme kept growing. By
the end of the decade he apparently needed investors in the $50 million
range. This phase saw the development of the "feeder" system, in which
investment companies - often Jewish- controlled - marketed Madoff's
services to larger, non-Jewish investors, worldwide. For example, in the
mid-1990s, Jacob Ezra Merkin, from one of the most distinguished
rabbinical families in world Judaism, president of the Fifth Avenue
Synagogue in New York, head of the investment committee for the
UJA-Federation of New York, and manager of Ascot Partners, brought in
Elie Wiesel's Foundation for Humanity. Four of the five largest "losers"
in the Madoff scheme are feeder operators who lost essentially nothing
of their own: Fairfield Greenwich Advisors, Tremont Capital Management,
Ascot Partners, and Access International Advisors brought in other
investors and lost their money for them. The end of this period came in
1999-2000: The result was that, as recently as 1999, Madoff rejected an
investment by Jeffrey R. Gural, chairman of Newmark Knight Frank because
he could not invest at least $20 million. By 1999, $20 million was too
trivial a sum to bother with at this point in Madoff's scheme. Madoff
was entering the third and final stage of his scheme, and it required
globalization and much, much larger investors.

The last decade saw bigger and bigger investors, like European banks,
Arab institutional investors, a Korean pension, maybe a Saudi prince,
etc., who put in hundreds of millions or billions and got nothing at all
back, or very little. The costs of the scheme kept growing. This period
was the heyday of the feeder system: Fairfield Greenwich Advisors,
Tremont Capital Management, Ascot Partners, and Access International
Advisors were bringing in billions now, and almost none of it was from
Jews. The investment by Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, which placed
$400 million with Madoff in 2005, is typical of the third and final
period. It was large, it was non-Jewish, it was used to pay early Jewish
investors, and was unusual only in the fact that Abu Dhabi Investment
Authority got cold feet and pulled out $268 million in redemptions in
2005 and 2006. Bank Medici of Austria became a sub-feeder collecting
monies from smaller investors in New York, Vienna, Gibraltar, Zurich and
Milan, through its hedge funds in the United States and Luxembourg: Its
investors were happy with 7% a year.

And the money still poured into the hands of Jewish "investors",
including the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity, and the Jewish
retired petty-millionaires of Florida, New York, New Jersey,
Connecticut, Minnesota, etc. Year after year, they received their
"profits", extracted from unknowing, duped investors from Singapore to
Dublin, from Spain to South Korea.

So, it is clear that there were at least three categories of investors:

(1) The core Jewish petty-millionaire investors, who made a lot of money
for decades, living richly on their "profits" from Madoff's fund. As the
New York Times admits, many made a lot of money.

(2) More recent Jewish charities who agreed to reinvest a lot of their
"profits", like Wiesel's loot from the Holocaust-trade: These investors
got good payoffs but reinvested most of it. These people could have lost
a little, but if they were really greedy they were easily suckered into
big, consistent reinvestments, accumulating only large imaginary paper
"profits." In this cohort of investors, actual loses are entirely
correlated with excessive greed: If they let their "profits" accumulate
without payouts, they could have lost everything.

(3) The non-Jews, like Banco Santander, HSBC Holdings PLC, Royal Bank of
Scotland, BNP Paribas, etc., who invested large amounts of money
recently and who probably got nothing or next to nothing from Madoff.
These investors now know that all their money disappeared into the hands
of groups (1) and (2) and Madoff and his buddies. (Incidentally, Madoff
and his family made a lot of money: One family investment firm alone had
$160 million in assets until it was seized last week.)

There never was a group (4) because the market melted down and Madoff
could not find people big enough to fund the next generation of the
scam. (Although he did reportedly scam a Saudi Prince for $3 billion.)
In fact, one finds Jeffrey Tucker, a feeder partner in Fairfield
Greenwich Group complaining, in an article in HedgeWorld in November
2007, that Chinese and Thai investors are stupid and unsophisticated
because they will not provide money to Madoff. When investors sought $7
billion in redemptions in November 2008, the end was near.

A careful reader will note that there were real winners. We will call
them the Jews, since they were Jews, This group would ultimately have
large losses of imaginary paper "profits." And there were big losers.
Let's call them the Goys or the Suckers, since they are non-Jews. Of
course, the difference between these groups is their ethnicity. It is
worth noting that the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, and
the mass media in general, see this as a fraud that essentially affected
only Jews. As we have seen, this is the exact opposite of the truth.
Jews were winners, and non-Jews were losers.

To repeat: in Madoff's scheme, Jews were winners, and non-Jews were
losers. It was not just a Ponzi scheme, it was a Ponzi scheme structured
around a massive transfer of wealth to one's own ethnic group, a kind of
previously undescribed Ethno-Nepotistic-Ponzi scheme.

Finally, this suggests that the real reason why Haaretz and Abe Foxman
are so hysterical about the Madoff scandal and its possible effect of
increasing anti-semitism is not because they fear irrational goyim who
are overly eager to paint all Jews with the traits of Bernie Madoff. It
is that there simply were very few real Jewish victims and quite a few
non-Jewish victims: The so-called Jewish victims actually made money.
And they made millions and millions and millions.

James Murray is the pen name of an academic sociologist.

Permanent link:
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Murray-Madoff.html

Appendix 1: Wall Street Journal List of Madoff's Victims.

[There are many omissions from this Wall Street Journal list, like that
of Elie Wiesel's Holocaust profits foundation with $37 million in
exposure. And the Lapin foundation that was simply vaporized last week.]

* Indicates Jewish investors.

Table 1: "Madoff's Victims: A List of Reported Victims and Their
Exposure", in Wall Street Journal, December 17, 2008. p. A14.

(Victims For Whom No Exposure Amount Is Available Are Not Shown.)

Fairfield Greenwich Advisors (investment management firm): $7500
million.

Tremont Capital Management (fund of funds run by Tremont Group
Holdings): $3300 million.

Banco Santander SA (Spanish bank): $2870 million.

Ascot Partners (hedge fund frounded by GMAC chief J. Ezra Merkin): $1800
million.

Access International Advisors (New York investment firm): $1400 million.

Fortis Bank Nederland NV (Dutch bank): $1350 million.

Union Bancaire Privee (Swiss bank): $1000 million.

HSBC Holdings PLC (British bank): $1000 million.

Natixis SA (French investment bank): $560 million.

*Carl Shapiro (former chairman Kay Windsor Inc.): $550 million.

Royal Bank of Scotland (British Bank): $492.76 million.

BNP Paribas (French Bank): $431.17 million.

BBVA (Spanish bank): $369,57 million.

Man Group PLC (British hedge fund): $360 million.

Reichmuth & Co. (Swiss private bank): $327 million.

Nomura Holdings Ltd. (Japanese brokerage house): $303 million.

Maxam Capital Management Inc. (fund of funds based in Dairen, Conn.):
$280 million.

EIM SA (European investment manager with $11 billion in assets): $230
million.

Aozora Bank Ltd. (Japan bank in which Cerebus Capital owns majority
stake): $137 million.

AXA (French insurer): $123 million.

UniCredit SA (Italian bank): $92.39 million.

Nordea Bank AB (Swedish bank): $59.13 million.

Hyposwiss (Swiss private bank owned by St. Galler Kantonalbank): $50
million.

Banque Bendict Hoetsch & Cie SA (Swiss private bank): $48.8 million.

City of Fairfield-Connecticut (town pension fund): $42 million.

Bramdean Alternatives (asset manager): $31.2 million.

*Haredi Insurance Investments & Financial Services Ltd. (Israeli
insurer): $14.2 million.

Societe Generale (French bank): $12.32 million.

Groupama SA (French insurer): $12.32 million.

Credit Agricola SA (French bank): $12.32 million.

Richard Spring (individual investor): $11 million.

RAB Capital (hedge fund): $10 million.

Banco Populare (Italian bank): $9.86 million.

Korea Teachers Pension (Korean pension fund): $9.1 million.

*Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles (Jewish charity manager):
$6.4 million.

Neue Privat Bank (Swiss bank): $5 million.

*Clal Insurance Enterprise Holdings Ltd. (Israeli financial services):
$3.1 million.

Mediobanca SpA (via its unit Compagnie Monegasque de Banque): $671000.

Permanent link:
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Murray-Madoff.html

Source:
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Murray-Madoff.html
http://www.davidduke.com/general/7051_7051.html#more-7051

---------------------------------------------

Lawrence Auster,
238 W 101 St Apt. 3B
New York, NY 10025
Contact: lawrence.auster@att.net

_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread