Archive for the 'Antitrust' Category

Stanley Fischer witness Franklin Fisher MIT 3rd thesis chairman

March 3, 2014

Franklin M. Fisher was the 3rd thesis chairman of Stanley Fischer.  The first was Miguel Sidrauski who died in 1968. The second was Duncan K. Foley.

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/stanley-fischer-witness-duncan-k-foley-new-school-new-york/

This post considers the hypothesis that Stanley Fischer plagiarized Nils Hakansson in 1969 in Fischer’s MIT Ph.D. thesis. Fischer claimed he saw Hakansson’s 1966 thesis late, after writing relevant sections of Fischer’s thesis. Fischer didn’t comment then about Hakansson’s uncertain lives working paper at Yale which corresponded to chapter 5 of Fischer’s thesis.

http://www.hakansson.com/

http://www.hakansson.com/nils/papers.htm

http://www.hakansson.com/nils/nils_bio.htm

http://www.hakansson.com/joyce/joyce_bio.htm

http://www.hakansson.com/nils/Dissertation.pdf

Optimal Investment and Consumption Strategies Under Risk, an Uncertain Lifetime, and Insurance,” International Economic Review, 10, October 1969, 443-466.

Optimal Investment and Consumption Strategies Under Risk for a Class of Utility Functions,” Econometrica, 38, September 1970, 587-607; reprinted in Stochastic Optimization Models in Finance (eds. W. T. Ziemba and R. G. Vickson), Academic Press, 1975, 525-545.

http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/63728 Interview of Stanley Fischer by Olivier Blanchard 2004/2005

http://search-id.com/d/dspace.mit.edu

http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/13873 Essays on assets and contingent commodities.

Author: Fischer, Stanley
Department: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Economics
Publisher: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date Issued: 1969

Description: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Economics. Thesis. 1969. Ph.D.Vita.Bibliography: leaves 193-195

http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/13873?show=full

dc.contributor.advisor Franklin M. Fisher. en_US
dc.contributor.author Fischer, Stanley en_US
dc.date.accessioned 2005-08-11T12:00:00Z en_US
dc.date.available 2005-08-11T12:00:00Z en_US
dc.date.issued 1969 en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/13873
dc.description Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Economics. Thesis. 1969. Ph.D. en_US
dc.description Vita. en_US
dc.description Bibliography: leaves 193-195. en_US
dc.format.extent vii, 196 [i.e. 197] leaves en_US
dc.format.extent 27933841 bytes

Questions to ask Franklin M. Fisher

  1. Karl Shell had a copy of Hakansson’s thesis at MIT in 1966 from public records.  You shared an office with Shell while he was at MIT through 1968.  Did you have a copy of the Hakansson thesis at that time?
  2. Did you talk to Shell about it?
  3. Was it a major breakthrough?
  4. You became editor of Econometrica which was going slow on publishing Hakansson’s paper. Who was the referee for the Hakansson paper at Econometrica?
  5. Why was the Hakansson paper published so late?
  6. In a letter dated June 4, 1969 from Econometrica to Hakansson, the final version of his paper was accepted.  That letter is signed by Jacques E. Dreze, Co-editor.  Did you see that letter prior to its being sent?
  7. Was there any change in referee?
  8. What were the referee’s objections?
  9. Why were similar objections not made to the Samuelson and Merton papers published in August 1969 at the MIT/Harvard journal Review of Economics and Statistics?
  10. Doesn’t Fischer’s thesis follow Hakansson’s thesis as a template and not Samuelson’s discrete time 1969 paper?
  11. For example, Hakansson does second order conditions for an optimum as does Fischer, but Samuelson does not.
  12. Did you see a copy of Hakansson’s uncertain life paper prior to the conclusion of Fischer’s thesis in 1969?
  13. Who was your office mate after Karl Shell left?
  14. In the published paper version of Fischer’s thesis he acknowledges that what is chapter 5 is equivalent to Hakansson’s paper “Optimum Investment and Consumption Strategies under Risk, an Uncertain Lifetime, and Insurance”, International Economic Review, 10 Octoboer 1969 443-466.
  15. Fischer’s paper is “A Life Cycle Model of Life Insurance Purchases,” International Economic Review, (February 1973), 274-77.  This is chapter 5 of his thesis. http://www.iie.com/fischer/cv.html http://www.nber.org/vitae/vita191.htm
  16. When did you first learn of the Hakansson IER paper?
  17. Did Duncan Foley have a copy from Yale?
  18. Did Martin Weitzman?
  19. Did Joseph Stiglitz?
  20. Did Robert C. Merton?
  21. Did Paul A. Samuelson?
  22. Did Peter Diamond?
  23. Were you surprised when you saw it?
  24. Did you discuss this with Duncan Foley?
  25. With Karl Shell?
  26. Who was referee on the Hakansson IER paper?  Fischer’s?
  27. Did Russia learn of this in early 1970s?
  28. Was this used by Russia to pressure Nobel Prize nominations in econ for Kantorovich of the USSR?
  29. How did Koopmans at Yale get onto the same Nobel Prize?
  30. Was Milton Friedman upset that Koopmans got the prize ahead of Friedman?
  31. Was Marschak known to be a communist?  Marschak was on Hakansson’s committee. Was this used as leverage to plagiarize him?
  32. Was Koopmans rumored to be one?  Also used as leverage to plagiarize Hakansson?
  33. What happened at University of Chicago in 1952 involving Econometrica and these people?  Two people had to resign and the editorial office was moved to Northwestern.  What happened?
  34. Did this have to do with the Markowitz paper and thesis?
  35. Markowitz had to wait for his Ph.D. until Cowles left Chicago in 1955.  He got it the quarter after Cowles left.  Is this linked?
  36. Was this known to Samuelson? He was President of the Econometric Society that year.
  37. Was that Samuelson’s leverage to plagiarize Hakansson in his 1969 paper?
  38. Did Samuelson’s paper come after the Stanley Fischer thesis?
  39. Did Robert C. Merton and Fischer work together as office mates with Fischer doing discrete time and Merton continuous time?
  40. Did Samuelson learn of this and want to provide cover for Robert C. Merton because he admired Robert K. Merton?
  41. Duncan Foley has described Miguel Sidrauski, the first chairman of the Fischer thesis as leftist and his wife Martha as even more life and linked to people who disappeared in Argentina after the 1960s.  What do you know of them?
  42. Miguel Sidrauski and Fischer bonded closely?
  43. They were both Zionists we learn from Foley and from the Blanchard interview. Did they bond on that?
  44. Did Miguel Sidrauski let Fischer plagiarize Hakansson?
  45. Did the Sidrauskis have a relation with Russia that you ever heard?
  46. Was the Fischer plagiarism a ploy to ensnare MIT and Samuelson to pressure Samuelson to nominate Kantorovich of the USSR for the econ prize?
  47. Was Sidrauski in on it? The source?
  48. Duncan Foley is a type of Marxist.  What did he know of this if anything?
  49. Who told Russia? Or did Russia figure it out?
  50. Did Russia tell Martin Weitzman they knew about it at an econ conference in Poland?
  51. Was he a messenger to Samuelson?
  52. Was Andrei Shleifer a similar messenger later from Anatoly Chubais and Russia to Larry Summers and Stanley Fischer to get IMF loans?
  53. Did LTCM and DE Shaw trade Russian government bonds in the 1990s knowing Russia was using this as leverage?
  54. Was this told to USAO Mass during US v Harvard, Shleifer and Hay from 1997 to 2005?
  55. During Aaron Swartz investigation? One can use JSTOR files to help discover or prove this.
  56. Does Russia have a complete copy of all the JSTOR files in Russia?
  57. Was this ever told to the FBI during any investigation or background check?
  58. Did anyone tell this to Israel?  When?
  59. Did Israel do a background check on Fischer when it hired him as central banker in 2005?
  60. Were you questioned by Israel then?
  61. Did Israel already know of this?
  62. Did David Levhari tell them?  Did you?
  63. Did you tell the US after you learned Israel knew of it?
  64. Did you explicitly tell Israel that Fischer plagiarized Hakansson?
  65. Did you say Robert C. Merton was in on it?
  66. Did you say Paul Samuelson was?
  67. Did either of those talk to Israel at that time on this?
  68. Did they repeat what they told Israel to the FBI?
  69. What about Larry Summers?  Andrei Shleifer?
  70. Hay got a Ph.D. in math from Steklov Institute c. 2003. Did you know of this? Was it to keep Hay from telling what he knew to the FBI to get a plea deal during US v Harvard, Shleifer and Hay?
  71. Did Summers protect Shleifer during US v Harvard, Shleifer and Hay because Shleifer was the conduit for this from Chubais? Knew of it?
  72. Did others know?
  73. Did Robert Vishny or Jose Scheinkman help Shleifer?
  74. What did Daniel Rubinfeld know of this?
  75. Who knew what when as of the ASSA January 2005 meeting in Philadelphia?
  76. Were you there?
  77. Who talked to Daniel Rubinfeld?
  78. What did Rubinfeld know?
  79. You, Schmalansee and Rubinfeld were all at MIT in 1969 and were all involved in US v Microsoft on both sides.  Did you tell any lawyer of this?  The judge?
  80. Lawrence Lessig was special master on that case.  Did he learn of it then?  Later?
  81. Did Aaron Swartz learn of this from Lessig?  From the Internet?
  82. Was Aaron Swartz investigating this when he downloaded the JSTOR files?
  83. Did Swartz commit suicide to protect someone before trial?  Someone who was going to come forward?
  84. Peter Diamond was added to the Swartz committee after someone asked MIT to investigate these matters as part of the Swartz investigation in 2013.  Did you hear of any discussion of this?
  85. Abelson is a friend of Lessig.  Was Lessig being protected?
  86. Was this told to the FBI in the background check for Stanley Fischer?
  87. How much of this does Russia know?
  88. Who has Russia approached?
  89. How much do China, India, Pakistan, and Iran know about this?  Have they approached anyone.
  90. Olivier Blanchard did not know what Stanley Fischer’s thesis was on in the 2004/2005 interview linked above.  How is that possible?  Part of their book together was on the same subject. No one at MIT told Blanchard?
  91. Does this show Fischer did plagiarize Hakansson?
  92. Robert C. Merton states in his Nobel Prize autobiography that Hakansson and Hayne Leland were graduates students elsewhere.  Hakansson got his Ph.D. in 1966 and Leland in 1968. Merton’s paper was published in 1969.  So they were not grad students then.  Was this to cover up that Hakansson went to Yale and the working paper version of Hakansson’s IER paper went to MIT to the office Merton and Fischer shared together while Merton did the continuous time version of Fischer’s discrete time knock off of Hakansson?
  93. Neither Merton nor Fischer followed Samuelson’s 1969 paper as a template?
  94. In 2003, Samuelson wrote it was not plagiarism.  Did Karl Shell tell Samuelson that someone asked for an investigation of a related plagiarism case in 2002 to Elsevier?
  95. Should the DOJ Antitrust Division have approved the Elsevier Academic Press merger?
  96. Daniel Rubinfeld has written that Elsevier’s big bundle violates the antitrust laws.  Do you agree?
  97. Is the role of Elsevier in this and the role of econ Ph.D.’s and econ profs at DOJ Antitrust Division Economic Analysis Group the reason that Elsevier can violate the antitrust laws?  Others?  Do investment banks know this?  Does Goldman Sachs?
  98. Do they get regulatory benefits?
  99. Bernanke’s thesis at MIT under Fischer doesn’t cite Fischer’s thesis or papers or Hakansson but does cite Samuelson 1969.  Bernanke knew this?
  100. Did Bernanke bailout the banks because they knew this?
  101. Did the Fed help bailout LTCM in 1998 because of this?
  102. No one told the FBI all this time?
  103. Does Russia know all this?
  104. Is this why Putin feels so confident he can invade Crimea and get away with it?
  105. Did Obama know this when he hired Larry Summers?  Did anyone tell the FBI then?
  106. Did anyone tell the FBI this time about Stanley Fischer?
  107. Does Obama know it anyhow?
  108. Does Putin have this as leverage over Obama?
  109. What about China, India, Pakistan, and Iran?  Others?

The above are hypotheses and speculation.  Please restate as questions. All other disclaimers apply.

The Rise of Income Inequality and the Rise of the Jews.

September 9, 2010

Income inequality is U shaped in 20th century. It fell during immigration restriction and rose after it. See graph below:

http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/entry/2266026/

Timothy Noah


Over the next two weeks, I’ll try to answer that question by looking at all potential explanations—race, gender, the computer revolution, immigration, trade, government policies, the decline of labor, compensation policies on Wall Street and in executive suites, and education.

And he will claim none of them cause it?

==Steve Sailer at Vdare

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/091025_podhoretz.htm

After all, back in 1987, Jews made up 92 of the Forbes 400 richest people in America, according to Nathaniel Weyl’s 1989 book, The Geography of American Achievement. This month, however, after 22 years in which power at the federal level has been fairly evenly split between the two parties, Jacob Berkman, who covers Jewish philanthropists for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, estimated that in the newly released 2009 Forbes 400:

“At least 139 of the Forbes 400 are Jewish”

That’s an increase of about one-half over 22 years.

Hence, Jews, who comprise about 1/50th of the population, are 1/3rd or more of the Forbes 400. On a per capita basis, Jewish-Americans are roughly 25 times more likely than other Americans to be billionaires.

==

If we look at the percentage of non-Jewish Whites at Harvard it falls from
1965 to the present. Its now under 25 percent roughly. A similar figure applies to Stanford. We could regress income inequality against the percentage of non-Whites including Jews at Harvard or Stanford. Or we could use one over the percentage of non-Jewish Whites. Both of these went up during this period. This may be a regression not seen in economic journals. Wonder who edits them?

http://www.stanford.edu/about/facts/undergraduate.html

Ethnic Diversity
African American 10.5%
Asian American 19.8%
International 7.2%
Mexican American 7.9%
Native American 3.2%
Native Hawaiian 0.8%
Other Hispanic 6.7%
White 31.5%
Other 3.1%
Declined to State 9.5%

Subtract out 20 percent Jewish from White 31.5 and you get non Jewish white 11.5. However, the numbers come out, its 10 to 25 percent non-Jewish white. That is the Camp of the Saints being done to FSA’s by Jews.

http://www.onenation.org/1198/111698b.html

Some Minorities Are More Minor than Others

Ron K. Unz
Wall Street Journal
Monday, November 16, 1998.

“For example, Asians comprise between 2% and 3% of the U.S. population, but nearly 20% of Harvard undergraduates. Then too, between a quarter and a third of Harvard students identify themselves as Jewish, while Jews also represent just 2% to 3% of the overall population.”

“In fact, it seems likely that non-Jewish white Americans represent no more than a quarter of Harvard undergraduates, even though this group constitutes nearly 75% of the population at large, resulting in a degree of underrepresentation far more severe than that of blacks, Hispanics or any other minority groups.”

http://www.ocs.fas.harvard.edu/employers/factsheet.htm

Whites non Hispanic are 48 percent of Harvard undergraduates. Subtract the 30 percent Jewish and you have 18 percent non-Jewish whites.

http://reformjudaismmag.org/_kd/Items/actions.cfm?action=Show&item_id=1278&destination=ShowItem

30 percent of Harvard undergrads are Jewish leaving 18 percent as NJ whites.

Elite Jews have succeeded in ethnically cleansing non-Jewish whites who founded Harvard from Harvard. Elite Jews use their position to enforce immigration that genocides whites. These are combined with Department of Labor rules that give priority to hiring non-whites in every job linked to government contracts.

Internet Applicant Recordkeeping rule

http://www.dol.gov/esa/ofccp/regs/compliance/faqs/iappfaqs.htm

What is the purpose of the Internet Applicant final rule?

The Internet Applicant final rule, issued by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), addresses recordkeeping by Federal contractors and subcontractors about the Internet hiring process and the solicitation of race, gender, and ethnicity of “Internet Applicants.” The rule is the product of a lengthy deliberative process, including public input, to develop a definition of “Internet Applicant” applicable in the Internet age (added to 41 CFR 60-1.3). The recordkeeping requirements of the rule (amending 41 CFR 60-1.12) will provide meaningful data that OFCCP will use to enhance its enforcement of the nondiscrimination laws.

http://www.dol.gov/esa/ofccp/Presentation/Applicant%20Rule%20Presentation_files/frame.htm

http://www.dol.gov/esa/ofccp/regs/compliance/aa.htm

Operation of the Executive Order Program. The EEO Clause
Each contracting agency in the Executive Branch of government must include the equal opportunity clause in each of its nonexempt government contracts. The equal opportunity clause requires that the contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black, and Hispanic individuals are considered minorities for purposes of the Executive Order.

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/category/steve-sailer/jewish-influence/

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/09/08/129728016/income-more-unequal-in-u-s-than-in-parts-of-latin-america?ft=1&f=1001

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/category/income-inequality-graph/

Fertility is an inverse U

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://data.princeton.edu/eco572/uspctfr.png&imgrefurl=http://data.princeton.edu/eco572/heuser.html&usg=__gT-EVtEKKf6f9NBg__PDi6Oj6ko=&h=374&w=553&sz=15&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=j0nVBUVkdjZoHM:&tbnh=124&tbnw=183&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dfertility%2Bus%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26channel%3Ds%26biw%3D800%26bih%3D393%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=369&vpy=87&dur=403&hovh=124&hovw=183&tx=96&ty=88&ei=XdSITOSlEYWClAem5JS0Dg&oei=XdSITOSlEYWClAem5JS0Dg&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=6&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0

http://www.google.com/images?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=s&hl=en&q=fertility+us&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=800&bih=393

See Patrick Cleburne on Vdare

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2007/02/14/2239/

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/08/20/robert-novak-old-atlantic-lighthouse-votes-no/

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/category/latino-revolution/

http://en.wordpress.com/tag/immigration-substitution-effect/

Thus the rise of the Jews is linked to factors lowering the income of Whites. Jewish oligarchs push those factors, non-White immigration, Asians replacing Whites in tech jobs, know-how transfer to non-Whites, etc.

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/category/slicer-coalition/

https://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/category/paul-krugman/

Krugman wrings his hands over rising income inequality, but Princeton and MIT do all they can to increase it by race replacement of Whites in their institutions. Genocide of Whites by immigration has led to income inequality that favors wealth Jewish Oligarchs, Jewgarchs. This is Jewgarchy, rule by Jewish Oligarchs. That is what ruined Russia in the 1990’s after the fall of the Soviet Union. That was funded by Jewarchs Larry Summers (US Treasury) and Stanley Fischer (MIT).

Putin offered Stanley Fischer a job in Russia as a joke:

Stanley Fischer chaired Ben Bailout Bernanke’s Ph.D. thesis at MIT. Jewarch Bernanke bailed out Jewgarchs at Goldman Sachs. Jewarchy, rule by Jews, and Jewgarchy, Rule by Jewish Oligarchs, have been bad for Whites.

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2010/06/04/new-study-on-jewish-genes/

By Thomas H. Maugh II, Los Angeles Times

Jews of European descent living on opposite sides of the globe are more closely related to one another than they are to their fellow countrymen, according to the largest study ever conducted of what it means genetically to be Jewish. Ashkenazis, the primary group descended from European Jews, are all as closely related as fourth or fifth cousins would be, the study found.

http://www.vdare.com/hoste/100709_immigration_policy.htm

http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/SlezkineRev.pdf


This reminds me of Jews as an elite in the Soviet Union, where a nascent Jewish elite motivated by moral fervor and hatred unleashed by their exclusion under the Czar morphed easily into a corrupt, nepotistic elite that was hostile to the traditional people and culture of Russia. A report to the Soviet Central Committee reminds me of Kagan’s route to success: “They gather around themselves people of the same nationality, impose the habit of praising one another (while making others erroneously believe that they are indispensable), and force their protégés through to high posts” (see here, p. 78). Another report, from 1942, noted that elite cultural institutions “turned out to be filled by non-Russian people (mainly by Jews)” (see here , p. 51, ff). For example, of the ten top executives of the Bolshoi Theater—the most prestigious Soviet cultural institution—there were eight Jews and one Russian. Similar disproportions were reported in prestigious musical conservatories, the Soviet Academy of Science Institute of Literature, and among art and music reviewers in elite publications. Ethnic nepotism, not IQ, is the only way to explain these disproportions.

http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/SAIDchap2.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/04/28/magazine/inside-the-meritocracy-machine.html?pagewanted=7

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/01/the-meritocracy-and-jewish-kinship-networks.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/opinion/12brooks.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&ref=opinion&adxnnlx=1284037262-MNc9RRjWf2HhJl17PnyCYw

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/19/opinion/19douthat.html

The Roots of White Anxiety
By ROSS DOUTHAT
Published: July 18, 2010

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2010/07/ross-douthat-on-roots-of-white-anxiety.html

http://mangans.blogspot.com/2010/07/anti-white-racism-of-hostile-elite.html

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2005/06/jewish-intellectuals-endorse-kevin.html

http://theoccidentalobserver.net/tooblog/?p=2923

http://www.americanbuddhist.net/roots-white-anxiety

“Kevin MacDonald: Jewish overrepresentation at elite universities explained”

http://theoccidentalobserver.net/tooblog/?p=2923

One might simply suppose that this is due to higher Jewish IQ. However, on the basis of Richard Lynn’s estimates of Ashkenazi Jewish IQ and correcting for the greater numbers of European Whites, the ratio of non-Jewish Whites to Jews should be around 7 to 1 (IQ >130) or 4.5 to 1 (IQ > 145). Instead, the ratio of non-Jewish Whites to Jews is around 1 to 1 or less. (See here.)

So there must be some other reason besides IQ that Jews are such a large percentage of the population classified as White at elite universities.

Espenshade and Radford show that there is discrimination against poor Whites and against non-urban Whites—exactly the population groups that are least likely to be Jewish.

http://theoccidentalobserver.net/tooblog/?p=2923

“A comment on Paul Gottfried’s review of Cultural Insurrections”

Kevin MacDonald

April 18, 2009

==

The extent to which we live under Jewarchy (rule by Jews like Bernanke, Summers, Stanley Fischer, Norbert Schlei, etc. ) and Jewgarchy (Mayor Bloomberg, Schumer, Arlen Specter, ) and who manifest their dislike of us ( “comedians” attacking Sarah Palin over and over), we have to be free to talk about it and analyze it. This means in writing and build on the work of others, Steve Sailer, Kevin MacDonald, Vdare, Alternative Right, Occidental Dissent, Occidental Quarterly, etc.

For Whites in America, to an ever rising extent, Jews are our oppressors. Because of this we have the right to talk about it. Because of this we have the right to decide if we want separation from those who oppress us. This is the same as in Russia. Jewgarchs like Bloomberg openly side with Muslims against us. This is the same as Spain.

We have the right to separate from a separate nation, The Jewish People, who do not identify with us and who advocate policies reducing us to poverty and ultimately dispossession and extinction. Jews are related to each other more than any European population they live in.

Their close genetic kinship shows that Jews are not White and are a separate people, one that shows its antipathy and disdain with Whites. They show that in their constant attacks on Sarah Palin. They show that in their attacks on Vigil Goode. They funded his being defeated.

They show their antipathy to Whites as a separate people they disdain in their attacks on Whites in the debate on what has become their Ground Zero Mosque. To the Jewarchy, the Ground Zero Mosque is a symbol comparable to Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty of their dispossession of Founding Stock Americans and their rise to mastery in America. In fact, the Ground Zero Mosque now joins Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty as the Jewish Trinity of Symbols of the Dispossession of Founding Stock Americans in particular and Whites in general.

The Bailout was the action of an insider network. The bailout proved that financial services is not a competitive market but an insider network. The insider network spans Wall Street, academia, the Council of Economic Advisers, the Federal Reserve, US Treasury and the Antitrust Division of the DOJ. Econ profs circulate between these as well as IMF and World Bank and other stations such as major media.

This insider network is an antitrust violation. What we saw in the bailout was a massive antitrust violation. This is an insiders network not a competitive market. The Jewish ethno-network of Jewish mandarins and oligarchs, The Elite Jewish Nation, is the glue that binds this network together across academia, Wall Street and government.

The elite Jewish ethno-network staffs these nodes and their people circulate from node to node in their careers. Wall Street builds the nice buildings for econ departments and B-schools that house the econ profs who run the Antitrust Division, Federal Reserve, US Treasury, Council of Economic Advisers, and other spots as well. The Law and Economics movement cements in the law schools and the courts with this network.

%d bloggers like this: