(gilad.co.uk) -- by Gilad Atzmon --
...In America, academics and academic institutions are largely funded by business interests and industries, establishing a relationship that, to a large extent, significantly determines the curriculum. Needless to mention that such a situation is having some grave consequences on American scholarship -- In the long term, America has managed to shoot itself in the foot -- It has produced generations of scholars who lack the necessary means to think theoretically and critically, let alone bring about change. America’s young economists, for instance, are more than likely to be indoctrinated by the liberal ideologies that were planted initially by the likes of Milton Friedmann, Alan Greenspan, Larry Summers and Martin Feldstein. These four were adamant supporters of zero Governmental intervention and excessive deregulation. For more than a decade American academic institutions have been producing economists who excel in speculation and risky markets -- people who know how to make money out of money -- yet they know very little about production, productivity and manufacturing.
This fact alone may mean that America is farther than it hopes to be from recovery. It simply lacks the brain to bounce back into the world economy. America is gravely stuck in its service economy phase.
“Inside Job” ends by contending that -- despite the financial turmoil and those who are culpable for an emerging global disaster -- the underlying system has not changed. The clique that turned world finance into a “Global Ponzi scheme” remain largely untouched. The protagonists who impoverished hundreds of millions around the world, have been left with hundreds of millions in their pockets; and as if this is not enough, they are still running America’s financial world.
As much as the film is brilliantly made, it has some crucial blind spots: Almost every individual or figure linked to the colossal disaster disclosed in the film is either a Jew, or a goy who worked for a company that is recognised as ‘being Jewish’. And yet, the film (probably consciously) fails to address this highly sensitive issue.
I would not suggest that Jews, as a people, are collectively responsible for the economic crisis -- I have never accused Jews as a collective -- And yet, a few questions need to be raised here. How is it that so many amongst the culprits of the current global disaster are Jews? Are they Zionists? Do they form a class -- or are they just a bunch of individuals? Is such a severe lack of ethics (which they surely so profoundly performed) imbued within ‘Jewish secular culture’?
These questions are likely to be considered by historians of the future, and I do not see any reason not to elaborate on them now. In fact Jewish media outlets have admitted that the situation and its implications might well prove to have complex repercussions -- already in 2008, The Jewish chronicle was envisaging a tidal wave of anti Semitism. The ADL too, was concerned. In 2009 the Wall Street Journal also expressed concern about the rise of anti Jewish feelings.
The film obviously fails to address the topic, but this may as well be a very clever move, since such an omission leaves these questions to the viewer.
I am convinced that Ferguson wasn’t at all blind to the disproportionate representation of Jews within his cast. Though the word ‘Jews’ or Jewish symbols are avoided, Christianity is actually clearly featured in the film -- During the film, Ferguson discloses the excessive life style of his corrupted protagonists: more than once we meet a ‘fair escort girl’, who is there to tell us about the boys in Goldman Sachs’ and Lehman Brothers’ most ‘elementary needs’. Interestingly enough, on her well endowed breast, clearly visible, hangs a substantial crucifix.
In cinematic language, this symbolism is very telling. Also towards the end of the film the camera introduces us to the victims of the ‘financial shoa’. We are taken to a tent-city built for the impoverished Americans; those who lost everything they ever had while a bunch of corrupted bankers pocketed millions. In this island of poverty we meet a volunteer for a Catholic charity who is there to introduce hope.
Whether Ferguson intended to give this impression or not is unclear, but the symbolism is devastatingly obvious; the Christians here are either prostituting themselves, or just left to pay the bill.
There is more omission. Throughout the film there is not a single mention of the war in Iraq. Yet, it is an obvious fact that at the time Alan Greenspan, Goldman-Sachs, Lehman Bros, Larry Summers and Martin Feldstein were leading America and the world economy into a total disaster, America was fighting a war that was set to demolish one of the last enemies of the Jewish state. At the time that America was led to believe in its miraculous financial boom, some bankers were manufacturing false dreams.
These two occurrences go hand in hand. While America was implementing ‘the Wolfowitz doctrine’ and fighting a Zionist war, a cabal of corrupted bankers pocketed billions, creating an economy bubble that diverted the public attention from the war in Iraq...MORE...LINK
Chris Moore comments:
One component of the film that bothered me was how in repeated interviews, the filmmaker offered up Jewish Zionist Congressman Barney Frank as some sort of voice of responsibility and authority in evaluating what caused the housing meltdown, and whose advice could be relied upon to make the right corrections.
The truth is that Barney Frank himself played a starring role in the housing meltdown. As Jeff Jacoby reported about Frank back in 2008:
...his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing. Now that the bubble has burst and the "systemic risk" is apparent to all, Frank blithely declares: "The private sector got us into this mess." Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the political class that derailed this train. If Frank is looking for a culprit to blame, he can find one suspect in the nearest mirror.And Wikipedia notes:
In 2003, while the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, Frank opposed a Bush administration proposal, in response to accounting scandals, for transferring oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from Congress and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to a new agency that would be created within the Treasury Department. The proposal, supported by the head of Fannie Mae, reflected the administration's belief that Congress "neither has the tools, nor the stature" for adequate oversight. Frank stated, "These two entities ...are not facing any kind of financial crisis ... The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." In 2003, Frank also stated what has been called his "famous dice roll": "I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness [in the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] that we have in the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidised housing." Frank was criticized by conservative organizations for campaign contributions totaling $42,350 between 1989 and 2008. Bill Sammon, the Washington managing editor for Fox News, claimed the donations from Fannie and Freddie influenced his support of their lending programs, and said that Frank did not play a strong enough role in reforming the institutions in the years leading up to the Economic crisis of 2008.Additionally, Frank was involved in a sexual relationship with a Fannie Mae executive for years:
Prominent Democrats ran Fannie Mae, the same government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) that donated campaign cash to top Democrats. And one of Fannie Mae’s main defenders in the House – Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., a recipient of more than $40,000 in campaign donations from Fannie since 1989 – was once romantically involved with a Fannie Mae executive... The July 3, 1998, Reliable Source column in The Washington Post reported Frank, who is openly gay, had a relationship with Herb Moses, an executive for the now-government controlled Fannie Mae. The column revealed the two had split up at the time but also said Frank was referring to Moses as his “spouse.” Another Washington Post report said Frank called Moses his “lover” and that the two were “still friends” after the breakup.The game these Jewish Zionists seem to be playing is two-fold: use corrupt government insiders like Frank (and guys like Larry Summers, Robert Rubin, and Alan Greenspan) to rig the rules and "oversight" in favor of criminal Jewish Zionist Wall Street networks who consequently rip off the country, which leads to economic disasters; and when the sh*t finally hits the fan, these same Jewish Zionist government "officials" then demand more power for themselves as the "remedy" to the problem.
Net effect: the self-serving Jewish Zionist networks get fabulously wealthy by robbing average Americans blind, and then Jewish Zionist network politicians grab even more power for themselves with the Big Government "solution" -- power that they will no doubt sooner or later use to fleece average Americans yet again.
Corrupt Jewish Zionist Congressman Barney Frank -- dishonestly portrayed as a voice of wisdom in Academy Award winning Best Documentary Film Inside Job
Update 3/29: Thinking back about the film a little more, another aspect that bothered be was how the filmmakers portrayed another Jewish Zionist, Senator Carl Levin, as a fiery voice of retribution against injustice, taking the corrupt bankers to task for their abuses.
In one clip, Levin repeatedly swears up a firestorm at the sleazy Goldman Sachs bankers who are testifying before a Senate committee on the financial crisis. This was pure grandstanding on Levin's part, all done for the media, but the filmmakers made it look like Levin was some kind of heroic voice speaking out for the people.
Here was the original hearing from which the clip in the movie was taken, as described by Huffington Post:
Chairman Carl Levin, to the delight of the crowd at the hearing of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, continually repeated a descriptive, colorful word typically left out of family newspapers that was used by a top Goldman executive to describe a deal it made for clients. The security, named Timberwolf I, a collateralized debt obligation of other CDOs that were based not on actual home mortgage bonds but instead on those bonds' movements, was referenced in a June 22, 2007, email from one Goldman senior executive, Tom Montag, to another, Dan Sparks. Sparks is testifying today before Levin's panel. In his email, Montag remarked of the Timberwolf I deal, "[B]oy, that timeberwof [sic] was one shitty deal." Levin used the word "shitty" 12 times -- eliciting multiple rounds of quiet giggles -- in questioning Sparks, the former head of Goldman's mortgage department, about why Montag would describe it as "shitty," how long they had known it was "shitty," and whether they knew the deal was "shitty" when they peddled it to clients.But where was Democrat Levin when both the Clinton and Obama administrations were recycling sleazy Goldman Sachs banksters in and out of the "public service" racket in order to enable the kinds of schemes that he was taking the Goldman Sachs employees to task for once the cameras started rolling?
Jewish banksters like Goldman Sachs have massive influence in the Democrat Party, which not coincidentally is the same party in which nearly all of the hugely disproportionate number of Jewish Zionist politicians reside.
Why isn't Levin holding hearings on the influence of Wall Street banksters over both parties, who are apparently collaborating to maintain a political duopoly in America, and who have jointly agreed they will split the loot they are stealing from the American people by way of public-private graft?
The fact that the filmmakers held up two corrupt Jewish Democrats as heroes in the film suggests that they were sensitive to the Jewish question, aware of the extent to which Jewry dominates Hollywood, and more interested in angling for box office income and Academy Awards than they were about getting to any kind of real truth about the foremost forces of government and Wall Street corruption in America, which not coincidentally largely revolve around ideological Zionism and Jewish Zionist rackets.
Update #2, 3/29: While reading back through Wikipedia's notes on Barney Frank and the housing bubble that eventually burst, another characteristic of the Zionist modus operandi occurred to me: they routinely couch their self-serving rackets in humanitarian term and rhetorical hyperbole about helping others.
Frank, speaking of quasi-government, public-private entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, quoted prior to the housing collapse, said: "These two entities ...are not facing any kind of financial crisis ... The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
So Frank was able to fend off regulation and reform by claiming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were engaged in the humanitarian enterprise of pursuing affordable housing for the poor. Yet, when the bubble popped, millions of poor lost their down payments, any money they had put into their homes for improvements, and any equity they had attained in their homes prior to the collapse. Many of these were consequently impoverished.
Frank and his fellow collaborators in Congress and in the bankster rackets weren't helping the poor, they were enriching themselves under the guise of helping the poor through what amounted to massive, government-engineered and laundered wealth transfer; in fact, they were robbing the poor and the working class, as well as the middle class, which got stuck with the bankster bailout bill and itself collectively lost hundreds of billions in home equity which it may never fully recover.
This reminds me of how Jewish neocons and neoliberals sold the Iraq war in part as a "humanitarian" effort to liberate women and moderates from tyrannical Islamic rule, and to spread democracy and liberal values across the Middle East, which turned out to be yet another Jewish-orchestrated fraud.
These Zionists are fraudelent, poisonous and counterfeit on every level.