
by Jonas E. Alexis
I donât usually agree with David Brooks of the New York Times, but his recent piece on Ted Cruz is quite revealing. He said:
âIn 1997, Michael Wayne Haley was arrested after stealing a calculator from Walmart. This was a crime that merited a maximum two-year prison term. But prosecutors incorrectly applied a habitual offender law. Neither the judge nor the defense lawyer caught the error and Haley was sentenced to 16 years.
âEventually, the mistake came to light and Haley tried to fix it. Ted Cruz was the solicitor general of Texas at the time. Instead of just letting Haley go for time served, Cruz took the case to the Supreme Court to keep Haley in prison for the full 16 yearsâŠ
âThe case reveals something interesting about Cruzâs character. Ted Cruz is now running strongly among evangelical voters, especially in Iowa. But in his career and public presentation, Cruz is a stranger to most of what would generally be considered the Christian virtues: humility, mercy, compassion, and grace.
“Cruzâs behavior in the Haley case is almost the dictionary definition of pharisaism: an overzealous application of the letter of the law in a way that violates the spirit of the law, as well as fairness and mercy.â[1]
Pay close attention here. According to Cruzâs reasoning, if a person steals a calculator, he has to spend at least 16 years in prison.
But what if a person steals virtually the entire U.S. economy? What if a person deliberately cheats his clients in order to cash in multiplied millions of dollars? If we follow Cruzâs geometric progression logically here, that person ought to spend the rest of his natural life behind bars. Has Cruz been consistent in following that logic to its logical conclusion?
The answer is no. Let us take a look at Goldman Sachs.
Greg Smith, a Goldman Sachs executive director and head of the firmâs United States equity derivatives business in Europe, resigned from the company for the very reason that the organization has literally cheated the system.
Smith, who is Jewish, wrote in the New York Times that after working for 12 years in the company, âthe environment now is as toxic and destructive as I have ever seen it.â[2] Smith sounded like Karl Marx and Heinrich Heine when he continued to say:
âTo put the problem in the simplest terms, the interests of the client continue to be sidelined in the way the firm operates and thinks about making moneyâŠ.Today, if you make enough money for the firm (and are not currently an ax murderer) you will be promoted into a position of influence.
âWhat are three quick ways to become a leader? a) Execute on the firmâs âaxes,â which is Goldman-speak for persuading your clients to invest in the stocks or other products that we are trying to get rid of because they are not seen as having a lot of potential profit. b) âHunt Elephants.â In English: get your clients â some of whom are sophisticated, and some of whom arenât â to trade whatever will bring the biggest profit to Goldman. Call me old-fashioned, but I donât like selling my clients a product that is wrong for them. c) Find yourself sitting in a seat where your job is to trade any illiquid, opaque product with a three-letter acronym.
âToday, many of these leaders display a Goldman Sachs culture quotient of exactly zero percent. I attend derivatives sales meetings where not one single minute is spent asking questions about how we can help clients. Itâs purely about how we can make the most possible money off of them. If you were an alien from Mars and sat in on one of these meetings, you would believe that a clientâs success or progress was not part of the thought process at all.
âIt makes me ill how callously people talk about ripping their clients off. Over the last 12 months, I have seen five different managing directors refer to their own clients as âmuppets,â sometimes over internal e-mailâŠ.
âThese days, the most common question I get from junior analysts about derivatives is, âHow much money did we make off the client?â It bothers me every time I hear it, because it is a clear reflection of what they are observing from their leaders about the way they should behave.â[3]
Smithâs article was published in 2012. But two years earlier, journalist Matt Taibi wrote in Rolling Stone:
âThe first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it’s everywhere. The world’s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.
âIn fact, the history of the recent financial crisis, which doubles as a history of the rapid decline and fall of the suddenly swindled dry American empire, reads like a Who’s Who of Goldman Sachs graduates.â[4]
Of course, saying things like that does not make people like Joe Weisenthal of Business Insider comfortable.[5]
Jack Blum, a Jewish attorney and former Senate investigator âwho headed a major bribery investigation against Lockheed in the 1970s that led to the passage of the Foreign Corrupt Practice Act,â declared that companies like Goldman Sachs âviolated every fu$king law in the book.â[6]
Writing in the Huffington Post in 2010, Blum declared,
âOver forty years ago, working for the Senate Antitrust Subcommittee, I investigated mortgage fraud in several large American cities including New York and Boston.
âThe fraud involved falsified appraisals, unqualified buyers, âflippingâ of properties, and in some cases purchases by non-existent buyers. One of the institutions involved in the New York situation was Citibankâa bank that provided warehouse loans to the mortgage companies involved in the fraud.â
âNeedless to say, the same bank and some of the same people have been involved in each of the succeeding cycles of fraud. And, each time the bank has had a squad of lobbyists and âindependent expertsâ selling the idea that continued unregulated mortgage lending was a good idea.â[7]
As William D. Cohan himself argues throughout his book Money and Power: How Goldman Sachs Came to Rule the World, these illegal activities and sophisticated ways of controlling the economy and multiplying millions of naive people have been going on since the 1940s,[8] and no one has ever gone to jail.
So, the million-dollar question is simply this: will Cruz level charges against Goldman Sachs? The answer is obviously no. Granted, Cruz has said that
âGoldman is one of the biggest banks on Wall Street, and my criticism of Washington is they engage in crony capitalism. They give favors to Wall Street and Big Business, and thatâs why Iâve been an outspoken opponent of crony capitalism, taking on leaders in both parties.â[9]
But those are just words with nice flavor and nothing more. Cruz has never taken serious action against the company.
Why?
First of all, Cruzâs wife, Heidi, is a VP at Goldman Sachs,[10] which is to say that Goldman Sachs has adopted a Goyim family in their ranks. Heidi, who âbuilt an impressive career on Wall Street (which has already paid dividends for her husband; he received $65,000 from Goldman Sachs employees and the company PAC when he ran for Senate),â has also âserved on the National Security Council during George W. Bushâs presidency.â[11] Bloomberg tells us:
âTed Cruz, kicking off his 2016 campaign for the U.S. presidency, extolled his wifeâs entrepreneurial spirit by telling of her grade-school bakery business. He didnât mention the 10-year career at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. she just put on holdâŠ.
âCruz’s aides said he plans to emphasize the role powerful women played in shaping his life as he runs for president. That may be complicated by his wifeâs profession as an adviser to wealthy families at a firm that finished last among the 100 most-visible U.S. companies in Harris Pollâs most recent annual ranking of corporate reputations.â[12]
Second, and as the Jewish magazine Tablet points out, Cruz
âhas already gone to great lengths to court Jews, making it clear that he wants their approval, acceptance, and financial support. He turned up, for example, at Commentary magazineâs annual dinner in September 2013, the only potential 2016 candidate to do so. The senator also attended New York Cityâs Israel Day concert and parade in June â and then raised $100,000 at Abigailâs, a kosher restaurant in Manhattan.
âHe gave an address last month to the Zionist Organization of America, preceded by a meeting with New York Daily News owner Mort Zuckerman and followed by meetings with Sheldon Adelson and the hedge-fund manager Michael Steinhardt, former chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council. Steinhardt hosted Cruz in his office around a table with some of the Jewish communityâs most influential political donors.â[13]
Politico declares that âTed Cruz loves Orthodox Jews â and they love him back.â[14] Orthodox Jews love Cruz because they tell him what to do and say. Cruz, in turn, ratifies their essentially Talmudic appetite and impulse, which always breed chaos and confusion in the political and intellectual landscape.
Put simply, Cruz cannot see things the way they really are because he has sold his soul for money and fame. He is a sort of Alex Jones turned upside down.[15] Both individuals have deliberately internalized the commands of their oppressors.
And both individuals have refused to address the central issues in politics and the culture wars. They use words such as âLeftâ âRightâ âRepublicanâ or âDemocratsâ to mask their true identity. In that sense, they have betrayed the American people and are therefore wolves in sheepâs clothing. Was that expected from both individuals?
Yes.
Cruz in particular has been a disciple of Milton Friedman since high school.[16] Friedman, as you recall, is the Jewish economist from the University of Chicago who basically ratified the immoral appetite of the oligarchs in the twentieth century with his book Capitalism and Freedom.[17]
Friedman also had an enormously powerful influence on people like Thomas Sowell. Sowell himself has been âthe Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute, Stanford Universityâ since 1980.
As a sophisticated economist (but not sophisticated enough to understand that usury, under âCapitalism,â always ends up destroying economic progress because it always works to the interest of the oligarchs and immoralists like Goldman Sachs), Sowell has expanded on the thesis of his mentor in numerous texts such as Basic Economics.
Now youâve got little inexperienced mush-heads like Paul Joseph Watson going on YouTube and telling thousands of naĂŻve people that if you are against Capitalism, then you are either a Communist or Socialist by indirection. If you are against Capitalism, Watson says, then things like âTwitter, the iPhone, and the Internetâ would have been impossible.
What kind of planet has this man been living on? Has he done any historical research on the Middle Ages at all?[18] Doesnât he know that you cannot have an economic and prosperous life in society without morality and practical reason? Doesnât he know that usury, by its very nature, excludes morality in economic business?
Doesnât Watson know that the Jesuits in South America showed that you can have a prosperous economy without Socialism Capitalism Communism or Marxism?[19] Doesnât he know that Capitalism rips the masses off their labor? Here is Watson at his best:
âHereâs the truth about Capitalism: itâs the single greatest force in history to alleviate suffering, bring billions of people out of poverty, and create healthier, more prosperous societies, and higher living standards for all.â
Perhaps E. Michael Jones needs to graciously send Watson a copy of his 1400-page study Barren Metal: A History of Capitalism as the Conflict Between Labor and Usury.
Watson ends up brainwashing his fans by implicitly assuming that the conflict is between âCapitalismâ and âSocialismâ or âCommunism.â But the conflict, as Jones argues throughout his work, is really between labor and usury.
Watson defines Capitalism as âthe free exchange of goods and services.â Heâs got to be kidding. There never was a free exchange of goods and services before Capitalism or Socialism Communism.
To beat Socialism over the head, Watson approvingly cites Winston Churchill, the man who sold his soul to the Dreadful Few and who literally slaughtered millions of innocent Germans to death.
It is pretty obvious that Watson does not want to crack up a serious history book to know what actually happened to the precious Germans after World War I and World War II. And by summoning Churchill to the discussion, Watson again proves that Capitalism always works to the interest of the powers that be. Churchill literally liquidated those German civilians and got great financial accolades for doing so.
Now you understand why Watson is willingly ignorant of the forces that post beneath the refugee crisis in Germany and elsewhere. Watson can produce all kinds of dubious videos citing âMuslimsâ and saying that Germans are ââ disgusting,â but Paul Joseph Watson will never talk about Daniel Pipes, the man who actually provides the political ideology which is now sucking the blood of both Germans and the so-called refugees in the region.
Andrew Carney, professor of medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago, has this to say about Big Pharma:
âHealthcare has been shaped to be a corporate product about which the patient and physician have little choice. The current system enriches corporations, exploits physicians as employees, and creates many alternate care providers. War is being waged not only against the doctor but also against the Christian. Corporate healthcare does not permit charity or reduced fees for anyone. So the physician is only permitted to be charitable outside the United States.â[20]
One can say pretty much the same thing about what is going on in Europe at this present moment. The people of Europe and the Muslim community virtually have little choice. They have been caught in an ideological crossfire.
But instead of exposing the real culprits, Watson, Alex Jones, and others decide to target the people who find themselves in the crossfire. Instead of empowering his listeners with serious information, Jones brings in Stefan Molyneux, who starts talking about the history of Islam but does not have the sophistication or vocabulary to start talking about the real culprits behind the current crisis.
Jones, as always, blames the crisis on âthe Socialist Left,â who allowed âthe absolute scumâ to come to Germany. Molyneux responds by saying the “Left” desired âto take over the world, to destroy Capitalism, to destroy the free market, to destroy limited constitutional republics.â To take over the world? Should we accuse Molyneux of a conspiracy theory here? Where is Alex Jones when you need him?
One simply does not know whether to laugh or to cry. Do Jones and Molyneux mean to tell us that Daniel Pipes is a âSocialist Leftâ? Is Rabbi Baruch Efrati a âSocialist Leftâ?[21] Is Barbara Spectre a âSocialist Leftâ? Why arenât Jones and Molyneux including those variables in their ideological equations? Jones declares that
âThe Socialists and Communists and social engineers hate the West so much because it stood in their way of total control that they would join with radical Islam which would slit their throat in a second.â
Who is slitting throat in Syria at this present moment? If it is not Daniel Pipes and the whole Neoconservative movement, then I quit.
Citations
- [1] David Brooks, âThe Brutalism of Ted Cruz,â NY Times, January 12, 2016.
- [2] Greg Smith, âWhy I Left Goldman Sachs,â NY Times, March 14, 2012.
- [3] Ibid.
- [4] Matt Taibi, âThe Great American Bubble Machine,â Rolling Stone, April 5, 2010; see also âThe People vs. Goldman Sachs,â Rolling Stone, March 11, 2011.
- [5] Joe Weisenthal, âMatt Taibbi’s Goldman Sachs Story Is A Joke,â Business Insider, July 13, 2009.
- [6] Matt Taibbi, âGangster Bankers: Too Big to Jail,â Rolling Stone, February 14, 2013.
- [7] Jack Blumb, âShadow Elite: Are They Responsible For The Subprime Mortgage Crisis?,â Huffington Post, March 18, 2010.
- [8] William D. Cohan, Money and Power: How Goldman Sachs Came to Rule the World (New York: Anchor Books, 2011).
- [9] Nick Gass, âCruz rails against ‘crony capitalism,’ praises wife’s Goldman Sachs career,â Politico, March 25, 2015.
- [10] Martha T. Moore, âWho is Heidi Cruz?,â USA Today, March 24, 2015; Zaid Jilani, âWhy Did Ted Cruz Refuse to Disclose How Much His Wifeâa VP at Goldman SachsâMakes?,â Alternet.org, March 23, 2015.
- [11] Joel Gehrke, âTed Cruzâs Not-So-Secret Weapon: His Wife,â National Review, March 27, 2015.
- [12] Michael J. Moore and Margaret Talev, âTed Cruz Omits Goldman Sachs From Description of Bread-Baking Wife,â Bloomberg, March 24, 2015.
- [13] Stephanie Butnick, âTed Cruz Woos the Jews,â Tablet Magazine, December 15, 2014.
- [14] Katie Glueck, âCruz Woos Orthodox Jews,â Politico, April 16, 2015.
- [15] Perhaps this is one reason Alex Jones has devoted dozens of articles obviously praising his idols.
- [16] Ryan Lizza, âThe Party Next Time,â New Yorker, November 19, 2012.
- [17] For an analysis of this book, see Jones, Barren Metal.
- [18] For historical studies on similar issues, see J. L. Helbron, The Sun in the Church: Cathedrals as Solar Observatories (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999); Richard C. Dales, The Intellectual Life of Western Europe in the Middle Ages (Washington: University Press of America, 1980); Christopher Dawson, Religion and the Rise of Western Culture (New York: Image Books, 1991); Raymond De Roover, Business, Banking, and Economic Thought in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974); Samuel Y. Edgerton, The Heritage of Giottoâs Geometry: Art and Science on the Eve of the Scientific Revolution (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991); Edward Grant, The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages: Their Religious, Institutional, and Intellectual Contexts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996); Barbara Harvey, The Rise of Universities (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1957); David C. Lindberg, The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, Prehistory to A.D. 1450 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992).
- [19] See Jones, Barren Metal, chapter 52.
- [20] Quoted in E. Michael Jones, âThe Zombie State and Its Enablers,â Culture Wars, January 2016.
- [21] Kobi Nahshoni, â’Islamization of Europe a good thing,ââ Y-Net News, November 11, 2012.

Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the book, Kevin MacDonald’s Metaphysical Failure: A Philosophical, Historical, and Moral Critique of Evolutionary Psychology, Sociobiology, and Identity Politics. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.
ATTENTION READERS
We See The World From All Sides and Want YOU To Be Fully InformedIn fact, intentional disinformation is a disgraceful scourge in media today. So to assuage any possible errant incorrect information posted herein, we strongly encourage you to seek corroboration from other non-VT sources before forming an educated opinion.
About VT - Policies & Disclosures - Comment Policy
Comments are closed.