I don’t usually agree with David Brooks of the New York Times, but his recent piece on Ted Cruz is quite revealing. He said:

“In 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.

“Eventually, the mistake came to light and Haley tried to fix it. Ted Cruz was 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 years…

“The case reveals something interesting about Cruz’s 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.

“Cruz’s 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.”[1]

Pay close attention here. According to Cruz’s 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 Cruz’s geometric progression logically here, that person ought to spend the rest of his natural lives 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 firm’s United States equity derivatives business in Europe, resigned 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, “the environment now is as toxic and destructive as I have ever seen it.”[2] Smith sounded like Karl Marx and Heinrich Heine when he continued to say:

“To 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 money….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.

“What are three quick ways to become a leader? a) Execute on the firm’s ‘axes,’ 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) ‘Hunt Elephants.’ In English: get your clients — some of whom are sophisticated, and some of whom aren’t — to trade whatever will bring the biggest profit to Goldman. Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t 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.

“Today, 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. It’s 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 client’s success or progress was not part of the thought process at all.

“It 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 ‘muppets,’ sometimes over internal e-mail….

“These days, the most common question I get from junior analysts about derivatives is, ‘How much money did we make off the client?’ 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.”[3]

Smith’s article was published in 2012. But two years earlier, journalist Matt Taibi wrote in the Rolling Stone:

“The 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.

“In 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.”[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 “who headed a major bribery investigation against Lockheed in the 1970s that led to the passage of the Foreign Corrupt Practice Act,” declared that companies like Goldman Sachs “violated every fu$king law in the book.”[6]

Writing in the Huffington Post in 2010, Blum declared,

“Over forty years ago, working for the Senate Antitrust Subcommittee, I investigated mortgage fraud in several large American cities including New York and Boston.

“The fraud involved falsified appraisals, unqualified buyers, ‘flipping’ of properties, and in some cases purchases by non-existent buyers. One of the institutions involved in the New York situation was Citibank–a bank that provided warehouse loans to the mortgage companies involved in the fraud.”

“Needless 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 ‘independent experts’ selling the idea that continued unregulated mortgage lending was a good idea.”[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 multiplied 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

“Goldman is one of the biggest banks on Wall Street, and my criticism with Washington is they engage in crony capitalism. They give favors to Wall Street and Big Business, and that’s why I’ve been an outspoken opponent of crony capitalism, taking on leaders in both parties.”[9]

But those are just words with nice flavor and nothing more. Cruz has never taken serious actions against the company.

Why?

First of all, Cruz’s 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 “built 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),” has also “served on the National Security Council during George W. Bush’s presidency.”[11] Bloomberg tells us:

“Ted Cruz, kicking off his 2016 campaign for the U.S. presidency, extolled his wife’s entrepreneurial spirit by telling of her grade-school bakery business. He didn’t mention the 10-year career at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. she just put on hold….

“Cruz 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 wife’s profession as an adviser to wealthy families at a firm that finished last among the 100 most-visible U.S. companies in Harris Poll’s most recent annual ranking of corporate reputations.”[12]

Second, and as the Jewish magazine Tablet points out, Cruz

“has 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 magazine’s annual dinner in September 2013, the only potential 2016 candidate to do so. The senator also attended New York City’s Israel Day concert and parade in June — and then raised $100,000 at Abigail’s, a kosher restaurant in Manhattan.

“He 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 community’s most influential political donors.”[13]

Politico declares that “Ted Cruz loves Orthodox Jews — and they love him back.”[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 “Left” or “Right” or “Republican” or “Democrats” to mask their true identity. In that sense, they have betrayed the American people and are therefore wolves in sheep’s 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 “the Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute, Stanford University” since 1980.

As a sophisticated economist (but not sophisticated enough to understand that usury, under “Capitalism,” 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 you’ve got little inexperienced mush-heads like Paul Joseph Watson going on YouTube and telling thousands of naïve 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 “Twitter, the iPhone, and the Internet” would have been impossible.

What kind of planet has this man been living in? Has he done any historical research on the Middle Ages at all?[18] Doesn’t he know that you cannot have an economic and prosperous life in society without morality and practical reason? Doesn’t he know that usury, by its very nature, excludes morality in economic business?

Doesn’t Watson know that the Jesuits in South America showed that you can have a prosperous economy without Socialism or Capitalism or Communism or Marxism?[19] Doesn’t he know that Capitalism rips the masses off their labor? Here is Watson at his best:

“Here’s the truth about Capitalism: it’s 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 standard for all.”

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 “Capitalism” and “Socialism” or “Communism.” But the conflict, as Jones argues throughout his work, is really between labor and usury.

Watson defines Capitalism as “the free exchange of goods and service.” He’s got to be kidding. There never was free exchange of goods and service before Capitalism or Socialism or 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 “Muslims” and saying that Germans are ‘”disgusting,” 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:

“Healthcare has been shaped to be a corporate product about which the patient and physician have little choice. The current system enriches the 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.”[20]

One can say pretty much the same thing about what is going 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 “the Socialist Left,” who allowed “the absolute scum” to come to Germany. Molyneux responds by saying the “Left” desired “to take over the world, to destroy Capitalism, to destroy free market, to destroy limited constitutional republics.” To take over the world? Should we accuse Molyneux of 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 “Socialist Left”? Is Rabbi Baruch Efrati a “Socialist Left”?[21] Is Barbara Spectre a “Socialist Left”? Why aren’t Jones and Molyneux including those variables in their ideological equations? Jones declares that

“The 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.”

Who is slitting throat in Syria at this present moment? If it is not Daniel Pipes and the whole Neoconservative movement, then I quit.

[1] David Brooks, “The Brutalism of Ted Cruz,” NY Times, January 12, 2016.

[2] Greg Smith, “Why I Left Goldman Sachs,” NY Times, March 14, 2012.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Matt Taibi, “The Great American Bubble Machine,” Rolling Stone, April 5, 2010; see also “The People vs. Goldman Sachs,” Rolling Stone, March 11, 2011.

[5] Joe Weisenthal, “Matt Taibbi’s Goldman Sachs Story Is A Joke,” Business Insider, July 13, 2009.

[6] Matt Taibbi, “Gangster Bankers: Too Big to Jail,” Rolling Stone, February 14, 2013.

[7] Jack Blumb, “Shadow Elite: Are They Responsible For The Subprime Mortgage Crisis?,” 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, “Cruz rails against ‘crony capitalism,’ praises wife’s Goldman Sachs career,” Politico, March 25, 2015.

[10] Martha T. Moore, “Who is Heidi Cruz?,” USA Today, March 24, 2015; Zaid Jilani, “Why Did Ted Cruz Refuse to Disclose How Much His Wife—a VP at Goldman Sachs—Makes?,” Alternet.org, March 23, 2015.

[11] Joel Gehrke, “Ted Cruz’s Not-So-Secret Weapon: His Wife,” National Review, March 27, 2015.

[12] Michael J. Moore and Margaret Talev, “Ted Cruz Omits Goldman Sachs From Description of Bread-Baking Wife,” Bloomberg, March 24, 2015.

[13] Stephanie Butnick, “Ted Cruz Woos the Jews,” Tablet Magazine, December 15, 2014.

[14] Katie Glueck, “Cruz Woos Orthodox Jews,” Politico, April 16, 2015.

[15] Perhaps this is one reason Alex Jones has devoted dozens of articles obviously praising his idols.

[16] Ryan Lizza, “The Party Next Time,” 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 Giotto’s 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, “The Zombie State and Its Enablers,” Culture Wars, January 2016.

[21] Kobi Nahshoni, “’Islamization of Europe a good thing,’” Y-Net News, November 11, 2012.

Biography

Biography Jonas E. Alexis Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, history of Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the new book Zionism vs. the West: How Talmudic Ideology is Undermining Western Culture. He is currently working on a book tentatively titled, Kevin MacDonald’s Abject Failure: A Philosophical and Moral Critique of Evolutionary Psychology, Sociobiology, and White Identity. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.