Vulture Fund ex Wiki
A vulture fund is a hedge fund, private equity fund or distressed debt fund, that invests in debt considered to be very weak or in default, known as distressed securities.[1] Investors in the fund profit by buying debt at a discounted price on a secondary market and then using numerous methods to gain a larger amount than the purchasing price. Debtors include companies, countries, and individuals.Vulture funds have had success in bringing attachment and recovery actions against sovereign debtor governments, usually settling with them before realizing the attachments in forced sales. Settlements typically are made at a discount in hard or local currency or in the form of new debt issuance. In one instance involving Peru, such a seizure threatened payments to other creditors of the sovereign obliger.[2][3]
History
Sovereign debt collection was rare until the 1950s when sovereign immunity of government issuers started to become restricted.[4] This trend developed from the long history of sovereign defaulting on commercial creditors with impunity. Accordingly, sovereign debt collection actions began in the 1950s. One example was the freezing of Brazil's gold reserves held by the Federal Reserve.[5]Investment in sovereign debt with the intent to recover was also restricted due to the laws of champerty and maintenance and by the fact that most sovereign debt was syndicated. Under the Doctrines of Champerty, it was illegal in England and the United States to purchase a debt with the sole intent of litigating it.[6] The distinction was made that if the debt was purchased to effect a recovery or facilitate investment, the doctrine was not a bar. Most jurisdictions have now eliminated the doctrine as archaic.
Similarly, sovereign debt owed to commercial creditors in the late 1980s was principally held by bank syndicates. This was the result of the petrodollar crisis of the 1970s when oil earnings were recycled into bank loans. The syndication of debt among banks made recovery impractical, as a fund intending to litigate had to buy out the entire syndicate of holders or risk having the proceeds of litigation attached pursuant to sharing clauses in the loan agreements.
As the 1980s progressed, debt rescheduling efforts in Latin America created many new and easily traded instruments such as Brady bonds that brought new players into the market, including banks and hedge funds. The original creditors then wrote down their positions and sold the debt into the secondary market, which is a market consisting of banks and investment funds focused on buying at discounts to achieve above market returns on their investment.
In this process, much debt was repurchased and converted into local currency by the sovereign country issuers in official debt conversion programs designed to attract investment, and in severely indebted countries through World Bank funded buy-backs. The result is that the old syndicates were broken up and many unreconstructed syndicate "tails" were available for purchase at discounts exceeding 80% of the principal face value. That pricing encouraged funds to invest in recovery actions, which would not otherwise make financial sense due to their length and cost.
Corporation law and theory of finance
Businesses that need more capital than their founders can raise by personal contacts are enabled by this legal method of attracting investors to buy a portion of the business. Owners would invest capital and obtain common stock or equity in exchange for invested cash or other property like machines, factories, warehouses, patents or other interests. Then the owners would raise additional capital by borrowing from lenders in capital markets by selling bonds. In corporation law, the owners of these bonds come first in line for repayment so that if there is not sufficient funds to repay the bondholders, the stockholders get wiped out. The bondholders step into the shoes of the former shareholders. The shareholders own nothing because they, the owners, could not fully repay all the contractual promises, or loans. So like a bank (the mortgagee) that has lent money to a home buyer (the mortgagor) takes possession of the security (the home) when mortgage payments are not made (i.e. foreclosure), the bondholders of a corporation take possession of the business from the former owners (the shareholders) when the corporation falls into bankruptcy. Thus, when shareholders cannot repay bondholders, in principle, bondholders become the new shareholders. In practice, however, it is more complicated.[7][8]In the financial markets, the bonds of troubled public companies trade in a manner similar to common stock of solvent companies.
Viewpoints
Term "vulture fund"
The term "vulture fund" is a metaphor which is used to compare these particular hedge funds to the behaviour of vulture birds “preying” on debtors in financial distress by purchasing the now-cheap credit on a secondary market to make a large monetary gain, in many cases leaving the debtor in a worse state. The term is often used to criticize the fund for strategically profiting off of debtors that are in financial distress, and thus is frequently considered derogatory.[9][10][11] However financiers dealing with vulture funds argue that "their lawsuits force accountability for national borrowing, without which credit markets would shrivel, and that their pursuit of unpaid commercial debt uncovers public corruption."[12] A related term is "vulture investing", where certain stocks in near bankrupt companies are purchased upon anticipation of asset divestiture or successful reorganization.[13]The term has gained wide acceptance from governments, newspapers, academics and international organizations such as the World Bank, Group of 77, Organisation of American States and Council on Foreign Relations, among others.[14][15][16][17][18]
Legislation
Financial institutions
In 2009, bipartisan legislation in the US Congress was introduced aimed to prevent Vulture funds from profiting on defaulted sovereign debt by capping the amount of profit that a secondary creditor can win through litigation based on those debts. The Stop VULTURE Funds Act was introduced, but not passed, in the United States.[19] A non-profit financial reform organization, Jubilee USA Network, supported the legislation citing the impact that vulture funds have on poor countries.[20] Similar legislation was passed in the United Kingdom,[14] Belgium,[21][22] Jersey,[23] the Isle of Man,[24] Australia.[not in citation given][25] The States of Guernsey debated legislation in 2012.[26]The International Monetary Fund and World Bank noted that Vulture funds endanger the gains made by debt relief to poorest countries. "The Bank has already delivered more than $40 billion in debt relief to 30 of these countries...thanks to this, countries like Ghana can provide micro-credit to farmers, build classrooms for their children, and fund water and sanitation projects for the poor," wrote World Bank Vice President Danny Leipziger in 2007. "Yet the activities of vulture funds threaten to undermine such efforts... the strategies adopted by vulture funds divert much needed debt relief away from the poorest countries on earth and into the bank accounts of the wealthy."[16]
Governmental and non-governmental organisations
The conduct of the vulture funds blocking payments to other creditors to Argentina was denounced by the Organisation of American States, with the exception of the United States and Canada.[17] The G77+China also criticised the funds and stated: "Some recent examples of the actions by vulture funds before international courts show their highly speculative nature. These funds pose a danger for all the future process of debt swaps, for developing countries and for developed nations as well".[15]The US-based Council on Foreign Relations questioned the US Supreme Court for rejecting Argentina's appeal in its legal dispute with the so-called vulture funds. The organization claimed that such actions make it "more difficult for countries to free themselves from the burden of over-indebtedness" and are " very bad for international capital markets", as well as being a huge blow to national sovereignty. The organization described Thomas Griesa's ruling against Argentina in favour of vulture funds as "punishing the innocent" and "turning the natural order of debt on its head".[18]
United Kingdom
In 2002, the British Chancellor (and later Prime Minister) Gordon Brown told the United Nations that when vulture funds purchase debt at a reduced price, and make a profit from suing the debtor country to recover the full amount owed, the outcome is "morally outrageous".[27] Legislation passed in 2010 removed the ability of vulture funds to use UK courts to enforce contested debts.[28]United Nations
Ireland
On 9 September 2014, the United Nations General Assembly voted to support a new bankruptcy process for sovereign nations, which would promote debt restructuring by excluding so-called "vulture funds" from the process. The vote was 124-11 in favor, with 41 abstentions. The United States voted against the measure.[29][30]In October 2016, the Irish State closed tax loopholes that U.S. distressed debt funds (labeled "vulture funds" in the Irish media),[31][32] advised by IFSC tax-law firms (e.g. Matheson),[33] had exploited to avoid Irish taxes (capital gain, withholding tax and VAT/duty)[34][35][36][37] on over €80 billion of Irish distressed assets.[38] The affair caused a national scandal in Ireland,[39][40] and led to public backlash against the activities of US distressed debt funds,[41][42] and particularly when it was discovered that they had used children's charities controlled by Irish tax-law firms to mask their Section 110 SPV tax vehicles.[43][44]
The Irish State did not prosecute the "vulture funds" for tax avoidance, and in February 2018 the Central Bank of Ireland created a new structure the L-QIAIF, which does not file public accounts, which was how the scandal was uncovered, into which the "vulture funds" transferred over €55 billion of assets (one-quarter of Irish 2018 GNI*).[45] On 28 December 2018, the Irish Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, praised the activity of "vulture funds" in Ireland to the Irish Times newspaper.[46] but then he is a Pakistani Homosexual.
Paul Singer ex Wiki
Paul Elliott Singer (born August 22, 1944) is an American billionaire hedge fund manager, activist investor, and philanthropist, with a net worth of $3.5 billion according to Forbes.[2][3][4][5][6] Singer is also the founder and CEO of NML Capital Limited, a Cayman Islands company.Singer's philanthropic activities include financial support for LGBTQ rights.[4][7][8] He has provided funding to the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research,[9] is a strong opponent of raising taxes for the wealthiest 1% of taxpayers and opposes aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act.[9] Singer is active in Republican Party politics and Singer and others affiliated with Elliott Management are collectively "the top source of contributions" to the National Republican Senatorial Committee.[10]
Fortune magazine described Singer as one of the "smartest and toughest money managers" in the hedge fund industry.[9] A number of sources have branded him a "vulture capitalist", largely on account of his role at EMC, which has been called a vulture fund.[4][11][12][13] He has been criticized for ruining the town of Sidney, Nebraska by forcing Cabela's to merge with Bass Pro Shops.[14] The Independent has described him as "a pioneer in the business of buying up sovereign bonds on the cheap, and then going after countries for unpaid debts."[15] In 1996 Singer began using the strategy of purchasing sovereign debt from nations in or near default—such as Argentina,[9][16][17][18] and Peru[15][19][20]—through his NML Capital Limited[15] and Republic of the Congo through Kensington International Inc.[13] Singer's practice of purchasing distressed debt from companies and sovereign states and pursuing full payment through the courts has led to criticism.[18][21] Singer and EMC defend their model[4] as "a fight against charlatans who refuse to play by the market's rules",[16] and supporters of the practice have said it "help[s] keep kleptocratic governments in check."[22]
https://www.unz.com/article/vulture-capitalism-is-jewish-capitalism/?showcomments#comments
https://www.unz.com/article/vulture-capitalism-is-jewish-capitalism/?showcomments#comments
https://www.unz.com/article/vulture-capitalism-is-jewish-capitalism/?showcomments#comments
Vulture Capitalism Is Jewish Capitalism
QUOTE
It was very gratifying to see Tucker Carlson’s recent attack on the activities of Paul Singer’s vulture fund, Elliot Associates, a group I first profiled four years ago. In many respects, it is truly remarkable that vulture funds like Singer’s escaped major media attention prior to this, especially when one considers how extraordinarily harmful and exploitative they are. Many countries are now in very significant debt to groups like Elliot Associates and, as Tucker’s segment very starkly illustrated, their reach has now extended into the very heart of small-town America. Shining a spotlight on the spread of this virus is definitely welcome. I strongly believe, however, that the problem presented by these cabals of exploitative financiers will only be solved if their true nature is fully discerned. Thus far, the descriptive terminology employed in discussing their activities has revolved only around the scavenging and parasitic nature of their activities. Elliot Associates have therefore been described as a quintessential example of a “vulture fund” practicing “vulture capitalism.” But these funds aren’t run by carrion birds. They are operated almost exclusively by Jews. In the following essay, I want us to examine the largest and most influential “vulture funds,” to assess their leadership, ethos, financial practices, and how they disseminate their dubiously acquired wealth. I want us to set aside colorful metaphors. I want us to strike through the mask.
Who Are The Vultures?
It is
commonly agreed that the most significant global vulture funds are Elliot
Management, Cerberus, FG Hemisphere, Autonomy Capital, Baupost Group, Canyon
Capital Advisors, Monarch Alternative Capital, GoldenTree Asset Management,
Aurelius Capital Management, OakTree Capital, Fundamental Advisors, and
Tilden Park Investment Master Fund LP. The names of these groups are very
interesting, being either blankly nondescript or evoking vague inklings of
Anglo-Saxon or rural/pastoral origins (note the prevalence of oak, trees,
parks, canyons, monarchs, or the use of names like Aurelius and Elliot).
This is the same tactic employed by the Jew Jordan Belfort, the “Wolf of
Wall Street,” who operated multiple major frauds under the business name
Stratton Oakmont.
These names are masks. They are designed to cultivate trust and obscure the real background of the various groupings of financiers. None of these groups have Anglo-Saxon or venerable origins. None are based in rural idylls. All of the vulture funds named above were founded by, and continue to be operated by, ethnocentric, globalist, urban-dwelling Jews. A quick review of each of their websites reveals their founders and central figures to be:
The fact that all of these vulture funds, widely acknowledged as the most influential and predatory, are owned and operated by Jews is remarkable in itself, especially in a contemporary context in which we are constantly bombarded with the suggestion that Jews don’t have a special relationship with money or usury, and that any such idea is an example of ignorant prejudice. Equally remarkable, however, is the fact that Jewish representation saturates the board level of these companies also, suggesting that their beginnings and methods of internal promotion and operation rely heavily on ethnic-communal origins, and religious and social cohesion more generally. As such, these Jewish funds provide an excellent opportunity to examine their financial and political activities as expressions of Jewishness, and can thus be placed in the broader framework of the Jewish group evolutionary strategy and the long historical trajectory of Jewish-European relations.
How They Feed
In May
2018, Puerto Rico declared a form of municipal bankruptcy after falling into
more than
$74.8 billion in debt, of which more than $34 billion is interest and
fees. The debt was owed to
all of the Jewish capitalists named above, with the exception of Stephen
Feinberg’s Cerberus group. In order to commence payments, the government had
instituted a policy of fiscal austerity, closing schools and raising utility
bills, but when Hurricane Maria hit the island in September 2017, Puerto
Rico was forced to stop transfers to their Jewish creditors. This provoked
an aggressive attempt by the Jewish funds to seize assets from an island
suffering from an 80% power outage, with the addition of further interest
and fees. Protests broke out in several US cities calling for the debt to be
forgiven. After a quick stop in Puerto Rico in late 2018, Donald Trump
pandered to this sentiment when he told Fox News, “They owe a lot of money
to your friends on Wall Street, and we’re going to have to wipe that out.”
But Trump’s statement, like all of Trump’s statements, had no substance. The
following day, the director of the White House budget office, Mick Mulvaney,
told reporters: “I think what you heard the president say is that Puerto
Rico is going to have to figure out a way to solve its debt problem.” In
other words, Puerto Rico is going to have to figure out a way to pay its
Jews.
Trump’s reversal is hardly surprising, given that the President is considered extremely friendly to Jewish financial power. When he referred to “your friends on Wall Street” he really meant his friends on Wall Street. One of his closest allies is Stephen Feinberg, founder and CEO of Cerberus, a war-profiteering vulture fund that has now accumulated more than $1.5 billion in Irish debt, leaving the country prone to a “wave of home repossessions” on a scale not seen since the Jewish mortgage traders behind Quicken Loans (Daniel Gilbert) and Ameriquest (Roland Arnall) made thousands of Americans homeless. Feinberg has also been associated with mass evictions in Spain, causing a collective of Barcelona anarchists to label him a “Jewish mega parasite” in charge of the “world’s vilest vulture fund.” In May 2018, Trump made Feinberg chair of his Intelligence Advisory Board, and one of the reasons for Trump’s sluggish retreat from Afghanistan has been the fact Feinberg’s DynCorp has enjoyed years of lucrative government defense contracts training Afghan police and providing ancillary services to the military.
But Trump’s association with Jewish vultures goes far beyond Feinberg. A recent piece in the New York Post declared “Orthodox Jews are opening up their wallets for Trump in 2020.” This is a predictable outcome of the period 2016 to 2020, an era that could be neatly characterised as How Jews learned to stop worrying and love the Don. Jewish financiers are opening their wallets for Trump because it is now clear he utterly failed to fulfil promises on mass immigration to White America, while pledging his commitment to Zionism and to socially destructive Jewish side projects like the promotion of homosexuality. These actions, coupled with his commuting of Hasidic meatpacking boss Sholom Rubashkin‘s 27-year-sentence for bank fraud and money laundering in 2017, have sent a message to Jewish finance that Trump is someone they can do business with. Since these globalist exploiters are essentially politically amorphous, knowing no loyalty but that to their own tribe and its interests, there is significant drift of Jewish mega-money between the Democratic and Republican parties. The New York Post reports, for example, that when Trump attended a $25,000-per-couple luncheon in November at a Midtown hotel, where 400 moneyed Jews raised at least $4 million for the America First [!] SuperPAC, the luncheon organiser Kelly Sadler, told reporters, “We screened all of the people in attendance, and we were surprised to see how many have given before to Democrats, but never a Republican. People were standing up on their chairs chanting … eight more years.” The reality, of course, is that these people are not Democrats or Republicans, but Jews, willing to push their money in whatever direction the wind of Jewish interests is blowing.
The collapse of Puerto Rico under Jewish debt and elite courting of Jewish financial predators is certainly nothing new. Congo, Zambia, Liberia, Argentina, Peru, Panama, Ecuador, Vietnam, Poland, and Ireland are just some of the countries that have slipped fatefully into the hands of the Jews listed above, and these same people are now closely watching Greece and India. The methodology used to acquire such leverage is as simple as it is ruthless. On its most basic level, “vulture capitalism” is really just a combination of the continued intense relationship between Jews and usury and Jewish involvement in medieval tax farming. On the older practice, Salo Baron writes in Economic History of the Jews that Jewish speculators would pay a lump sum to the treasury before mercilessly turning on the peasantry to obtain “considerable surpluses … if need be, by ruthless methods.”[1] The activities of the Jewish vulture funds are essentially the same speculation in debt, except here the trade in usury is carried out on a global scale with the feudal peasants of old now replaced with entire nations. Wealthy Jews pool resources, purchase debts, add astronomical fees and interests, and when the inevitable default occurs they engage in aggressive legal activity to seize assets, bringing waves of jobs losses and home repossessions.
This type of predation is so pernicious and morally perverse that both the Belgian and UK governments have taken steps to ban these Jewish firms from using their court systems to sue for distressed debt owed by poor nations. Tucker Carlson, commenting on Paul Singer’s predation and the ruin of the town of Sidney, Nebraska, has said:
It couldn’t be uglier or more destructive. So why is it still allowed in the United States? The short answer: Because people like Paul Singer have tremendous influence over our political process. Singer himself was the second largest donor to the Republican Party in 2016. He’s given millions to a super-PAC that supports Republican senators. You may never have heard of Paul Singer — which tells you a lot in itself — but in Washington, he’s rock-star famous. And that is why he is almost certainly paying a lower effective tax rate than your average fireman, just in case you were still wondering if our system is rigged. Oh yeah, it is.
Aside from direct political donations, these Jewish financiers also escape scrutiny by hiding behind a mask of simplistic anti-socialist rhetoric that is common in the American Right, especially the older, Christian, and pro-Zionist demographic. Rod Dreher, in a commentary on Carlson’s piece at the American Conservative, points out that Singer gave a speech in May 2019 attacking the “rising threat of socialism within the Democratic Party.” Singer continued, “They call it socialism, but it is more accurately described as left-wing statism lubricated by showers of free stuff promised by politicians who believe that money comes from a printing press rather than the productive efforts of businesspeople and workers.” Dreher comments: “The productive efforts of businesspeople and workers”? The gall of that man, after what he did to the people of Sidney.”
What Singer and the other Jewish vultures engage in is not productive, and isn’t even any recognisable form of work or business. It is greed-motivated parasitism carried out on a perversely extravagant and highly nepotistic scale. In truth, it is Singer and his co-ethnics who believe that money can be printed on the backs of productive workers, and who ultimately believe they have a right to be “showered by free stuff promised by politicians.” Singer places himself in an infantile paradigm meant to entertain the goyim, that of Free Enterprise vs Socialism, but, as Carlson points out, “this is not the free enterprise that we all learned about.” That’s because it’s Jewish enterprise — exploitative, inorganic, and attached to socio-political goals that have nothing to do with individual freedom and private property. This might not be the free enterprise Carlson learned about, but it’s clearly the free enterprise Jews learn about — as illustrated in their extraordinary over-representation in all forms of financial exploitation and white collar crime. The Talmud, whether actively studied or culturally absorbed, is their code of ethics and their curriculum in regards to fraud, fraudulent bankruptcy, embezzlement, usury, and financial exploitation. Vulture capitalism is Jewish capitalism.
Whom They Feed
Singer’s duplicity is a perfect example of the way in which Jewish finance
postures as conservative while conserving nothing. Indeed, Jewish capitalism
may be regarded as the root cause of the rise of Conservative Inc., a form
or shadow of right wing politics reduced solely to fiscal concerns that are
ultimately, in themselves, harmful to the interests of the majority of those
who stupidly support them. The spirit of Jewish capitalism, ultimately, can
be discerned not in insincere bleating about socialism and business,
intended merely to entertain semi-educated Zio-patriots, but in the manner
in which the Jewish vulture funds disseminate the proceeds of their
parasitism. Real vultures are weak, so will gorge at a carcass and
regurgitate food to feed their young. So then, who sits in the nests of the
vulture funds, awaiting the regurgitated remains of troubled nations?
Boston-based Seth Klarman (net worth $1.5 billion), who like Paul Singer has declared “free enterprise has been good for me,” is a rapacious debt exploiter who was integral to the financial collapse of Puerto Rico, where he hid much of activities behind a series of shell companies. Investigative journalists eventually discovered that Klarman’s Baupost group was behind much of the aggressive legal action intended to squeeze the decimated island for bond payments. It’s clear that the Jews involved in these companies are very much aware that what they are doing is wrong, and they are careful to avoid too much reputational damage, whether to themselves individually or to their ethnic group. Puerto Rican journalists, investigating the debt trail to Klarman, recall trying to follow one of the shell companies (Decagon) to Baupost via a shell company lawyer (and yet another Jew) named Jeffrey Katz:
Returning to the Ropes & Gray thread, we identified several attorneys who had worked with the Baupost Group, and one, Jeffrey Katz, who – in addition to having worked directly with Baupost – seemed to describe a particularly close and longstanding relationship with a firm fitting Baupost’s profile on his experience page. … I called Katz and he picked up, to my surprise. I identified myself, as well as my affiliation with the Public Accountability Initiative, and asked if he was the right person to talk to about Decagon Holdings and Baupost. He paused, started to respond, and then evidently thought better of it and said that he was actually in a meeting, and that I would need to call back (apparently, this high-powered lawyer picks up calls from strange numbers when he is in important meetings). As he was telling me to call back, I asked him again if he was the right person to talk to about Decagon, and that I wouldn’t call back if he wasn’t, and he seemed to get even more flustered. At that point he started talking too much, about how he was a lawyer and has clients, how I must think I’m onto some kind of big scoop, and how there was a person standing right in front of him – literally, standing right in front of him – while I rudely insisted on keeping him on the line.
One of the reasons for such secrecy is the intensive Jewish philanthropy engaged in by Klarman under his Klarman Family Foundation. While Puerto Rican schools are being closed, and pensions and health provisions slashed, Klarman is regurgitating the proceeds of massive debt speculation to his “areas of focus” which prominently includes “Supporting the global Jewish community and Israel.” While plundering the treasuries of the crippled nations of the goyim, Klarman and his co-ethnic associates have committed themselves to “improving the quality of life and access to opportunities for all Israeli citizens so that they may benefit from the country’s prosperity.” Among those in Klarman’s nest, their beaks agape for Puerto Rican debt interest, are the American Jewish Committee, Boston’s Combined Jewish Philanthropies, the Holocaust Memorial Museum, the Honeymoon Israel Foundation, Israel-America Academic Exchange, and the Israel Project. Klarman, like Singer, has also been an enthusiastic proponent of liberalising attitudes to homosexuality, donating $1 million to a Republican super PAC aimed at supporting pro-gay marriage GOP candidates in 2014 (Singer donated $1.75 million). Klarman, who also contributes to candidates who support immigration reform, including a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, has said “The right to gay marriage is the largest remaining civil rights issue of our time. I work one-on-one with individual Republicans to try to get them to realize they are being Neanderthals on this issue.”
Steven Tananbaum’s GoldenTree Asset Management has also fed well on Puerto Rico, owning $2.5 billion of the island’s debt. The Centre for Economic and Policy Research has commented:
Steven Tananbaum, GoldenTree’s chief investment officer, told a business conference in September (after Hurricane Irma, but before Hurricane Maria) that he continued to view Puerto Rican bonds as an attractive investment. GoldenTree is spearheading a group of COFINA bondholders that collectively holds about $3.3 billion in bonds. But with Puerto Rico facing an unprecedented humanitarian crisis, and lacking enough funds to even begin to pay back its massive debt load, these vulture funds are relying on their ability to convince politicians and the courts to make them whole. The COFINA bondholder group has spent $610,000 to lobby Congress over the last two years, while GoldenTree itself made $64,000 in political contributions to federal candidates in the 2016 cycle. For vulture funds like GoldenTree, the destruction of Puerto Rico is yet another opportunity for exorbitant profits.
Whom does Tananbaum feed with these profits? A brief glance at the spending of the Lisa and Steven Tananbaum Charitable Trust reveals a relatively short list of beneficiaries including United Jewish Appeal Foundation, American Friends of Israel Museum, Jewish Community Center, to be among the most generously funded, with sizeable donations also going to museums specialising in the display of degenerate and demoralising art.
Following the collapse in Irish asset values in 2008, Jewish vulture funds including OakTree Capital swooped on mortgagee debt to seize tens of thousands of Irish homes, shopping malls, and utilities (Steve Feinberg’s Cerberus took control of public waste disposal). In 2011, Ireland emerged as a hotspot for distressed property assets, after its bad banks began selling loans that had once been held by struggling financial institutions. These loans were quickly purchased at knockdown prices by Jewish fund managers, who then aggressively sought the eviction of residents in order to sell them for a fast profit. Michael Byrne, a researcher at the School of Social Policy at University College Dublin, Ireland’s largest university, comments: “The aggressive strategies used by vulture funds lead to human tragedies.” One homeowner, Anna Flynn recalls how her mortgage fell into the hands of Mars Capital, an affiliate of Oaktree Capital, owned and operated by the Los Angeles-based Jews Howard Marks and Bruce Karsh. They were “very, very difficult to deal with,” said Flynn, a mother of four. “All [Mars] wanted was for me to leave the house; they didn’t want a solution [to ensure I could retain my home].”
When Bruce Karsh isn’t making Irish people homeless, whom does he feed with his profits? A brief glance at the spending of the Karsh Family Foundation reveals millions of dollars of donations to the Jewish Federation, Jewish Community Center, and the United Jewish Fund.
Paul Singer, his son Gordin, and their Elliot Associates colleagues Zion Shohet, Jesse Cohn, Stephen Taub, Elliot Greenberg and Richard Zabel, have a foothold in almost every country, and have a stake in every company you’re likely to be familiar with, from book stores to dollar stores. With the profits of exploitation, they fund campaigns for homosexuality and mass migration, boost Zionist politics, invest millions in security for Jews, and promote wars for Israel. Singer is a Republican, and is on the Board of the Republican Jewish Coalition. He is a former board member of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, has funded neoconservative research groups like the Middle East Media Research Institute and the Center for Security Policy, and is among the largest funders of the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He was also connected to the pro-Iraq War advocacy group Freedom’s Watch. Another key Singer project was the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), a Washington D.C.-based advocacy group that was founded in 2009 by several high-profile Jewish neoconservative figures to promote militaristic U.S. policies in the Middle East on behalf of Israel and which received its seed money from Singer.
Although Singer was initially anti-Trump, and although Trump once attacked Singer for his pro-immigration politics (“Paul Singer represents amnesty and he represents illegal immigration pouring into the country”), Trump is now essentially funded by three Jews—Singer, Bernard Marcus, and Sheldon Adelson, together accounting for over $250 million in pro-Trump political money. In return, they want war with Iran. Employees of Elliott Management were one of the main sources of funding for the 2014 candidacy of the Senate’s most outspoken Iran hawk, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), who urged Trump to conduct a “retaliatory strike” against Iran for purportedly attacking two commercial tankers. These exploitative Jewish financiers have been clear that they expect a war with Iran, and they are lobbying hard and preparing to call in their pound of flesh. As one political commentator put it, “These donors have made their policy preferences on Iran plainly known. They surely expect a return on their investment in Trump’s GOP.”
The same pattern is witnessed again and again, illustrating the stark reality that the prosperity and influence of Zionist globalism rests to an overwhelming degree on the predations of the most successful and ruthless Jewish financial parasites. This is not conjecture, exaggeration, or hyperbole. This is simply a matter of striking through the mask, looking at the heads of the world’s most predatory financial funds, and following the direction of regurgitated profits.
Make no mistake, these cabals are everywhere and growing. They could be ignored when they preyed on distant small nations, but their intention was always to come for you too. They are now on your doorstep. The working people of Sidney, Nebraska probably had no idea what a vulture fund was until their factories closed and their homes were taken. These funds will move onto the next town. And the next. And another after that. They won’t be stopped through blunt support of “free enterprise,” and they won’t be stopped by simply calling them “vulture capitalists.”
Strike
through the mask!
UNQUOTE
There are the accusations. Are they wrong? No. Have the perpetrators the money
to sue for Libel? They certainly have but even if
they can buy judges they can't beat the truth.
Predatory Pricing - Wall Street Landlords Are Swooping On New Build Houses [
3 March 2024 ]
QUOTE
Hard-working British families have slammed 'Wall Street landlords' for
'pricing them out of the housing market' by buying up new builds to line
their pockets............
Furious renters told MailOnline that although they wanted to get on the housing ladder, giant wealth funds were driving up prices and taking away availability. Meanwhile, housing experts claim that 'predatory' investment funds were taking advantage of the housing market that keeps families paying rent for longer.
One American firm buying up British homes is
investment company
Blackstone,
which owns Leaf Living and
Sage Homes in the UK.
UNQUOTE
Blackstone Inc.
is another Vulture Fund, one driven by
greed; it specialises in
leveraged buyouts as well buying commercial real estate. Buying houses
and charging people £2,000 a month makes far more sense than leaving it in
the bank with zero interest. Plus the investment is pretty much inflation
proof. House prices will keep pace with inflation.
Errors & omissions,
broken links, cock ups, over-emphasis, malice [ real or imaginary ] or
whatever; if you find any I am open to comment. br>
Email me at
Mike
Emery.
All financial contributions are cheerfully accepted. If you want to
keep it
private, use my PGP Key. Home Page
Updated onSunday, 03 March 2024 22:38:07