Susanna Harwood Rubin, an American yogini and devotee of Jesus and Shiva describes the interfaith love and harmony that already exists and has existed for millenia in India, especially with the aam aadmi, the common man:

“Walking through the Marketplace, Chidambaram

Driving from Chidambaram to Swamimalai
We climbed into one of the two white vans outside of the hotel, and I eased myself into the cool air-conditioned seat just behind the driver. As everyone settled in around me, I looked at the dashboard, which was evenly ornamented with two little deities: on the right, a shiny gold-colored Ganesha sat cross-legged, and to his left stood the Virgin Mary, gracefully draped in blue robes.

I loved seeing this juxtaposition just a few days after my conversation with Bharathi. I pointed to the dashboard – You like Mary and Ganapati! – I said to our driver – Me too! He said – Yes, yes – Mary and Ganapati! Very good! Then, because we had exhausted his English and my Tamil, which doesn’t go beyond Hello, Thank you, and ordering food, we smiled at each other as he began backing the van out into the street for our ride to the Subrahmanya temple in Swamimalai.

I remembered how, when I was here in December, every roadside restaurant seemed to have a crèche, or manger scene, with lots of rainbow-colored tinsel, Merry X-mas banners made of shiny cardboard letters, and sometimes strings of blinking lights. Somewhere in the vicinity there would be a Ganesh or a Subrahmanya, Ganesha’s warrior brother, who is particularly popular in Tamil Nadu. There didn’t seem to be any conflict or contradiction in the two different belief systems being simultaneously acknowledged and celebrated, and there didn’t seem to be any attempt to separate them. On the contrary; the Christian figurines were mixed right in with the Hindu ones. Everyone was invited to the party.”

Comment:

The “interfaith dialogue” of scholars and dogmatic theologians has its place, but peace rarely begins with the brain and its dogmas. It needs a peaceful will and an open heart.

The cabby with his icons of Mary and Ganapathy comes far closer to the Lord of the Dance than ambitious scholars and pontiffs. Their worldly pronouncements betray, perhaps, the acrid presence of a different lord…..

Interfaith Dialogue: Western Christian imperialism vs. the Non-Christian world – Sandhya Jain

Posted on December 27, 2011 by IS

“Inter-Faith Dialogue is a deeply political business with a very political agenda. Hindu Civilisation does not have a global political agenda; hence there is no legitimate reason for Hindu/Indian dharma-gurus to engage in an exercise which can only weaken our defences and facilitate the siege of our own citadels.” – Sandhya Jain

As America leads a resurgence of imperial muscle in Britain and France, India finds herself in a precarious position as battleground of a fresh Evangelical assault on her civilisational ethos and as a launch pad Washington hopes to use in its containment of Russia and China, having effectively crushed much of the Islamic world and confident of being able to trounce the rest. In other words, it is the West against Everyone else, and we can ignore this reality only at our own peril.

Central to the evangelical mission recently led by Vatican’s Cardinal Jean-Pierre Louis Tauran (called inter-faith dialogue) was a tacit isolation of Islam along with a tactical split of the seamless native Indian tradition into Hindu-Jain-Sikh.

There is merit in Vatican keeping Islam out of the purview of its inter-faith dialogues in India. Foremost is the fact that a dialogue between faiths claiming descent from the patriarch Abraham is an intra-Abrahamic dialogue, and would have to be conducted at a different level, which would mostly make it a diplomatic engagement. A real dialogue can only aim to settle which Abrahamic cult (possibly which sub-sect within that cult) is the true revealed faith with the right to conquer the world (sic), while the rest must submit.

As that is unlikely, another objective of dialogue could be to arrive at an understanding regarding the regions of dominance allowed to each cult. That too, is ruled out as the Christian Colonial Western world is deep into a new crusade against Islam, as witnessed in the actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya (beaten to pulp), Sudan (divided on demographic lines), with Iran, Syria and Lebanon in the crosshairs. Even loyal stooges in Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen were abandoned to new geopolitical calculations, a reality dawning on old faithful Pakistan.

Anyone doubting this assessment must explain the sudden haste among Western nations to reassert their Christian credentials, from Australia, France, Switzerland, and now the United Kingdom: “We are a Christian country and we should not be afraid to say so. The Bible has helped to give Britain a set of values and morals which make Britain what it is today. Values and morals we should actively stand up and defend” – Prime Minister David Cameron
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-international/article2725196.ece

Behind this affirmation lies the Western Christian assault upon Muslim communities in the west, which are practicing identity politics (beard and burqa) as a way of carving out cultural space to counter their growing marginalization. Suffice it to say that Islam is in a terrible bind; it remains to be seen if it can find the intellectual and moral energy to rescue itself from the current morass.

The writer avers that as orthodox Islam experiences growing Western Christian pressure and admits its worst enemies are brethren allied with the crusaders, it must logically seek friends outside the Abrahamic fold – among Non-Monotheistic traditions. This explains the response even West-friendly Muslim nations have given to the People’s Republic of China, a country that has abandoned its communist (Abrahamic) ideology and suppressed its Confucian-Taoist-cum-Buddhist identity (the latter being dangerous, in the writer’s view).

Islam’s quest for rapprochement with non-Abrahamic traditions may have broken new ground in India with Darul Uloom Deoband vice chancellor Maulana Abul Qasim Nomani defending Srimad Bhagawad Gita against a “Russian diktat” and urging Hindus and Muslims to unite on the issue. Maulana Nomani denounced the “allegation portraying Gita as extreme literature.” He asked both communities to fight against anti-Islamic bans that Muslims face in the west, as on the issue of hijab. Simultaneously, Maulana Khalid Rashid, head of Lucknow’s Firangi Mahal seminary, denounced “Russian arrogance” and said Muslims must offer unflinching support to Hindus in this direct attack on their private space. He wanted the government to take a firm stance so such blasphemous interference is not repeated.

With respect, the writer wishes to gently state that under the East India Company and British Crown, Hindus and Muslims received the colonial stick. But ultimately Hindus suffered as Muslims (as Abrahamic brothers) allowed themselves to be manipulated to demand separatism from a Common India. The journey from the Shimla Delegation and formation of the Muslim League to the Lahore Resolution and Partition gave Muslims a sense of false empowerment, as our brothers in Pakistan are now discovering to their own chagrin.

Indian Muslim leaders must understand that by insisting upon some form of separatism even after independence, they debilitated the Hindu community and the nation, with no commensurate benefit to themselves. Hence, even as we welcome their support, we request them to revisit the history of the past century or more and introspect whether the extreme positions taken by the community on any issue have advanced the community in any way. It is our contention that worldwide, the disempowerment of the Muslim community has proceeded in tandem with its extreme radicalization.

Regarding the proposed ban on the Bhagavad Gita by a court in Tomsk city, Siberia, we must differentiate between Russia’s natural suspicion of the white western monks of the Krishna Consciousness movement (ISKON), who are not much liked in some Indian cities), and the circulation of a commentary of one of the most powerful texts of the Hindu tradition.

After the US-NATO assault upon and dismemberment of Yugoslavia and attempts to destroy the Russian Orthodox Church which is one of the pillars of Russian nationalism and statehood, Moscow has naturally been wary of Christian evangelism from the West and attempts to infiltrate white monks into the country in the name of Krishna Consciousness. New Delhi cannot ignore the role played by the Vatican and America in funding in the Coloured Revolutions in former Soviet Republics, and the continued manoeuvring to contain Russia (more later).

The complaint from an orthodox organisation with poor understanding of Hindu dharma and philosophy to ban the Bhagavad Gita – which caught Moscow by surprise – could well be an inspired mischief to strain relations between New Delhi and Moscow at a time when the Russian nuclear venture at Kudankulam, Tamil Nadu, stands checkmated at the behest of the Catholic Church and reported heavy external funding (which Delhi is investigating). It is significant that Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa, who has for some years been celebrating Mass at her residence, recently allowed the media to photograph her celebrating Mass with the Archbishop, where she announced free pilgrimages to Jerusalem for Christian converts (at the expense of the taxpayer of a Secular nation!).

The timing suggests the Gita ban move was intended to appear as a Russian tit-for-tat. But after its initial surprise, Moscow quickly got its act together and the Russian envoy to India, Alexander M Kadakin, himself a student of Indian civilisation, expressed unhappiness at a holy scripture being taken to court, and said his country accorded equal respect to scriptures of all faiths, viz., the Bible, the Holy Quran, Torah, Avesta, and the Bhagvad Gita.

Actually, the issue is neither religious nor academic, and will be tackled with political wisdom by the Kremlin. Already it has been clarified that it was not the Bhagavad Gita itself which was under scrutiny in the Tomsk court, but some comments in the 20th century Russian translation of Swami Prabhupada’s translation of the text, which are alleged to be insulting to non-believers. The Gita itself, the sources said, was first published in Russian in 1788 and has since been published in several editions and translations in that country. Russian Indologists favour dismissal of the charges, and that may still happen.

What Indian Hindus must understand is that protests to the Russian Embassy in Delhi were organised by a White sanyasi, so the West is definitely injecting itself into the controversy. As someone who distrusts even native globe-trotting sanyasis and their addiction to modify tradition to cater to the needs of white disciples with agendas at variance with the dharma of this land, the writer fully appreciates Russian discomfort with ISKON. We need not hyperventilate on the matter; Russians have produced some of the world’s best renowned Indologists, and for decades they performed the Ramayana in ballet while we were busy distancing ourselves from Sri Rama.

To put the issue in perspective, note how Vatican operates in tandem with the US-led Western colonial countries. Observe the synchronicity between Cardinal Tauran’s trip to India and the Asia-Pacific paradigm unveiled by President Barack Obama in his recent visit to Australia. Add the global moves of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and you get a complete picture of Empire and Church, marching hand-in-hand. Can you hear the trumpets?”

The Reverend Jon Arnold, in “At The Foot of the Bed,” in Chicken Soul for the Soul (Ed., Canfield and Hansen, 2005):

“During my daily rounds at the hospital, I came across a room where I could immediately tell by looking through the glass doorway that the man inside, though his back was to me, was visibly disturbed. He was anxiously sitting up on the far side of the bed with his feet hanging off while he pulled repeatedly at the unkempt sheets.

Knocking on the door frame, I announced myself: “Hello, I’m Chaplain Jon. Is everything all right in here?”

Pointing to the wall at the foot of the bed, the man replied, “No, there is a crucifix.” I sighed as I examined the wall, knowing full well what was there, and I quickly looked at my census list to verify the patient information and faith tradition. I found the room number and the only word I needed to see: Hindu.

As a Protestant chaplain serving at a Catholic hospital in the multicultural and interfaith environment of Los Angeles, it was not infrequent for me to find patients perturbed by the presence of a crucifix on their wall. Trying to be diplomatic and defuse the situation, I explained, “If you are offended by the crucifix, I can make arrangements for it to be removed during your stay here.”

The truth, more accurately, is that some of the more zealous of the Catholic faith had learned of this practice of accommodating people of other faith traditions, and had most of the crucifixes permanently installed on the wall, so the best effort to accommodate patients often was to drape a cloth over the offending relic.

The Hindu patient left me dumbfounded by what he told me next. Turning more toward me and pulling one knee onto the bed, his face wrinkling from being misunderstood, he explained, “I am not offended by the crucifix. I am disturbed that it is at the foot of my bed, which is a place of dishonor in my culture. Every time I lie down, I feel as if I am disrespecting the God of this hospital.”

The teacher had just become the student. I was overwhelmed with how much respect this man had for a faith not his own. I couldn’t help but think that I had just glimpsed a nugget of human unity whose offspring surely is peace.”

Hilaire Belloc in “A Remaining Christmas”:

Man has a body as well as a soul, and the whole of man, soul and body, is nourished sanely by a multiplicity of observed traditional things. Moreover, there is this great quality in the unchanging practice of Holy Seasons, that it makes explicable, tolerable and normal what is otherwise a shocking and intolerable and even in the fullest sense, abnormal thing. I mean, the mortality of immortal man.

Not only death (which shakes and rends all that is human in us, creating a monstrous separation and threatening the soul with isolation which destroys), not only death, but that accompaniment of mortality which is a perpetual series of lesser deaths and is called change, are challenged, chained, and put in their place by unaltered and successive acts of seasonable regard for loss and dereliction and mutability. The threats of despair, remorse, necessary expiation, weariness almost beyond bearing, dull repetition of things apparently fruitless, unnecessary and without meaning, estrangement, the misunderstanding of mind by mind, forgetfulness which is a false alarm, grief, and repentance, which are true ones, but of a sad company, young men perished in battle before their parents had lost vigour in age, the perils of sickness in the body and in the mind, anxiety, honour harassed, all the bitterness of living–become part of a large business which may lead to Beatitude. For they are all connected in the memory with holy day after holy day, year by year, binding the generations together; carrying on even in this world, as it were, the life of the dead and giving corporate substance, permanence and stability, without the symbol of which (at least) the vast increasing burden of life might at last conquer us and be no longer borne.

* * *

This house where such good things are done year by year has suffered all the things that every age has suffered. It has known the sudden separation of wife and husband, the sudden fall of young men under arms who will never more come home, the scattering of the living and their precarious return, the increase and the loss of fortune, all those terrors and all those lessenings and haltings and failures of hope which make up the life of man. But its Christmas binds it to its own past and promises its future; making the house an undying thing of which those subject to mortality within it are members, sharing in its continuous survival.

It is not wonderful that of such a house verse should be written. Many verses have been so written commemorating and praising this house. The last verse written of it I may quote here by way of ending:

‘Stand thou for ever among human Houses,
House of the Resurrection, House of Birth;
House of the rooted hearts and long carouses,
Stand, and be famous over all the Earth.’

Commentary by Gerald Russello:

[Gerald J. Russello is a Fellow of the Chesterton institute at Seton Hall University and editor of The University Bookman.]

Charles Taylor has written in his book A Secular Age that among its other effects, modernity has shattered the religious sense of time, which is not horizontal — one thing following another, but non-linear — connecting the sacred with the mundane, where the eternal can touch the temporal. Belloc’s Christmas essay is a throwback to this traditional Christian way of thinking. The essay recounts the traditions of Christmastide as observed in Belloc’s home in Sussex, King’s Land. The essay opens with Belloc declaring the problem and the purpose of the essay:

The world is splitting more and more into two camps, and what was common to the whole of it is being restricted to the Christian, and soon will be to the Catholic half.

What was “common” are the traditions and customs of the Christian world.

One cannot avoid those traditions in a house such as King’s Land, the older part of which “grew up gradually” over the past five centuries. When Belloc speaks of the great dining room table in his house, for example, he connects the centuries with the stuff of history, which are infused into this common object:

The table came out of one of the Oxford colleges when Puritans looted them three hundred years ago . . . . It passed from one family to another until at last it was purchased [in his youth and upon his marriage] by the man who now owns this house. . . . It was made, then, while Shakespeare was still living, and while the faith in England still hung in the balance.

History is not, in other words, something that is past. History is something we live with now. With the Incarnation, Christianity has infused history with a sacred meaning. Tradition binds us to our beginnings and enables us to weather the changes of fortune and the losses in human existence. Some might dismiss this kind of language as needlessly florid or triumphalist. As it happens, although discredited at the time, Belloc’s interpretation of the hold of Catholicism on England after the Reformation has been confirmed by historians such as Eamon Duffy. Belloc’s point here, however, is to remind us that every physical object can be charged with meaning and can remind us of the larger traditions of which we are a part.

After describing his house and the surroundings, Belloc details how he and his family celebrate Christmas and the full season through Epiphany, with an account of the old custom of opening doors and windows shortly before midnight New Year’s Eve to let out the old year and its troubles, and bring in the new one with hope. The language on occasion rises to the lyrical, and is in any event hard to summarize other than directly quoting large chunks of the essay. We read of the game-songs played by the village children, Midnight Mass being said in the house, the tree brought in with proper ceremony; in short, “everything conventional, and therefore satisfactory, is done.” And the power of Belloc’s language is such that, whatever your own Christmas traditions, they too begin to seem like his; that is, we can begin to see the commonality in the different ways of celebrating the birth of Jesus in the very physicality of existence, sacralized by this one Birth.

In the conclusion, Belloc summarizes the importance of these traditions in the life of his house, and their connections with the wider world. For these customs are not just for children, and not just for indulging in nostalgia; they form something larger altogether.

Some Yuletide revelry may be in order for fans of Patrick Byrne’s “Deep Capture” site. The Canadian court has lifted its injunction  against the site, after assurances from Mr. Byrne’s lawyers that he would indeed be presenting a defense of his alleged libels of one Altaf Nazerali, a stock promoter, already possessed of a questionable reputation before the Deep Capture crew tarnished its luster.

So much for earlier assertions that Mitchell and Byrne had NO defense and had conceded as much in their casual comments on the case.

I got the news from an article posted at Seeking Alpha by their inveterate foe, Gary Weiss, who has now also added Ron Paul to his hit list:

[For a response to the Paul piece, check out this video by Tom Woods]

From the Weiss article:

 “The contempt motion, which was filed against Byrne and Mitchell, was to be heard on Dec. 13, but has been put off until a date in the new year that has yet to be determined. So stay tuned.

Meanwhile, I understand, the court lifted an injunction that had shuttered Deep Capture, based on assertions by Byrne’s lawyer that he will indeed be putting up a defense! If he isn’t allowed to run to the border, that is. So you will soon see Byrne’s smears up on the Internet again, for the time being.”

“Smear” in this context just means that a few journalists got the same treatment they so generously dole out to other people…

Francois Gautier:

“Conversions in India by Christian missionaries of low caste Hindus and tribals are sometimes nothing short of fraudulent and shameful. American missionaries are investing huge amounts of money in India, which come from donation drives in the United States where gullible Americans think the dollars they are giving goe towards uplifting “poor and unducated Indians”. It is common in Kerala, for instance, particularly in the poor coastal districts, to have “miracle boxes” put in local churches: the gullible villager writes out a paper mentioning his wish: a fishing boat, a loan for a pukka house, fees for the son’s schooling… And lo, a few weeks later, the miracle happens ! And of course the whole family converts, making others in the village follow suit…

American missionnaries (and their Government) would like us to believe that democacry includes the freedom to convert by any means. But France for example, a traditionally Christian country, has a Minister who is in charge of hunting down “sects”. And by sects, it is meant anything that does not fall within the recognised family of Christianity – even the Church of Scientology, favored by some Hollywood stars such as Tom Cruise or John Travolta, is ruthlessly hounded. And look at what the Americans did to the Osho movement in Arizona, or how innocent children and women were burnt down by the FBI (with the assistance of the US army) in Waco Texas, because they belonged to a dangerous sect…

Did you know that the Christianity is dying in the West ? Not only church attendance is falling dramatically because spirituality has deserted it, but less and less youth find the vocation to become priests or nuns. And as a result, say in the rural parts of France, you will find only one priest for six or seven villages, whereas till the late seventies the smallest hamlet had its own parish priest. And where is Christianity finding new priests today ? In the Third World, of course! And India, because of the innate impulsion of its people towards God, is a very fertile recruiting ground for the Chrurch, particularly in Kerala and Tamil Nadu. Hence the huge attention that India is getting from the United States, Australia, or England and the massive conversion drive going on today.

It is sad that Indians, once converted, specially the priests and nuns, tend to turn against their own country and help in the conversion drive. There are very few “White” missionaries left in India and most of the conversions are done today by Indian priests. Last month, during the Bishop’s conference in Bangalore, it was restated by bishops and priests from all over India, that conversion is the FIRST priority of the Church here. But are the priests and Bishops aware that they would never find in any western country the same freedom to convert that they take for granted in India ? Do they know that in China they would be expelled, if not put into jail ? Do they realize that they have been honored guests in this country for nearly two thousand years and that they are betraying those that gave them peace and freedom ?

Hinduism, the religion of tolerance, the coming spirituality of this new millenium, has survived the unspeakable barbarism of wave after wave of Muslim invasions, the insidious onslaught of Western colonialism which has killed the spirit of so may Third World countries and the soul-stifling assault of Nehruvianism. But will it survive the present Christian offensive ? Many Hindu religious leaders feel that Christianity is a real threat today, as in numerous ways it is similar to Hinduism, from which Christ borrowed so many concepts (see Sri Siri Ravi Shankar’s book: ” Hinduism and Christianity”).. It is thus necessary that Indian themselves become more aware of the danger their culture and unique civilisation is facing at the hands of missionnaries sponsored by foreign money. It is also necessary that they stop listening to the Marxist- influenced English newspapers’ defense of the right of Christian missionaries to convert innocent Hindus. Conversion belongs to the times of colonialism. We have entered in the era of Unity, of coming together, of tolerance and accepting each other as we are – not of converting in the name of one elusive “true” God. When Christianity will accept the right of other people to follow their own beliefs and creeds, the only will Jesus Christ’s Spirit truly radiate in the world.”

fished out an old piece of mine, “Hanky Panky at the Counting House” (2006, Dissident Voice) in response to one commenter at this blog who claims I haven’t displayed enough evidence in my posts of my supposed prescience on the subject of Goldman Sachs.

[Also see, “Playing Monopoly In Charm City” (June 2005) about the housing bubble and derivative scam; “Why It’s Time to Sell Goldman” (June 2006) Goldman’s corrupt octopus-like hold over the markets (the investment report on which the piece is based goes into detail about Goldman’s role in the GSE’s, Fanny and Freddie. That was submitted to Agora as a special report in August 2006, but was only sold in March 2007).

“Malcolm Gladwell Checks In at the Hotel Kenneth Lay-a” (April 2007) (about Goldman’s role in Enron, and Corzine’s and Rubin’s corruption; I read Gladwell’s piece as signalling an imminent market disaster).

I only go over the details of the story again, because, if I don’t, it’s revised.

The spin is endless. Hired trolls go out daily and twiddle wiki, the blogs and the comments this way or that. They post misleading links. They trash the targets du jour of the MSM; they create alternative fiction to dazzle newbies…. and the result is incredible damage to any kind of accurate public memory.

Without an accurate public record, naturally, analysis or prescription also becomes inaccurate. And ultimately futile. Which is where we are in the game.

Be that as it may, while rereading this old piece, I noticed quotes from Ron Paul on gold that answer some of my own recent questions about him. They reassure me some.

If the man is posturing, as many have claimed, and as I have lately been fearing, he’s got to be one of hell of an actor. These words of his sure look like prescient warnings to any objective reader.

Meanwhile, take a look at this Zerohedge piece from March 2010 (some four years after I wrote “Hanky Panky”). It quotes exactly the same speech by Ron Paul and talks about Gordon Brown selling British gold at the bottom of the market. That’s an accusation circulated on the right that I referenced in 2007 in this blog post as well as in this post, London bomb hysterics, anti-terror laws, and Gordon Brown’s resume (June 29, 2007).

[Note: My wordpress software keeps a record of all my posts and every change made to them, so I have documentation for my claims about them. In contrast, Blogger and many other web tools and sites do NOT keep records, and it’s possible to game or even make up posts retroactively. I suspect that’s what’s been done on certain well-regarded blogs that shall remain nameless….]

Hanky-Panky At the Counting House (Dissident Voice, June 6, 2006):

“What’s the deal with Bush’s new honcho at the Treasury? Replacing John Snow as Secretary (effective Tuesday, May 30) is Henry (Hank) Paulson, who is CEO of Goldman Sachs. Among Wall Street’s capos, that makes Paulson capo di tutti capital markets and the speculator-in-chief of our speculation driven economy, the main manipulator in a manipulated market.

It means that the chicken coop is directly in the paws not just of any egg-sucking fox but a Bengal tiger in its prime. Really, why not invite the Cali drug cartel to run the DEA while we’re at it?

Servicing the Public

The story goes that Paulson was reluctant to leave his lucrative post for government service. After all, at Goldman he makes about $38.8 million a year (with $154,000 tossed in for a car and driver, just in case he can’t afford them on his own). And he has a 4.58 million-share stake in the company worth nearly $700 million. Why would he want the piddling 171,900 bucks that the Treas. Sec. makes except for the satisfaction of public service? Why indeed. (1)

We could point out uncharitably that the quantity of filthy lucre a person brings to the table is no guarantee that he won’t be wanting more. And we don’t mean the chump change that the Secretary takes home. We’re talking about the untold influence that comes from being at the helm of the global capital markets. And we hear that that was the cruncher in the deal. President Bush assured the Sachs man that unlike others before him he would get to play more than second fiddle.

This is not the first time the firm has supplied high priced bodies for high office — Robert Rubin, a former trader, Clinton’s man at Treasury, being the most notable till now. Public service might better be called public servicing.

Goldfingers

Of course, Goldman, whose shares fell 1 percent on the news, got as much from Paulson as it gave. The 137-year-old private partnership went public in 1999, but under Paulson still managed to turn in first quarter earnings of $10.34 billion in total revenues. As much as half — yes, half — of the net from that was then steered to compensation. Last year, that came to about $11 billion or half a million per employee. Of course, the actual split is not nearly so egalitarian with about 15% or $1.5 billion going to the 250 partners at the top while the bottom rung of the talent, junior analysts out of college, get $70,000 apiece in base salary. (2) That’s aside from the bonuses and stock options with which management rewards its lucky self. A worthy compensation for providing liquidity to the markets, right?

Actually, it’s a nice demonstration of the anomalies of modern capitalism, where the capitalists — the shareholding public — get shafted by their overpriced workers — the technocrat managers. While Paulson and the partners have raked it in, Goldman stock has just outpaced the S&P and Dow since the firm went public.

The public gets shafted another way too.

The usual business of investment banks is buying shares in block from companies — at a discount — and then selling at a slight mark-up, pocketing the difference. Block trading is the bank’s return for bringing liquidity to the market, since on its own a new company would not easily find buyers for its shares. The markup is most profitable in things like bond trading and commodity trading — the trading of agricultural products like oil, sugar, and coffee, and metals like silver, platinum, and gold — where the traders at the desks rake in big money for their firms. Naturally, they develop complex strategies to maximize their profits; naturally, this proprietary trading — as it’s called — contributes the lion’s share of revenues to the firm; and naturally, it also creates incentives to exploit investors for it can — and does — influence the firm’s buy/sell recommendations on stocks.

These recommendations, made by the firm’s analysts, are supposed to be a professional service that allows the public to invest wisely, but in practice, they tend to get the public to play into whatever strategy the bank’s traders are pursuing at any point. If the traders want to pick up a stock cheap, the analysts can downgrade it and cause panic selling. If the traders want to sell high, the analysts can pump it up and create a frenzy of buying. In short, the analysts are shills for the casino; the traders are the professionals with the house edge on their side; and the mom and pop investors are naïve marks whose losses can be counted on to keep finance professionals in their high-rolling lifestyles.

That’s the gambling den whose boss now also has his hands on the money pump at the Fed. What gives?

Hank’s Pranks — Number One

According to the official spin, Paulson has been brought in — as a Wall Street heavy — to loan some gravitas to the uphill task of chatting up the dollar. Years of massive trade deficits, mushrooming debt, irresponsible monetary policy at the Fed, and insanely wasteful expenditures on defense and space boondoggles have finally made the almighty buck as credible to the globe as a televangelist in a brothel. For a few years now it’s been in a swoon, investment legends like Warren Buffet and Jim Rogers swearing they no longer feel a pulse.

But with creditors — especially central banks — all around the world holding dollars, any sudden loss of faith in the currency could well trigger a financial panic that would cause chaos. A strong dollar keeps the global paper game going. On the other hand, a weak dollar helps US trade deficits. Caught between debt and devaluation the Feds have plumped for a game of deceit, chatting up the economy and the currency in public while privately preparing insiders for the decline. Last year, surprise, the dollar strengthened if it did not actually flex its pecs, erasing half its losses against the backdrop of continuing tight money policy and higher interest rates in the US (versus the euro area and Japan). The dumping of the EU’s Constitutional Treaty in France and the Netherlands also stiffened a few rickety vertebrae in the greenback’s spine. It must have been just a touching coincidence that this also gave corporations a convenient window — courtesy of Congress — to repatriate earnings in stronger dollars.

Then just as soon as the stronger dollar got every one to let down their guard and go lock up some good CD rates, the powers that be suddenly let fly that they had no objection whatsoever to a weak buck. And the greenback proved the point with a nasty six week slalom downhill this spring, weakening against possibly everything but the Zimbabwe dollar and sending the traditional financial safe-haven — gold — to heights last seen in the ‘70s.

Now, however, it’s summer — the traditional time for a slump in the markets. Gold, like the rest, has fallen sharply. And its fall wasn’t helped any by the bloodthirsty buzzards at sundry counting houses around the globe rushing out to deliver the coup-de-grace. Dollar oversold, they tsked. We want a strong dollar, added former Treasury Secretary Mister Snow-Job. Euro too strong, scolded the commissars in the Eurozone. Commodity bubble, clucked the Wall Street-Walkers — probably as definite proof as you will ever get that commodities will be in the mother of all bull runs for the next ten years.

That leaves buck-holders in a quandary — how do you move out of USD when everything else looks stretched to the point of no return? Stocks, real estate, commodities, metals — right now they all look like the fat lady . . . about to sing.

And that’s the point. You don’t. You keep clutching paper while the Fed makes soothing noises for as along as it takes for the shift to happen. Then when the insiders are ready, the dollar flutters down — or sinks like a rock. It scarcely matters which. The point is the government will at that point devalue its debts, stiff its creditors, and transfer the pain of its own financial misdeeds to savers unwise enough to have hung on to their dollars instead of trading them in for hard assets. And who better to pull off this massive act of chicanery except a Goldman CEO with a proven track record of financial sleight of hand?

Hank’s Pranks — Number Two

The unofficial theory is naturally a lot juicier, although described by even sworn enemies of paper currency as conspiratorial. Still, it’s managed to rear its head in the Wall Street Journal, so it can’t be all wet. Here is what widely respected libertarian Congressman Ron Paul had to say on Feb 14, 2002:

“While the Treasury denies it is dealing in gold, the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (GATA) has uncovered evidence suggesting that the Federal Reserve and the Treasury, operating through the Exchange-Stabilization Fund and in cooperation with major banks and the International Monetary Fund, have been interfering in the gold market with the goal of lowering the price of gold. The purpose of this policy has been to disguise the true effects of the monetary bubble responsible for the artificial prosperity of the 1990s, and to protect the politically-powerful banks that are heavy invested in gold derivatives. GATA believes federal actions to drive down the price of gold help protect the profits of these banks at the expense of investors, consumers, and taxpayers around the world.

GATA has also produced evidence that American officials are involved in gold transactions. Alan Greenspan himself referred to the federal government’s power to manipulate the price of gold at hearings before the House Banking Committee and the Senate Agricultural Committee in July, 1998: “Nor can private counterparts restrict supplies of gold, another commodity whose derivatives are often traded over-the-counter, where central banks stand ready to lease gold in increasing quantities should the price rise. [Emphasis added] (3)

More specifically:

Gold is borrowed by Morgan Chase from the Bank of England at 1 percent interest and then Morgan Chase sells the gold on the open market, then reinvests the proceeds into interest-bearing vehicles at maybe 6 percent.

At some point, though, Morgan Chase must return the borrowed gold to the Bank of England, and if the price of gold were significantly to increase during any point in this process, it would make it prohibitive and potentially ruinous to repay the gold. (4)

In plain English, the strong dollar policy that put the sizzle in the stock market under Clinton was made possible only by manipulating the gold market to keep prices low. The low interest rates which kept the economy on the boil went hand in hand with low gold prices. Investment banks used the low rates to borrow gold from the central banks and sold them short (short selling being the technique of selling assets you don’t actually own in the hope of buying back at a cheaper price because you anticipate a fall in the price). This allowed the banks to make billions from a market rigged to take the risk out of their shorting. And it kept the dollar pumped up. And who was the architect of this strong dollar policy? Why, none other than Robert Rubin of Goldman Sachs — one of the bullion banks most implicated in the gold fixing scenarios.

So, the appearance of another Gold-man at this critical moment is all the proof the gold cartel theorists need that more manipulation is in store to keep the dollar up, gold down, and the bullion banks from losing their . . . er . . . shorts. (5)

And if this seems conspiratorial, consider what Paul Mylchreest, investment analyst at Cheuvreux, top ranked for its research in Western Europe and part of Credit Agricole, the largest bank in France says today, “Central banks have 10–15,000 tonnes of gold less than their officially reported reserves of 31,000. This gold has been lent to bullion banks and their counterparties and has already been sold for jewellery, etc. Non-gold producers account for most and may be unable to cover shorts without causing a spike in the gold price…” (6)

Or what the Wall Street Journal itself wrote about what took place in the seventies:

Worried the falling dollar was undermining its anti-inflation efforts, the Carter administration announced a multi-part support package on Nov. 1, 1978: The Treasury would use gold sales and foreign borrowing and draw on its reserves with the International Monetary Fund to defend the dollar. At the same time the Federal Reserve raised its discount rate a full point. (7)

And that was in the ‘70s, when there was no credible alternative to the dollar, India and China were sleeping giants, Russia was still the Soviet Union, and the United States was not threatening to nuke the Middle East.

How bad is the situation?

[A]s of June 2000, J.P. Morgan reported nearly $30 billion of gold derivatives and Chase Manhattan Corp., although merged with J.P. Morgan, still reported separately in 2000 that it had $35 billion in gold derivatives. Analysts agree that the derivatives have exploded at this bank and that both positions are enormous relative to the capital of the bank and the size of the gold market.

It gets worse. J.P. Morgan’s total derivatives position reportedly now stands at nearly $29 trillion, or three times the U.S. annual gross domestic product. Wall Street insiders speculate that if the gold market were to rise, Morgan Chase could be in serious financial difficulty because of its “short positions” in gold. In other words, if the price of gold were to increase substantially, Morgan Chase and other bullion banks that are highly leveraged in gold would have trouble covering their liabilities. (8)

That was 2000. This is 2006.

So long as gold remains a mere relic . . . a yellow reminder of what used to be money . . . no harm done. Unless something absurd happens, that is. Something absurd like, say, gold doubling to $573 an ounce inside 5 years. If that happened, then the ‘carry trade’ of borrowing gold to invest in paper could become a very expensive way to bankrupt the entire global financial system. (9)

This spring gold hit over $700. And that’s why the hanky-panky is likely to begin in earnest now.

Lila Rajiva is a freelance writer in Baltimore, and the author of the must-read book The Language of Empire: Abu Ghraib and the US Media (Monthly Review Press, 2005) She can be reached at: lrajiva@hotmail.com. Copyright (c) 2006 by Lila Rajiva

NOTES

(1) “Good as Goldman: Bush drafts Hank to bat third,” Daniel Gross, Slate, Tuesday, May 30, 2006.

(2) “Please, Sir, I Want Some More. How Goldman Sachs is carving up its $11 billion money pie,” Duff Mcdonald, New York Metro, Dec 21, 2005.

(3) Speech of Congressman Ron Paul, U.S. House of Representatives, February 14, 2002, www.house.gov/paul

(4) “All That Glitters Is Not Gold,” Kelly Patricia O’Meara, Insight Magazine, March 4, 2000.

(5) According to GATA, the cartel includes J.P. Morgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the U.S. Treasury, and the Federal Reserve

(6) “How Central Banks Have Kept Gold Down,” Adrian Ash, Money Week, February 9, 2006.

(7) “As Dollar Weakens, Hidden Strengths May Stave off Crisis,” Wall Street Journal, January 17 2005.

(8) See Note 4.

(9) See Note 6.

Karen Kwiatkowsky at LRC:

“Tomasky refers repeatedly to hipsters. I remain confused as to who or what these “hipsters” are, this purported class of people in America who have been sucked in by Ron Paul’s rhetoric or slick and polished delivery. That may be because Tomasky is specifically aiming his ire at droves of defecting young democrats who are attracted to Paul’s small government and no nation-building message. Could it be the young statist clinging to the outdated and self-destructive liberalism of Clinton-Obama nanny state is upset to find himself in the political wilderness, increasingly abandoned by his peers and pals? The very trees and shrubs in the forest seem to be singing, “Come down from that socialist tree, Tom-fraidy-cat, and join the Ron Paul revolution!”

I’m just saying.

It’s worthwhile to explain one last spear weakly tossed by the clearly exhausted Tomasky in his [somewhat entertaining] hit piece. He writes, “The idea of virtually no state is just silly,” and he seems to think Ron Paul advocates this concept. The Paul proposal to save a trillion dollars in one year and his “Restore the Republic” economic plan are nowhere near no-state, or even small state. With $15 trillion in debt, and over $70 Trillion in unfunded state liabilities – Ron Paul seems to be saying cut some unneeded federal spending in order to SAVE the state and allow it to make good on its promises to the old, the middle aged, and the young. Frankly, many young people are about ready to expatriate, and give up on saving the republic. In this way, Dr Paul is pro-state. I have to admit, I’m on the fence as to what to advise my own children – stay and take a chance the American republic can survive, or leave and start anew much as my great-great-great-great-great grandparents did.

Tomasky longs for the day when he no longer has to think about “this pestilential little locust.” This particular statement comes on the heels of a mini-tirade about the nature of the free market, capitalism, and how government would be just fine if it wasn’t corrupted by …uh.. well… people. The great unwashed, the gritty competitive and living world of humanity – always so hard to rule from the central planner’s roost, the serfs and knaves always so ungrateful for their naked king. Tomasky is a sliver of intelligentsia, that as Hayek once observed, “need not possess special knowledge of anything in particular, nor need he even be particularly intelligent, to perform his role as intermediary in the spreading of ideas.”

Yes, Tomasky is exactly that kind of functionary – limited in knowledge, not particularly intelligent, performing his role. And if I may be so bold, he’s shaking in his boots because Obama will be the last American socialist dictator-in-chief if Ron Paul and his great and growing army of patriotic, passionate, small-government constitutionalists get their way.”

Comment:

Karen Kwiatkowski hits back at Michael Tomasky’s bizarre anti-Paul rant.

Look, I have my doubts about voting for Ron Paul….or, rather, about voting at all. I think a bigger message would be sent if no one voted.  But my worries about Paul are entirely different from Tomasky’s or even Wendy McElroy’s. They worry, from a left-liberal perspective, that Paul is too much a Republican and not enough a libertarian.

I worry that he’s too much a libertarian and not enough a Republican (on certain issues). I wish he’d take a stronger stance on corruption, corporatism,  Zionist fanaticism and an irresponsible public culture (a stonger rhetorical stance, I mean. I don’t advocate legislating those issues). 

In short, I respect the very things most people hate about Ron Paul (his “Republican” and traditionalist positions)….

And fear the very things that make him popular (his “libertarian” anti-police state/antiwar positions).

This is not because I am pro-war or pro-police state. Of course not. I abhor both.

But while Tomasky and McElroy worry that he’s anti-Semitic and racist, I worry that he’s an ardent Zonist  whose peacenik positions make him the right man for the moment when the American globalist phase of empire folds and the Israeli globalist phase begins.

The king (in DC) is dead, long live the king (in Tel Aviv..,,,,or Jerusalem).

They worry that he’s too cozy with corporations. I fear he’s too cozy with the financial sector and middlemen, many of whom are anti-capitalist technocrats and managers who’ve manipulated the gold community and the gold price itself in pursuit of their globalist ambitions. 

They fear he’s stupid.  I fear he’s too clever by half.

They think he’s a rube. I think he plays dumb like a fox.

They call him a batty uncle.

I fear he’s a pragmatist under the rhetoric of an ideologue and that his anti-imperial positions conceal the long-term agenda of the globalists.

Or, that he’s willing to let himself be used by more pragmatic people, because he believes that is the only role he can play. Maybe it is the only role any one can play.

For what other reason would Forbes write so glowingly about Ron Paul? Steve Forbes is a signatory of the Project for a New American Century and on the board of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy, both strongly neo-conservative outfits. 

For what other reason would Ron Paul embrace a former AEI ideologue and documented foreign agent-lobbyist, Bruce Fein?

Has Fein seen the light and renounced his career greasing the palms of Congressmen? Has Forbes changed his mind about hitching American empire to the Israeli cockpit?

I don’t see it. But then it’s hard to to know what really goes on behind the public rhetoric of politicians.

One thing I do know though is that Ron Paul has made a lot of the right enemies.  And they’re coming at him from every direction. For me, that’s a good sign. So I wait, hopefully, to see the statesman emerge from behind libertarian absolutism.

Ron Paul might be the wrong man for the job, but, on the merits, he is still a better man than anyone else in the running and doesn’t deserve the public sliming.

But then he probably doesn’t deserve thoughtless adulation either..

Ron Paul: (hat tip to LRC)

A policy of Mutually Assured Respect would result in the U.S.:

Treating other nations exactly as we expect others to treat us.

Offering friendship with all who seek it.

• Participating in trade with all who are willing.
• Refusing to threaten, bribe or occupy any other nation.

Seeking an honest system of commodity money that no single country can manipulate for a trade advantage. Without this, currency manipulation becomes a tool of protectionism and prompts retaliation with tariffs and various regulations. This policy, when it persists, is dangerous and frequently leads to real wars.

Mutually Assured Respect offers a policy of respect, trade and friendship and rejects threats, sanctions and occupations.

This is the only practical way to promote peace, harmony and economic well-being to the maximum number of people in the world.

Mutually Assured Respect may not be perfect but it’s far better than Mutually Assured Destruction or unilateral American dominance.”