Ayn Rand once said, “Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.” In this case, the only premise that makes sense is that the SEC and other oversight agencies deliberately ignored the evidence handed to them on a silver platter. The question then becomes, "To what end?"
The answer to that question pops into perspective if we take a look at the outcomes of Bernie Madoff's crimes, which are in the final analysis, no different from those committed by Corzine and his cronies. In brief, the damage they did went far beyond the theft of peoples' life savings and investments. First of all, they did enormous damage to a number of charitable, cultural and civic organizations, deeply impairing their ability to function. Second - and I believe that this was the primary goal - to damage the fundamental trust that people held in common.
Let's take a look at the notion of trust from Francis Fukuyama's point of view. There is much that one can dispute about Fukuyama's analysis of trust, but if we look at what Corzine and Madoff actually did, they broke down the degree of trust necessary for what Fukuyama characterized as a 'high-trust' society. According to Fukuyama, a high trust society permitted the development of modern capitalist structures. Virtually every transaction we make depends upon the trust that we hold in common that our contracts will be honored, from the simple handshake to the most complex of legal agreements. Undermine that trust and you get... what? Chaos? Lawlessness? Sure, Fukuyama's a stopped clock who's right twice a day. But he is right in this case.
And then the question becomes, "Qui bono?" The answer will be found on the Gramsci-Alinsky axis and Quigley's Pakistani-Peruvian Axis. The destruction of trust, the pervasive corruption that many now almost dismiss with a shrug - it's part of the second phase of Gramsci's method what he termed "destabilization". Again, qui bono?.
Finally, the question that should haunt us all is, "then what?" No one seems to want to answer that one, much less think about it. For it requires you to think the unthinkable, doesn't it?
Few understand Gramsci or Alinsky tactics and agendas..
Cloward-Piven although Beck championed displaying it/them.. is not displayed even on FOX..
Nowhere is this talked about.. Newt mentioned it “in passing”..
This stuff is radio-active.. no one wants to mention it..
Probably because they do not understand it fully..
There is need for “someone” to simplify this stuff..
Beyond it is a nasty and poisonous malfeance..
On FOX probably O’Really would block any mention of it..
Not that I am encouraging any illegal act or retaliation, but this sort of thing will continue until some of the thieves end up like the coyote hanging on a fence. It acts as a deterrent to those who might otherwise consider unacceptable acts.