Sep 14

Today’s News 14th September 2018

  • Merkel Melts Down After Thousands Of Germans Protest Violent Migrants

    German Chancellor Angela Merkel was heckled as she condemned thousands of right-wing protesters in eastern Germany, who took to the streats after the deadly stabbing of a 22-year-old German man at the hands of two Afghan nationals in the town of Chemnitz.

    The German chancellor was heckled during a lively Bundestag debate by the head of the anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany party (AfD), Alexander Gauland, who accused her of dividing Germany with her immigration policy, endangering peace and spreading fake news by supporting controversial evidence that far-right protesters were hounding foreigners through the streets. –Guardian

    Merkel shot back, acknowledging the anger felt over the stabbing – however she said that “there is no excuse or explanation for rabble-rousing, in some cases the use of violence, Nazi slogans, hostility towards people who look different, to the owner of a Jewish restaurant, attacking police.”

    She also responded to comments made by the head of Germany’s BfV domestic intelligence agency, Hans-Georg Maaßen, who criticized her spokesman for characterizing the anti-immigrant protesters as “hunting” immigrants.

    Gauland accused Merkel of “spreading fake news when your spokesman spoke of ‘Hetzjagd’ (hunting),” adding “The truth is, there was no hunting down of people in Chemnitz.“

    Merkel shot back: “Abstract rows about ‘Hetzjagd’ are not helpful.” 

    Gauland came under fire for his comments; 

    In an interruption to Gauland, allowed under the rules of Bundestag discourse, Martin Schulz, the former leader of the Social Democrats, referred to him as “belonging to the dungheap of German history” over what he saw as the AfD’s contribution to the spread of anti-immigrant sentiment. –Guardian

    Meanwhile, Maaßen faced questioning Wednesday by Germany’s interior affairs committee over public remarks he gave to a newspaper in which he questioned the veracity of a video which allegedly depicts protesters chasing foreigners. A police report from the night in question emerged on Wednesday, claiming that “right-wing extremists” did in fact chase foreigners through the streests. 

    According to the document, leaked to an investigative journalism program, several officers on scene during the protest reported witnessing an increasing number of hooligans arriving in the city. At approximately 9:42 p.m., officers reported that “masked persons (right-wing) are looking for foreigners,” and that at 9:47 p.m. “20 to 30 masked persons armed with stones” were reported to be “heading towards Brühl, to the Schalom restaurant.” 

    As referred to by Merkel in her speech, the Jewish restaurant was attacked, a window was smashed and its owner, Uwe Dziuballa, was injured after being hit by a stone. Masked men shouted at him: “Clear out of Germany, you Jew-pig.”

    The programme, Frontal 21, revealed that one of the men in the video at the centre of the controversy had worked as a security guard at a refugee shelter in Chemnitz, but that his employer, Securitas, had sacked him with immediate effect after his identity was made known to the company. The man is said to be appealing his dismissal.

    On Wednesday, Wolfgang Schäuble, the president of the Bundestag, appeared on national radio to defend Merkel’s decision in the summer of 2015 to allow nearly 1 million refugees into Germany – denying that it had been a mistake, and insisting that Germany had responded to an urgent humanitarian crisis by accepting refugees who needed help. 

    “But what we didn’t manage well enough was to prevent the impression the whole world was under: that now everyone, anywhere, who was living somewhere worse than Germany, could come. That’s what you always have to consider in politics, the impact of your communication,” he said.

  • The US 'Deep State' Is Trying To Split Putin & Deripaska But It Won't Succeed

    Authored by Andrew Korybko via Oriental Review,

    The New York Times broke what would be a major story over the weekend even if it’s only partially true, and it’s that the FBI supposedly had a decade-long relationship of an unclear nature with Mr. Deripaska that eventually fizzled out after he refused to go along with the “deep state’s” Russiagate witch hunt fake news narrative about Trump, which eventually resulted in him being sanctioned by the American authorities.

    The full accuracy of the report can’t be ascertained at this time, and it should be assumed that some parts of it might be exaggerated or outright fabricated as part of a new infowar offensive against Russia, but that’s actually why it deserves to be analyzed.

    All facts and domestic political nuances aside, the very act of publishing this story suggests that the New York Times and their “deep state” partners partially intend to send a signal to President Putin that the US’ secret services are trying to penetrate his trusted circle of confidants, which includes Mr. Deripaska and other big business representatives in Russia that are commonly described in the Western press as so-called “oligarchs”, an unclear number of whom were also supposedly contacted by the FBI as well.

    Building off of this, the US might be trying to sow the seeds of paranoia within the inner ranks of Russia’s political and economic elite, hoping that this will cause the government to counterproductively overreact and generate fault lines within the establishment that could then be exploited from abroad.

    Russian metals magnate Oleg Deripaska and Russian President Vladimir Putin

    To be clear, such a scheme won’t succeed because it’s based off of a fundamental misreading of the Russian Establishment that’s irredeemably clouded by wishful thinking and false expectations, but it does have one thing going for it and it’s the national security vulnerabilities inherent in big business representatives having homes and economic interests in countries that are waging Hybrid Warfare against their homeland. That’s not at all to question the patriotism of these individuals, but just to point out that foreign forces will always try to take advantage of this state of affairs to provoke discord between these individuals and their governments, meaning that the devious infowar attack over the weekend won’t by any means be the last.

  • Understanding The Tactics Of Subversive Globalism

    Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

    When the ideology of globalism is discussed in liberty movement circles there are often misunderstandings as to the source of the threat and what it truly represents. This may in some cases be by design. In the latest era of supposed “populism” led by figures like Donald Trump, an entirely new and very green generation of liberty activists find themselves hyper focused on the political left in general, but they seem to be obsessed with attacking the symptoms of globalism rather than the source. I attribute this to a clever propaganda campaign by globalist institutions.

    For example, when globalism is brought up in terms of its conspiratorial influences, the name of George Soros is usually mentioned. Soros is an obvious bogeyman for liberty activists because his money can be found flowing to numerous Cultural Marxist (social justice) organizations and his influence is easily grasped and digested in that way. Conservatives like placing emphasis on Soros because he appears decidedly leftist and thus globalism becomes synonymous with leftist movements. But what about all the globalists within the political right?

    Globalism has its gatekeepers in both political camps; people that manipulate or outright control political leaders and political messages on the right just as they do on the left. While someone like George Soros acts as a gatekeeper for the left, we also have people like Henry Kissinger, a globalist gatekeeper for the right. Kissinger’s close relations with the Trump administration or his long time friendship with Russia’s Vladimir Putin are brought up far less in the liberty movement these days. Why? Because this does not fit with the false narrative that the globalists are “targeting” Trump or Putin. When you examine these leaders and their ties to a vast array of globalist proponents, this claim becomes absurd.

    In 2016, months before the presidential election, the globalist media outlet Bloomberg published an article which salivated over the possibility that Trump would swallow up and assimilate what they called the “Tea Party,” ultimately destroying it. At that time the media used the term “Tea Party” as code for any sovereignty or constitutional group, just as the media tried to wrap us all up in the term “alt-right” after Trump’s election.

    There was a reason why Bloomberg found particular glee in the notion that Trump would absorb the liberty movement. The movement was becoming a decentralized threat to the globalist agenda, a threat that could not be easily quantified or dominated because it had no identifiable leadership. We were a movement based on knowledge and individual action. Our best “leaders” have been teachers, not politicians, and these were people that led by personal example, not by mandate or rhetoric.

    The liberty movement was winning ground in every conceivable arena, from the dismantling of the mainstream media through alternative platforms, to the great push back against social justice cultism. Something had to be done.

    Enter Trump, a brash pop culture icon with a flare for sensationalism. He was no statesman like Ron Paul explaining the intricacies of America’s problems in a measured way. No, Trump was like a wrecking ball, a loud and blatant message to the left that we were tired of being on the defensive and we were coming for them. But the reality was that Trump was not a necessary element of the fight. He never was. Anti-globalism and anti-social justice were already hitting the mainstream. The left was already on the run. Trump didn’t create that wave, the liberty movement did that for him, he just rode it into the White House. You’re welcome, Donald.

    The problem was that Trump was not what he seemed to be to many people. With all his rhetoric against the banking elites which he referred to as creatures of the “swamp” choking Washington, Trump then proceeded to load up his presidential cabinet with elitists and globalists as soon as he was elected. These very same cabinet members and advisers went on to attend globalist meetings like the secretive Bilderberg Group AFTER Trump had been elected. People like Rothschild banking agent and Commerce Secretary Wilber Ross who officially attended in 2017, or adviser Peter Thiel who officially attended in 2018.

    This was not at all surprising to me. I predicted this would be the likely outcome (along with a Trump presidency) in my article “Clinton Versus Trump And The Co-Option Of The Liberty Movement,” published in September 2016.

    The point is, simply picking the side of the political right is not enough to protect activists from globalist subversion. By rallying around controlled politicians and bottle-necking our actions the liberty movement makes itself vulnerable and decidedly impotent.

    So, the question arises – how do we continue to fight against the 4th Generation warfare being levied against us? Part of the solution continues to rest in our own understanding of the enemy.

    I still hold to the idea that the best way to understand globalism is to study and expose the efforts of a group called the “Fabian Society,” otherwise known as Fabian Socialists. The society was founded in England in 1884 and was an extension of the “Round Table” groups being established by global elitists in the West at the time. The Fabians have been at the forefront of almost every pro-socialist and pro-globalist movement of the past century, and while they do not get as much attention as institutions like the Council on Foreign Relations or even the Bilderberg Group, their open discussions on their own motivations and goals make them a prime source of data on the psychology of our opponents.

    The Fabian Society has multiple mascots which hint at the nature of globalism. One symbol of the group is an angry turtle with the slogan “When I strike I strike hard,” indicating the slow and deliberate nature of globalism and its methodical spread into every aspect of our daily lives. Another mascot they have used in the past is a wolf dressed up as a sheep, a symbol which I think is self explanatory, but to clarify – a person that appears to be anti-globalist in rhetoric or who is criticized by people like the Fabians may still be a Fabian in disguise.  Their relationships with elitists will expose their true nature as a Trojan Horse.

    I think that the best representation of these people and their thinking resides in their own words, however. Here are some choice quotes from past members:

    …The Open Conspiracy will appear first, I believe as a conscious organization of intelligent, and in some cases wealthy men, as a movement having distinct social and political aims, confessedly ignoring most of the existing apparatus of political control, or using it only as an incidental implement in the stages, a mere movement of a number of people in a certain direction, who will presently discover, with a sort of a surprise, the common object toward which they are all moving. In all sorts of ways, they will be influencing and controlling the ostensible government.” — H.G. Wells: The Open Conspiracy: Blue Prints for a World Revolution, 1928.

    “I also made it quite clear that socialism means equality of income or nothing, and that under Socialism you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you like it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live you would have to live well.” — George Bernard Shaw, The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism, 1928

    “I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others, which, one must suppose, opponents of birth control would prefer. War, as I remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. There would be nothing in this to offend the consciences of the devout or to restrain the ambitions of nationalists. The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s.” — Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society, 1953

    “I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology. … Various results will soon be arrived at: that the influence of home is obstructive… although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generatio will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen … Educational propaganda, with government help, could achieve this result in a generation. There are, however, two powerful forces opposed to such a policy: one is religion; the other is nationalism. … A scientific world society cannot be stable unless there is a world government.” — Bertrand Russell: The Impact of Science on Society, 1953

    “And it seems to me perfectly in the cards that there will be within the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing … a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda, brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods.” — Aldous Huxley, “The Ultimate Revolution” March 20, 1962 Berkeley Language Center

    Today, the Fabian Society still exists and operates as a think tank much like any other globalist think tank. Their articles and essays push the latest globalist propaganda from the erasure of national sovereignty to the promotion of gender politics and gender “fluidity.” But what can we draw from these writings and the statements of past members?

    First, globalists use guerrilla-like tactics to achieve their goals and they often act slowly and quietly over the course of years or decades. The Fabian Society was named after the Roman General Quintus Fabius Maximus who famously used tactics of attrition and delay to defeat his enemies. Liberty activists need to start thinking in terms of the long game, much like a chess player does, in order to grasp the globalist agenda. The events triggered today may have intended effects which are not necessarily obvious to us now unless we consider how they relate to the greater scheme.

    This is especially true in terms of economics.  Globalists stage fiscal bubbles many years in advance, and use economic crisis as a catalyst for social change on a grand scale.  Usually this results in ever increasing centralization of wealth and power.  However, the shift of financial dominance is subtle to those who do not pay particular attention to the details.  A market bubble might take a decade to develop before it is deliberately popped.  In the meantime all the fundamentals are screaming that something is very wrong, but the majority of the public remains oblivious until it is too late.

    Second, control of governments and political leaders is paramount to the success of globalism. The notion that ANY major political leader comes to power without globalist influence is utterly naive. Trump and his swamp creature appointed cabinet are perfect examples of this. Rhetoric is meaningless, and while such leaders may throw their base a bone now and then, in the end their actions only push the ball forward for the globalists. This may even include sabotaging their own presidency to make way for a globalist “solution.”

    Third, mass psychology is a globalist obsession. All power stems from perception. Figureheads and ideological groups sometimes offer the promise of social advantage to the public without much effort on their part. The temptation of this offer can lead people to hand over their free will in exchange. But not all “progress” is actually advantageous for the masses and misery usually follows such Faustian deals with the elites. Escape is difficult.

    Therefore, globalists must control the narrative at all costs. The public has to be divided as much as possible in order to keep them distracted from the guiding hand of the cabal itself. And, any group that opposes them directly has to be co-opted or destroyed. The more people focus on globalists and their organizations as the core source of social instability, the more uncomfortable they become.

    Fourth, most globalist actions today rely on 4th Generation warfare; meaning, few things are exactly as they seem, ever. I suspect the success of liberty activists has forced them into more elaborate forms of theater. Nothing they do is ever simple unless you have studied the motivations and mindset of the globalists, then they become rather predictable, unoriginal and bizarrely robotic in their behavior. They appear brilliant in the execution of their agendas only because they have centuries of experience implementing the same con games over and over. They are sociopathic grifters; they are clever and without remorse, but not geniuses in any sense of the word.

    For now, educating the general liberty movement and the people around us on these issues remains the best method for throwing a monkey wrench into the globalist machine. Countering their psyops should be our pinnacle task, and falling into the narrative traps they create must be avoided. They have spent a considerable amount of thought and energy trying to co-opt our efforts, and that should give everyone pause. For if we were not a true threat, why would they bother with us?

    *  *  *

    If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here.  We greatly appreciate your patronage.

  • Trump Slams Kerry's "Illegal Meetings" With Iran Which "Undercut" White House

    update: On Thursday night, after news of John Kerry’s Wednesday Hugh Hewitt Show radio interview in which he admitted meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif “three or four times” since Donald Trump took office for unauthorized discussions touching on the Iran nuclear deal, President Trump slammed the “illegal meetings” as serving to “undercut” White House diplomatic dealings with Iran. 

    Trump further hinted that Kerry violated the Logan Act by rhetorically asking whether Kerry is officially registered as a foreign agent.

    The president tweeted: John Kerry had illegal meetings with the very hostile Iranian Regime, which can only serve to undercut our great work to the detriment of the American people. He told them to wait out the Trump Administration! Was he registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act? BAD!

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Multiple conservative commentators said Kerry finally admitted to prior charges that he was conducting secretive talks behind Trump’s back aimed toward salvaging the 2015 nuclear deal. 

    Later in the same day as the Hugh Hewitt Show admissions, former Secretary of State Kerry appeared on FOX and was interviewed by Dana Perino.

    “I think everybody in the world is sitting around talking about waiting out President Trump,” Kerry said to Perino. “You’ve got our allies, remarkably — the people that we’ve worked with the closest through the years — who are sitting there saying, ‘What’s next?'” Kerry added. 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    In reaction to the Dana Perino interview former Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer said on “Special Report” Kerry was likely advising Iran on how to “wait out” the tenure of President Trump.

    * * * 

    Earlier

    Though he previously denied it when allegations first surfaced last Spring, former Secretary of State John Kerry has now disclosed he’s personally had semi-frequent face to face contact with top Iranian officials to discuss US-Iran relations since Trump entered office.

    Kerry confirmed and explained in detail his recent meetings with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif in an interview with radio host Hugh Hewitt to promote his new memoir, Every Day Is Extra.

    During the interview Kerry disclosed that he met with Zarif “three or four times” and discussed political issues and challenges between the United States and Iran in what could constitute a significant and clear violation of the Logan Act. 

    Back when Kerry was actually authorized to do this sort of thing as Secretary of State under Obama in 2015. Via the Iran Project

    While it’s almost never been enforced, the 1799 Logan Act states that unauthorized diplomacy with foreign powers by private American citizens is a crime. Notably, two Trump-connected individuals that prominent Liberals and editorials demanded be prosecuted under the Logan Act include former national security advisor Michael Flynn and Trump senior adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner. 

    When asked point blank during the radio show about his rumored meetings with top Iran officials, Kerry admitted, “I think I’ve seen him three or four times,” but attempted to claim he was not trying to “coach” Iran on how to navigate President Trump’s pullout of the Iran nuclear deal.

    Kerry is of course now a private citizen out of government but holds significant clout and influence with the Iran FM as the two hammered out the details of the JCPOA brokered under President Obama in the first place. 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    However, by Kerry’s own explanation it looks precisely like he was doing this: “What I have done is tried to elicit from him what Iran might be willing to do in order to change the dynamic in the Middle East for the better,” Kerry said. He also shared his belief that American policy in the Middle East would be much better off if the White House had stayed in the agreement, and that the global community would be more stable and secure. 

    It sure sounds like unauthorized diplomacy behind Trump’s back by a high ranking member of the former administration to us…

    Soon after the interview, some Iran hawks in Congress took to Twitter to decry the hypocrisy of the whole thing. 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Here’s a key part of the transcript via the Hugh Hewitt Show:

    Hugh Hewitt: Okay, it’s been reported you’ve met with him a couple of times at least since leaving office as well. So you still…

    John Kerry: Yes, I have. That’s accurate.

    HH: And is it a half dozen times, a dozen times?

    JK: No. No, no, no. I met with him at a conference in Norway. I think I saw him in a conference in Munich at the World Economic Forum. So I’ve probably seen him three or four times.

    HH: Are you trying to coach him through the Trump administration’s rejection of the JCPOA?

    JK: No, that’s not my job, and my coaching him would not, you know, that’s not how it works. What I have done is tried to elicit from him what Iran might be willing to do in order to change the dynamic in the Middle East for the better. You know, how does one resolve Yemen? What do you do to try to get peace in Syria? I mean, those are the things that really are preoccupying, because those are the impediments to people, to Iran’s ability to convince people that it’s ready to embrace something different. I mean, and I’ve been very blunt to Foreign Minister Zarif, and told him look, you guys need to recognize that the world does not appreciate what’s happening with missiles, what’s happening with Hezbollah, what’s happening with Yemen. You’re supporting you know, an ongoing struggle there They say they’re prepared to negotiate and to resolve these issues. But the administration’s taken a very different tack. I don’t know as I talk to you today if there’s been any dialogue or sit down. I don’t think there has, which would open up any kind of diplomatic channel. And it appears right now as if the administration is hell bent for leather determined to pursue a regime change strategy to bring the economy down and try to isolate further. And I would simply caution that the United States historically has not had a great record in regime change strategies, number one. And number two, that makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for any Iranian leader to sit down and negotiate anything, because they’re not going to do it in a capitulatory, you know, situation. It’s just not going to happen.

    It certainly appears that Kerry by his own admission is indeed trying to “coach” the Iranian FM on how to deal with the current White House. And the discussions clearly included chiding the Trump administration over its Iran policy while in Kerry’s own words the “open[ing] of diplomatic channels” was on his mind. 

    Meanwhile some Republican lawmakers have already, hours after the interview, unleashed charges that Kerry is engaged in rogue diplomacy and is undermining the active, elected administration.  

    It was only a matter of time before he put his foot in his mouth, and promoting his new book means we’re likely about to hear a lot more self implicating details spilled. 

  • More Evidence Of Economic Turmoil In NYC As Garment District Unravels

    Yesterday we noted that New York City is turning into a retail wasteland, after the New York Times documented a plague of vacant storefronts along the city’s most popular retail corridors. 

    Today, RetailDive shines a spotlight on the Manhattan-focused Garment District’s rapid unraveling, as office spaces from other industries encroach on the highly sought after real estate. 

    The area, which roughly encompasses the streets between 35th Street and 40th Street, and the avenues between Broadway and Ninth, has been protected by strict zoning laws since 1987.

    But times have changed. New York City has lost 95% of its manufacturing workforce since its heyday in the 1950s, and a 2011 report from the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC), a non-profit centered on economic growth in New York City, indicated that fashion manufacturing jobs in NYC had further declined 61% since 2001. Recently, the Garment District Alliance reported that “from March 2017 to March 2018, New York City’s apparel manufacturing industry shrunk by an additional 7.7%, a loss of approximately 1,000 jobs.” And as of August 2018, the AP estimated that only 5,000 garment manufacturing workers remained. –RetailDive

    New York’s Garment District isn’t the only part of the country to suffer from evaporating jobs in apparel; In 2012, the US Department of Commerce reported that “since 1990, employment in apparel, leather, and allied product manufacturing has shrunk by 912,000 jobs, or 84 percent.” Most of the remaining jobs are located in New York, California and Texas. Moreover, textile and apparel manufacturing shrunk from 0.57% of US GDP to 0.16% from 1998 – 2015, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. 

    Preserving the district?

    In February of last year, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said that it would rezone the Garment District; removing some outdated restrictions, while developing Brooklyn’s rapidly gentrifying Sunset Park district. The next month, the NYCEDC teamed up with the Council of Fashion Designers of America (CFDA) and the Garment District Alliance to provide financial incentives to companies who wished to relocate from Manhattan to Brooklyn. 

    This did not sit well with some people…

    Outrage over rumors of a Brooklyn relocation of the Garment District led to heated debates in public forums, and in summer 2017, the Garment Center Steering Committee was formed by Manhattan Borough President Gale A. Brewer, Council Member Corey Johnson, and Deputy Mayor for Housing and Economic Development Alicia Glen. The committee engaged with NYCEDC, as well as New York fashion industry interests, including costume theater industry workers and the Garment District Alliance. They released a report that provided recommendations on real estate and business development that would help the Garment District transition into a more sustainable manufacturing center. –RetailDive

    The plan to pay companies to move was ultimately scrapped over the outcry.  

    “People had it in their heads that the Garment District was being asked to move, but no one was being asked to move,” said Julieanne Herskowitz, vice president in the development department at NYCEDC. “But what was clear is that we had not sufficiently thought of the Garment District, and [Manhattan Borough President] Gale Brewer and [Council Member] Corey Johnson pushed the city to think about how the Garment District could remain a hub of fashion in the city if zoning were to be lifted. There are about 400 companies in the area, employing about 4,000 people. It’s still a critical hub.”

    “We had agreed to help with relocation costs, and then Gale Brewer said she won’t support a plan that doesn’t include retaining a core in the Garment District,” said Garment District Alliance president Barbara Blair. “She didn’t want all these jobs being encouraged to leave for Brooklyn.”

    Brewer’s office responded, insisting that “The whole fashion industry in New York depends on the tight-knit cluster of specialty suppliers and skilled workers in the heart of Manhattan, which is why we’re acting to keep it strong and successful,” adding “It’s not about choosing between the Garment Center or growth in the other boroughs. A strong foundation here lays the groundwork for success everywhere.” 

    Brooklyn Exodus

    Despite efforts to rescue Manhattan manufacturing, it seems nothing can stop the exodus. 

    “People think this is a neighborhood-centric issue, but it’s not,” Blair said. “We used to have 150,000 manufacturing jobs in this neighborhood, and now we have 5,000 jobs. And this is a 40-year national trend.”

    Blair said that although a lot of people blame the loss of jobs on rent issues, it’s more complex than that. “It’s easy to blame the landlords, but basically a lot of their business dried up,” she said. “If designers were still producing locally, [manufacturers would] be able to pay their rent. One of the manufacturers said to me, ‘if Ralph Lauren would manufacture even 1% of his product in New York City, that would be enough to save New York City manufacturing.‘ Of course, NAFTA also had a huge impact too, back in the early 1990s. There are definitely property owners in this neighborhood who have pushed people out. But that’s not the majority.”

    Certainly, some brands, such as Yeohlee, still do all their manufacturing in Manhattan. But others have moved further afield, in search of bigger spaces and a different community. Complexes such as Industry City in Sunset Park, are attracting many of New York’s young creatives. “Over the past five years, we have leased more than 1 million square feet to manufacturers, including a wide range of fashion and garment production companies,” said Lisa Serbaniewicz, spokesperson for Industry City, in an email to Retail Dive. –RetailDive

    Out with the old… 

    While the garment district suffers, Brooklyn is flourishing. “Brooklyn is the second largest hub for apparel design [in New York City],” said Herskowitz. “The EDC manages and operates over 6 million square feet of industrial space at the Bush Terminal and the Brooklyn Army Terminal, and has been investing in these assets. And then also the Made in NY Campus, which will have a campus dedicated to the New York City fashion industry. The EDC is still actively doing that along with the city.” 

    At the end of the day, however, manufacturers just can’t beat the allure of that cheap, cheap foreign labor. 

    “There’s such a huge financial gap between overseas labor and local labor, and you could never close that gap,” said Blair. “We believe that manufacturing should be here [in New York City]. I always thought we would lose some manufacturing, but that eventually, the water would find its level. It just hasn’t yet. There’s an industry in decline that hasn’t found its footing in the new world.”

  • On The Brink With Russia In Syria Again, 5 Years Later

    Authored by Ray McGovern via ConsortiumNews.com,

    The New York Times, on September 11, 2013, accommodated Russian President Vladimir V. Putin’s desire “to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders” about “recent events surrounding Syria.”

    Putin’s op-ed in the Times appeared under the title: “A Plea for Caution From Russia.” In it, he warned that a military “strike by the United States against Syria will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders … and unleash a new wave of terrorism. … It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.”

    Three weeks before Putin’s piece, on August 21, there had been a chemical attack in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was immediately blamed. There soon emerged, however, ample evidence that the incident was a provocation to bring direct U.S. military involvement against Assad, lest Syrian government forces retain their momentum and defeat the jihadist rebels.

    In a Memorandum for President Barack Obama five days before Putin’s article, on September 6, the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) had warned President Barack Obama of the likelihood that the incident in Ghouta was a false-flag attack.

    Despite his concern of a U.S. attack, Putin’s main message in his op-ed was positive, talking of a growing mutual trust:

    “A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action. [Syria’s chemical weapons were in fact destroyed under UN supervision the following year.]

    “I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive … and steer the discussion back toward negotiations. If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust … and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.”

    Obama Refuses to Strike

    In a lengthy interview with journalist Jeffrey Goldberg published in The Atlantic much later, in March 2016, Obama showed considerable pride in having refused to act according to what he called the “Washington playbook.”

    Clapper (far right): No slam dunk Assad did it. (Office of DNI)

    He added a telling vignette that escaped appropriate attention in Establishment media. Obama confided to Goldberg that, during the crucial last week of August 2013, National Intelligence Director James Clapper paid the President an unannounced visit to caution him that the allegation that Assad was responsible for the chemical attack in Ghouta was “not a slam dunk.”

    Clapper’s reference was to the very words used by former CIA Director George Tenet when he characterized, falsely, the nature of the evidence on WMD in Iraq while briefing President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney in December 2002. Additional evidence that Ghouta was a false flag came in December 2016 parliamentary testimony in Turkey.

    In early September 2013, around the time of Putin’s op-ed, Obama resisted the pressure of virtually all his advisers to launch cruise missiles on Syria and accepted the Russian-brokered deal for Syria give up its chemical weapons. Obama follow public opinion but had to endure public outrage from those lusting for the U.S. to get involved militarily. From neoconservatives, in particular, there was hell to pay.

    Atop the CNN building in Washington, DC, on the evening of September 9, two days before Putin’s piece, I had a fortuitous up-close-and-personal opportunity to watch the bitterness and disdain with which Paul Wolfowitz and Joe Lieberman heaped abuse on Obama for being too “cowardly” to attack.

    Five Years Later

    In his appeal for cooperation with the U.S., Putin had written these words reportedly by himself:

    “My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is ‘what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.’ It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.”

    In recent days, President Donald Trump’s national security adviser, John Bolton, has left no doubt that he is the mascot of American exceptionalism. Its corollary is Washington’s “right” to send its forces, uninvited, into countries like Syria.

    “We’ve tried to convey the message in recent days that if there’s a third use of chemical weapons, the response will be much stronger,” Bolton said on Monday. “I can say we’ve been in consultations with the British and the French who have joined us in the second strike and they also agree that another use of chemical weapons will result in a much stronger response.”

    As was the case in September 2013, Syrian government forces, with Russian support, have the rebels on the defensive, this time in Idlib province where most of the remaining jihadists have been driven. On Sunday began what could be the final showdown of the five-year war. Bolton’s warning of a chemical attack by Assad makes little sense as Damascus is clearly winning and the last thing Assad would do is invite U.S. retaliation.

    Haley: Already knows who did it. (UN Photo)

    U.S. Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, with remarkable prescience, has already blamed Damascus for whatever chemical attack might take place. The warnings of direct U.S. military involvement, greater than Trump’s two previous pin-prick attacks, is an invitation for the cornered jihadists to launch another false-flag attack to exactly bring that about.

    Sadly, not only has the growing trust recorded by Putin five years ago evaporated, but the likelihood of a U.S.-Russian military clash in the region is as perilously high as ever.

    Seven days before Putin’s piece appeared, citizen Donald Trump had tweeted: “Many Syrian ‘rebels’ are radical Jihadis. Not our friends & supporting them doesn’t serve our national interest. Stay out of Syria!”

    In September 2015 Trump accused his Republican primary opponents of wanting to “start World War III over Syria. Give me a break. You know, Russia wants to get ISIS, right? We want to get ISIS. Russia is in Syria — maybe we should let them do it? Let them do it.”

    Last week Trump warned Russian and Syria not to attack Idlib. Trump faces perhaps his biggest test as president: whether he can resist his neocon advisers and not massively attack Syria, as Obama chose not to, or risk the wider war he accused his Republican opponents of fomenting.

    *  *  *

    If you enjoyed this original article please consider making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one.

  • Tepper: Trump's China Tariffs Could Trigger A 20% Pullback In US Stocks

    David Tepper was probably riding high after his Carolina Panthers bested the Dallas Cowboys in Sunday’s NFL season opener until Thursday afternoon, when he was forced to reckon with the fact that he’s been underweight US equities since he predicted back in April that the “highs are in.”

    Of course, Tepper isn’t the only hedgie who dialed back his exposure after February’s volocaust whiplashed many funds and forced them to adopt a defensive posture as they waited for the other shoe to drop. And he deserves at least some credit for readily admitting during Thursday afternoon’s interview with CNBC’s Scott Wapner that he’s only been “about 25% exposed” to US equities – which, in retrospect, is about 75% short of the ideal allocation.

    I probably don’t have enough exposure I’ve taken down my exposure. So I’m still long. But you know, not – I would in percentage terms of s&p-type exposure, might be 25% or something of that. And that’s been wrong, because the market has been very hot and the problem for people like me is I’ve had that express with long individual stocks and short you know, futures of some sort or the market in some fashion. And quite frankly our stocks have not done that well this quarter. Which you probably know, you’re going to ask me next or something like that, right

    All things considered, assuming the market was fairly valued, a reasonable investor might expect to reap returns of up to 8% over the next year. But Tepper feels like some caution is warranted, which is why he still has cash he can put to work. Because anybody who has taken the president at his word would probably agree that the market has been too naive in pricing in the possibility that Trump’s trade conflict with China will come to an amicable resolution. In fact, Tepper said, he’s been surprised by investors unflinching optimism in the face of a conflict that could potentially disrupt the global free-trade order – particularly after Trump’s declaration that he’s ready to slap tariffs on another $267 billion worth of Chinese goods.

    Trump, Tepper believes, will probably slap tariffs on most, if not all, of the Chinese goods streaming into the US. And when that happens, stocks could experience a pullback in the range of 5% to 20%.

    Yeah. I have cash I can put to work.Listen I can change things very fast, okay, if we did something, china was solved, somehow which I don’t think is so easy to do. It may be this, we may have to get used that the tariffs just may be on, okay? Then there will be an adjustment in the stock market. Whatever it is, a 5%, 10%, to whatever, 15%, 20% adjustment. Then you’ll move up from there and look, that’s what will be. You know whatever that adjustment, because the currency adjusts, that’s what will happen if that’s the way it goes.

    Tepper has taken some widely publicized swipes at President Trump’s trade policies in the past. But when asked for his assessment on the administration’s policies – and, more to the point, whether they’ve been responsible for the market’s resilience (not to mention the booming economy – Tepper had a few kind words to say about Trump and his policies.

    While he isn’t convinced that Trump’s confrontational trade policies were the best response, as a “patriotic American” Tepper agreed that something needed to be done about China’s predatory IT policies.

    Tepper: I’m a little surprised at the level it is right now. Okay a little surprised I’m not totally surprised. But a little surprised like I said, I don’t think everything is discounted in this price right now. I do think if you do get — again, I’m, listen, I’m a very patriotic American citizen, okay I do think we have to protect our national jewels, our technology so this is a very serious matter when you have very serious matters, sometimes you might have it take a little pain it’s just the way it goes. And I don’t know if this is the right strategy or not. That we’re taking, but we may have to. If it is the right strategy, it’s the right strategy. And we got to make a point I think that that’s not wrong because it’s been going on, I mean listen, as you asked me, trying to avoid it you asked me about some of my stocks, micron. Micron has a very famous case where they stole technology in Taiwan.

    Wapner: Been getting beaten up a lot lately.

    Tepper: I’m talking about the technology stuff. Absolutely happened in Taiwan with a Chinese basically were trying to steal technology from micron that can’t happen. We can’t allow that to happen. There’s other cases across the country I could bring up and stuff. We have to figure out a way to stop them and there’s been other things where they force the technology transfers I don’t know if this is the right policy but attacking it is not wrong. I think that is probably right policy.

    To be sure, Tepper is also anxious about Trump’s decision to blow out the budget deficit, particularly at a time when growth was already robust as the economic expansion enters its ninth year. But will there definitely be a reckoning for these rising debt levels? It’s certainly possible, Tepper said. But as for when that reckoning will arrive, it’s just too difficult to try and time it. Particularly after the market and economy have proven so many doomsayers wrong.

    Watch some excerpts from Tepper’s interview below:

  • Chinese Data Dump Shows Continued Slowdown In Local Economy

    One month after China’s latest data dump disappointed across the board, moments ago the National Bureau of Statistics, released the latest Retail sales, Industrial output and Fixed investment data, which was a modest improvement with 1 beat, 1 meet, and 1 miss as follows:

    • China Jan.-Aug. Fixed Investment Miss; Rises 5.3% Y/Y; Est. 5.6%
    • China Aug. Industrial Output Meet: Rises 6.1% Y/Y; Est. 6.1%
    • China Aug. Retail Sales Beat: Rise 9.0% Y/Y; Est. 8.8%

    While the rebound in retail sales was welcome (if modest) after several months of missing analyst expectations, China’s fixed investment – historically the biggest driver behind the economy – rose at the lowest pace on record.

    On the positive side, property investment continues to be strong:

    • China Jan.-Aug. Property Dev. Investment Rises 10.1%
    • China Jan.-July Property Dev. Investment Rises 10.2% Y/Y

    This was offset by another drop in car sales, while jewelry demand rose 14.1%.

    While some have praised the beat in retail sales, recall that over the weekend Goldman showed the wide divergence between public (strong) and private (weak) consumption data, suggesting that Beijing is goalseeking yet another data set in addition to GDP.

    That said, the latest drop in fixed investment – potentially a consequence of the trade war with the US and China’s own shadow deleveraging – will probably mean more pressure on the government to push growth, meaning more fiscal stimulus. In fact, the record low fixed investment suggests that contrary to the trade war rhetoric, China’s growth woes are homegrown, not just the trade tensions. And, as we have discussed previously, the ongoing sharp decline in investment spending by local governments due to develeraging campaign may be to blame.

    Commenting on the data, Tring Nguyen of Natixis, summarized that “retail sales up but fixed asset investment down again. Not great news for growth expectations & growth is increasingly more dependent on consumption. So what is the reaction from the government? More pump priming? The worse the data, the more the easing?”

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Meanwhile, as Bloomberg also notes, an August jump in local government bond sales from a year ago may be a signal that China’s infrastructure projects are kicking off again to support a wilting economy which has been hit by the twin risks of trade wars and deleveraging.

    • The data dump release was accompanied by the usual propaganda from the NBS in Beijing which claimed that:
    • There is no stagflation or stagflation-like conditions in China
    • China’s infrastructure investment may stabilize in the next few months
    • China fixed-asset investment may stabilize
    • China household debts remain at reasonable level
    • Effects of China pro- growth measures are showing up
    • China inflation pressure remains moderate

    Maybe, but for now China’s modest slowdown is a sharp contrast to the sharp uptick up in U.S. growth, which has helped to explain why Chinese stocks have fallen into a bear market while the U.S. has hit record highs, and why Trump continues to press China on trade concessions: after all he is confident that the US is winning the trade war.

    Ultimately, the biggest risk to China is whether the ongoing slump in the credit impulse accelerates. And if Goldman’s forecast is correct, and the credit impulse is about to plummet, China is about to unleash the biggest global recession since the financial crisis.

  • US Biological Warfare Program In The Spotlight Again

    Authored by Peter Korzun via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    This is a scoop to bring the US biological warfare effort back into the spotlight. On Sept. 11, Russian media reported that the Richard Lugar Center for Public Health Research laboratory, a research facility for high-level biohazard agents located near Tbilisi, Georgia, has used human beings for conducting biological experiments.

    Former Minister of State Security of Georgia Igor Giorgadze said about it during a news conference in Moscow, urging US President Donald Trump to launch an investigation. He has lists of Georgians who died of hepatitis after undergoing treatment in the facility in 2015 and 2016. Many passed away on the same day. The declassified documents contain neither the indication of the causes of deaths nor real names of the deceased. According to him, the secret lab run by the US military was established during the tenure of former Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili. The viruses could spread to neighboring countries, including Russia, Igor Giorgadze warned.

    The laboratory’s work is tightly under wraps. Only US personnel with security clearance have access to it. These people are accorded diplomatic immunity under the 2002 US-Georgia Agreement on defense cooperation.

    Eurasia Review reported that in 2014 the Lugar Center was equipped with a special plant for breeding insects to enable launching the Sand Fly project in Georgia and the Caucasus. In 2014-2015 years, the bites of sand flies such as Phlebotomins caused a fever. According to the source, “today the Pentagon has a great interest to the study of Tularemia, also known as the fever of rabbits, which is also equated with biological weapons. Distributors of such a disease can be mites and rodents”.

    It makes remember the statement made by Nikolai Patrushev, Head of Russia’s Security Council, in 2015. He warned about the threat stemming from biological weapons laboratories that operate on the territories of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). He specifically mentioned the Richard G. Lugar Center in Georgia.

    The US has bio laboratories in 25 countries across the world, including the post-Soviet space. They are funded by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA). Foreign inspectors are denied access to them. It should be noted that independent journalist investigations have been made public to confirm the fact that the US military conducts secret research to pose a threat to environment and population. Jeffrey Silverman, an American journalist who has lived in Georgia for many years, is sure the Richard Lugar Center, as well as other labs, is involved in secret activities to create biological weapons. Georgia and Ukraine have been recently hit by mysterious disease outbreaks, with livestock killed and human lives endangered. The US military operates the Central Reference Laboratory in Kazakhstan since 2016. There have public protests against the facility.

    In 2013 a Chinese Air Force Colonel Dai Xu accused the US government of creating a new strain of bird flu now afflicting parts of China as a biological warfare attack. According to him, the American military released the H7N9 bird flu virus into China in an act of biological warfare. It has been reported that the source of Ebola virus in West Africa were US bio-warfare labs.

    Russian experts do not exclude the possibility of using a stink-bug by the US military as a biological weapon. A couple of years ago, mosquitoes with Zika virus have been spotted in Russia and South Ossetia to cause outbreaks of human and animal flu.

    The US activities violate the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), a legally binding treaty that outlaws biological arms. It effectively prohibits the development, production, acquisition, transfer, retention, stockpiling and use of biological and toxin weapons and is a key element in the international community’s efforts to address the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In force since 1975, the convention has 181 states-parties today. The BWC reaffirms the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which prohibits the biological weapons use. In 1969, US President Richard Nixon formally ended all offensive aspects of the US biological warfare program. In 1975, the US ratified both the 1925 Geneva Protocol and the BWC.

    Negotiations on an internationally binding verification protocol, which would include on-site inspections by an independent authority to the BWC, took place between 1995 and 2001. The US did not sign up. Its refusal to become a party to the verification mechanisms makes any attempt to enhance the effectiveness of the BWC doomed. A Review Conference is held every five years to discuss the convention’s operation and implementation. The last one, which convened in November 2016, was a frustration with minimal agreement on the final document and no substantive program of work to do before the next event takes place in 2021. There is little hope the BWC will ever be strengthened to have teeth. With no verification mechanism, the US military bio-warfare labs will always be a matter of concern. The issue is serious enough to be included into global security architecture. The UN General Assembly is the right place to raise it. Its 73rd session will open on September 18. 

Digest powered by RSS Digest