Former Nazi Bunker To Open As Luxury Hotel In Germany
A massive WWII Nazi anti-aircraft bunker, called Hochbunker (high bunker), dominates the St. Pauli skyline in Germany has new plans to be transformed into a luxury hotel, reported Forbes.
The bunker was built by 1,000 laborers in 1942, created in under 300 days. The structure measures 246 feet by 246 feet, a perfect square, and nearly 114 feet high, with 11.5 feet thick concrete walls.
The shelter was originally designed to house 18,000 people during air raids in Hamburg, a major port city in northern Germany, in the late years of WWII. Nazi air defense systems were installed on the bunker’s roof to fire missiles at enemy bombers.
Forbes said a new luxury hotel will be launched at the historic site by 2021. NH Hotel Group, a Spanish hotel chain, won the contract to outfit the bunker with a Nhow hotel with EHP Erste Hanseatische responsible for the build.
The bunker hotel will feature 136 luxurious rooms, a restaurant/bar, and a coffee shop. There will also be an urban rooftop garden, spaces for sports, and a memorial for victims of the Nazi regime.
“I am very proud that Nhow Hamburg can be built in this extraordinary location as part of this fascinating project. Of course, we are aware of the history of the bunker and its significance for the city of Hamburg,” said Maarten Markus, Managing Director Northern Europe of the NH Hotel Group.
Paul Hahnert, Managing Director EHP and Project Manager, told Forbes that “For us, it was crucial that the hotel should be open-minded in the creative district and, in addition, show responsibility towards the history of the bunker. This is an outstanding realization of the individuality of the Nhow design: it respects the history and at the same time points into a hopeful future. “
The question Prof. Mair discusses is: What’s with the logo? Here’s what the Stand With Hong Kong Facebook page says:
After Daryl Morey reposted our logo in an effort to #StandWithHK and Hongkongers’ ongoing fight for freedom and democracy, the Chinese state intimidated both him and the NBA into silence. But what does our logo actually mean?
Our logo consists of the Chinese character for “person/people (人)”, repeated five times and converging from around the globe on one place—Hong Kong. The number five represents the five key demands made by protesters in June 2019. The form of the logo resembles the shape of an opened umbrella, a well-known symbol of the democracy movement. It also brings to mind the bauhinia, a flower native to Hong Kong and its official symbol.
We created this logo to raise international awareness of the situation in Hong Kong. Hongkongers across the world stand united in our fight for freedom, building on a long history of protest and resistance.
We are not afraid of intimidation & censorship. Fight for Freedom. Stand with Hong Kong.
Will you join us and #StandWithHK?
standwithhk.org
P.S. NBA, don’t you think our logo looks like a team huddle? This is part of the meaning of the design as well.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2IVjnaY
via IFTTT
The question Prof. Mair discusses is: What’s with the logo? Here’s what the Stand With Hong Kong Facebook page says:
After Daryl Morey reposted our logo in an effort to #StandWithHK and Hongkongers’ ongoing fight for freedom and democracy, the Chinese state intimidated both him and the NBA into silence. But what does our logo actually mean?
Our logo consists of the Chinese character for “person/people (人)”, repeated five times and converging from around the globe on one place—Hong Kong. The number five represents the five key demands made by protesters in June 2019. The form of the logo resembles the shape of an opened umbrella, a well-known symbol of the democracy movement. It also brings to mind the bauhinia, a flower native to Hong Kong and its official symbol.
We created this logo to raise international awareness of the situation in Hong Kong. Hongkongers across the world stand united in our fight for freedom, building on a long history of protest and resistance.
We are not afraid of intimidation & censorship. Fight for Freedom. Stand with Hong Kong.
Will you join us and #StandWithHK?
standwithhk.org
P.S. NBA, don’t you think our logo looks like a team huddle? This is part of the meaning of the design as well.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2IVjnaY
via IFTTT
When a still-bewildered General Earl Charles Cornwallis surrendered his entire army to George Washington and to the Comte de Rochambeau at Yorktown in 1781, according to legend, a British military band heightened the humiliation by playing a ballad called, “The World Turned Upside Down.” The composer Lin Manuel Miranda later reimagined the song as a hit number in his acclaimed modern musical “Hamilton.”
In a time without speed of light communications, telegraph wires, radio or Internet, the fall of the British Empire in America still rocked the entire world. It was celebrated and welcomed from the Emir of Kuwait to the Tsarina Catherine in St. Petersburg.
Yet when the Houthi rebel movement that controls much of Yemen wiped out three Saudi Brigades and inflicted at least 2,500 casualties at the end of September, the Western media ignored it.
The outstanding analysis of Frederico Pierracini on this web site still stands virtually alone in offering unparalleled assessment of that event.
It is out of fashion among Western commentators to admit that any “decisive battles” can happen anywhere unless they are safely in the past and the United States has won them. But when the Nazi Wehrmacht overthrew the legendary French Army in six weeks of operations in 1940 and when the Red Army wiped out the elite combat forces of the Nazis at Stalingrad in the fall of 1942, those battles were indeed decisive and the clock could never be turned back from them.
The humiliating defeat that the Houthis have just inflicted on the Saudis is of comparable epochal significance. It does far, far more than confirm the victory of the Houthis in the long, needlessly prolonged civil war in Yemen that has killed at least 100,000 civilian dead over the past four years. The Houthis are now poised to bring the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia itself crashing down.
There is dark poetic justice to this development. The House of Saud will fall as it rose, by a clash of arms in which a young, harsh but dedicated revolutionary movement challenged a worthless old reactionary regime supported by the great imperial power of the day and then destroyed it.
Saudi Arabia’s founding father King Abdulaziz ibn Saud was a dashing, charismatic young tribal leader whose conquest of Arabia from the previously dominant but lethargic, petty, and corrupt Hashemite Dynasty eerily foreshadows the rise of the Houthis today.
The Hashemites enjoyed the religious leadership of the Holy Cities of Islam, Mecca and Medina. They had previously served the Ottoman Turkish Empire but during World War I, they eagerly embraced the British Empire whom the family correctly judged to be on the rise and certain to supplant the Turks as the dominant empire of the Middle East.
This Hashemite reading of global strategy was correct. But there was one insurmountable problem. Sherif Hussein of Mecca was such a uniformly despised, unjust and unsympathetic loser that he was capable of leading no one, and most of his family was no better.
The British led by Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill embraced the Hashemites in the 1920s and put one of Sherif Hussein’s sons, King Feisal I on the throne of Iraq. Even with British military support, the family was hated there too. In 1958, the entire Hashemite Royal Family of Iraq was machine gunned to death in Baghdad in a massacre that shocked the world.
Back in the mid-1920s, Sherif Hussein himself had already been driven out of Arabia by Abdelaziz and the House of Saud. Not all the might of the British Empire and not all the efforts of Winston Churchill could save him.
So when the time came to explore the oil resources of Arabia, Abdelaziz spurned the British and gave the vital concessions to American oil companies instead. In May 1933, the Saudi Arabian government granted a concession to SoCal – the Standard Oil Company of California – in preference to a rival bid from the British-controlled Iraq Petroleum Company. It was the forerunner of today’s giant Saudi Aramco oil corporation.
However, all the fabled Saudi oil wealth of the past 80 years was based on their previous conquest of the Arabian Peninsula. The core military lesson was clear: Brave, passionate troops with dynamic, energetic leaders will always beat wealthier, larger and better equipped forces led by tired, corrupt and worthless rulers.
Now history is repeating itself, except this time the Saudis are going to be its losers not its winners.
The Houthi victory serves notice that the Saudis have met their nemesis. Arrogant, reckless young Saudi Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman has had ample time over the past few years ago to call off his ferocious, cruel and bloody air campaign against the people of Yemen. He did not do so and it is too late now.
Payback is coming. And it will not stop at the borders of Saudi Arabia and Yemen.
A trade deal with China could finally be here! It’s a good one, too, according to President Donald Trump, who said last week, “So, we just made what, I guess, is one of the biggest deals that’s been made in a long time, with China.” He added, “If you look at the deal, the deal is so incredible. The deal is a great deal.” Then we learned that there isn’t actually a real deal yet, just a tentative proposal. It’s also far from the comprehensive deal that Trump once promised.
Either way, one must ask: Was it worth it?
The president is understandably eager to make the case for his tariff strategy. Yet, objectively, the deal is at best a mini-deal. At worst, it’s a joke that pretty much fails to accomplish the goals Trump was trying to achieve. Most noticeably, it fails to get a commitment from the Chinese government to give up its protectionist and authoritarian grip on its economy. It’s also unclear as to whether the deal will succeed in forcing China to stop asking foreign companies to hand over trade secrets. And China will undoubtedly continue to use its state-owned enterprises to artificially direct resources toward—and subsidize—favored industries.
Worst of all, the deal would actually reinforce these Chinese behaviors. For instance, the deal in question would require that China use its state-owned enterprises to buy $40 billion to $50 billion worth of American agricultural products annually—instead of the roughly $20 billion it bought previously. That’s no victory. That’s a concession China already agreed to more than two years ago. And that’s pursuing the very sort of top-down, government-directed policy Trump claimed he wanted to change in the first place.
Unfortunately, thanks to a profound misunderstanding about the value of exports, the president may receive some praise for getting China to commit to buying more U.S. soybeans. While it may be very counter-intuitive to most people, economists understand that exports are valuable goods that we give up in exchange for imports; exports themselves are costs, rather than benefits.
Think about it this way: When you go to work in the morning, you export your services to your boss in exchange for wages, which, in this illustration, are an import. Even if you love working and derive value from it, for the most part you export your work in exchange for your wages and the goods and services that you can then buy with them. Imports, and the consumption they allow, are the goal of trade—not exports. As George Mason University’s Donald Boudreaux notes, “What is true at the level of the household is here true at the level of the national economy: the goods and services that Americans export to foreigners are the costs that we willingly incur in order to be able to import into our country the goods and services that we receive from foreigners in exchange.”
It’s hard to jump for joy at the opportunity cost of Trump’s strategy. After almost four years of lavish rhetoric against China, tariffs all over the place, manufacturing slowdowns, and rampant uncertainty, Trump got China to agree to very few concessions. Meanwhile, the United States will maintain those punishing tariffs on roughly $360 billion worth of imports. This means the supply chain will continue to be disrupted at the expense of American companies and consumers.
Moreover, Daniel Mitchell of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity highlights another opportunity cost of the Trump strategy that’s often ignored by commentators. He writes, “Just imagine, by contrast, where we would be if Trump had joined with our allies and used the World Trade Organization to go after China’s mercantilist policies. We’d be in much better shape today.” If you don’t buy it, look at the reduction in tariffs China agreed to for many other countries while simultaneously increasing tariffs on American exports. And take note of the many trade deals our trading partners have implemented with one another since the beginning of this trade war.
In light of all that, you can’t seriously see the trade war, even one that ends up with this mini-deal, as a win for the United States.
A trade deal with China could finally be here! It’s a good one, too, according to President Donald Trump, who said last week, “So, we just made what, I guess, is one of the biggest deals that’s been made in a long time, with China.” He added, “If you look at the deal, the deal is so incredible. The deal is a great deal.” Then we learned that there isn’t actually a real deal yet, just a tentative proposal. It’s also far from the comprehensive deal that Trump once promised.
Either way, one must ask: Was it worth it?
The president is understandably eager to make the case for his tariff strategy. Yet, objectively, the deal is at best a mini-deal. At worst, it’s a joke that pretty much fails to accomplish the goals Trump was trying to achieve. Most noticeably, it fails to get a commitment from the Chinese government to give up its protectionist and authoritarian grip on its economy. It’s also unclear as to whether the deal will succeed in forcing China to stop asking foreign companies to hand over trade secrets. And China will undoubtedly continue to use its state-owned enterprises to artificially direct resources toward—and subsidize—favored industries.
Worst of all, the deal would actually reinforce these Chinese behaviors. For instance, the deal in question would require that China use its state-owned enterprises to buy $40 billion to $50 billion worth of American agricultural products annually—instead of the roughly $20 billion it bought previously. That’s no victory. That’s a concession China already agreed to more than two years ago. And that’s pursuing the very sort of top-down, government-directed policy Trump claimed he wanted to change in the first place.
Unfortunately, thanks to a profound misunderstanding about the value of exports, the president may receive some praise for getting China to commit to buying more U.S. soybeans. While it may be very counter-intuitive to most people, economists understand that exports are valuable goods that we give up in exchange for imports; exports themselves are costs, rather than benefits.
Think about it this way: When you go to work in the morning, you export your services to your boss in exchange for wages, which, in this illustration, are an import. Even if you love working and derive value from it, for the most part you export your work in exchange for your wages and the goods and services that you can then buy with them. Imports, and the consumption they allow, are the goal of trade—not exports. As George Mason University’s Donald Boudreaux notes, “What is true at the level of the household is here true at the level of the national economy: the goods and services that Americans export to foreigners are the costs that we willingly incur in order to be able to import into our country the goods and services that we receive from foreigners in exchange.”
It’s hard to jump for joy at the opportunity cost of Trump’s strategy. After almost four years of lavish rhetoric against China, tariffs all over the place, manufacturing slowdowns, and rampant uncertainty, Trump got China to agree to very few concessions. Meanwhile, the United States will maintain those punishing tariffs on roughly $360 billion worth of imports. This means the supply chain will continue to be disrupted at the expense of American companies and consumers.
Moreover, Daniel Mitchell of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity highlights another opportunity cost of the Trump strategy that’s often ignored by commentators. He writes, “Just imagine, by contrast, where we would be if Trump had joined with our allies and used the World Trade Organization to go after China’s mercantilist policies. We’d be in much better shape today.” If you don’t buy it, look at the reduction in tariffs China agreed to for many other countries while simultaneously increasing tariffs on American exports. And take note of the many trade deals our trading partners have implemented with one another since the beginning of this trade war.
In light of all that, you can’t seriously see the trade war, even one that ends up with this mini-deal, as a win for the United States.
For many years now I have focused a considerable amount of analysis on the subject of Syria, with an emphasis on the country’s importance to the global elites as a kind of geopolitical detonator; the first domino in a chain of dominoes that could lead to a war involving international powers. I believe this war will develop on multiple fronts, most importantly on the economic front, but it could very well turn into a shooting war involving numerous actors.
Syria is so important, in fact, that the establishment has been careful to smother all discussion about what is really going on there in a fog of propaganda. And make no mistake, BOTH Republicans and Democrats as well as eastern and western governments are participating in the lies and misdirection. Obviously, the first and most important lie is a multi-sided one, and we can’t continue forward until it’s dissected – I am speaking of the lie of US involvement in the region.
Lie #1: The US Has Legitimacy In The Original Syrian Conflict
First, most people reading this should know by now that US covert intelligence agencies (among others) were the force behind the “revolution” in Syria against the Bashar al-Assad. The majority of the fighters coming into the region were trained and equipped in Jordan in camps run by western agencies. The program was called “Operation Timber Sycamore” and was launched in different stages from 2011-2013.
It’s clear according to the evidence that the Arab Spring and the conflict in Syria were products of global establishment meddling in the area. Weapons were funneled from the Libyan crisis into the hands of “rebels” that infiltrated Syria, and equipment directly provided by the US found its way into the hands of groups that would eventually become what we now know as ISIS. The Obama Administration, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, John Bolton and many others were intimately involved in Timber Sycamore. The war in Syria was entirely engineered from behind the scenes.
The bottom line: The US has no legitimacy there.
In the Liberty Movement we talk about this conspiracy fact often, but I don’t think many people consider the wider implications. Was the purpose merely to overthrow Assad? Was it about installing a government that was hostile to Russia? Was it to lure Iran into a vulnerable position? Was it all about oil? The answer is no to most of these questions. These are surface explanations that do not satisfy the facts on hand. There is far more to Syria than meets the eye.
Lie #2: The Original Conflict In Syria Is The Current Conflict
Let’s distill this down to some primary facts: The US and other nations created ISIS and deliberately destabilized Syria. The establishment then tried to convince the American public to support the use of military forces in the region to back the insurgents and the civil war they created. This initial plan failed.
Then, the establishment used the terror groups they created in Syria as an argument for why the US needed to send troops into Syria. This plan partially succeeded, but failed overall to generate public support for wider US involvement.
Kurdish tribes in northern Syria were then forced to defend themselves against the spread of the ISIS plague. The Kurds fought bravely to defend their homes from the terror threat that western agencies had conjured, losing 11,000 fighters in the process. They seem to be the only innocent people involved in the entire affair. They joined the US as allies under the assumption that the US goal was to destroy ISIS. This was NOT the US goal. Not under Obama, nor under Trump. The real goal has always been to use ISIS as an excuse to maintain a US presence in Syria (we will get to why in a moment).
Today, the war has shifted once again. This time, Turkey is invading Syria with claims that the Kurds present an existential danger. The reality is that the Turkish government has sought to erase all Kurdish culture from Turkey and Northern Syria since the 1970’s, including banning the Kurdish language and Kurdish dress and Kurdish names. Even the words “Kurd” and “Kurdish were eventually banned. The Kurds responded by forming the PKK and calling for a sovereign Kurdish state which would allow them to live without oppression. The Kurds did not turn to direct action until the 1980’s after many years of totalitarian subjugation.
The Turkish invasion today is made possible by the rather convenient surprise pull-back of US forces from the northern border. Now, there is yet another excuse for wider involvement in Syria. The US is not out of the war; the war is just getting started. Each time the Syrian problem starts to fade and it looks like it will be resolved, something else happens which triggers another explosion of fighting. This is not a coincidence.
Lie #3: The Trump Administration Is Pulling US Troops Out Of Syria
This is not happening, and anyone who believes Trump is actually ending US involvement has been duped. It’s also not the first time we’ve heard promises from Donald Trump on an end to the wars in the Middle East.
Over a year ago Trump proclaimed that he would be pulling the troops out of Syria, yet, only a week later it was determined that they would remain. Recently Trump made the claim again, and only days later the Pentagon admitted that US troops were only going to be shifted back from the border while the Kurds, our former allies, would be attacked by Turkish forces. Turkey’s military spokesman has said that they will “correct the demographics changed by the YPG (Kurdish defense units much like citizen militias) in Northeast Syria”. In other words, the goal is ethnic cleansing, and as the Armenian genocide teaches us, the Turks are no strangers to ethnic cleansing.
Trump is not the only world leader to pull this kind of stunt, either. Vladimir Putin did the same thing in 2016, announcing an end to military action by Russia in Syria and a removal of troops, only to keep Russian forces there and well entrenched. The Russian presence has done little to prevent a flurry of Israeli air strikes against Syria, nor have they acted to prevent the Turkish invasion, so we must question what exactly Russia is still doing there as much as the US?
These constant fake-outs on a Syrian withdrawal are meant only for the general public as a way of pacifying concerns, and it seems to be working. To this day many people still believe that Trump had pulled US troops out of Syria (or is withdrawing them right now) and Putin pulled Russian troops out after “defeating ISIS”. None of this ever happened. If you tell a big lie enough times the uneducated masses will start to adopt it as the truth.
Lie #4: The International Community Is Sincerely Worried About A Kurdish Genocide
Wow, it truly warms my heart to witness the sudden international outpouring of support for the Kurds in Syria. Establishment rags like the Washington Post and the New York Times, the EU government, the Israeli government, even Trump himself are all announcing their support for the Kurds and admonishing Turkish actions. They are all ready to enforce sanctions or even go to war in the name of defending the Kurdish people. How noble…
The truth is, none of these agents of despair have any concern for the Kurds, and they will do nothing to save them until it’s too late. Later, they will act, but not to save any remaining Kurds. A Kurdish genocide is only a means to an end. And here we start to see the entire reason for the Syrian crisis unfold…
Lie #5: The Kurds Are Not Our Concern, Or, They Are “Getting What They Deserve”
On the flip side of the paradigm, I’m seeing the Trump cult making some outlandish arguments (as they always do) to rationalize the president’s bizarre and abrupt policy actions. The first argument claims that “it’s about time” that a president “stood against the deep state” and ended US involvement in Syria, and we should let Turkey and the Kurds sort out their own mess. I would repeat the fact that Trump is not leaving Syria or any other nation in the Middle East with a US military presence. He is only pulling troops back and leaving the door open to Turkish attack.
I would also point out once again that it is not “their mess”, it is a mess created by western governments including the US.
The Kurds lost tens of thousands of fighters battling ISIS, and the Turkish incursion into Syria seems to be taking advantage of their weakened defenses. This is a situation the US created. The Turkish invasion is a DIRECT result of the destabilization of Syria, and Trump’s pullback from the northern border was the icing on the cake. It acted as a form of permission by the US that Turkey could now do whatever they wanted (for a time).
I am also seeing the narrative that the Kurds are “getting what they deserve”.
Some argue that the Kurds were stupid for trusting the US government as an ally and now they are reaping the consequences. This is hardly a valid assertion. Punishing the victims of a con for being conned is not the American way. At least, it shouldn’t be the American way. Also, the Kurds are not the real target of this disinfo campaign; conservatives are the target, and they’re falling right into the trap. I believe this is a propaganda narrative designed to make conservatives sound like sociopaths.
Trump’s claim that the Kurds were “not really our allies” as they “did not help us during WWII”, and that they were only defending their homes rather than supporting our efforts against ISIS shows an insane (but calculated) disinformation campaign designed to make conservatives look monstrous and untrustworthy. If Trump was really against the “deep state” he would not try to tarnish the image of our only legitimate allies in the region.
Finally, another narrative being spread around is that because the Kurds have a socialist form of governance, they deserve to be wiped out. I would remind the people making this claim that the Kurds are not trying to force their political ideologies on anyone, and Turkey’s Erdogen is a classic totalitarian who has tightened his grip on the nation using every trick in the book, including a false flag coup attempt. Socialists or not, the Kurds don’t deserve ethnic cleansing.
Yes, the US should not have been in Syria in the first place, but then again, we ARE in Syria, and it doesn’t look like we’re leaving, so if we’re going to be there we might as well do some good with our presence and act as a deterrent to an obvious Turkish attempt to erase the Kurds (our allies who fought a terrorist threat the US GOVERNMENT FUNDED) from the area. Of course, it’s too late for that now…
What Is Really Going On In Syria?
If you’re not buying the mainstream narrative, you might be wondering why Donald Trump would suddenly abandon the Syrian border allowing Turkey to invade? You also might be wondering why he would then immediately threaten to “crush” Turkey with economic sanctions and place “thousands of US troops” on the ground if his goal was to end US involvement in Syria? The answer is in the macro-picture. That is to say, we have to ask the most important of all questions – Who benefits?
As I’ve mentioned in previous articles, geopolitical events are being exploited by the globalist establishment as distraction and cover for their controlled demolition of the economy. They need scapegoats for the implosion of the Everything Bubble, an implosion they started in 2018 with liquidity tightening policies that has now accelerated into a full-blown financial crisis. The Turkish invasion of Syria may be the pinnacle distraction event.
With engineered chaos in Syria, Trump’s globalist handlers can achieve a historic level of chaos while avoiding direct culpability. What do we get when we combine all the elements listed above along with lies on both sides of the political paradigm? Well, we get a rationale for war. We also get yet another event which makes Trump look like a bumbling villain and conservatives look like fools or soulless robots.
By extension, any tensions with Turkey suggest the beginning of the end for NATO. As I predicted in January of 2019, it appears that Turkey, a key component of the western alliance, is about to exit. This furthers the globalist goal of the deterioration of the west; the decline of the old world order making way for their “new world order” in which Eastern powers will play a larger role in conjunction with certain European elements. This is a dynamic globalists like George Soros have publicly and proudly discussed in the past.
The Kurds may also be a direct target of the globalist agenda. In a declassified CIA document titled ‘The Kurdish Minority Problem’, the agency indicated that the establishment has seen the Kurds as an unknown factor (which they don’t like) that is fiercely independent (which they really don’t like) as far back as the 1940’s. The CIA suggests that the Kurds are an uncontrolled element that could make establishment goals in the region difficult to achieve.
In the 1970’s the US manipulated the Kurds into actions against Iraq, which was amassing forces against the Shah of Iran and threatening to invade Kurdish occupied lands. Once the Shah was removed from power by Iranian revolt, the US abandoned support for the Kurds. The Iraqi government used the opportunity to attempt genocide against them using chemical weapons sold to them by the US government. History does indeed seem to repeat.
I suggest that because the Kurds are a tribal force of millions that might oppose the globalist agenda in the Middle East, they may have been slated for erasure, and this latest event is merely one of a long series of events designed to kill off the Kurds. Or, at the very least, killing the Kurds is a bonus for the establishment.
Beyond the Kurdish issue, a renewed Syrian crisis and EU opposition to Erdogen could lead to another flood of Muslim migrants into Europe. The last time this happened it sent the EU into an economic and political tailspin. It also opens the door to more fear in Europe and provides extra cover for a financial crash there.
And, ultimately, the Turkish invasion provides a perfect excuse to draw a number of opposing camps into a single place in close proximity, The possibilities for the globalists are endless. The Kurds are turning to Assad for aid and protection from Turkey. Iran is a military ally of Assad. Russia is still heavily involved in the area, and so is the US and Israel. I think anyone with any intelligence can see where this is headed.
If the globalists are successful in turning Syria into the center of the world by encouraging a Turkish invasion with a US troop pull back from the border, they would be killing multiple birds with one stone.
They get a renewed rationale for wider US military involvement within the year. They get increased economic uncertainty as major powers fight over the dynamics of the region. They get a scapegoat for the crash of the Everything Bubble as the potential for wider economic or kinetic war rises. They get a scapegoat in Donald Trump and his conservative supporters, who will not only take the blame for the economic crisis, but also any tragedy that befalls the Kurds. And finally, they get a rationale for the end of NATO, which would be the next step in ending the old western world order.
This clears the path for the introduction of a fully global and completely centralized new world order; a world without economic or national borders in which the elites govern openly rather than from behind the curtain.
One “mistake” (or false flag) could ignite a conflagration between the nations involved. This is why the EU, the Russians, the Israelis and Trump all suddenly care so much about the Kurdish plight. They CREATED the Kurdish plight, and now they are going to use it to turn Syria into a massive powder keg. Syria is an artificially manufactured “linchpin”, as DARPA would call it. It is designed to provide catastrophe while maintaining plausible deniability for the establishment. Trump’s actions in Syria may seem random, but they make perfect sense when we understand that he is serving a greater agenda. The US “withdrawal” is not a withdrawal, it is a prelude to a bigger conflict which benefits the globalist cabal.
* * *
If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch. Learn more about it HERE.
De Blasio’s NYC Helicopter Regulation Forces Chopper Company Into Bankruptcy
New York Helicopter Charter Inc. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Friday after running low on cash, according to Bloomberg. The filing comes as a result of New York City moving to cut helicopter takeoffs and landings in Manhattan.
In 2016, Mayor Bill de Blasio said in a statement that he wanted to cut back on the “non stop din of helicopters” in the city after brokering a deal between the NYC Economic Development Corporation and the Helicopter Tourism and Jobs Council that cut the number of daily flights leaving Pier 6 in half. The deal also completely eliminated flights on Sunday.
CEO Michael Roth said he had to raise prices as a result of the cuts and is trying to conduct more flights out of a heliport in Kearny, New Jersey.
Roth said of Mayor de Blasio’s regulation:
“Took a great business and the City of New York destroyed it. Eventually, with God’s help, I’ll save the business.”
Roth says he is going to continue to operate the business while working out a plan to pay creditors under Chapter 11. His plan is to use the bankruptcy to try and help return the business to profitability.
The business had pulled in as much as $5.8 million in revenue in some years, but that figure fell dramatically to $3.8 million last year. The company was also hurt by a 40% rise in landing fees.
Last year, the 13-person company made about 2,800 flights. Its employee roster is down from 30 over the last two years.
The company sought a merchant cash advance in 2018 when it was desperate for cash and has been unable to repay it. Roth said he only had 6 payments left on his three helicopters when the company had to file for the protection.
Those who advocated for de Blasio’s regulation cited accidents and noise as two reasons to stop chopper flights over NYC. Several congressional members also wrote to de Blasio after this summer’s fatal crash in Midtown, asking for a full stop of all non-essential flights over the city.
The best partnerships occur when all participants have special talents to bring to the relationship which makes a whole more powerful than the sum of its parts. This is the beauty of the multipolar alliance formed by Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and a growing array of Asian, African and South American statesmen in recent years.
When it became evident that the regime change wars that grew out of 9/11 were not merely driven by oil profits- but were rather designed to prevent the possible formation of an alliance of Eurasian nations, a counter-offensive was adopted by those targeted Eurasian powers to ensure their survival and international stability. This counter-offensive was driven by the incredible alliance of Russia and China who together had the combined talents of Russia’s extraordinary military/intelligence capabilities and China’s powerful infrastructure building capabilities.
While certain Asian nations had been positioned by western geopoliticians to be anti-China, other nations under the NATO cage were forced to be anti-Russia. With the surprise Russia-China partnership, moves to unwind impossible knots of conflict threatening WWIII have begun to come unwound. Xi’s current visit to India is just one of many examples made possible by the flanking maneuvers created by the great alliance.
India Joins the Polar Silk Road
The importance of India and Japan’s participation in the 5th Eastern Economic Forum from September 4-6 in Vladivostok Russia can only be appreciated by recognizing this cooperative strategy between Russia and China. Both nations have recently transformed the ambitious development plans of Russia’s Far East and Arctic region into a Polar Silk Road – bringing the BRI into Russia’s Arctic.
The fact that India was able to integrate its destiny into this emerging Polar Silk Road is vitally important for the future of international affairs, as President Modi was welcomed as Russia’s guest of honor. This visit ended with a historic 81 point joint statement with President Putin, solidifying cooperation in nuclear development, space technology, telecommunications, AI, nanotechnology, as well as Russia’s participation in major Indian infrastructure and India’s investment into Russia’s Far East and Arctic infrastructure. The International North-South Transport Corridor was high on the agenda as was an increased building up of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization as “an equal and indivisible security architecture in Asia and the Pacific region”. Putin beautifully stated that both nations have “similar civilizational values” and similar approaches to the “fundamental issues of development and economic progress”.
Echoing Putin’s message of multipolar cooperation, Modi said “by declaring the development of the Russian Far East a ‘national priority for the 21st century’, President Putin has taken a holistic approach towards improving everything ranging from economy, education, health to sports, culture and communication”.
As the Indian president spoke these words, a $1 billion USD line of credit was offered by India for Russia’s Far East development, adding to the $7 billion USD currently invested by Indian firms in Russian oil and gas.
This incredible unification of interests between Russia and India on the Polar Silk Road have flanked the fanatics within Modi’s own government who are ideologically committed to an enemy relationship with China due to the latter’s partnership with Pakistan on the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).
While not as dramatic in effect, the Vladivostok meeting was also highlighted by participation by the leaders of Malaysia, Mongolia, and Japan- all of which have increased their commitments in the Polar Silk Road program and have in the same measure begun to liberate themselves from western manipulation.
Putin’s Far East Vision Diffuses Japan-Chinese Tension
For years, Japan has been a problem case in the Asia Pacific due in large measure to a decades-old military treaty with the USA resulting in 50 000 US military personnel, dozens of bases and an anti-China/Russia missile shield hosted in Japan. Fuel has been poured on the flames of conflict with China over the disputed East China Sea (known in Japan as the Senkakus and Diaoyus). Similarly, a Japan-Russian conflict has been kept hot over decades due to Japan’s claims over ownership of its “Northern Territories” which in Russia are dubbed the “Kuril Islands”. Of course Russia has made clear that it is willing to give those territories to Japan in accord with a 1956 Joint Declaration, but due to Japan’s status as colony of a US military seeking unipolar hegemony around “Full Spectrum Dominance”, it cannot do so, nor can it accept Japan’s calls to formerly end WWII with Russia. These obstacles aside, progress has been made.
While Japan did not make the dramatic commitments into Russia’s Far East as India did, PM Shinzo Abe did make headlines when he stated Russia should be re-introduced in the G8, joining in similar statements recently made by both Emmanuel Macron and President Trump on August 21 in France. President Putin took the opportunity to advance on the theme by saying that not only would Russia accept being re-introduced into the group, but that China, India and Turkey must also become members!
Just two months earlier, Abe applauded the signing of a deal “that facilitates Russia’s efforts to develop the Arctic and ensures stable energy supply to our country”– referring to the Mitsui and JOGMEC oil giant’s participation in the 2nd LNG project in Novatek. Commenting on the LNG-2 deal, Energy Security expert Professor Francesco Sassi of Pisa University recently said that the project “will see an unprecedented level of cooperation between Japanese and Chinese energy companies in one of the most important Russian energy projects of the next decade”.
Lastly, the 9300 km Trans-Siberian Railroad has increasingly become a part of the BRI carrying goods between the East and West. On July 3rd Russian Railways announced a 100-fold increase in Cargo volume from 3000 twenty ft units to 300 000 by upgrading and doubling the rail, making this the “main artery for Europe-Japan trade”.
Malaysia Solidifies its Relations with Russia and China
While Malaysia has been pushed by the US Military Industrial Complex to participate in war games while confronting China over disputed territory in the South China Sea, the current President Mahathir Mohammed has resisted this anti-China stance by calling for increased cooperation on China’s BRI. President Mahathir’s visit to Vladivostok resulted in the creation of a Russian-sponsored Aerospace University in Malaysia and Mahathir’s happy announcement that the Russian Far East will open up new markets for his nation.
On the Aerospace University, Dr. Mahatir stated: “we are very interested in aerospace and engineering. I am confident that the proposal by Russia to set up an aerospace university would not only boost investment but also promote transfer of technology in the sector.”
Mongolia and the New Silk Road
Up until just a few years ago, Mongolia was seriously being courted to join NATO. Canada’s Governor General David Johnson did the most to seduce Mongolia’s leadership going so far as to praise Genghis Khan as the great civilization builder and true soul of Mongolia that needed to become hegemonic in the Mongolian psyche as the nation joined North Atlantic Alliance.
Luckily, the nation’s leaders recognized the sea change and made the decision to drop the offer (though still hasn’t managed to join the SCO beyond its current Observer Status). The creation of the China-Mongolia-Russia Economic Corridor in 2016 was a watershed moment which expands heavily upon the Trans-Mongolian Railway and AH-3 Highway Route creating vital links between Russia and China. These projects play heavily into China’s BRI.
The days before the Vladivostok summit, Putin visited Mongolia where the two nations signed a “Treaty of Friendly Relations and Comprehensive Partnership” to bring “strategic partnership to a whole new level.”Putin announced a joint investment fund and $1.5 billion USD loan which President Battulga announced would be used to build more rail to the Chinese border for coal and mineral exports and the upgrade of the Ulan Bator Railway which Putin stated “is an important transportation artery for Mongolia”. Since 2017, Russian-Mongolian trade grew by 22%.
In spite of all of this incredible development, US Defense Secretary Mark Esper demonstrated the superhuman disconnection from reality shared among all technocrats and neocons of the west during his August visit to Mongolia where he tried in vain to win the nation over to his imagined anti-Chinese alliance.
The Welfare of Humanity is at the Heart of Everything
Re-stating his concept of the global importance of the new paradigm emerging in Russia’s Far East and its connection with the broader BRI as an international affair for all mankind, President Putin stated “I believe that our brainstorming today at this forum will not only strengthen the efforts of human welfare in the Far East, but also the entire mankind.”
This parting thought represents one of the most powerful concepts and sources of creative energy which both fuels the growth of the Belt and Road Initiative and the Polar Silk Road. It is also the core reason why western game theory logicians cannot understand how to beat it (except using the temper tantrum strategy of a toddler wielding nuclear weapons). It is creative and premised on a care for all mankind, whereas technocrats and game theorists operate on the narrow principle of selfishness which cannot generate anything truly creative.
Where Obesity Places The Biggest Burden On Healthcare
Friday was World Obesity Day, an annual campaign established in 2015 to stimulate and support practical actions that will help people achieve and maintain a healthy weight and reverse the global obesity crisis. As Statista’s Niall McCarthy notes, the scale of that crisis has been highlighted by a new OECD report which shows just how much bulging waistlines are costing health systems around the world.
Obese people tend to avail of of healthcare services more frequently with a higher rate of specialty care visits, inpatient stays and surgery, all leading to higher healthcare spending. The OECD states that obese people have 2.4 times more prescriptions than healthy-weight individuals on average while hospital stays are longer and require more expensive and complex treatment.
For example, obesity is responsible for 70 percent of all treatment costs for diabetes, 23 percent of treatment costs for cardiovascular diseases and 9 percent for cancers. On average, treating diseases caused by excess weight costs 8.4 percent of total health spending in OECD nations.
Unsurprisingly, perhaps, the U.S. has to spend the most battling the bulge. Obesity is expected to cost the health system $644 per capita annually from 2020 to 2050 – 14 percent total American health expenditure. By comparison, Canada will “only” have to spend $295 each year during the same period which equates to 11 percent of its total health spending.
