Hollywood Movie Director"s "Outlandish" London Home For Rent - Take The Tour

If you haven’t heard of Roland Emmerich, you will almost certainly have heard of some of his movies. Emmerich is the 62-year old German who directed Universal Soldier (1992), Independence Day (1996), Godzilla (1998), The Day After Tomorrow (2004), White House Down (2013) and Independence Day: Resurgence (2016). He is the 11-th highest grossing director in history. Besides directing, Emmerich also produced and wrote most of his movies. Emmerich owns homes in Los Angeles, New York, London and Stuttgart. As Wikipedia notes.

He likes to decorate his homes in a self-described "outlandish" manner, adorning them with rare Hollywood memorabilia, murals and portraits of dictators and Communist figures, and World War II militaria.

Emmerich’s London home is currently available for rent – anything from a few days to six months. As The Guardian newspaper notes,

the house is filled with communist iconography, taxidermy and potentially outrageous art. The property’s interior designer John Teall says:

 

“Nothing is spared, from government and gender to race and religion – but there’s no manifesto. The idea was to provoke thought, amuse and maybe shock a little.”

If you’d like to take the tour, let’s go. Here is the outside on Brompton Square In London’s Chelsea.

Walk past the stuffed zebra towards the living room…lots of natural light.

Murals of Chairman Mao and Lenin add to the relaxed atmosphere.

Before we go upstairs, check out the waxwork of Pope John Paul II reading his own obituaries.

Fancy a shower, share the cubicle with another infamous dictator.

Let’s get cerebral…the office is covered with equations inspired by the movie “A Beautiful Mind”. The desk is constructed from the wing of a second World War plane.

Watch a movie in the low-key cinema room.

When you’re ready to retire to bed, close your eyes under the bed cover made from 70 pairs of army underwear.

If you’re a big fan of the British royal family, you’ll love this guest bedroom.

If we had to be a guest of Robert Emmerich, or one of his prospective tenants. we’d choose this one.

If you’re tempted, the weekly rent is £7,525 ($10,000). Please contact the agents, Kinleigh Folkard & Howard.
 
 

LA, NYC Detectives Collaborate On Weinstein Probes As Arrests Loom

Detectives in New York and Los Angeles have been hinting for weeks that they’re close to arresting disgraced studio head Harvey Weinstein for one of any number of credible sexual assault claims that both fall within the statute of limitations and involve accusers who can provide the evidence prosecutors need to make pursuing a case worthwhile.

As the various investigations into Weinstein wend toward completion, the Guardian is reporting that police departments in several disparate jurisdictions are collaborating to help strengthen their cases and ensure that the maximum number of prosecutable cases are brought against the one-time mogul.

Detectives in several cities investigating Harvey Weinstein for sex crimes are likely to be collaborating as they build evidence and assess whether the film producer can be arrested and charged, experts believe.

 

Investigators in New York, London and Los Angeles have opened criminal cases against Weinstein in the last six weeks, as the disgraced producer faces lawsuits on both sides of the Atlantic following a flood of accusations of sexual misconduct.

 

Los Angeles police department (LAPD) detectives have interviewed witnesses in preparation for presenting a case to the district attorney’s office. The DA will then decide whether to press criminal charges over accusations that Weinstein raped an unnamed actress in a hotel in Beverly Hills in 2013, according to David Ring, a lawyer for the alleged victim.

Many believe the NYPD will be the first to act, if only because Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. quashed an earlier investigation into Weinstein before accepting a campaign donation from Weinstein lawyer David Boies. The LAPD and Beverly Hills police are also expected to pursue criminal charges. But police in London are also reportedly preparing to file charges based on the testimony from three women who’ve accused Weinstein of rape.

Of course, as we’ve pointed out in the past, the pending criminal cases against Weinstein are only the beginning of his legal problems. Many of the more than 80 women who have come forward to accuse Weinstein of sexual assault or harassment plan on filing civil suits, which are much easier to prove than criminal cases, and often result in out-of-court settlements.

The first civil suits targeting Weinstein, and his former company Weinstein & Co. for abetting his monstrous behavior, are already being filed.

The sheer volume of complaints against Weinstein, Christensen said, will be much more easily introduced in civil cases, where rules about evidence involving a defendant’s character and the standard of proof are less stringent than in criminal court.

 

The UK lawyer Jill Greenfield is expected to file civil lawsuits on behalf of a number of women in the high court in London in due course, having written to Weinstein demanding settlements but without hearing back so far.

 

People are contacting me,” she said. “I’m expecting to coordinate a claim for a number of victims."

 

Following the decision not to charge Weinstein in connection with her case, Ambra Battilana Gutierrez signed an agreement in which the film producer paid her $1m.

 

“I thought I needed to support my mom and brother, and how my life was being destroyed, and I did it,” she told the New Yorker earlier this week.

 

The actor Dominique Huett filed the first civil suit since complaints against Weinstein came pouring out in early October, in the New York Times. She is claiming $5m in Los Angeles superior court, alleging that the Weinstein Company “aided and abetted” Weinstein in “repeated acts of sexual misconduct".

Of course, Weinstein has been hiding from the world – reportedly wearing disguises when he ventures out in public – communicating with the world only through his defense attorneys, Ben Brafman and Blair Berk. With penury and incarceration looking almost inevitable at this point, he’ll need all the legal guidance he can afford.

Former Obama Admin Official Offers To Buy Weinstein Co. For $275 Million

One former Obama administration official is trying to engineer a feminist takeover of Weinstein Co., the embattled “mini-major” Hollywood studio that has been spiraling toward bankruptcy since one of its founders, Harvey Weinstein, was exposed for a decades long history of sexual harassment and assault.

According to Reuters, Maria Contreras-Sweet, the former head of the Small Business Administration between 2014 and 2017, has offered to acquire Weinstein Co., a spokeswoman for the U.S. film and TV studio said on Sunday.

A consortium of investors assembled by Contreras-Sweet has put together an offer of $275 million to buy the embattled studio, which has seen revenues plunge since the name Weinstein became synonymous with Hollywood’s coercive, predatory culture. Presently, both the LAPD and NYPD have suggested that they’re nearly ready to indict Weinstein for a host of sex crimes, including at least two rapes.

Weinstein Co. has had difficulty securing short-term financing, which is one reason why its owners would probably be amenable to such a generous bid. Talks to secure a $35 million lifeline from Fortress Co. last month fell apart. And though the studio did secure a cash injection from Thomas Barrick Jr.’s Colony Capital, the firm ultimately backed away from a deal to purchase most of Weinstein Co.’s major assets.

Maria Contreras-Sweet

Contreras-Sweet’s bid comes after the movie studio secured a $20 million cash infusion from the sale of the children’s movie “Paddington 2” last week to Warner Brothers Pictures, a unit of Time Warner Inc. The Weinstein Co.’s co-chairman Harvey Weinstein stepped down last month following sexual assault allegations.

So far, at least 84 women have accused Weinstein of harassment, groping and assault, all of which took place over the last three decades. Worse still, a story published earlier in this month by the New Yorker delved into Weinstein’s practice of hiring private security contractors to intimidate his victims into remaining silent.

In a brilliant twist that would help ameliorate much of the stigma surrounding the studio and its legacy, Contreras-Sweet’s plan calls for installing a majority-female board at The Weinstein Co. Her offer includes an approximately $30 million fund for the alleged victims of Harvey Weinstein, the source added. The fund would be set up through a mediation process, according to the source.

The spokeswoman for the Weinstein Co. didn’t comment on the details of the offer it received. A spokesman for Contreras-Sweet declined to comment.

US President Barack Obama in 2014 selected Contreras-Sweet as the head of the SBA, which makes loans to small businesses and helps them get government contracts. She had previously founded ProAmerica Bank, a Latino-owned community bank in Los Angeles, which focuses on lending to small- and medium-sized Latino businesses.  The SBA is now run by Trump appointee Linda McMahon.

Contreras-Sweet’s offer is more than generous, especially considering that Goldman Sachs, which owned a small equity stake in the studio, recently marked its holdings down to zero, reflecting the view that the studio and its assets have become toxic in the wake of the Weinstein scandal.

The proceeds from the “Paddington 2” sale will enable the Weinstein Co to continue to operate until January, the source said. Investment firm Fortress Investment Group LLC was considering lending to the film and TV studio, but those talks ended without a deal earlier this month.

More than 20 other potential bidders are analyzing The Weinstein Co’s financial data, the source said. The studio has $375 million in debt, including a $45 million loan from AI International Holdings Limited, an affiliate of billionaire Len Blavatnik’s industrial group Access Industries, the person said. Much of the debt is backed by the company’s film and TV assets.

Weinstein Facing 6th Sex-Crime Investigation As Former Studio Hurtles Toward Bankruptcy

This must be some kind of record.

The number of publicly disclosed sex-crime investigations targeting disgraced Hollywood studio head Harvey Weinstein has risen to six following media reports that the Beverly Hills Police Department has opened an investigation of its own, while the New York Police Department has opened a second investigation.

Investigations involving the LAPD, Scotland Yard, and FBI were reported last month. In addition to investigating harassment allegations against Weinstein, the Beverly Hills Police Department is also investigating similar allegations involving director James Toback. The department said in a press release Tuesday night that they have received multiple complaints about both the movie mogul Weinstein and the director Toback and are investigating the alleged improprieties. According to a running tally maintained by the LA Times. Toback has been accused of harassment and abuse by more 200 women. Meanwhile, more than 80 women who have accused Weinstein of harassment, groping or rape dating back to the 1970s.

Actresses Asia Argento, Rose McGowan, Lucia Evans and Lysette Anthony have all publicly stated that they were raped or forced to perform a sex act by Weinstein. In Los Angeles, police are investigating an Italian model-actress’ accusations of being forced by Weinstein to have sex with him in her hotel room in 2013.

British police are investigating 11 allegations of sexual assaults against Weinstein that span several decades, sources said Tuesday.

Authorities said the alleged attacks involved seven women and that nine were reported to have occurred on British soil. Three women have stepped forward within the last week, British police said, including one who claimed she was attacked in the early 1990s.

ABC News was first to report that the NYPD has two active cases involving Weinstein.

The alleged victims are Lucia Evans, the actress who previously told the New Yorker Weinstein exposed himself and physically forced her to perform oral sex on him, and another woman who wasn’t named. Importantly, neither case is subject to New York’s statute of limitations.

However, the NYPD reportedly isn’t investigating allegations made by Annabella Sciorra, the actress who went public to the New Yorker saying Weinstein raped her in her apartment in the 1990s.

As part of the ongoing investigation, NYPD detectives traveled in the last two weeks to Montreal to interview a witness, the department said. Detectives have also considered, but have not yet traveled elsewhere, including to Los Angeles. The department"s travels and assistance to departments in other jurisdictions must be connected to the New York City cases.

ABC reports the NYPD and Manhattan DA’s office have received multiple calls to their sex crimes hotlines concerning the disgraced producer. The vast majority of accusations have involved alleged groping or forcible sexual conduct, which are subject to strict statute of limitations and cannot be prosecuted today.

Meanwhile, as Weinstein moves ahead with efforts to sue his former company for terminating him, the New York Post is reporting The Weinstein Company’s talks to obtain a $35 million lifeline from Fortress Investment Group have stalled amid concerns about the flailing Hollywood studio’s finances.

The chances of a deal getting done have recently slid to “roughly 50 percent,” a source told the Post. Bloomberg had reported last week that the financing was imminent.

It was also reported last week that Colony Capital, led by Trump adviser Thomas Barrick Jr., had backed out of plans to purchase the Weinstein Co’s major assets after providing it with a temporary cash infusion.

While the Post cautions that the situation involving Fortress is still fluid, without the money, the company could soon be forced into bankruptcy.
 

New Weinstein Company Film Grosses Just $742 During One-Day Theatrical Release

Weinstein Co"s panicked assurances that the firm is in good financial health aside, evidence of the financial fallout from the Harvey Weinstein scandal is finally beginning to emerge. And as it turns out, being exposed for tacitly condoning the behavior of an alleged sexual predator is really, really rough on the bottom line.

To wit, the Weinstein Co.’s first movie to be released since more than 50 women came forward to accuse former studio head Harvey Weinstein of sex crimes ranging from harassment to groping to assault grossed less than $800 during a one-day theatrical release, according to Variety.

While we don’t have the data handy, that’s got to be some kind of record – even when factoring in that it was a limited release. Making matters worse, the movie featured an all-star cast including Bella Thorne (who played the protagonist) and Jennifer Jason Leigh.  

Here’s Variety:

The Weinstein Company’s “Amityville: The Awakening” grossed a minuscule $742 total at 10 locations on Saturday, two weeks after the haunted house sequel began streaming for free on Google Play.

 

Bella Thorne, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Jennifer Morrison, and Cameron Monaghan star in “Amityville: The Awakening,” which was directed by Franck Khalfoun from his own script. It’s produced by TWC’s Dimension and Blumhouse.

 

The original 1979 movie “The Amityville Horror” is based on the 1974 events at a rural house in Amityville, N.Y., which became the site of one of the deadliest hauntings and grisliest murders in American history when Ronald DeFeo Jr. shot all six members of his family. Jay Anson’s book “The Amityville Horror” detailed a family moving into the house in 1975 and leaving a week later due to paranormal activity.

The showing looks particularly paltry considering the 2005 remake of the original Amityville Horror  earned $108 million worldwide. In “Amityville: The Awakening,” Thorne’s teenage character’s family moves into the house unaware of its haunted past.

The Weinstein Co. had planned to release the movie several times since last year before scrubbing the release date. It announced on Sept. 21 — two weeks before the massive Harvey Weinstein scandal broke — that “Amityville: The Awakening” would be available for free exclusively on Google Play from Oct. 12 to Nov. 8 and have a limited one-day theatrical release on Oct. 28, Variety reported.

Here’s a suspenseful clip from the film featuring Thorne’s character:

Harvey Weinstein is presently the subject of no fewer than four criminal probes being conducted by the FBI, NYPD, LAPD and Scotland Yard. He recently completed a two-week stint in a $2,000-a-night Arizona rehab facility.

The firm was reportedly in talks to sell most of its major assets to Colony Capital, which is run by Trump friend and adviser Thomas Barrick Jr. Colony supplied an emergency cash infusion to the firm shortly after the New York Times published its original story exposing Weinstein’s history of harassing and assasulting women and covering his tracks with settlements and NDAs.

Is This What You Call Being Prepared?

Authored by Jeff Thomas via InternationalMan.com,

In talking with American clients about their need to prepare themselves for the upcoming socio-economic/political upheaval in their country, my advice to them primarily revolves around the concept that, if you’re living in a bad neighbourhood, the obvious solution is to leave.

Many choose to do just that. Those who have limited funds seek out employment in a country that’s less likely to be dramatically impacted than their home country. Those who are a bit more well-heeled generally liquidate what they can in their home country and forward the proceeds to one where the economy and socio-political situation are more stable - and one where the rights of the individual are more greatly respected.

They then convert their wealth into a more protectable form, by buying real estate in such countries and, particularly, by converting wealth into precious metals and storing it in a top-rate facility in the chosen country.

If they can afford it, they additionally rent or purchase a home and acquire the right to residency in such a country so that, if their home country suddenly becomes less liveable, they can simply pack a carry-on and be on a plane that day.

However, far more individuals say something to the effect that “I’m too invested in where I am. I’ll make a stand right here. Let the bastards come and get me if they want to. I’ve got plenty of guns and ammunition.”

This position is, of course, very manly. It smacks of the protection of home and family. And, like John Wayne in his role as Davy Crockett at the Alamo, it has a truly patriotic ring to it.

Of course, it’s also true that Davy Crockett died at the Alamo, along with all those who fought alongside him. (Not at all a positive outcome.)

So, let’s have a realistic overview of this commonly stated “plan” to “make a stand.”

What if the authorities arrive without aggression?

It’s entirely possible that authorities will go door-to-door, neighbourhood to neighbourhood, to confiscate provisions and weaponry. If you see personnel carriers loaded with SWAT teams, who then approach your door quietly, but armed, are you really going to throw open the door and start blazing away, or are you going to recognize that giving up your weapons is better than certain death?

Do you possess adequate weaponry?

When I’ve visited the US, I have, on quite a few occasions, been shown the gun collections of those who described themselves as “armed and ready.” They’ve shown me a wide variety of weapons, from AK-47’s to crossbows. (The former might be a good choice to fight off an assault, but the latter would be a very poor choice.) The “defender” invariably has weapons of a variety of calibres—an assortment of handguns and rifles.

Unfortunately, as any combat veteran will advise, having racks of weaponry in differing calibres is a very poor approach to defence. Instead, a semi-automatic long weapon with plenty of clips of ammunition is the way to go, possibly backed up by a spare, plus a handgun or two, holstered. This should be the outfit for each defender within the home. Not an interesting but ineffective gun collection.

And, even if you’re more combat-ready, with, say, a dozen M-16’s, if you don’t also have a dozen trained defenders living in your home, they’ll do you little good.

Do you have adequate troops?

Some defenders assume that they’ll put the wife and kids in the cellar, while they alone take on the invaders. Others train the wife and kids to fight. If the latter, the defender should first ask himself if the wife and kids are capable of coping with a combat situation. And, in either case, he should face the fact that, once the shooting has started, if he’s not the victor, his wife and kids are also likely to be killed.

Can you man the ramparts 24/7?

Historically, if invaders are repelled, they tend to bear a grudge and, if possible, return again. When they do so, they’re likely to have a better plan and be more determined. Consequently, once your home has been hit once and you’ve survived, the war isn’t over. From that day on, constant vigilance will be needed if another attack is to be survived.

Can you remain at home for months at a time?

Once the fighting begins, it’s not possible to arrange to have battles occur when it’s convenient. There can be no trips to the supermarket or the doctor, as it’ll be too dangerous. It’s essential that you and your family can remain in your “fortress” for an extended time. It may be weeks or months before you can go out the door, and you’d need to be entirely self-sufficient during that period.

Can you actually bring yourself to kill others?

Combat veterans and ex-cops have had the training that allows them to shoot another human being without question. There are also those with sociopathic tendencies who have no qualms about shooting someone who’s facing them. Most other people will not know if they can pull the trigger until they’re facing another person with a gun in his hand. Many hesitate, which is likely to be fatal. Training the wife and kids may therefore be a death sentence for them.

Are you prepared to sacrifice your life and that of your family?

Regardless as to whether you may be visited by the authorities, in riot gear and with automatic weapons, or whether one or more bands of raiders attack your home, what you’re essentially accepting by saying that you’ll stay and defend it is that you’ve made the decision to live in a potential war zone. Given the choice to either put yourself and your family in harm’s way, or move to a safer place (perhaps a country that’s not experiencing conflict), which do you think is the more responsible choice?

Would you not rather be lying on a beach somewhere?

Without being overly alarmist, it seems increasingly evident that the US and possibly some other countries are not so far away from dramatic civil unrest. Whether it be the National Security Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, state or local police, raiders from a nearby city who have become opportunistic, or simply a neighbour who’s run short of food and has become desperate, literally millions of Americans are of the belief that invasion by one group or another is in the cards and are arming themselves as a result. Certainly, their anger is understandable, but their conclusion may not be.

Some of these people will take to the streets, but many more simply want to protect their homes. This is a noble sentiment, but if you and your family are at great enough risk that you’re planning to face being under siege, would it not be more responsible to leave before the bullets start to fly?

Most people, in the course of their lives, move from time to time. In most cases, when they do, it’s because they’d like to live in a better neighbourhood. In this case, the “better neighbourhood” means one where your family’s lives are not in imminent danger.

If this means moving to another jurisdiction entirely - one that’s less likely to be under siege - would that not be the best preparation of all?

*  *  *

There’s a sensible, level-headed way to avoid civil unrest and safely protect your family and wealth from any government run amok. Click here to download your free PDF copy of our new special report, Getting Out of Dodge.

Mandalay Bay, MGM Resorts Ordered To Preserve Evidence In Vegas Massacre

Just hours after rumors that MGM Resorts had pressured Jesus Campos to appear on a "soft" talkshow, rather than a hard-hitting news show, local Laws Vegas NBC affiliate News3LV reports that Mandalay Bay and its corporate owner MGM Resorts have been ordered to preserve evidence relate to the October 1st massacre.

As we previously noted, sources told DailyMail.com, MGM is worried that families of the 58 people murdered as well as many of the 546 injured  in the Mandalay Bay massacre will launch lawsuits potentially worth billions of dollars against the company, and they thought Campos might not keep his story straight under the pressure of the TV lights and tough questioning.

That is why Campos, 25, appeared on a daytime chat show hosted by a fast-talking, dancing comedienne, rather than take questions from TV hardhitters such as Fox News’ Sean Hannity, NBC News or ABC News.

 

‘MGM was behind the decision to call off all the interviews and did a deal with Ellen, knowing she would not play hardball on the timeline as long as she had the exclusive,’ a TV insider told DailyMail.com.

But now, as News3LV.com reports, Mandalay Bay and its corporate owner MGM Resorts have been ordered not to destroy anything that could be considered evidence in a civil negligence trial over events related to the Route 91 music festival. The order was sought by attorneys who represent Rachel Sheppard, a California woman who survived the attack, despite being shot in the chest three times.

“The shooter was in that hotel for six days,” says attorney Brian Nettles.

 

The order, granted by Judge Mark Denton, restrains Mandalay Bay from destroying anything of evidentiary value until another hearing set for Oct. 30 at 9 a.m.

 

That’s when MGM will have a chance to argue against the ruling, before a possible ruling to would make the order permanent.

 

“There’s evidence that’s coming out about surveillance cameras that he may have set up himself, evidence about ways that he may have altered his room or that hallway,” he says.

 

The lawsuit alleges that negligence on the part of Mandalay Bay, and MGM Resorts, contributed to the shooting massacre that claimed 58 lives and injured more than 500 people.

Perhaps now - in discovery - we may actually get to the bottom of the "real" timeline...

Twitter Labels Ben Affleck "Buttman" After Women Accuse Him Of Groping Them

Nearly two dozen women have accused Harvey Weinstein of crimes ranging from sexual harassment to groping and even rape in a scandal that’s upended the entertainment industry’s power structure and threatening to tarnish the reputations of several other public figures, including politicians like Manhattan Attorney General Cyrus Vance Jr., who killed an investigation into Weinstein back in 2015.

But of all the Hollywood figures who’ve been criticized for tacitly condoning Weinstein’s behavior, none have sustained quite as much reputational damage as Ben Affleck, who’s been branded as a hypocrite by Weinstein accuser Rose McGowan for his half-hearted condemnation of Weinstein’s actions.

Soon after Weinstein accused Affleck of lying in a statement disavowing Weinstein, twitter users brought up a 2003 incident where Affleck appeared to grope actress Hilarie Burton live on camera, which in turn prompted several women to come forward to allege that Affleck groped them during a party years ago.

Twitter users gleefully responded by branding Affleck with a hilarious new epithet: The Buttman.

Affleck famously played Batman in a widely panned “Batman vs. Superman.”

He also grabbed Hilarie Burton"s breasts on TRL once. Everyone forgot though.

— Shanice Brim (@ShaniceBrim) October 10, 2017

Affleck has apologized to Burton...

I acted inappropriately toward Ms. Burton and I sincerely apologize

— Ben Affleck (@BenAffleck) October 11, 2017

Then the other women came forward.

I would also love to get an apology from Ben Affleck who grabbed my ass at a Golden Globes party in 2014.

— Annamarie Tendler (@amtendler) October 11, 2017

He walked by me, cupped my butt and pressed his finger into my crack.

— Annamarie Tendler (@amtendler) October 11, 2017

I guess he tried to play it like he was politely moving me out of the way and oops touched my butt instead of my lower back?

— Annamarie Tendler (@amtendler) October 11, 2017

Like most women in these situations I didn"t say anything but I have thought a lot about what I"d say if I ever saw him again.

— Annamarie Tendler (@amtendler) October 11, 2017

I was also at this party and *multiple* friends had this same exact experience. https://t.co/GlSIllKqAJ

— Jen Statsky (@jenstatsky) October 11, 2017

Then Buttman was born...

He is Buttman.

— Robert Zuccaro (@robzuc1997) October 12, 2017

He must have been getting in character as Buttman https://t.co/3XqJXBdPBI

— Nail Horribly ???????????? (@Nooli68) October 12, 2017

Affeck has yet to respond to the groping accusations.

…But just in case you weren’t an avid watcher of TRL back in 2003

 

Virtue Signaling Ben Affleck ‘Saddened and Angry’ About Weinstein, Immediately Called Out For Molesting Two Actresses

Content originally published at iBankCoin.com

After actor Matt Damon had to answer for pressuring a New York Times reporter to drop a negative story on disgraced Hollywood Mogul Harvey Weinstein, his good buddy Ben ‘get them titties out‘ Affleck was called out by two actresses who claim the actor sexually molested them, while a third says he was well aware of Weinstein’s predatory behavior.

After Affleck’s virtue signaling statement that he was “saddened and angry” at Weinstein’s behavior (without actually naming him), actress Rose McGowan – featured in the bombshell NYT report on Weinstein’s inappropriate behavior – called BS on his statement…

pic.twitter.com/f5AgemRXds

— Ben Affleck (@BenAffleck) October 10, 2017

Oh really Ben? You didn’t really “do” much to make sure it didn’t happen to Rose (again)…

@benaffleck “GODDAMNIT! I TOLD HIM TO STOP DOING THAT” you said that to my face. The press conf I was made to go to after assault. You lie.

— rose mcgowan (@rosemcgowan) October 10, 2017

And on Wednesday, actress Hilarie Burton responded to a tweet that Affleck had grabbed her breasts during an appearance on MTV’s “TRL” (Total Request Live):

For which Affleck apologized:

I acted inappropriately toward Ms. Burton and I sincerely apologize

— Ben Affleck (@BenAffleck) October 11, 2017

Only to be accused hours later of molesting another Hollywood actress, Annamarie Tendler, at a 2014 Golden Globes party.

I wonder if Ben is “saddened and angry” that he just got called out?

Holy flop, Batman!

Grope Allegation Against Batman Ben Affleck Creates PR Nightmare for "Justice League" https://t.co/CsGMw7NNEl

— Google "CNN,175,Sue" (@NolteNC) October 11, 2017

Ben Affleck must step down as Batman

— Jack Posobiec ???????? (@JackPosobiec) October 11, 2017

Follow on Twitter @ZeroPointNow § Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Hollywood’s War on Humanity

Via The Daily Bell

Oh, Hollywood… It’s only in this demented part of the planet that a man could give birth to his own mother!

If you haven’t seen it yet check it out.

mother!

Its another stillborn of a film slipped out from between Hollywood’s fetid thighs. A movie midwifed by none other than the talented, anti-human auteur Darren Aronofsky.

Thanks, Darren, for sharing with us your great message! Which is that people are shit. We hear it every day, thanks for chiming in.

We are too greedy, noisy, selfish and we use too many resources. Got it.

This self-serving lie has turned into Chinese water torture by now. Its steady, hypnotic beat against our foreheads is designed to get us to agree, if only to make it stop.

We hear it on the news, in the schools, and of course in art. How much of a virus we are.

Listening to those who’ve hijacked our culture you’d think us humans are base cannibals, roasting and eating our dear mother (earth) alive… pass the salt!

How many times have you heard it yourself? From friends, relatives, colleagues, randoms… “Ya know, there are too many people.”

Oh? Quick, kill yourself then. No? I didn’t think so. These types always want to volunteer others though.

Oh, and God is a bastard, of course. Another of Hollywood’s old hats found in the bowels of this film.

So lets recap mother! 

1. Humans are a craven, unworthy lot.
2. It’s because God is a sadist.

That’s the movie, delivered via ham-fisted allegory. Aronofsky says he came up with the idea in 5 days while reflecting on the Bible. It’s also about as long as it takes a ham-fisted sandwich to rot.

This, my friends, is the state of art in the West. It’s our last gasp and the culture vultures are circling.

3 worldwide monopolies are still run out of the United States. Money, War, and Culture. And they go hand in hand in hand.

Hollywood is a keystone here, controlling the zeitgeist. Telling us whats cool, whats funny. Who we should be killing.

Over the last hundred years Hollywood has targeted: The Germans, the Germans again, the Russians, the Arabs, the Russians again. In that order. And the Germans still don’t get a day off.

These cultural takedowns always prop up actual wars, hot, cold and proxy.

And now humanity itself is the target. We are being taught through garbage like mother! to hate ourselves. And it’s working. You hear everywhere that overpopulation is the problem.

You hear that because you are the enemy. 

The overpopulation parrots have no imagination. They can’t see the cities built on the mountain ranges, under the sea, in space. Last time I checked a single apple seed can produce an infinite number of apples and seeds. You can grow plants in the middle of the Sahara desert, without soil in glass basins made from sun-welded sand and with water sucked out of the air. How about that.

The issue of resources is a technical one. And if humanity needs a particular resource but can’t get it we’ll invent our way around it. That’s what we do.

Overpopulation isn’t the problem. The boring, unimaginative little monsters that rule over us are. And their disdain for the average person is crystal clear.

Here’s the deal.

If they can convince us that we are animals, they can then treat us like animals.

Its all the justification needed to corral us, tag us, shear us, and butcher us. Those that orchestrate such mental machinations are the same types of people that rolled heads down pyramids.

And Hollywood isn’t just a perverted pedo-playground producing garbage. Hollywood is bonafide cancer engaged in psycho-cultural warfare.

If only we could stop dancing to their tune and recognize it for the death dirge that it is.

mother? Not mine.

This boring story of the human animal has run its course. Let’s get back to the inspiration that accompanied the divine human. Let’s reach for the real stars.

New York Times Hypocrisy Exposed: Former Reporter Says Paper Killed Weinstein Expose In 2004

After it publicized former Fox News host Bill O"Reilly’s history of harassing female colleagues earlier this year, prompting Fox to dismiss the longtime primetime host, the New York Times claimed the scalp of another powerful media titan last week when it published a bombshell story exposing Harvey Weinstein’s lurid history of sexual harassment and coercion. After the story was published, Weinstein’s career crumbled as he quickly became persona non grata in an industry that he had dominated for nearly 30 years. Lawyers and advisers denounced him. Politicians returned campaign contributions. Humanitarian awards were rescinded. And the legendary producer was fired from his own company.

But while the Times gloated over its latest triumph of holding the powerful to account, one former NYT reporter revealed that America’s paper of record had, for more than a decade, helped shield Weinstein, going so far as to kill a story about Weinstein’s history of paying off women whom he’d sexually harassed.

Sharon Waxman, the founding editor of The Wrap and formerly an entertainment industry reporter at the Times, revealed in a blog post published Sunday that she had reported out a similar story back in 2004, only for it to be quashed by top editors at the paper, who, instead of encouraging her to pursue the story, questioned its value and relevance after Weinstein had reportedly made a personal appeal demanding that it not be run.

Waxman applauded the two reporters who broke the story, saying she knows how difficult reporting on powerful industry figures like Weinstein can be. But she could only scoff at a column written by Times’ media columnist Jim Rutenberg blasting Weinstein’s “media enablers”, who had rerportedly turned a blind eye to his problematic behavior for decades. After all, she said, when it comes to keeping stories about Weinstein’s disturbing behavior from seeing the light of day, the Times was as complicit as anyone.

I applaud The New York Times and writers Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey for getting the story in print. I’m sure it was a long and difficult road.

But I simply gagged when I read Jim Rutenberg’s sanctimonious piece on Saturday about the “media enablers” who kept this story from the public for decades.

“Until now,” he puffed, “no journalistic outfit had been able, or perhaps willing, to nail the details and hit publish.”

That’s right, Jim. No one — including The New York Times.

In an essay published on the Wrap, Waxman recounted her own efforts to expose Weinstein’s history of sexual harassment more than a decade earlier, saying she verified that at least one woman had reached a settlement with Weinstein that involved the signing of an NDA.

In 2004, I was still a fairly new reporter at The New York Times when I got the green light to look into oft-repeated allegations of sexual misconduct by Weinstein. It was believed that many occurred in Europe during festivals and other business trips there.

Her reporting took her to two foreign countries as industry insiders alerted her to the existence of Fabrizio Lombardo, the head of Miramax Italy whose only real job at the company was procuring “girls” for Harvey to see when he was in Europe.

I traveled to Rome and tracked down the man who held the plum position of running Miramax Italy. According to multiple accounts, he had no film experience and his real job was to take care of Weinstein’s women needs, among other things.

As head of Miramax Italy in 2003 and 2004, Fabrizio Lombardo was paid $400,000 for less than a year of employment. He was on the payroll of Miramax and thus the Walt Disney Company, which had bought the indie studio in 1993.

I had people on the record telling me Lombardo knew nothing about film, and others citing evenings he organized with Russian escorts.

At the time, he denied that he was on the payroll to help Weinstein with favors. From the story: “Reached in Italy, Mr. Lombardo declined to comment on the circumstances of his leaving Miramax or Ricucci, saying they were legal matters being handled by lawyers. ‘I am very proud of what we achieved at Miramax here in Italy,’ he said of his work for the film company. ‘It cannot be that they hired me because I’m a friend."”

Waxman shared how she had convinced one of Weinstein’s victims to overcome her fears about violating an NDA to discuss her history with Weinstein. 

I also tracked down a woman in London who had been paid off after an unwanted sexual encounter with Weinstein. She was terrified to speak because of her non-disclosure agreement, but at least we had evidence of a pay-off.

But despite Waxman’s best efforts, the story about Weinstein that she had reported never ran; instead, allegations of sexual harassment were removed from the piece, which was eventually buried in the culture section, after Weinstein launched a wide-ranging campaign to pressure the paper’s editors and owners – a campaign that involved personalized phone calls from celebrities like Matt Damon, who vouched for Weinstein’s character.

Weinstein was even allowed to visit the Times’ newsroom to make his appeal – a shocking violation of journalistic ethics.

I was told at the time that Weinstein had visited the newsroom in person to make his displeasure known. I knew he was a major advertiser in the Times, and that he was a powerful person overall.

But I had the facts, and this was the Times. Right?

Wrong. The story was stripped of any reference to sexual favors or coercion and buried on the inside of the Culture section, an obscure story about Miramax firing an Italian executive. Who cared?

The Times’ then-culture editor Jon Landman, now an editor-at-large for Bloomberg, thought the story was unimportant, asking me why it mattered.

Eight years after Waxman left the times, the shifting cultural climate created the conditions for Weinstein to be deposed, as rumors circulated that his brother may have been behind the Times story.

Also, with the New Yorker reportedly researching its own Weinstein expose, the Times was effectively forced to act lest it miss out on one of the biggest entertainment industry scoops of the year.

However, the Times isn’t the only media outlet that caved to pressure Weinstein. As Page Six reported Sunday, New York Magazine fumbled its own Weinstein exposed after Weinstein reportedly had the story killed.

Even after news broke, Saturday Night Live – which has made countless cheap jokes about allegations of sexual harassment pertaining to President Donald Trump – was conspicuously mute about Weinstein.

Unsurprisingly, journalists blasted Waxman for her column, questioning why she didn’t publish the story herself after founding the Wrap in 2009. Waxman clarified that five years had passed, and many of her original sources had disappeared. Furthermore, she was preoccupied building and running her own media business – an endeavor that soaked up all of her free time, and then some.

If nothing else, Waxman’s disclosure is a valuable primer in influence peddling by powerful figures. More importantly. It’s also an important reminder that, when the collective decision was made by a cohort of powerful media interests to turn a blind eye to Weinstein’s misdeed, the Times was just as complicit as its peers.
 

Harvey Weinstein Fired From The Weinstein Company

One day after Harvey Weinstein lost his lead attorney, Lisa Bloom, who quit just two days after she said "I will continue to work with him personally for as long as it takes" (apparently all of 48 hours), moments ago news hit that the scandalous media mogul has been fired from the Hollywood company he created. In a late Sunday statement, the company"s directors announced that Weinstein"s employment with the Weinstein Company has been terminated, effective immediately as a result of the mushrooming sexual harassment scandal that has hobbled his status as a media mogul and left his future in Hollywood in jeopardy.

According to Variety, The Weinstein Company’s board of directors has voted to remove Weinstein from the studio, leaving control of the company in the hands of Weinstein’s brother, Bob Weinstein, and chief operating officer David Glasser, it was announced in a statement from the company Sunday.

“In light of new information about misconduct by Harvey Weinstein that has emerged in the past few days,  the directors of The Weinstein Company — Robert Weinstein, Lance Maerov, Richard Koenigsberg and Tarak Ben Ammar — have determined, and have informed Harvey Weinstein, that his employment with The Weinstein Company is terminated, effective immediately.”

Weinstein has been rocked by a devastating New York Times report documenting decades of legal settlements stemming from sexual harassment allegations leveled by former employees and associates, as well as accusations of improper sexual advances from actress Ashley Judd. The allegations extend back to Weinstein’s days running Miramax, an independent film studio that was then owned by the Walt Disney Co.

In addition to losing his attorney Bloom, and key advisor, Lanny Davis on Saturday, on Friday one third of the all-male board quit on Friday, including billionaire investors Marc Lasry and Dirk Ziff, and Technicolor executive Tim Sarnoff.

Weinstein was said to be furiously resisting efforts to force him out permanently, according to Variety. He has also struggled with forming a coherent response, veering from contrition to combativeness. An initial statement to the Times acknowledged past mistakes, while pledging to reform himself. Shortly after, Weinstein’s attorney Charles Harder said he was preparing to sue the paper, accusing it of making “false and defamatory statements.” Weinstein also said he was taking a leave of absence, only to continue appearing at work. The board later forced him to take an indefinite leave on Friday.

As Variety previously reported, Bob Weinstein and Glasser have been pushing for Weinstein to leave the company, believing he threatened the studio’s ability to continue to attract top talent and to release film and television shows. Weinstein has maintained that he can weather the crisis and re-emerge.

The good news for Weinstein, is that as some more humorous twitter elements have pointed out, his departure will mean he gets to spend much more time with this lawyers.

Weinstein to spend more time with his lawyers.

— Timothy Connolly CFA (@SconsetCapital) October 8, 2017

"Sad Day For Our Country": Zuckerberg Slams Decision To End DACA: "Not Just Wrong, It Is Particularly Cruel"

In a statement issued moments after AG Jeff Sessions rescinded Obama"s DACA Program, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said on his Facebook page that "It’s time for Congress to act to pass the bipartisan Dream Act or another legislative solution that gives Dreamers a pathway to citizenship."

The CEO writes that while "no bill is perfect, inaction now is unacceptable" and adds that "the decision to end DACA is not just wrong. It is particularly cruel.”  Zuckerberg also writes that team FWD.us, which Zuckerberg is a member of, will do even more in the weeks ahead to make sure Dreamers have protections.

Some have speculated that this latest openly political statement, is Zuckerberg"s latest foray into the political arena, and perhaps a confirmation of recent rumors, that Zuck may be running for office in the coming years.

His full statement is below:

This is a sad day for our country. The decision to end DACA is not just wrong. It is particularly cruel to offer young people the American Dream, encourage them to come out of the shadows and trust our government, and then punish them for it.

The young people covered by DACA are our friends and neighbors. They contribute to our communities and to the economy. I"ve gotten to know some Dreamers over the past few years, and I"ve always been impressed by their strength and sense of purpose. They don"t deserve to live in fear.

DACA protects 800,000 Dreamers -- young people brought to this country by their parents. Six months from today, new DACA recipients will start to lose their ability to work legally and will risk immediate deportation every day.

It"s time for Congress to act to pass the bipartisan Dream Act or another legislative solution that gives Dreamers a pathway to citizenship. For years, leaders from both parties have been talking about protecting Dreamers. Now it"s time to back those words up with action. Show us that you can lead. No bill is perfect, but inaction now is unacceptable.

Our team at FWD.us has been working alongside Dreamers in this fight, and we"ll be doing even more in the weeks ahead to make sure Dreamers have the protections they deserve.

If you live in the US, call your members of Congress and tell them to do the right thing. We have always been a nation of immigrants, and immigrants have always made our nation stronger. You can learn more and get connected at Dreamers.FWD.us.

Eric Peters: "The Only Time I've Ever Really Made Money Involed Disagreement With The Market"

Following this morning"s "scary movie" anecdote from One River CIO Eric Peters, below we present several vignettes from the weekly thoughts by the hedge fund manager on how to make money when everyone else is losing it... and vice versa, and how the Golden Gate bridge makes all the differnce in a world where everyone else is swimming across the Bay.

Golden Gates

“The only times I’ve ever really made money involved a certain type of disagreement with the market,” said the investor.

“A philosophical disagreement,” he continued, reflecting on so many cycles, so many set ups.

“I make money when I believe the world works a certain way and the consensus disagrees.” Memories of so many counterintuitive trends, over so many years, raced through my mind. “Because it’s a philosophical disagreement, the investors on the wrong side of the debate don’t concede, despite enduring big losses.”

“Most investors on the wrong side of a philosophical debate don’t just need to acknowledge the sustained price moves against them, and the financial losses, they must come to accept a new mental model of how the world works,” continued the investor.

“But to accept a new mental model inevitably requires them to give up on a whole lot of related beliefs.” And this prolongs what might otherwise be a quick stop loss.

Which drags out the entire process. Because intelligent people do not easily abandon their philosophies, mental models. 

“Can’t say I have a disagreement with the market right now,” admitted the investor, unsure how to make real money in today’s market.

“All my investments now are based on hopes for prices to return to particular levels that make more sense. But these are not things I have a particular edge in.” He sighed, looking out at Alcatraz, searching.

“I’ll never be the fastest runner, or swimmer. In a race across the Bay, I’ll only ever win if everyone else tries to swim and I just kind of look at the Golden Gate, wondering why no one else sees it, and walk across.”

And here is a bonus comment on a market that is just like Forrest Gump in so many different ways...

“Gump! What"s your sole purpose in this army?” screamed Drill Sergeant. "To do whatever you tell me, drill sergeant!” shouted Forrest.

“Goddamn it Gump! You"re a goddamn genius!” declared Drill Sergeant. “When I cut interest rates, print money, and tell you to buy assets, what do you do Gump?” asked Sergeant.

“I buy assets!” answered Forrest.

“This is the most outstanding answer I have ever heard. You must have a goddamn I.Q. of 160. You are goddamn gifted, Private Gump.” Forrest saluted.

“And when I hike, shrink my balance sheet…”

Hedge Fund CIO: "Want To Make A Grown Nerd Cry? Run A 500% Rate Increase Through His Risk Model"

August is over, which means that Eric Peters, the CIO of One River Asset Management, is back to doing what he is so very good at: distilling the week"s events and latest financial and economic trends into pithy, one-paragraph aphorisms.  Without further ado, here is an anecdotal excerpt from his latest weekend notes.

* * *

Scary Movie

I love movies. Scary ones especially. Keep your happy endings, give me chainsaws. Meat hooks.

I’ll never forget ERM in 1992. That was my first real snuff flick as a Lehman prop trader. The Italians never stood a chance in the film, they never do. Show me an Italian who can resist a dark woodshed and I’ll show you a hero in a hockey mask.

At least the Swedes put up a fight in the flick. Their central bankers raised overnight rates to 500%. Want to make a grown nerd cry? Run that interest rate through his risk model. But of course, not a single propeller-head imagined such a monster.

Anyhow, my next scary movie was Orange County, 1994. The great bond massacre brought terrified traders to tears.

Mexico devalued too; Tequila Slammer. So many strings inextricably woven into that tangled tale.

These intricate plots build over years, unravel in months. Asian Flu was released in 1997, classic zombie apocalypse genre. Just when the virus seemed contained, along came a sequel; Russian Flu in 1998. A month later they released LTCM, a documentary about the dangers of mixing academics and money.

Wall Street is remaking that classic as we speak; a big budget Black Monday II. Revenge of the Sock Puppet was released in 2001, followed quickly by 9-11.

Then things went quiet for what seemed like forever. But 7yrs later Haunted House came out - scared the crap out of everyone, even hardened criminals flipping cribs from cellblocks.

European Debt Crisis was released in 2011, a real nail biter, until some Italian saved mankind with a printing press. It’s been happy endings ever since.

Chick flicks, corsets, period pieces. Utterly boring. But in my three decades of watching scary movies, on average there’s been a blockbuster surprise every three to four years. And it’s been six since 2011.

Gone With The Wind Banned From Memphis Theater

When Vice News argued that perhaps Mt. Rushmore should be demolished, running a headline which declared without irony - "Let"s Blow Up Mount Rushmore" (a headline subsequently scrubbed) - we suggested that the fanatical push to sanitize all historic monuments and public references to past political leaders perceived as "tainted" or controversial "may have hit peak crazy here." Well, we were wrong - it appears the PC mob is now coming for the film industry.

The historic Orpheum Theatre in Memphis, Tennessee has decided to censor "Gone With the Wind" from a line-up of movies it will show as part of its 2018 Summer Movie Series after dubbing it racially "insensitive". The 1939 classic film, based on the book by Margaret Mitchell, is set on a plantation in the American South during the Civil War and Reconstruction era, and is widely considered by critics and historians to be among the greatest American movies of all time. It broke Academy Award records at the time, receiving eight Oscars including a Best Supporting Actress for Hattie McDaniel, who became the first African-American Academy Award-winner. It also remains the highest grossing film of all time (with ticket prices adjusted for inflation) - beating out even Star Wars.

Memphis" Orpheum Theatre has included the movie as part of its annual local film festival featuring American classics for decades. But apparently this nearly 80-year old world renowned classic has been scrubbed for the first time based on some complaints the theater received after its last August 11 showing. “As an organization whose stated mission is to ‘entertain, educate and enlighten the communities it serves’, the Orpheum cannot show a film that is insensitive to a large segment of its local population,” the theater’s board said in a statement.

The theater indicated that for the first time this year"s screening “generated numerous comments” which led to the decision to drop it, adding that, “while title selections for the series are typically made in the spring of each year, the Orpheum has made this determination early in response to specific inquiries from patrons.” This will mark the first time in 34 years Gone With the Wind will not show. It appears that much of the negative feedback came via Orpheum Theatre"s Facebook page with some comments decrying the film as "racist" and leveling the charge that it"s a "tribute to white supremacy". 

Meanwhile Brett Batterson, the president of Orpheum Theatre Group, claimed in an interview that the decision was made before the tragic events of Charlottesville. “This is something that’s been questioned every year, but the social media storm this year really brought it home," he said. “This is about the Orpheum wanting to be inclusive and welcoming to all of Memphis."

The Orpheum Theatre in Memphis. Image source: Wiki Commons

Local media also referenced Memphis" "64 percent African-American population" as making the film"s inclusion in the festival "insensitive". Yet, if as Batterson claims the removal of the film was primarily due to negative social media response, this means the Memphis population may not have actually had much of a say. And of course the next logical question is: where was the outcry of "racism" while the film was featured every year for 34 years, and sometimes multiple times a year?

This would further imply that just about every film industry institution from the Academy Awards to the American Film Institute to the People"s Choice Awards to every critic that ever praised the movie is potentially a racist and paid tribute to white supremacy. But that is the absurd path we are headed down here: an American classic which goes back to the first part of the 20th century must be purged due to angry anonymous comments on social media. Orpheum"s president admits he cowered before what he called a "social media storm" and opted for censorship.

Orpheum Theatre Group"s mission is stated as "utilizing the performing arts to entertain, educate, and enlighten." But we wonder: if the very organizations claiming to safeguard and promote the arts are now purging classics like Gone With the Wind, are we now witnessing the start of a broader and vicious coming assault on art itself?

"How Do We Get To The Next Crisis": An Interview With Raoul Pal And Julian Brigden

With the dollar index now 10 points below its recent cycle highs from early January, nervous dollar bulls are starting to reevaluate their initial assumption that this would be a short-term pullback, and many are worried that this could be the start of a new secular bear market. In this week’s MacroVoices podcast, host Erik Townsend invited two of the show’s most popular guests, Raoul Pal and Julian Brigden, two well-respected analysts whose research commands high fees from institutional investors, to discuss complacent equity markets, the timing of the next correction and whether US interest rates will “back up” another 50 basis points.

Townsend started by asking his guests to emphasize areas where they disagree to try and help listeners develop a better understanding of how the two analysts formulate their ideas about markets. But their discussion soon turned to the US dollar, which has been exasperating for the three longtime dollar bulls.

Pal admitted that the dollar’s persistent weakness was beginning to make him nervous as he"s been losing money on his dollar trades for a dangerous stretch. However, he believes the “underlying basis for why the dollar bull market should still be in play” is still there.

“Raoul: My view, like yours, is bullish dollars. Now, the problem is we’ve only had two dollar bull markets in history, one in the early 80s and one in the late 90s. So we have a very small data sample to look at the behavior of dollar bull markets. But what I did notice is no dollar bull market has had a weekly close down more than 10%. Once it goes more than 10% it’s generally a reversal. So that’s a kind of—not so much a line in the sand but a guideline for me.

Now, we’re very much there now. We’re at 9.5% negative on a weekly basis. So it’s starting to make me concerned. There’s plenty of support levels around here as well. I use DeMark Indicators and they are counting towards a reversal. We know that the market positioning is very high. So for me it’s really crucial that the dollar does hold.

I think the underlying case for why the dollar bull market should still be in play is still there. But what we need is some sort of change of sentiment within the market, whether it’s either a renewed belief in much faster rate rises in the US or it’s weaker economic growth. The dollar has a kind of smile where it rallies in either/or but falls when we’re in the Goldilocks phase, which we’ve been having recently. So I’m looking at that.

I’m obviously nervous on my view because it has been going against me. And I’ve been in the trade for a long, long time now so, in Euro terms it’s about 148 and a half. So I’m now really finessing the idea does it move further than here?

If we look at the previous dollar bull markets they tend to go much further, so it would tend to suggest there’s maybe another 15 or 20% upside in the dollar over time. I also look at—and something we’ll probably talk about later—the comparison between this dollar bull market and the dollar bull market leading into the 90s is remarkably similar. The pattern almost fits exactly. And that was the period going into 1999 where we had a correction in the dollar. At that time it went about 8.5% and then it turned around and started rallying as economic growth started falling and rates started easing off a bit. The Europeans at the time were raising rates still. And that whole scenario, we saw actually the dollar go much, much higher. And so that’s what I’m looking for. If I’m wrong, the world’s a different place, and there’s a number of trade opportunities from that. But I still remain a dollar bull but a nervous one.”

Brigden says he remains a committed dollar bull, and sees the greenback rising in either one of two scenarios: the greenback will climb as equities and bond price fall in a "risk off rally" where the dollar becomes the haven asset. His other "risk on" case involves the dollar and stocks climbing alongside yieds. Hoping to avoid confusion with his fund"s long-Europe trades, Brigden also said it"s important to specify what exactly one means when they"re talking about going long, or shorting the dollar.

“Julian: So I think one of the things—and I would concur pretty much with everything that Raoul said—I think one of the observations that I would make is that we’ve got to be a little bit careful of what we call a dollar. Because I think there’s a great temptation to look at some of the dollar indexes, in particular the Euro, and say, well, that’s indicative of what the dollar is doing. And I don’t really believe that is the case.

I think we have been as a shop very bullish, and I think it was on your show, Erik, talking about how we saw the growth pickup coming in Europe. We were singularly bullish, the dollar backing end of April beginning of May, for our clients—sorry, singularly bullish, Euro end of April beginning of May, for our clients. And that was on the break of—we started to see break above 108 in the Euro. In actual fact, we just advocated 24 hours ago to start taking profits in those long Euro positions.

But the point is that things like the DXY are essentially Euros. I mean, they’ve got some Swiss Francs in there, some Swedish Krona, and those are both pegged effectively to the Euro. So you really, I think you have to be a bit careful.

I think what we’ve seen a lot this year is a repricing of the growth-inflation story in Europe. And I think that’s one of the reasons why the dollar has been underperforming. So I’m not quite as concerned about this 10% line in the sand. I think Raoul makes some good observations on that, but I would say that I think to get the next kicker we need to see some developments in story here in the US.

We’re either going to have to see a—and this is my fear—we’re going to see a risk-off dollar rally. So you could have a situation where you can get a correction in bond markets and a correction in equities, and you can actually get the dollar rising because it’s a safe haven vehicle. Or we move into the latter half of the year, we get the Fed to start to shrink the balance sheet—I talked to your listeners about this before—I think that’s potentially a very bullish event. And particularly as well in early 2018 if we get the Trump tax cut.

And my sources in D.C. tell me that still the odds—even though Trump doesn’t seem to be able to put his trousers on straight any day of the week—that the odds are somewhere around 65-70% that we get a tax deal. And it will definitively include repatriation. So I think, to me, I’m still in that structural bull environment for the dollar. But it—we may have quite a few months to wait still. And in that interim, I think what we’re doing is just repricing the Euro.”

Turning the conversation to equities, Brigden said the US market is showing signs of a "classic bubble," meanwhile, rising interest rates and a hoped-for reversal in the dollar would remove two of the fundamental cases for being long equities.

“Just because we’d had this incredibly good run, we think that a lot of the outperformance of the European stock market had been predicated on Euro weakness and also low bond yields. And both of those we think are in the process of changing. So we scaled back our belief in this European outperformance trade at this stage.

I think the US equity market, we seem to be going through this game of rotation. And once again, to differentiate between markets, you know, in the same way that you can’t look at the dollar as just a single thing. What we’ve got is we’ve had up until the last week or so really very aggressive outperformance by a relatively narrow group of stocks. And those stocks—and you know we’ve talked about it in a number of publications—are increasingly looking like what I would call a classic bubble, and I think I’ve talked on your show about a classic bubble. It’s just chart pattern we look for, Erik.”

Meanwhile, Pal said “there are opportunities” in equities among the ongoing changes in underlying market conditions:

“Raoul: Well, for me, I would like go back to the business cycle. You know, we looked at it last year and the business cycle weakened significantly, gained traction again, and bounced again. I mean, it’s done this a couple of times now. It’s tiresome, but it is what it is. Because I much prefer it when we get to the bottom of a cycle—we know when to invest etc. But waiting for this is slightly painful.

But until economic growth weakens in any meaningful way, the equity market will continue to grind higher, volatility will remain low, until something changes. Now there is—and that’s structural volatility. There are opportunities—and I think Julien will talk a bit about this—for spikey volatility where there is an opportunity for a risk-off, which may not be pervasive and may not last very long. We won’t get anything that lasts long and we won’t get a structural shift in volatility until the business cycle weakens.”

Pal also believes that interest rates could head back toward 3% in the medium term if President Donald Trump manages to pass tax reform.

“Raoul: Yeah, again, we need to talk about path and we need to talk about time horizons. So, for me, the path is—I’m less interested in—I think it’s a pretty benign environment for US rates. Yes, if Trump does manage to pass something in terms of economic stimulus in terms of some sort of fiscal policy or taxation, whatever it may be, then can rates back up a bit? Yeah.

But, for me, I’m indifferent from a backup in rates from, you know, 225 where they are today at ten years, to, 275. Fifty basis points I don’t really care, because I think the risk reward is that, at the bottom of the business cycle—which we’ve identified has to come and will come within the next call it 18 months—the bottom of the business cycle should see bond yields at 50 basis points or even less. So that makes, even with a backup in yields to let’s say 275, it still makes it kind of a five for one risk reward.

So, for me, I look through the speed bumps and look at the horizon. The horizon for me is 50 basis points at the bottom of the next business cycle, which has to come. Well, it doesn’t have to come, but the probability is extremely high that it comes in the next 18 months or two years.”

Brigden said that while Pal may be correct, he wasn"t comfortable with the time frame, saying it could take longer for bond yields to start moving higher again. But the more important question is when will we see the next market crisis commence, and how will we get there. That"s the key topic of discussion in the next section:

“Julian: Yeah, it is Erik. I mean, it’s certainly in the next, shall we say, six months. And I think it’s—Raoul and I talk about this a lot and it’s one of the things that I think we believe is one of the strengths of the product: we tend to sort of chew through our stories. And our views are structurally very, very similar, but often our timelines are slightly different in how we get there.

And my concern is I can ultimately see Raoul’s right, I mean, I think we could get another very nasty downturn. I think we could get a—you know, it’s hard to argue against the sort of structural deflationary trends or disinflationary trends that you see globally. The question is how do you get to that next crisis? Do you sort of go quietly into the night, and we walk in one day and ISM stands at 45, and everybody says, wow, QE doesn’t work. Or do you get there a different way?

And my inclination is I believe we’ll actually get there a slightly different way. And at the moment the biggest risk that I see in markets is this chasm between, as I said, equity market pricing and bond pricing. And with that you can throw in Vol. And my biggest fear is that we’re going to get to the next crisis, not via immediate economic weakness, but actually via strength.

And it isn’t so much in the US. As I said, I think there’s a chance that we get a burst of very aggressive activity. That’s sometime in 2018 if we get this Trump stimulus through.

But when I look at the world, actually, my biggest fear—and I think this is interesting for US listeners of yours, because generally Americans don’t look too broadly at the rest of the world, they tend to be very focused certainly in financial networks, they tend to be very focused on what’s going on in the US—I actually think the biggest risk is Europe. I look at European growth models—and we’ve talked about this—but these things continue to strengthen. And the inflation picture, actually, I think is just really going to rip.

And I was reading today how one of my peers was talking about how, for the fourth time, ECB’s going to have to upgrade their growth forecasts. Well, I just think they’re going to have to keep upgrading and upgrading their growth forecasts. And what I fear is that we’re on the cusp of a repeat of events that we saw in the spring of 2015. So, if you remember, at that point ECB had launched QE in the end of 2014, the DAX had ripped higher, and bund yields were locked at zero. And then, one day we walked in and the bund market finally said, screw this, I am repricing because what’s the point of holding bunds at zero, if the DAX is going through the stratosphere.”

Both men are also worried about how shifting demographics, notably how the aging baby boomer generation will impact markets. With the largest-ever wave of retirees set to leave the workforce in the next few years, equity markets are facing a terrifying transition: When millions of buyers are, for the first time, forced to sell.

You can listen to the podcast in full below: