'US builds secret drone bases in Africa'
United States is to build a series of new secret drone bases in Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, in an attempt to target suspected militants in Somalia and Yemen.
'US builds secret drone bases in Africa'
United States is to build a series of new secret drone bases in Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, in an attempt to target suspected militants in Somalia and Yemen.
نیاک لابی ایست برای لیشتن و نوکری نعلین
بحثی پیرامون مقاله اخیر "د-دیلی بیست" بتاریخ چهارشنبه 16 سپتامبر 2015 میلادی، تحت عنوان خانواده ای مرموز در پس لابی ملایان ولایت فقیه حاکم بر ایران.
نیاک که به ظاهر با نام "انجمن ملی ایرانیان آمریکائی" به لابی گری و لاف زنی برای مطهر کردن و منزه کردن ملایان مشغول می باشد. در اصل و اساسش لابی لعین شده و دلال دغلکار ظلمتکده ایست که پس از یورش دوّم تبهکارانه تازیان در سال 1979 میلادی، خیمه و خرگاه خبیث و خاسرش را، اهریمنانه و ابلیسانه بر فراز آسمان سرزمین آریائیان برآفراشته ساخته است.
لذا موجودات یا مخلوقات مزور و مزدوری که از تداوم تبهکارانه تسلط تازیان، به هر عنوان و بهانه ای، چه دغلکارانه و چه دروغگویانه دفاع کنند، هیچ گونه خویشی یا خویشاوندی با مقوله ملت و ملیت ایرانی ندارند و تنها نشان و نقاب نهفته و نهان ایرانی شان، لباده یا لباسی ایست به رنگ ملی، که به تن لاشه لعین و لجنی کرده باشند.
آنها چه بی اختیار و چه با افسار، چه آگاه و چه ناآگاه طاعت گر و طواف گر طیفی از طلاب می باشند که بیش از دهه تاریخی ایست که با فرهنگ فقاهتی چون ترور و تعزیر، تحجر و تجاوز، مرگ و موت، منبر و مدیحه گوئی، مقنعه و ملعون سازی، ملحد و مشرگ سازی، غارت گری و قساوت گری، قتال گری و قصاص گری، چماق داری و چپاول گری را در سراسر ایران زمین همه گانی کرده اند.
مُقلد و مجذوب یا مدافع و متحد مشتی ملا ء مُخلا ومخوف از تبار سعد آبی وقاص یا خالدبن ولید شدن که سالهاست که غرور ملی ایرانیان را به غروب ملی بدل ساخته اند، تنها و تنها یک هدف بیشتر نمی تواند داشته باشد و آن اینکه در زیر سیطره سبعانه و سفاکانه ولایت وحشت فقیه بتوانند با مدد و کمک انواع و اقسام ابزار مکینه به مدخل زنی و مخزن زنی با مماشات و معامله گری برای مکیدن متعفن معاش برای معیشت، هر چه بیشتر از تتمه و ته مانده باقی مانده در جسم و جان مردم مستمند شده و مفلس شده ایرانی ارتزاق و ارتشاف کنند.
ناگفته نماند که نقش خیانت گرایانه این موجودات یا مزدوران را باید با نیش و نقش کسانی که درسال 13 هجری ـ عربی، در نبردگاه های قادیسه، مداین ، جولا و نهاوند، از سپاه ایرانیان روی گردان شده و به شمشیر زنان و قمه کشان تازیان پیوستند، هم طراز و هم سان دانست.
شگفت انگیزتر اینجاست که آنها همان شارلاتان ها و شعبده بازانی هستند که از ابتدای فاجعه ملی در سال 1979 میلادی برای فرار از جهنم و جحیم جهادیان ولایت فقیه به اروپا و امریکا فرار کرده و پناهنده شدند. باز هم شرم آورتر اینجاست که اینها مثل بقیه هفت میلیون ایرانی پناهنده شده در غرب در آخرین پرسش پلیس اروپائی ـ آمریکائی، گفته اند که اگر به ایران ملازذه گان تازی التبار برگرداننده شوند بلافاصله برای اعدام با رسن و ریسمان رسولی رجاله گان رجم گر و رذالت پیشه، به بالای دار صعود و سپس سقوط خواهند کرد!
By Nick Pakpoor
Published on Jun 30, 2015
My name is Nick Pakpoor, and I am the founder of Nikpress. Nikpress is an independent news media launched in 2009. I am a senior political analyst with decades of political experience. I was born in one of the northern provinces of Iran, and have lived for more than three decades in various countries all over Europe.
As a former political activist, I was forced to seek refuge in a democratic country to escape persecution. Currently, I hold a Swedish citizenship, the one and only. Since my escape, I have consistently been banned from traveling to my country of birth by the Islamic state of Velayat-e Faqih, or the so-called Islamic Republic of Iran.
Nikpress takes pride in being an independent and non-commercial news and analysis media. Furthermore, Nikpress has consistently striven to resist against any influence by government or corporate interests. Nikpress is a reliable source for the unbiased dissemination of information, and in that sense, differentiates itself from mainstream media or government-owned news agencies.
For a long time, corporate media or the so called “mainstream media” have failed to provide accurate and true news and analysis on the main causes of global warming, globalization, unlawful occupation of sovereign nations, poverty, etc.
Nikpress’s main goal is to provide and broadcast independent, non-commercial and verifiable news and analysis from across the world. Nikpress tries to be objective and impartial in its coverage of the critical issues affecting the world. In order to provide our audiences a multi-faceted and comprehensive coverage, Nikpress uses independent sources from around the globe.
You can contribute by sharing stories from Nikpress on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.
News & Politics
سخنی سنجیده و سگالنده با ایرانیان
درست است که سیطره سبُعانه و سفاکانهٔ ستون پنجمی از سوسماران سمی ـ صحرائی تازیان، مُهر و سمبول متعفن و مستعجن فرهنگ مکاری ـ ملائی خود را بر پیکر ستبر و ستین ایرانیان، تبهکارانه و تازیانه، تاتو کرده است. واین هم درست است که سالهاست که غرور ملی جایش را به غروب ملی داده است تا جائیکه صلابت و صلاحیت دیرینهٔ پارسایانه اش بطور جدی و جلادانه لکه دار و لگد مال شده است ولی تجربهٔ تاریخی به کرات و مرات نشان داده است که اکر ملت ایرن مبداء و محرک مقصدش را وارستگی و وارهانندگی ملی بر پایه پلاتفرم استقلال به همراه استقامت و ایستادنی اُستادانه انتخاب کند، بدون هیچ گونه تردید و توهمی خواهد توانست یکبار برای همیشه به این مذلت و مسکنت مزدوری یعنی تمکین و تملق فرهنگی به مثابه طاعت و اطاعت در مقابل مناره متعفن و مظهر مناسک منحوس تازیان، چه در ضمیر و چه در زمین آریائیان خط قرمز بُطلان بکشد.
تاریخ اسپانیا در زدودن و زباله انداختن زبان و زیان فرهنگ مکاری ـ مسلمانی تازیان بهترین و بهین ترین گواه خدشه ناپذیر این مدعاست!
مطیح محض مشتی ملا و مفتی مخُلا و مرتج تازی التبار شدن در هیچ برهه ای از زمان در هیچ جائی از جهان نه تنها افتخار و احترامی به ارمغان نیآورده است بلکه مقام و مرتبهٔ آن ملت را رذیلانه توسط روضه خوانان و رجم گران یعنی رجاله گان دین به رهزنگاه و نیرنگاه رهسپار ساخته است.
بیائید دردخفاء و خلوت خود خردمندانه و خلاقانه نه خائنانه و خاسرانه یعنی مردانه و مزدیسانه، بجای کُرنش گری و کمر خم کنی، کُنش گر و کنکاش گری کمانگیر و کلنجار گر باشیم تا قلب این قبیلهٔ نوکران و نوچه های نعلین پوش تازیان را نشانه رویم تا بساط و بنیاد این تفکر بادیه نشینان و بربر زادگان را از بیق و بُن برآندازیم!
باردیگر چشم به انتظار مُنجی و مُعجزه گر یا میرغضبی همچون هلاکو خان مغول نشستن تا ما ایرانیان را از شّر این شرطه های شرعی ـ عربی المعتصم بالله ئی یا المعتصم ملائی، نجات بدهد، سزنده و سزاوار سرزمین ستُرگ آریائیان نمی باشد.
سرانجام در واپسین واگویه فرجام شناسانه، البته با مدد و متد اسکاتا لوجیک منطقی یعنی به پشتوانهٔ پیشنه تاریخی و به پرتو پیمایش در پراتیک و تجربه، می توان اینچینین ادعا و استدلال کرد، تازمانیکه پوران و پورمندان،پهلوانان و پارتیزانان، فرهیختگان و فرزانگان ایرانی ـ آریائی، پارسایانه پوشنه و پوشش این پاشیدگی و پوسیدگی، پراگندگی و پریشان حالی فرهنگ تخدیر و تحقیر، گدائی و گمراهی، کرخت و گژهی، کلب و گور پرستی، گوسفندی و گردن خم کنی،نزر و نیاز، نماز و نوکری به دُژگاه یا دفن گاه های کعبه و کربلا، نهاوند و نجف را به همراه طواف طوطی وار طوایف طُلاب، عمامه و عراب را با رجعت به رنسانس و رستاخیزی رهاننده یعنی با بازگشت یا فراشکردی فرازمندانه به فرهنگ دیرینهٔ آریائی ـ آهورائی، این عاملان اصلی رذالت و رخوت ملی ـ میهنی را به کرانه و کناره زباله زمان، پرتاب نکنند یا بقول ولتر: مذهب خود را به بسان پول رایج کشورشان تحویل نگیرند تا ابدالدهر در چنبره وابستگی و واماندگی، اسارت و ایستائی با اتیکت عفریت عبودیت در زیر سلطهٔ سفاکانه و تسلط تبهکارنهٔ این ختنه شدگان خبیث تناسل و تفکر، تازی الاتبار باقی خواهند ماند.
Air France shirtless bosses flee from angry protesters - BBC News
Published on Oct 5, 2015
Air France managers have fled a meeting about mass job cuts after angry staff waving banners and flags stormed the room.
Two managers had their shirts ripped off as they escaped from their co-workers, scaled a fence and fled under police protection.
Immigration Is Killing Sweden's Welfare State
Published on Dec 11, 2014
Sweden has lost control of immigration. The costs are escalating, the housing situation is desperate, unemployment is on the rise and segregation may be described as dramatic.
Merkel tells Germans to accept Islamization
Published on Sep 9, 2015
Angela Merkel, Protecting the interests of everyone but Germans.
CrossTalk: Mideast Alliances
Published on Oct 2, 2015
Russia has made good on its commitment to start fighting ISIL in Syria from the air. Russia is also establishing a coalition to protect the legal government in Damascus. This has caused an uproar in Washington. Can the Kremlin and the White House fight terrorists in tandem? CrossTalking with Patrick Henningsen, James Carafano, and Marwa Osman.
Syria 'in a state of complete war' with terrorism - Assad (FULL INTERVIEW)
Published on Sep 15, 2015
As the Syrian crisis enters its fifth year, tension in the country is still growing. Bashar Assad, the President of Syria, gives an interview to key Russian media, revealing his view on political progress, the Syrian crisis, its allies and its war on terrorism
READ MORE: http://on.rt.com/6rfe
The Guardian Reveals the West Ignored Russian Offer to Depose Assad in 2012
Policy analyst Phyllis Bennis says the United States has a moral responsibility to address the Syrian refugee crisis after The Guardian UK reveals Russia offered to help depose Assad three years ago - September 15, 2015
Sharmini Peries - As a journalist and executive producer, Sharmini harnesses the power of research and policy institutions, independent media, social movements, universities and academics to form strategic partnerships for innovative programming at TRNN. Prior to joining TRNN, she served as the executive director of The International Freedom of Expression Exchange, Canadian Journalists for Free Expression, the Royal Commission on Systemic Racism in the Criminal Justice System, the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants and managed the Human Rights Code Review Task Force in Ontario. Sharmini also worked as Economic and Trade Advisor to President Chavez and the government of Venezuela from 2003-2007. She has an MA and PhD (EBD) from York University (Canada).
Phyllis Bennis is a Fellow and the Director of the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington D.C. She is the author of Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: A Primer, Before and After: US Foreign Policy and the September 11 Crisis, Ending the US War in Afghanistan: A Primer and Understanding the US-Iran Crisis: A Primer. Her most recent book is Understanding ISIS and the New Global War on Terror: A Primer.
The Guardian Reveals the West Ignored Russian Offer to Depose Assad in 2012SHARMINI PERIES, EXEC. PRODUCER, TRNN: Welcome to the Real News Network. I'm Sharmini Peries coming to you from Baltimore.
An exclusive article published in the Guardian [by the] former Finnish president and Nobel Peace laureate Martti Ahtisaari said Western powers failed to seize the proposal made by the Russians in 2012 with Syria's President, Bashar al-Assad, could step down as a part of a peace deal. If they had accepted the offer tens of thousands of lives could have been saved, and millions that have been uprooted, causing the world's gravest refugee crisis since second World War could have been avoided. Ahtisaari said in the Guardian that he held talks with envoys from five permanent members of the UN Security Council in February of 2012. He said during those discussions the Russian ambassador Vitaly Churkin laid out a three-point plan, which included a proposal for Assad to cede power at some point after peace talks had started between the regime and the opposition.
Now joining me to discuss all of this is Phyllis Bennis. She directs the New Internationalism Project at IPS. She has published many books, among them Understanding ISIS and the New Global War on Terror: A Primer, and Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy U.S. Power. Phyllis, thank you so much for joining us today.
PHYLLIS BENNIS, INSTITUTE FOR POLICY STUDIES: Good to be with you, Sharmini.
PERIES: Phyllis, what do you make of this disclosure by the former Finnish president, and why is he putting so much emphasis on it now and didn't then?
BENNIS: Yeah, it raises of course the inevitable question of why did he wait so long before going public. What Martti Ahtisaari says is that in a private conversation with the Russian ambassador Vitaly Churkin this proposal was made, a three part proposal of what should happen. One, to not arm the opposition. Two, to start a dialog between the opposition and President Assad. And third, what he called finding an elegant way for Assad to step aside.
That doesn't mean that Assad was prepared at that moment, or that Russia for that matter was prepared to push Assad to step down immediately. But it does mean that there were options available. There were possibilities that could and clearly should have been investigated about what kind of a process could have been underway that would have allowed some kind of face saving for Assad. Maybe others in his regime would have participated rather than the president himself. There could have been a number of possibilities. And what was clear was that the French, the British, and particularly the United States, apparently as far as Ahtisaari knew, they were so convinced that the Assad regime was about to collapse that there was no need to negotiate like this. They would just wait for the regime to collapse and preside over the glorious victory.
And it's one of these things of, why would you imagine such things? Why would you ever imagine that in these chaotic, militarized situations, that things were going to go well? They never go well. And the idea that the Americans and the Brits and the French somehow had this illusion that this was all going to just happen quickly by itself is a very frightening thing. It does, of course, not resolve the question of why Martti Ahtisaari, a noted, very respected international civil servant, had worked for the UN on many occasions, won the Nobel Peace Prize because of his work in negotiating earlier agreements in other countries, why he didn't say something earlier to expose this.
Now, of course, it's much more difficult. And it's not at all clear that the Russians would move in this direction at all. In fact, the Russians right now are saying, and Churkin himself is saying that it was a private conversation he had with Ahtisaari and he has nothing to say about it. But it does go to this question of the unwillingness of the U.S. at that time to have recognized that there were possibilities for negotiations, that it was not necessary to militarize the situation as they did, that has been the root of so much of the crisis that's now underway.
PERIES: Right. And from what I understand at these talks the five permanent members of the Security Council actually had doubt in terms of, at least three of them he says had doubt whether they could actually bring about Assad to step down, that the Russians could actually fail in doing so. What do you make of that? From what I understand Assad's a very steel man in terms of his entrenchment in Syria.
BENNIS: Well, I think that's certainly true now. Whether this would have been exactly the same back in 2012 three years ago, it's hard to know. And whether the Russians could essentially deliver Assad is a question.
But all of these are questions that should have been taken up immediately in the context of serious, multi-party diplomacy. The notion that the ambassadors of the U.S. and Britain and France would simply throw up their hands and say you know what, we don't think the Russians are really serious, and anyway we don't think it matters because the Assad regime is about to fall. That's what's so shocking about this. Not surprising on some level, but shocking nonetheless. Particularly given the aftermath. Given the millions of people who have been forced into exile, who have lost their homes. The hundreds of thousands who have died in this war. The millions who are now on the move in these massive refugee flows.
Given what the price has been it's really shocking to see that there was no effort to determine--you know, maybe it was true, maybe the Russians couldn't deliver. But why wouldn't they try? Maybe it was true that Churkin was not speaking for the Russian leadership at that time. That was another question, whether he actually had Moscow behind him. Why not investigate? Why not go public and say, we we have a proposal. And let the Russians come back and fight with them, saying no, it was our proposal first. Fine, let them all fight over whose idea it was first.
But to simply put it aside and say we're not interested, that's what's so shocking about this whole revelation.
PERIES: Phyllis, in a recent article you penned on the refugee crisis, you wrote the Syrian war, and particularly the rise of ISIS, has everything to do with U.S. actions dating back to the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq which gave rise to ISIS in the first place. Even now, U.S. air strikes in Syria and neighboring Iraq are escalating the war in both places. Do take us back and give us a history lesson in terms of that foreign policy that is responsible for this crisis now we're facing.
BENNIS: Well, the rise of ISIS of course, despite all of the efforts by Republicans and other warmongers in this country to rout the rise of ISIS in the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq in 2011, the rise of ISIS began in 2004. ISIS in an earlier iteration, it changed names many times, but the same organization rose in 2004 as one of what was then many Sunni-based militias in Iraq that came together to fight against the U.S. invasion and occupation. And against the government the U.S. had put in power, the Shia-dominated sectarian government that was put in power.
It rose and fell at various points during the civil war that rose in Iraq, and of course by the time of the rise of the Arab Spring it had faded away a little bit. It was not as visible as it had been. But it reemerged in 2012 in Syria now, at the time of the rise of the civil war and as instability grew there.
So the rise of ISIS, which--it's been the rise of ISIS itself and the U.S.-led coalition, the militarization of the fight against ISIS throughout the region that has led to this horrifying situation we now face with wars spreading throughout the region, weapons coming from Libya with the overthrow of Gaddafi, and the rise in U.S. and U.S.-backed bombing campaigns throughout the region. You have this extraordinary level of violence going on across the Middle East. And it's in that context that ISIS has emerged as a major player, seizing territory, et cetera.
And it's in that context, the context of the seizure of territory, the rise of what's now called the Islamic State, that you now see the results of failing to negotiate. Failing to put diplomacy instead of war at the top of the U.S. agenda. We've been cheering in recent weeks the victory of diplomacy over war in the case of defending the Iran deal. But what we now see very visibly with these new revelations from Martti Ahtisaari is how in the case of the rise of ISIS, the ISIS war, and the war in Syria which is at the root of the rise of ISIS, the refusal of the United States and its allies to take seriously the possibility of negotiating an end to that conflict before it ever reached this horrific level, to negotiate the stepping down, maybe the stepping down, potentially the stepping down, possibly, of Bashar al-Assad, the president of Syria, would have dramatically changed the situation there.
So the notion that this was simply put aside as well, we don't think the Russians really could pull it off, and not follow it up is really a horrific reality to face.
PERIES: Not just followed up, they could have played a role in that pressure as well, for Assad to step down.
BENNIS: Absolutely. Absolutely. And now of course what we're seeing is that the, the rise of the hundreds of thousands of refugees that are now flooding capitals of Europe, along with the several million, four million refugees have now fled from the war in Syria and are finding refuge or seeking refuge in the surrounding countries. In Turkey where there are two million. In Lebanon, where there's about three-quarters of a million. Half a million in Jordan. These countries are drowning in the need to provide for these refugees coming from Syria. The numbers--it's only about three percent of them are now in Europe.
And yet we're seeing it's as if the whole global crisis is now focused on Europe, despite the fact that 97 percent of this multi-million person refugee flow is not anywhere near Europe. They are in the countries of the Middle East adjoining Syria and Iraq. This is where the real crisis remains. The crisis in Europe is very real.
But the answer there, as well as the answer to the United States--you know, the answer to the United States is a very easy one. We have 28 percent of the wealth of the world. We owe it to the rest of the world to take at least 28 percent of those refugees seeking settlement abroad. It's about 350,000 all together. That would mean a little over--well, I can't do the math in my head. But taking 28 percent of the refugees that need a place abroad and paying 28 percent of what the UN requires to take care of all the refugees in all the areas. That's what the U.S. should be doing. We shouldn't be arguing over whether we're going to take 1,000 or 1,200. It's shameful. It's absolutely shameful that we have done as little as we have to take care of these refugees.
Sending a large amount of money is fine, but it doesn't come close to the amount of money we should be sending, let alone taking care of the people who are in such desperate need.
PERIES: Phyllis Bennis, as always, thank you so much for joining us today.
BENNIS: Thank you.
PERIES: And thank you for joining us on the Real News Network.
What Obama Does Not Want You To Know About ISIS In Syria
Published on Oct 1, 2015
Geopolitical expert Joel Skousen explains what can plausibly happen next in Syria and why everyone should be paying attention.
Why Sanders & Trump Are More Alike Than You Think
Georgetown History Professor Michael Kazin discusses the right-wing and left-wing platforms of "producerism" that divide society into takers and makers, and what its popularity says about America - September 14, 2015
JESSICA DESVARIEUX, PRODUCER, TRNN: Welcome to the Real News Network. I'm Jessica Desvarieux in Baltimore.
Producerism. It's the idea that our society is split into two groups: takers and makers, or parasites and producers. Producerism argues that these divisions have nothing to do with class, but rather we're measured on how productive we are in terms of society. So you can be a member of the wealthy elite living off of your inheritance and interest, or a lazy stereotypical welfare queen living off of the economic resources from the state. In either position you would be considered part of the taker class.
This may sound familiar if you've been following the election season. Republican frontrunner Donald Trump is gaining in popularity, and he's put forth this narrative in his speeches and in interviews, even going as far as attacking Hedge Fund managers. Let's take a listen.
DONALD TRUMP: You know, the middle class--the hedge fund guys didn't build this country. These are guys that shift paper around and they get lucky. And by the way, when the market collapses like it is now, the market's going down, they're losing a fortune. Half of them--look, they're energetic, they're very smart. But a lot of them, it's like, they're paper-pushers. They make a fortune, they pay no tax. It's ridiculous, okay?
DESVARIEUX: Trump's rhetoric is giving rise to a right-wing populism in America, but it's not only on the right that this type of language is fueling the discussion. Bernie Sanders has gone after bankers on Wall Street who are gaining much profit and not producing value to society.
BERNIE SANDERS: That the business model of Wall Street is flawed. And I think these guys drove us into the worst economic downturn in the modern history of America. I think they're at it again. I believe that when you have so few banks with so much power you have to not only reestablish Glass-Steagall, but you've got to break them up. That is not Hillary Clinton's position. I believe that our trade policies, NAFTA, CAFTA, PNTR with China have been a disaster. I am helping to lead the effort against the Trans-Pacific Partnership. That is not Hillary Clinton's position.
DESVARIEUX: Here to discuss the history of this narrative and what it does to shaping our elections is our guest Michael Kazin. He's a history professor at Georgetown University and he joins us now from Washington, DC. Thanks for being with us, Michael.
MICHAEL KAZIN: Thanks very much for having me.
DESVARIEUX: So Michael, let's get into the history first. What gives rise to this theory of producerism in American politics, and what was its objective?
KAZIN: Really its objective is to separate the moral many from the immoral or amoral few. And it arises from the fact that most people in America from the earliest days were free laborers, white, one part of Europe or another. And were making their living through the use of their hands, and sometimes their heads as well.
So from there you have a lot of politicians themselves who are really not hardworking people, at least not for most of their lives, people like Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, later on Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who spoke this language of separating the large majority of people who were doing something useful for society. Producing something that people needed, teaching children, editing newspapers that took the side of the producing class, for example, from those who were just making money from other people's money. Bankers, investment house people, hedge fund advisors and investors today, for example.
And so it's a very old separation between those who really hold up society and those who hold down people who hold up society.
DESVARIEUX: So essentially someone in the middle class, could you argue it was a distraction? Instead of fighting with the elite over wages you could unite with the elite over the fact that we are folks that are paying taxes, we're contributing to society, and therefore go after those who don't pay taxes or who rely on government welfare.
KAZIN: It could work that way. I mean, there's a conservative aspect to producerism and a more left-wing aspect to producerism. The more conservative aspect is opposing people at the top who are leeching off the ordinary folks, and those at the bottom who supposedly are just taking tax money and doing nothing with it. The so-called welfare queens that Ronald Reagan famously talked about.
But really throughout most American history producerism was much more an ideology really on the left. There was always a anti-immigrant side to it I think it's fair to say, but a lot of that was based on nationalism as opposed to producerism. That is, the interests of American producers should be first in the concerns of politicians, as opposed to the interests of Chinese workers or Italian workers or Russian workers.
DESVARIEUX: Okay. So now we're here in this election cycle. We played that clip of Donald Trump saying that hedge fund managers are essentially paper-pushers and bleeding the system. So as we know it, Donald Trump is someone who's inherited his wealth, he's a big real estate mogul, and has essentially gotten rich by using other people's money to make money. So how is he able to sort of justify being a part of the producing class, or at least take up that banner?
KAZIN: Because he takes certain stands which are popular with people who see themselves in this way, as the moral many. The only plank on his website under 'Issues', under that menu item, is about immigration. And he doesn't use some of the really inflammatory racist rhetoric that he's used, as you know, on television about rapists and thieves and murderers coming across the border from Mexico, supposedly. All that item on his website says is, we want to support the interests of American workers over those of workers in other nations.
And also the fact that he wants to do away with the carried interest deduction for people who make a lot of money off investments, the fact that he is in [inaud.] against hedge fund millionaires, who are a classic example of people who make money from other people's money. It's the stance he's taken. And look, there's people like Franklin D. Roosevelt, you might say a supporter of producerism from the left in the 1930s and '40s who talked about economic royalists, by which he meant bankers who had--and stock investors who helped cause the Great Depression, from his point of view. And he was someone who had, came from landed wealth going back to the 17th century. The original Dutch settlers of New York State.
So the class origins and even how you made your money mattered less, when you're in politics, that is, than what you say and who you identify with, and the kind of people who your words resonate with.
DESVARIEUX: All right. Let's turn now to Bernie Sanders. He's often going after big banks and sort of taking on some would argue this producerism ideology. But if he's only really going after the elite class, can we call that producerism?
KAZIN: Very much so. There is, as I said before, a producerism of the right and a producerism of the left. And Bernie Sanders as a sometime socialist certainly identifies with the producerism of the left. That is, it is the hardworking majority of whatever race, of whatever immigrant background, who are the real soul of America. And they are being preyed on by the small elite, he calls them billionaires, who don't just control the economy, didn't just throw the United States into recession and much of the Western world into recession, but also who, with their donations to super PACs and other means are according to Sanders responsible for corrupting the political system and elections. So this is very much a producerism of the left, because it is only looking at enemies above. Not enemies above and below.
DESVARIEUX: Okay. I'm sure people are going to be listening to this and thinking to themselves, what's wrong with this idea? Shouldn't we be calling out those in society who aren't sort of pulling their weight, not paying more in taxes, or people who are taking government handouts? But in your book you argue that there's this romance of producerism that has this cultural blind spot. What is that blind spot, exactly?
KAZIN: Well, the blind spot is that there are different ways to contribute to society, first of all. Throughout most American history there was a romance with just manual work. You had to get your bread by the sweat of your brow, as it says in Genesis. And there was a sense that only industrial workers, only farmers, were the real producers. Everybody else was sort of a parasite. And clearly that doesn't make much sense anymore, since only a minority of us actually make money through the sweat of our brows, even though we might sweat a lot, but it's not because we're exhausted from doing manual work.
And also, another blind spot clearly, and this is something that Trump speaks to or it's his blind spot, is the idea that somehow people who are poor, who are getting some support from the government, somehow are not--especially of a different race, are somehow not as worthy, even though most of those people would really like to have jobs and like to work hard.
So there's a nationalist blind spot on the one hand, and often a racist and nationalist blind spot as well. So that's really what I was referring to. Populism or producerism, they're not exactly the same thing, but they're very closely related. It's often a populism, producerism, for white, native-born people only.
DESVARIEUX: All right. Michael Kazin, thank you so much for joining us.
KAZIN: Thank you.
DESVARIEUX: And thank you for joining us on the Real News Network.
Why is There Systemic Police Abuse in Baltimore? (1/2)
TRNN's Taya Graham speaks to Paul Jay talks about the connection between poverty and policing - September 2, 2015
Paul Jay, is CEO and Senior Editor of The Real News Network. He now lives in Baltimore. Prior to TRNN, Jay was for ten seasons the creator and Executive Producer of CBC Newsworld's flagship debate programs, CounterSpin and FaceOff.
Jay has produced and directed more than 20 major documentary films including "Return to Kandahar", "Lost in Las Vegas" and "Hitman Hart: wrestling with shadows", a feature length documentary, that was screened in 25 major festivals and won more than a dozen awards. It's been called "one of the most acclaimed Canadian films in years" (Eye Magazine), "A tale as bizarre as Kafka and as tragic as Shakespeare" (Ottawa Citizen) and "one of the best films of 1998" (Peter Plagens, art critic for Newsweek).
A past chair of the Documentary Organization of Canada, Jay is the founding chair of Hot Docs!, the Canadian international documentary film festival.
Why is There Systemic Police Abuse in Baltimore? (1/2)TAYA GRAHAM, TRNN: This is Taya Graham reporting for the Real News Network. I'm here in front of the Mitchell Courthouse awaiting the motions that are first being argued by the lawyers in the Freddie Gray case, who died at the hands of six police officers while in police custody.
I'm here with Paul Jay, senior editor of the Real News Network. Hi. Welcome, Paul. Thank you. What I want to know is, what do you think some of the implications might be of this Freddie Gray case? What do you think, how the city's reacting to the case, whether or not you see more possibility of uprising?
PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Well, let me start by saying that this is nothing new. The police abuse, systemic police abuse, has been going on for 50-60 years or maybe longer in Baltimore. There have been people killed by police often over the years. The reason this has become such an issue I guess is probably because it was caught on videotape. As we've seen in other parts of the country, when it goes public you can actually see it. But it's a tip of the iceberg.
But the--we're hearing a big siren, which is part of living in Baltimore. You get used to sirens.
GRAHAM: And helicopters. Also helicopters.
JAY: Helicopters, yeah. This one's an ambulance going by. But we're standing right next to a bunch of hospitals so that may be why.
What doesn't, isn't being asked in the media very often, is why is there systemic police abuse? You get the odd reference to poverty. But the connection between poverty and police abuse is not normally drawn. Because the next question has to be asked, why since about the 1950s in Baltimore have you had whole areas of communities that were vibrant communities where people had jobs, there were grocery stores, there was cafes, there was a real life, how those communities have been destroyed. And not just recently. The destruction begins around the end of the 1950s into the 1960s. And one failed policy after another has not changed the situation.
So it's a complex set of issues, but the role of police in all this is to keep a lid on poor people. Because if people are living in desperate conditions they will fight back desperately. Sometimes self-destructively. The murder rate in Baltimore, most of the people that are getting killed are poor black people. In fact, it's one of the safest cities in America if you're white. It's like, I think last year was about 240 murders, and I think 11 were white people. So this is poor people, poor black people, in a desperate situation with their families under--being destroyed. To a large extent--in fact, if you ask people in these areas what is the number one thing, the answer's always jobs. Lack of being able to make a dignified living.
So the role of the police, and it's not just about bad police and bad apple police. Even the good cops. They're being asked to enforce laws, and these laws reinforce a whole set of social, economic and political relations that are based on some people have enormous wealth and a lot of people are living in utter poverty. And even the people that aren't living in utter poverty, a large section of Baltimore go to work every morning. Sometimes they go to work again in a second job. And they're making $8 and $9 an hour trying to support three or four kids.
I've been telling this story about somebody we interviewed at Johns Hopkins who was on strike a few months ago. He cleans--this guy cleans surgical rooms at Johns Hopkins. He has to take special drugs because he's cleaning up blood and guts. He has to take special drugs to avoid getting HIV. He's been doing this for 14 years. 14 years of seniority. He's making $13 an hour. Yeah, oh my gosh. So why is he doing the job? Because unemployment is so high people are desperate for jobs. And if you're desperate you take what you can get. In fact, $13 an hour is actually considered a good pay in Baltimore for most people. Never mind how ridiculous it is after 14 years of work.
So the high unemployment is advantageous to people who are hiring people. So this idea of having a big pool of unemployed people, it's very good if you happen to own a business or you're running a big hospital, or a pharma sector--and you can make your cleaning staff bear the brunt.
The other thing is people are speculating like crazy on real estate. All the government schemes to get rid of poverty have thrown money which essentially--sometimes it's programs so people can buy houses. In fact the whole subprime mortgage fiasco that helped trigger the crash I '07-'08 was invented in Baltimore in the 1990s. The number one cause of foreclosures in Baltimore in the year 2000 was subprime mortgage foreclosures deliberately targeting African-Americans. In fact, the city wound up suing Wells Fargo and a couple of other banks. And in the lawsuit some of the emails came out, and outright Ku Klux Klan racist language amongst the Wells Fargo people who were selling these mortgages to people.
So what's the role of police in all this? Society--I put it in quotation marks because it's really the top percentile who actually own stuff that really have the influence on what kind of laws get passed. But the kind of laws that get passed reinforce these economic, social, political relations where people can live in half a century and more, and no end in sight of desperate poverty. So then you say, police enforce these laws. And I've asked a cop, you know, what do you think of all this abuse and what's going on? His answer, I thought, was pretty good. He said, well, what do you want us to be? You want us to be the hammer, or you want us to hand out flowers?
Now, we know there is somewhere in between there. But the truth is, the laws, the people that really have political power in the country, they fundamentally want the police to be the hammer. Because the only way to really solve chronic poverty is to have a kind of public policy that they don't want. First of all, higher taxes on wealthy people. But even more importantly it's really clear from decades and decades of public policy of--supposedly investing in the downtown harbor was going to revitalize Baltimore and solve the problem of poverty. Well, a lot of developers and hotels and now casinos have made money out of that development. Very, very little has trickled in. in fact, there's pretty good evidence, we're looking into it now, that more public money has gone into that development than tax money came out.
And it certainly has had next to no effect on the school system falling apart, on--in fact, the number of neighborhoods in poverty has grown exponentially even since all this Inner Harbor development. Even some of the other policies, like subprime was one, there's been other get people to own a home programs. It caused a flurry of real estate. Real estate values go up. They go up--and speculators are the ones that have already bought the stuff. So they're cashing in on this, public money goes in. It looks nice. Oh, you're going to get, help people buy houses. Really what happens is people wind up buying houses they can't afford, so they get a little real estate bubble going. And eventually they get foreclosed anyway and they'll lose their houses. And then the city--the neighborhood's right back where it was before.
So again, police are being asked to reinforce these relationships. And so police abuse is actually built in to what we're--we, I say we. If it was up to us we wouldn't have this kind of society or this kind of police force, so I'll say they. What they're trying to do in terms of maintaining the status quo in the society--.
So why is the DOJ worried? Why is the Department of Justice coming in to investigate the Baltimore police force? Why does Marilyn Mosby finally actually charge some cops? I'm not saying finally for her, but finally a state's attorney actually charges cops. It's not good for the system for the abuse to go too far. [Hardly] in the realm of--day of cameras.
GRAHAM: So this is a way of putting a lid on it, essentially. So just like you could say charitable operations, people like Warren Buffett simply are a way of giving just enough back to prevent people from being radicalized, from keeping the poor from actually uprising. So you're saying it's similar, that here it's just an action just to keep the lid on things, just to keep the poor from going to going together in solidarity and uprising, essentially.
PAUL: I think when the abuse gets too overt and it's caught on camera it's a very radicalizing effect on people. And they don't want the abuse to get so far. So when some cops cross a certain line they do want to pull it back. But they need--it's a balancing act for them. Because they don't want to send a message to the police, don't be the hammer.
GRAHAM: Okay, I see what you're saying. Thank you so much, Paul Jay. We really appreciate it. This is Taya Graham, Stephen Janis, and Megan Sherman for the Real News Network at City Hall.
GRAHAM: Hi. We have here now Paul Jay, our senior editor for the Real News Network. Thank you so much. We appreciate having you come out and speak with us.
We're here in front of the Mitchell courthouse, once again going over the Freddie Gray case where recent motions have been filed. The first motion filed is that city State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby should be recused from the case. The second motion on behalf of the defense most likely will be that this case has to be a change of venue, moved to another place, because supposedly there can't be an impartial trial within Baltimore City limits. I'm here with Paul Jay of the Real News Network, our executive producer. Hi. Thank you so much.
What I wanted to ask you first off is the question that I don't think a lot of people have asked. Our current mayor, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, seems to have had her position somewhat weakened by recent events. And so now we have a flood of players coming into the mayoral race. Do you think that the case, the trial of Freddie Gray, is having some effect on our candidates? Do you think it's affecting the current mayoral race?
JAY: It's a good question. It's hard to tell, because I don't think we really know where broad public opinion on this case is right now. And I think a lot of the city, and the city's at least 63 percent black, and black working people--they're kind of caught betwixt and between on this issue. Nobody suffers from high crime and murder and mayhem more than black people do, especially working people and poor people. So they need that to stop. You got to be able to walk to the corner store and not get mugged. You don't want to worry about an [addict] coming after you or your kid. So they need some safety. And they're kind of stuck, because the only, at least perceived, place where safety will come from is from the police.
On the other hand they're very aware--and I'm talking about broad sections of the people here, not just people living in the poorest areas, or the hood. They're very aware that black people and brown people are targeted for abuse and targeted systemically because, as I said in the earlier interview, that's what police are for. To enforce laws that reinforces a set of social conditions where some people are rich and a lot of people are poor.
So yeah, the politicians are trying to gauge where is public opinion on this. Because while a lot of the public hate what happened to Freddie Gray and they hate the police abuse they do want some kind of law and order. And they're stuck because they know, most people know, the real solution to poverty and mayhem here is alleviate the poverty. Alleviate the social conditions. Get jobs, have decent schools, and so on and so on. But people have gotten so pessimistic about that ever happening, because the decades and decades that things don't improve, in fact they get worse. Then they figure, well, then maybe we do at least need more policing.
GRAHAM: Many of the people that I've spoken to don't see to have any faith in the political process anymore, whether it's the Democratic party of Maryland as a whole, or even our current, incumbent mayor, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake.
You said that the larger public still hasn't made up their mind about Freddie Gray, but I think a--oh, I'm sorry.
JAY: No, no. They've made up their mind about Freddie Gray. And I think there's broad support for the charging of these cops. And if anything I think there's some concern, a lot of concern, that the charges might be dropped. I don't think they buy or have a lot of sympathy for the argument that this is going to stop the police from being effective and doing their job. I'm not suggesting that. I'm just saying they're not against having policing because they don't know what else there is to make life livable.
On the other hand, they know more policing has never been an answer. I'm saying people are stuck. Oh, I think there's broad public opinion in support of the charging of these police. Absolutely, people are demanding an end to the abuse, to the murders. There's no ambiguity on that.
GRAHAM: I suppose it begs the question then, if the police are actually charged, assuming that city State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby actually successfully gets all the charges that she's levied against these police officers, do you think it will make any actual difference in the average Baltimore citizen's day-to-day life? Do you think it will actually affect policing in Baltimore?
JAY: Well, that's kind of the most important question. And there's, I'd say, a couple of parts to the answer.
One of the charges she had originally laid was the most important systemic charge, and that was the illegal confinement. It's actually saying to cops that if you arrest somebody without probable cause, and you lock them up and you put them in the paddy wagon, and you send them back to the police station, even if nothing ever happens to them that's in itself an illegal act. Not just not good procedure, not good process. Not just maybe a reason why the case might get kicked out of court, the charges might get thrown out by a judge. It's actually you as a police officer could go to jail because you've essentially just kidnapped somebody. Because even though you're a cop you can't forcibly confine somebody unless you have probable cause. That's supposed to be constitutional rights.
And the original charge Mosby laid said if you violate someone's constitutional right by taking away their right of free assembly and walking around and habeas corpus, and all the rest, if you do this without probable cause you've committed a crime. And that's the thing that would have been the most systemic in terms of changing policing. Not just in Baltimore, but if it held up on appeal, and I'm sure if it had been followed it would have maybe even appealed right up to the Supreme Court, it could have changed policing right across the country.
Well, she dropped that. And I think she dropped it because it was so systemically significant. Maybe she didn't get how important it was when she first filed that charge. The State's Attorney's office is saying they dropped that charge because they didn't want it to be a distraction from the murder cases and the manslaughter cases. In a normal course of things--.
GRAHAM: Doesn't a prosecutor normally throw every single charge they can?
JAY: Well, no. No, you don't. You don't want to overcharge. It's very important you don't want to overcharge. Because if you overcharge you can wind up weakening your overall case. And some people accused her of overcharging, but the legal people we've talked to do not think she overcharged. But I think she came under enormous pressure to drop these charges. And--.
GRAHAM: Because of the implications.
JAY: Because what it means is what happens every day in Baltimore is that on a corner a police officer comes up and says, up against the wall, kid. Put your hands behind your back, kid. No probable cause. The kid's just been standing on the corner or the adult's just been, you know, black male of any age, really, is standing on the corner. Show me your ID. Pat down. And often, often, get in the car. With no probable cause. In fact, they call them walkthroughs now.
GRAHAM: Or abated by arrest, as well.
JAY: And they're taking people back to the headquarters. And it's just an act of intimidation. Of creating dominance in the hood, that we could pick you up and we can do what we want to you. If she had left those charges and if doing that, putting somebody without probable cause into a police car and taking them back to the headquarters, to the police station, if that was something that could send a cop to jail that would change day-to-day policing in Baltimore.
Well, she dropped that. Okay. So what are we left with? Yes, if these cops are convicted it will have an influence. The cops don't like it. There's been a lot of evidence and discussion that the cops have deliberately held back on policing since the charges. A lot of people say it's one of the reasons for the spike in the murder rate, which is up 60 percent over last year. I don't think it's the only reason. You're seeing a spike in murder in other cities in the United States.
GRAHAM: But that implies that policing actually prevents crime in the way it's enacted now. That policing can actually prevent murder.
JAY: I think it's obvious to some extent it does. I mean, if you're on a street corner and you think you think you can shoot somebody and walk home and no one's going to do anything about it, it's got to give rise to more room, more space for especially--I would say more deliberate killing, more gang-type killing where it's kind of thought out and more premeditated. I don't think it has much to do with domestic violence, which is the consequence of terrible poverty and is done in a rage. I don't think policing has anything to do with that.
And we don't have good numbers on how much of the murder rate is this kind of more deliberate, gangland stuff and how much is domestic. Based on talking to some hospital workers they actually think the numbers are far, far higher on the domestic side than anyone thinks. But we don't know for sure. But is it--but to some extent if you send the message out this whole area's not going to be policed anymore, and people want to seek revenge, it's a no-briner that it has an effect.
Am I suggesting that more policing is a real solution to crime and murder? Well, no. Clearly even with tons of cops and tons of policing prior to Freddie Gray, you still had 240, 250--and the only reason it's 240, 250 murders--I shouldn't say the only. One of the primary reasons it's more is not that there's that much less attempt at murders. They're doing way better triage in the hospitals because they're bringing back medical technology from Iraq and from the war theater, and they know how to save people so that the actual death rate is coming down. But it really doesn't--we don't know for sure, again. Terrible data. We don't really know whether people trying to kill each other is down, even though we're seeing a murder rate go down. It just means not as many people are dying.
No, I'm not suggesting the solution is more policing. The solution is obvious. The solution is jobs. The solution is social safety net, education, so on and so on. But to say, tell people in a certain area where there's a lot of gang rivalry, and also people frustrated and going crazy in the summertime that it's don't worry, do whatever you want, we'll take an hour before we show up. I think there's some evidence that's being done. I think a kind of deliberate attempt to say more mayhem, the more you need us cops.
GRAHAM: That's a very good point.
JAY: So systemically, will this in any way mitigate the abuse that goes on? Maybe a little. But as long as police play the fundamental role as being the buffer between people that own stuff and people that don't, and if they're fundamentally enforcing laws that just perpetuate this long-term suffering, well, no. It's going to be a very minor effect and over time it will dissipate, and we'll be back where we were before Freddie Gray was murdered.
GRAHAM: So if I understand you correctly you're saying some of these public programs like helping people buy homes, things along those lines, are just small gimmes. They're the carrot, and the police officers are the big stick of the capitalist class.
JAY: No, I'd go further than that. Most of these little programs made money for wealthy people. The public money went into the program. It may have in the short term helped some people. But in the longer term, people who had to buy houses lost their houses. But the real estate speculators or the developers in the Inner Harbor, they did very well with all this public money.
GRAHAM: So essentially people in Baltimore have found a way to profit off of the poverty and the misery of people who live here in Baltimore City.
JAY: Yeah, it's a good business.
GRAHAM: Thank you so much. This is Paul Jay, the senior editor of the Real News Network. And I'm Taya Graham, here in front of the Mitchell courthouse reporting for you, the Real News Network.