Counter punch magazine: the new GQ for the pseudo leftist male elite

Counter Punch magazine has become an all-male for men website, like CQ or Penthouse, but for the pseudo leftist male elite.

Heck, they have ditched all pretenses of being ‘for women rights’ and now don’t include articles by women. Why should they? They have judged the modern women’s movement, in their fascinating ‘Marxist’ male dictum,  as a white right-wing women’s movement, all of it. So women now are  not allowed or invited  to publish articles in their male-controlled magazine; and if, for appearances, a woman is ‘invited’, she is not allowed to write about ‘male testosterone’ ‘real’ politics, only about feminine  issues like  ‘women’s contribution to science’.

Image result for counterpunch magazine

 

Just thinking while eating my meal and surfing the net.

 

Image result for counterpunch magazine

 

Advertisements

‘The Turn of the Screw’: Henry James’s manual on how to vilify a woman

OK. Henry James didn’t set out to write a  ‘manual on how to vilify a woman’. He self-reported that he was just, basically, screwing with his readers’ mind; he called his work “a jeu d’esprit”.

But answer this in your own beautiful mind: what is the link between seeing ghosts and women’ sexuality?

That’s what most literature critics and psychologists of culture think Henry James’s groovy novella, ‘The turn of the screw’, is all about.

Image result for the innocents movie

Gorgeous Deborah Kerr as ‘the governess’ with creepy ‘Miles’ in ‘The Innocents’, 1961 film version of ‘The turn of the screw’. Screenplay by Truman Capote and William Archibald. A must see classic. But, only the governess as a mad woman is presented in the movie. None of the other elements author Henry James referred to were used in the movie,

 

If you haven’t read it yet, I recommend you do it; you won’t regret it. Be aware that  I’m giving its whole enchilada here.

I read the story which means that I have first hand knowledge of it. This business of having ‘first hand knowledge’ of something is an important element of the story. I will show to you why this novella serves as an example of how character assassination, particularly women’s, is produced as matter of fact in our culture.

Also, conceit aside, I think my analysis is better than ‘the governess was an hysteric’ analysis.

[Take note of the two badges on the right of this column.]

The only way I understand

What is the story about?

People see what they want to see.

It’s a ghost story. Of course it is also about women’s sexuality (based on one fictional woman).

For 120 years (the novella was published in 1898) just about every analysis of the story is focused on the main female character’s sexuality. Did the governess see the apparitions because she was an hysteric? Or because women, more than men, are prone to faulty reasoning that leads them into seeing what is not there? Or did the incident really happen?

Maybe  the reason for such an obsession with Freudian analysis has something to do with the fact stated by one listener in the introduction when told that the “story won’t tell in any literal, vulgar way” who the governess was in love with:

More’s the pity then. That’s the only way I ever understand.

That was Henry James passing judgment on his readers.

He knew his readers well. He has kept them for 120 years passing judgment on the poor governess’ sexuality and mental health based on the story told in the novella by a man (the anonymous narrator) about whom he intentionally tells the reader absolutely nothing. Mr. James played on the readers’ innate capacity to ignore the obvious.

There is universal agreement between literature critics in that the author intentionally left the ending of the story ambiguously enough as to let the readers decide, based on his clues, whether the incidents narrated really happened.

To make that decision readers need KNOWLEDGE of facts, knowledge being the main issue of the story: how do you know anything? And yet the author chose to deprive the readers of any conclusive knowledge about the characters in the story. Our literature professors and psychologists prefer to ignore this fact and instead they focus on the governess’ sexuality as if what they read about her is TRUE, accepted as described by an anonymous ‘reporter’.

Critics never question the ANONYMOUS narrator or his intentions., not even how did he get his information. Surprise, surprise; it was all in HIS head.

How do we know anything?

Of course there were other themes in the story.

From beginning to end of the story, there are three constant themes openly discussed by the main characters – the governess, Mrs. Grose, and Miles,  but ignored by just about every critic of the story, and which I discuss below:

People see what they want to see,

The Innocents Screen

Class privilege and ‘class envy’,

Image result for the innocents movie deborah kerr

Upper-class male privilege and women’s loss of power,

Image result for the innocents movie

child abuse and neglect

Image result for the innocents movie

 

Let me start at the beginning.

This is a story about how to tell  a good ghost story – Mr. James said so. But the inevitable question, stated or unstated, at the outset of ANY ghost story is:

Do YOU believe in ghosts?

That’s the first question Henry James implicitly poses to the reader:

Do you believe in ghosts? Yes or no?

That question is inevitably followed by a second implied question, the one stated throughout the story by each main character at least once:

And how do you know?’

How do you know either way? How do you know anything?

There are three sources of knowledge, at least as agreed by philosophers (and Henry James was a philosopher),  of which their reliability has been in question since humans learned to use their thumb:

Personal acquaintance with the object through direct sensual perception,
knowledge by inference (object is absent, only its marks are perceived), and
knowledge from information given to you by others.

Henry James makes use of these three sources in the story to guide you, no, to misguide you into the thicket of the story. This brings me to the introduction, where Mr. James starts the word-game that keeps the reader going back and forth to unscrew him/herself from the mystery.

The mother of all clues: Hello? Who’s talking to me?

This is where Henry James shows why he is the master.

If one source of knowledge is the words, the testimony given by another person, then that person’s character, his/her trust-worthiness must matter to the listener, wouldn’t you agree? Would you take the statements of a known liar and criminal at face value?

Henry James gives us the first clue of the story in the introduction, in what, interestingly enough, the anonymous narrator calls

“the proper prologue required for an intelligent understanding of the narrative”.

And what is that?

One important fact ignored and seldom mentioned by critics is that the story is not, as most readers assume, being told by Douglas, the purported story-teller. Henry James intentionally feeds this information to the reader in the introduction. The story and all the facts about it are given to the reader by the unknown narrator, a person no one knows, not the people at the meeting or the reader; and given from his old memories to boot.

This is the anonymous narrator talking to the reader:

 “…the narrative he had promised to read us…Let me say here distinctly, have done with, that this narrative, from an exact transcript of my own made much later, is what I shall presently give.”

“Have done with” as in ‘let me get it out-of-the-way before you start asking me the relevant questions: I don’t know the facts first hand or otherwise, I can’t know the truth’.

The author must have had a reason to put this clarification there. The readers can’t say that he didn’t warn them about how to treat the facts given to them by the anonymous narrator.  No one today would accept the ‘evidence’ provided by this man if one’s life depended on getting the ‘true facts’.

Only Douglas knew him, but not when the meeting took place, which begs the question why did the anonymous narrator believed him at that time?

The “narrative”, the story itself, is told from the anonymous narrator’s old memories about what happened at the meeting where Douglas supposedly read from the original manuscript, also supposedly written by the governess. The narrator tells us that Douglas denied having personal knowledge of the facts and events he was about to read from the governess’ manuscript. Douglas knows only what the now dead governess told him.

This means that no one telling the story knows the facts first hand, it’s all ‘she said’, but the reader is to pass judgment on whether the story is true or not, on whether there were apparitions or on whether the governess was mentally ill or not, based solely on the old memories of an unknown person of whose character and trustworthiness we have not a shred of evidence to rely on.

Image result for the innocents movie 1961

Flora, the girl, seems to be able to see the apparition but denies she did.

 

Does it matter today, or has it ever mattered, that scholars and psychologists continue to pass conclusive and ‘professional’ judgement on a fictional woman’s sexuality, and extrapolate that judgment to real women, based on the intentional lies of a genius fiction writer? Or is it the other way around, they bring their prejudices about women in general and use the fictional woman to validate their prejudices?

But, did it happen?

More important than whether it all happened or not is WHY DID IT HAPPEN? Why was the governess alone in a mansion with six “respectable SERVANTS” and two children abandoned by their wealthy relatives? The servants are “respectable”, says the master-boss, but we don’t know that., do we? Why must he readers believe him, especially when they are given clues that the servants were NOT all very “respectable” at all?

"The Innocents"

Poor little Flora with ‘strangers’ bathing her.

Either way what we have with ‘The turn of the screw’ is a work of literature art used by literature critics and psychologists to cement a cultural negative stereotype of women in general, and their  sexuality in particular. This despite the fact that the author did not set out to write about women’ sexuality, although the governess’ sexuality was one among the many elements.The cultural verdict is that the governess is a crazed sexually repressed woman driving the children mad and to death. Ignored are the other elements:

-That at the master who hired the governess neglected the children when, it is hinted, he knew they were in danger with the previous ‘servants’ but abandoned them and refuses to be in contact with them. Miles is marked by this neglect, as the author let us know in one scene.

-That wealthy men do not want to be bothered with raising or protecting children, even those of their own dead relatives. This is established clearly at the beginning of the story itself, second part. He orders the governess not to inform him of ANYTHING related to the children; he basically gives them away to any woman willing to be paid well for the job of taking care of them. But never do we hear about this by critics. it’s all about the crazy woman.

-That something was going on at the Bly mansion. Other women interviewed for the job refused to take it because they were ‘scared’ of what the master described.

All of these elements are totally ignored by every professional literature critic and psychologist using literature to spread their judgments on women.

Henry James stated that his intention was to write a story to confuse his readers, to play with their minds, so to speak. He wanted to write the best ghost story, not the best study of women’ sexuality. But that’s what literature critics have focused on for over 120 years.

The author kept a link throughout the story between class divisions and the governess attitude towards both  the ‘master’ and Mrs. Grose, the housekeeper. The master gave her “supreme authority” over Bly and the children, the first time this young woman was given any power over anything. There’s a reason why Mr. James put that in there.

But that power over the children was TEMPORARY because Miles in particular was growing up and recognizing his place of superiority in society. And the governess was aware that the boy was getting ‘naughty’ with her because ‘he could’. She knew her power over him was temporary and coming to an end. I’m sure the author wanted us to think about that.

 

"The Innocents"

Does any literature critic and psychologist care or have noticed?

I will continue the discussion about how Henry James presented women’s loss of power next week.

 

 

 

Counter Punch magazine finally ditches women?

Hmmm. Interesting. Consider this:

For the last two weeks, pseudo-Marxist Counter Punch magazine has published not one article by women.

Now, don’t you go on thinking it’s a serendipitous event. And before anyone raises the misogynistic argument that Counter Punch doesn’t engage in Affirmative Action for women, consider the following.

The ‘left’ has declared a war on ALL women movements. You can read on this blog some instances of misogyny exploding on online ‘leftists’ magazines like a pimple on a teenager’s face.

From bashing the Women’s March on Washington D.C. for committing the crime of being openly anti-Trump, to officially branding the #metoo movement as “right-wing”, the men on the ‘left’ completely identify with the fear of that king of misogyny, Trump, that women are out to attack men.

One of the sorriest recent example of men identifying with Trump was Kanye’s cooing for Trump.

Not all men are identifying with Trump, but the many (or few?) who do come from all walks of life: blacks, Latinos, poor, wealthy, white, educated, uneducated, scientists, entertainers…

 

Image result for misogynist men

That’s so funny I even had to go and stick some needles on a Borat look-alike doll’s genitals.

So the saga of the pseudo-leftsists’s turn to unite with the misogynistic right-wing continues.

I’ll try to keep you posted.

Image result for men's fear of womenImage result for men's fear of women

WaPo and Michael Gerson accuse the media of being liars

Today, the Washington Post and Michael Gerson went all ´jury and judge’ on the main stream media (MSM) accusing it, but glaringly excluding themselves from the accusations, of, well, basically lying. They say that the MSM “made Trump a winner” on the Kavanaugh issue with its ‘low quality’ journalism. Somehow Bezos has decided to appoint his newspaper, WaPo, as the judge of what constitute ‘serious and truthful’ journalism.

That’s funny coming from a MSM newspaper that spent the whole election year printing 24/7 negative and untrue ‘facts’ about Hillary Clinton’s emails and judging her negatively based on those ‘facts’, Of course, it was with Muller investigation that we later find that the “facts” were fake, created by just about every right-wing organization national and worldwide who wanted Clinton to lose and Trump to win. And of course, Bezos’ WaPo will NEVER admit that they helped make Trump “a winner” and become president of the USA precisely because of its persistent attacks on Clinton for a ‘crime’ they know was not real.

The WaPo CHOSE to ignore the big news about Putin meddling in our elections with Trump that came the SAME day it changed the conversation over to the Access Hollywood bus ‘incident’.

WaPo chose to keep you entertained with sex, crimes and video tapes, which are LESS likely to enraged the people than finding out that Trump was selling the nation to Putin.. Treason was too much for WaPo to discuss; they judged it to be a lesser crime compared to Clinton’s emails ‘debacle’.

Today we have the Muller investigation, but be certain, the media is not being investigated, even though they, especially the WaPo, were the TOOL used to disseminate the lies about Clinton. I know it should not be investigated, but is the unwillingness to admit their participation in the destruction of our democracy what we should be discussing today.

I’m still waiting for Bezos’ WaPo to apologize for facilitating the destruction of our democracy.

And now I’m wondering why is the WaPo CONFIRMING Trump’s accusations against the MSMedia.

There are so many ways to support Trump without looking the part.

It’s called dishonest media, meaning PROPAGANDA. I’m sure Bezos  is grateful to Trump for the trillions of dollars received from him in tax benefits.

You don’t destroy the rooster that lays the golden eggs.

California Just Officially Banned The Sale Of Animal-Tested Cosmetics

Good news for animal-lovers.

Let’s hope other states follow suit.

This from the Huff Post (WARNING: Graphic images):

California Just Officially Banned The Sale Of Animal-Tested Cosmetics
The new law is the first of its kind in the United States.

‘What Happened’: On feminism and the coup against the people of the USA

I watched Rachel Maddow’s interview of Hillary Clinton last Tuesday who was promoting her new book, a ‘part 2’ in paperback of last year’s ‘What Happened’, with the same title. The part of the interview that caught my attention the most was Hillary’s discussion about Putin’s continued meddling in our national politics and his attacks on her during the 2016 elections, which she discusses extensively in her new book.

Hillary asked, and I’m paraphrasing, If Putin wanted to punish her for her supposedly ‘anti- Putin’ actions as Secretary of State by blocking her path to the presidency, and if he anticipated, before the elections, that her presidency would be an “obstacle” to whatever his political goals were at the time, why, then, after having succeeded in removing said ‘obstacle’, is he still persistently attacking our political system and influencing our national political discourse? After all, he got what he and his billionaire supporters wanted:  Donald Trump, overwhelmingly rejected by popular vote, in the presidency.

Mrs. Clinton suggested that Putin’s attacks on her were neither just personal nor solely directed at her. She said that Putin is “paranoid” about any mass movement near his borders seeking political reforms and democracy (e.g. the LGBTQ and women’s movements). I propose to you, as I’m doing since the primaries  on this blog, that it was precisely that irrational fear of democratic movements what had, not only Putin, but the rest of the US and global oligarchs in a state of panic during the US presidential elections.

The mantra used by the American ‘Marxists’ during the elections (discussed on this blog) that Hillary Clinton hated Russia and was, consequently, an obstacle to ‘peace with Russia’, was a propaganda ploy devised by Putin and handed to them to disseminate among Bernies (proved by emails from Russia to Manafort). Bernies  believed the ploy and went on to vilify Hillary in the eyes of progressives supporting her. Is not for nothing that Putin was head of the KGB; his propaganda skills worked so well with Bernies that they still believe the myth of Hillary ‘the witch’ and Trump the ‘pro peace and anti-globlalism’ candidate. Heck, they might want to re-elect him.

The famous and mysterious “voters’ anger” (for a long time the mainstream media denied understanding what they were ‘angry’ about) at the globalist oligarchs manifested in the US Democratic Party as a solid united front of people of color, women, workers, immigrants (legal and illegal), LGBTQ, Muslims and many other oppressed groups. They were all behind Hillary Clinton, even some who didn’t like her.  The oligarchs of the world, of Russia, the U.S.A, China, Europe…were not pleased with the vision of the future flashing in front of their mind’s eye from all these expressions of solidarity among their nations’ oppressed groups.

Seeing these voters in the US behind a woman, nay, a feminist woman, was an intolerable sight indeed for the ruling male oligarchs. That’s why, as Hillary mentioned in the interview, more money was spend attacking her (over $30 millions) than on any other candidate running for president ever.

Politics is politics and I will not claim that Hillary Clinton’s actions as Secretary of State were all ‘kosher’. But at the same time she did stand for the interests of women and  oppressed group here and internationally.  I’m sure you can see why the same oligarchs that supported her as Secretary of State were not going to support her candidacy for president. Those are two different jobs. Running for president on a platform giving women more power and workers better salaries is not the oligarchs’  idea of a ‘good president’.

Case in point: By now the American public is aware that Putin didn’t act alone, that he joined, coordinated and ultimately received help from many U.S. entities. Among them were, and still are, the GOP, the NRA, the mainstream media (NYT and WaPo included), the pseudo-Marxists and the alt-right media. (Recall the infamous photo of Putin seating with Green Party’s Jill Stein and GOP senators). What interests could link this disparate group of political agents, particularly the ultra anti-anything-that-smells-like-socialism GOP and the NRA, to Putin?

It was the perfect political storm.

Ask yourself, what is it that our billionaire (and recently crowned as trillionaires) oligarchs care for the most on this planet? What terrifies them and their paid GOP servants the most, to the point of giving them nightmares?

Answer: What they have, and losing it.

First, they care for, no, actually, their lives revolve around investing the least amount of money on their workers and other incidentally necessary human beings (salaries and health insurance) and reaping insane profits from them and the consumers. Secondly, they care immensely for their power: political-economic-and male. (Male power, power over women, i.e., is a universal goal of just about every male.)

The two things that TERRIFY them the most are the opposite of those things they care for the most. They fear losing their power over women and workers (though they are more terrified of powerful women),  which would make them lose their ability to crunch humanity and, consequently, stop them from deriving their hugely immorally acquired profits.

And thus we arrive at the answer to ‘What Happened?’.

There was, and still is, a global anger at the globalist oligarchs. In the USA, the working class as such has become increasingly powerless, as shown by them having lost their union organizing powers (due to labor leaders’ corruption, political attacks from the oligarchy, and the almost total disappearance of the leftist movement since, at least, the 1980s). Meanwhile, the so-called identity issues have become more prominent, particularly the women’s issues. Hillary Clinton’s candidacy in 2016 automatically put feminism in the ballot, both because she is a woman and because she openly ran as a feminist.

Make no mistake about it: Feminism was in the ballot this past 2016 presidential elections. In my view, it was the most important issue, the defining issue in the elections and the least mentioned or examined after the elections. It is the one issue which the members of the exclusive club of male oligarchs, from Putin to Trump and every Wall Street and Silicon Valley CEO, and trillionaires like Jeff Bezos are still not prepare to accept: a woman, and on top of that a feminist, supported by women (self-identified as feminists or not), as president running their male lives and making decisions about their sacrosanct business practices privileges. (What type of feminism Clinton represented is not in discussion in this post.)

The male oligarchs  perceived that their absolute male power and privileges were being threatened by ‘feminists’. I remember reading a tweet from Michael Moore saying, under the assumption that Hillary’s victory was assured,

“guys, let’s admit it: 10 thousand years of male dominance over women is coming to an end” (I paraphrased.)

He was pleased about that.

How else do you explain the misogynistic coverage of Clinton in the media, even by those who ‘endorsed’ her? Look, no owner of big corporation in his right mind would have come out openly supporting Trump, a know amoral entity, during the elections. That explains, in part, how the WaPo, e.g.,, which ‘endorsed’ her,  spend 24/7 negative coverage of Clinton and the ’email’ ‘crimes’ up to November 9. Then they stopped talking about her ‘crimes’, one day to the other.

That’s also why only now we are finding out that the support for Trump was extensive, across party lines, from the extreme left supporting Putin to the extreme right also supporting him, and mostly by elitist men; but hidden from the public in plain view.

It was a magnificently globally crafted and implemented soft coup d’etate ON THE PEOPLE of the USA during and after the 2016 elections.

Hillary Clinton is right: Ultimately it was not about her, but about us, the people united against ‘strong men’ in power.

Women continue to be today the only revolutionary force capable of making significant changes to the system. Their struggle touches every aspect of our humanity: From cultural and gender issues, to labor and search for political power against the oligarchs. They just need to realize the awesome power they have in their hands.

The labor and ‘leftist’ movement, they are no more. The few zombie ‘Marxist leftists’ out there are beckoning you to follow them and leave the ‘identity politics, the politics of fighting the oppression of women and all people, behind.

Follow the pseudo-Marxist leftists at your own risk.

Me, I’m done with them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The leftists’ (male) solidarity with Donald Trump: They heart Trump

I hate giving the pseudo-leftist online magazine Counter Punch free advertisement, but knowing that many progressives read it, I feel compelled to try to show ‘em the hidden pro-Trump propaganda they dish week in and out, at least as I see it.

Take for example their article by Nick Pemberton, Donald The Victim: A Product of Post-9/11 America.

It starts like this:,

“If Donald Trump is anything, he is a victim.”,

and ends like this,

“If his narcissism wasn’t killing us all we could take some satisfaction in how sad the man really is.”

The headline is not sarcasm, it is an extended Trump-apology based, not on Marxist analysis, but on cheap (that bad it is) pop psychology analysis  of Trump’s personality, Counter Punch is insinuating that Trump IS  a victim because he is  mentally ill. The article intention is to make you feel, not class-related disgust at this corrupt and hateful elitist, but some sort of compassion for him because he is a VICTIM of an illness. These Marxists are telling you that Trump’s actions are not class-related, his policies are not the actions of a corrupt elitist; it’s just an illness. Feel sorry for him, please; have a heart for the man.

At a time when Marxists and the leftists should be encouraging the working class’ disgust at this man and use it to organize against his policies, they try to make you feel sorry for him. I guess that’s Marxism 101: The working class’ compassion for the oppressor will make him grow a heart and put an end to class struggles.

Mind you, throughout the primaries and elections the ‘leftists’ were nothing but apologists for Trump, especially the ‘leftist’ men. From Susan Sarandon to almost every Counter Punch writer, they all reached out to progressives, women, workers and people of color, trying to convince them that Donald Trump (and, consequently, the GOP) was a saner and better political alternative to “that nasty woman” Hillary Clinton. Explaining how can so-called Marxists arrive at that illogical and suicidal  conclusion for the working class is easy: They are NOT Marxists.

Now that Trump’s incompetence, hatred and corruption can’t be hidden behind their hatred of Hillary Clinton, the pseudo-Marxists won’t admit their mistake. Instead, they double down on the ‘man’. They continue to work for him, now with pop-psychology to ‘hypnotize’ you into making you feel sorry for him.

The pseudo-leftists never showed a sliver of compassion or empathy for Hillary Clinton despite the support that the working class and just about every oppressed group gave her against Trump. In their eyes, she is a total unredeemable human being, she is an evil witch: a powerful Woman, i.e. Trump, however, is NOT evil:

“I was thinking about Trump and if “evil” was the correct word to describe him. It certainly is a good word for Trump, but maybe not the best one. It is hard to imagine Trump cackling behind the scenes, twiddling his fingers. Trump is more driven by a self-obsessed paranoia than anything else.”

He is not “evil”, the “best” word to describe him is ‘mentally ill’, says Counter Punch and Pemberton. (But they can imagine Hillary Clinton “cackling behind the scenes…”)

Again, is that a Marxist class analysis or pop psychology?

It is clear that the ‘Marxists’ and some black men have a place for Trump in their hearts. Why? I will give you three reasons, among many others.

First, because of male solidarity. It is no secret that many men, leftists included, admire Trump’s machismo and the way he treats women. You can see it when they express their hatred of the women movement’s attacks on Trump’s misogyny. For the ‘Marxists’, during the elections, Trump was never portrayed as ‘evil’, despite his explicit hatred of the working class, women and people of color. Many black men like him precisely because of his misogyny. And don’t tell me there is no evidence of that.

The ‘Marxists’ don’t see misogyny as a problem to be included in their agenda. I refer you to that quote above again and to my recent post “OFFICIAL: Pseudo-Marxist left organizing against women and supporting Trump”.

Only misogynist and racists can be openly against fighting those problems. ‘Marxists’ claim that those are ‘identity issues’, not important, i.e. Of course, they are male and white and elitists, they don’t suffer any of those problems personally. They are part of the problem, though, for trying to brainwash the working class into letting the oligarchy oppress them with impunity.

The second reason is Trump’s love of oligarch Putin. They love him because they too love Putin, a misogynist. The idea that Trump’s love for Putin is a sign that he is pro-peace is another ‘Marxist’ 101 teaching. You know Putin’s interests are not aligned with those of the working class when our own GOP oligarchs and corrupt Trump support him. It’s just common sense: The GOP pro-‘socialists’? Putin is not a socialist.

Counter Punch’s goal  here: is Shampooing your mind to wash out any support you may have for impeaching  Trump. Putin nor the leftists want this ‘pro-peace’ man impeached. They will do anything to keep him in the White House, including attacking Muller when his report comes out, and inciting the white supremacists to revolt against any impeachment procedures.

And finally, because these people are not Marxists. They are part of the alt-right who have joined forces with the zombie leftists (the living dead remnants of past true leftists) to destroy the Democratic party and leave the GOP as the one party-rule in the USA. I’m not a defender of the Dem party, but THAT is all we have, until the ‘glorious Marxists’ lead us to create the ‘working class party’. But they are visiting Trump at the psych ward, don’t wait for them to do their job just yet.

I have many posts here about the ‘leftists’ new war on women. I invite you to read some. Look in the tags. The ‘leftists’ will never recognize their blame in us having this man destroying our lives because they supported and continue to support him.

That’s enough to prove that Counter Punch’ support is for Trump, not for progressives or the working class. They are a tool of Putin.