Update on Bernie Sanders (he is still trying)

I wrote on this blog after the Russian/US oligarchs’ 2016 elections coup that Bernie Sanders would disappear from our political scenery, eventually blamed and ignored by the pseudo American leftists.

Truth be told, yes, he was later blamed for not joining the Russians/GOP on their attack on Hillary over her ‘dangerous emails debacle’. Had he join them, he would have certainly defeated her and be the president today instead of el sucio (pervert) Trump, say the zombie leftists.

But the taste of the-power-almost-won and the human ego left good ol’ Bernie berning with the continued desire of getting ‘there’, and getting all the donations with which to buy more mansions.

So Bernie wants to run again.

He thinks he can run again as a GOP mole to defeat the Democrats by, again, giving arguments to Dump and the GOP against our candidates. He is counting with the media elevating him again to sainthood, as they did to him during the past presidential elections.

Do you remember these memes?

 

 

 

 

 

Or articles at the Washington Post like this, reviewed by me on this blog, of conservative WaPo reporter and Brookings Institute praising Sanders ‘socialism’ in the open? https://crazyusaelections.wordpress.com/2016/02/20/sanders-at-brookings-institution/

February 9, 2015, The Brookings Institution hosted Sanders for a ‘conversation with Senator Bernie Sanders” (transcript).

Poor Bernie.

He still doesn’t get it. The media will NOT be there for him this time because they never liked him. They just used him as the ‘cleaner’ tool against Hillary. You see, it was not the same thing to have only the GOP attacking her using character assassination; the public would have recognized the GOP propaganda. So they (all members of the perfect storm against us -media, Putin, GOP, male oligarchs, male decrepit zombie leftists, Assange, Comey, i.e) enlisted a non-democrat independent to run on the Democratic ballot but attacking the democratic candidate using misogyny and character assassination. Let me refresh your memory: It was him and his bernies who poisoned the campaign with the ‘lock her up’ chanting, for which later Dump expressed him his gratitude.

THE MEDIA WILL NOT BE THERE FOR BERNIE THIS TIME.

Nor will the zombie leftists.

The Washington Post, one of the most fervent manipulators of Sanders’ campaign against Hillary, have been publishing articles against him. Of course, they are not going to come out with a pipe to hit him over the head. No. You don’t do that to a saint. YOU SIMPLY CRUCIFY HIM. Now, his ‘socialism’ is a problem, despite crowning him a saint for the glorious deed of ‘making socialism mainstream’ during the 2016 presidential campaign.

The pseudo leftists are already rumbling against him too. NOW, not during the 2016 campaign, they are pulling out how friendly he is with the warmongering armaments corporations. I was talking about this at that time, of course I got insulted for portraying their saint in such bad light. But not now.

So this is the latest article crucifying Bernie. I’m just saying.

Sanders could face more scrutiny for socialist leanings

 

Advertisements

What happens when the GOP accuses Dems of being racists?

We are back at it again, at racism, i.e.

This week is about a recently elected democratic governor in the south with an unbeknown-to-voters history of racist attitudes. The WaPo says

  Northam mum about his plans, after a flood of calls for his resignation for ‘racist and offensive’ photo

But is this a healthy discussion about the evils of racism? What happens when the GOP and the media accuses democrats of being racists? As I will conclude later, Racism Invictus.

One would have to first define what “healthy” in this case means.

I, personally, would define  “healthy in this case” from the negative: as long as the GOP is not involved in the discussion it is “healthy in this case’. Why? In addition to the obvious reasons consider the following.

The Politics of Racism

It’s not only that republicans are being “dishonest” and guilty of hypocrisy (as Rubin correctly discussed at the WaPo), we know they are that and much worse. The problem is that, in meddling in the discussion between democrats about this particular instance of racism, they are intentionally politicizing the issue.

Politics is about power, not about philosophies of good and evil.

They don’t bring an honest discussion about the immorality of racism because they are incapable of talking about something they are not: moral human beings. They are the opposite of that. So  what is their goal in paying someone to find in others the dirt that is in themselves and  in the person right next to them and whom they admire, on their own president Donald el sucio Trump, i.e?

“Of human bondage”: The power of racism to grab political power

That’s the height of immorality. Their goal, not that you didn’t know it, is to find ‘moral stains’ in democrats already in positions of power to stir public outrage and force us to politically defeat ourselves. The GOP lost the governorship of the state? No problem, they will make YOU remove your elected official. It’s a temporary victory for them, but a victory, non-the-less.

Finding moral stains on anyone is as easy as finding a MacDonald because ‘moral stain’ is the motor that propels human beings into the search for redemption via religions, philosophies, and mystic paths. Every human being is born with the ‘curse’ of moral stains; we all have sinned in the past and are on our way to do it again in the near future. Most humans feel the ‘call of the flesh’ as a heavy burden, and most of us have an innate desire to cleanse ourselves as much as possible of that stain.

But the amoral human beings don’t have that imperative in life. Theirs is the opposite: how to live a life of hedonism, of sensual self-indulgence at the cost of trampling over other human beings.

Racism Invictus

So the answer to the question What happens when the GOP accuses dems of f being racists is: racism itself remains untouched: racism Invictus. The discussion about racism itself is flipped over and we are forced instead to act, to prove that we do as we preach, but the ONLY proof or evidence accepted by the republicans and the media is that we remove the person in question, even if that person has shown concrete political benefits to society or if he or she has shown remorse. (I am definitely not defending Northam here.)

The racist GOP divide us and make us lose political power when they enter our discussion about racism. The same doesn’t work around for them.

When we accuse republicans of being racists, the accused person is actually leading a life of amorality: they have shown hatred of women, of people of color, of the poor and the immigrants…and they are PROUD of it. They call it ‘not being liberal’. Their policies are aimed at dividing and hurting us, while benefiting the white male racist oligarchs. When we succeed to remove one of them, racism remains untouched because their racist policies remain untouched, their racist agenda continues to live in the rest of the party.

Michael Ertel, Florida’s Secretary of State.

As long as one believes that racism has to be dealt with as a  knee jerk reaction, we will be at the mercy of the republicans’ emotional manipulation machine; victims of their experts in the arts of propaganda and opinion-shaping.

Then it is not a moral issue any more, it’s a political issue.

Find alternative solutions to racism in politics;  it doesn’t always have to be relinquishing political power.

 

 

 

 

 

DIY Rockwool panels for apt. windows a success on today’s winter storm

I live in da Bronx, NY. Tired of the outside noise (mostly ambulances, fire trucks and police cars) I ‘researched’ how to sound proof the windows. The intention was that the panels would serve also as cover for the wind drafts in the winter. I never imagined this would work. BUT IT DID!

I made the panels removable, but left three of the panes covered and kept the bottom one on and off to let air and the cats in and out to the balcony. It works reducing the noise. And today, Feb 30 2019, in the middle of the ‘polar vortex’ winter storm the panels have withstand the wind so far. I just came to my apartment (7:30 pm) with the wind that almost blew me away as I was entering the building. Anxious about finding the panels all over the place and the apartment freezing…YEAH!!

TOASTY apartment!

If you have issues with outside noise and drafty windows, do what I did.

I bought a bat of Rockwool R23, and Owens Corning R-3.0 insulating sheath boards (1 inch is better, 1/2 is fine too). I cut the boards to the size of each window pane (from frame to frame). Then sliced Rockwool insulating material at about 2 inches thick. I used 3M Super 77 glue on the board and put the insulation on top (on one side only). THEN i covered the board with fabric: 3M is good for fabric too. Then put the glue on the window frame where each panel would go. Put the panels and …voila!

It’s my first time. I made a mistake with the door panel: the insulating should go facing the glass.

BUT IT WORKED!!!

There is salvation, my friends. Just SAVE YOURSELVES. lol

Now I have to make panels to put on the walls. It will further  reduce the noise by absorbing the bouncing noise waves. You can use fancy fabric. I used cheap one thinking that the project wouldn’t work. Now I’m changing the fabric and use beautiful ones for the walls.

That’s it.

 

Trump plans invasion of Venezuela: US pseudo-Marxist left is silent

US Marxists. You know them, they are ‘internationalists’ and ‘anti-imperialists’.

Not any more. Now they stand by their Putin-loving president Trump, so, sorry third-world people, Marxists can’t attack Putin-loving Trump. Don’t expect the Marxist- left marching out in front of the UN to protest US imperialism in Venezuela as they used to do a couple of decades ago. That’s passé. Save yourselves, third-world.

I have been talking and demonstrating on this blog how the American left died and became a ‘zombie left’ since the 2015 primaries when they went all out for Trump and against Hillary Clinton.

Now the evidence is out there that the American Marxist-left disappeared as such and merged with the alt-right: for Trump, against women, racist and against democracy. To see the evidence all you have to do is navigate the usual ‘Marxist’ websites and see the lack of in-depth coverage on the situation in Venezuela.

The World Socialist website has one article today at the bottom of the website, not denouncing Trump, only ‘describing’ the situation there. Counter Punch, the official alt-right website passing as Marxist, had no articles last week on the topic; it has one very short article today to basically say that, nah, they can’t condemn Trump:

both sides, American politicians and Maduro are right”.

A tough situation for Counter Punch to take side if it means attacking Trump. They are so blinded by their love of Trump that they, Counter Punch,  forgot how to do a Marxist analysis of US imperialist attacks on a third-world nation. Oh they are so ‘balanced and fair’ now, as Fox Friends are toward Trump.

If you navigate these websites, notice that they don’t discuss Trump, they discuss EVERYBODY else but Trump. They name Pompeo or the ‘warmongering’ Democrats as planning the coup, I mean, the “intervention”. But absolute zero criticism of Trump himself. [Update: Counter Punch added a new article the day after this post to criticize, not Trump, but Bernie Sanders. I’m no fan of Sanders;  the point is that they accuse everybody except Trump.]

The pseudo-American Marxist left responds to Putin. Putin is having a romance with Trump. The pseudo-American Marxists have their instructions from Putin: DON’T YOU DARE DENOUNCE TRUMP.

And thus it was that the pseudo-Marxists threw anti-imperialism and socialist internationalism under the bus out of love for Trump.

If these are not the strangest days of our existence, I don’t know what is.

Basically, progressives, colored people, women, immigrants and workers are on their own now, especially if they denounce Trump.

Not looking good out there, is it?

weird lights over NYC

I was watching MSNBC online when the lights in the apartment flickered and stayed dim. I thought it was in my building. The fan I have running stopped, then I could hear a strange humming, like electrical or electromagnetic. I looked outside the windows and saw the area as if it were day light. I went to the balcony and saw the sky to the south of the city with weird white and blue colors. It kept changing color, white to blue to violet. It covered a large area of the sky and I could hear the humming coming from ‘out there’.  I went to get the cell phone. When I returned to the balcony this is all I could record. The light stopped as when you turn the switch off. The second video is the best I found online. The first one is mine, poor quality. I’m trying to rotate the video at Youtube. Hopefully will fix in an hour.

The story that it was an explosion in Con Ed is pure COVFEFE.

 

Update: Unfortunately, Youtube eliminated the enhancement that allowed for vids to be rotated. I have tried everything. WordPress allows vids to be uploaded for a fee, which I’m not paying. So there you have it. The second video is excellent.  Thanks for visiting. UFOs are out to get Trump. LOL

 

The whole experience was AWESOME: beautiful and scary at the same time.

 

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

 

‘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.