Now
Available!
Dime's
Worth of Difference:
Beyond the
Lesser of Two Evils
Order Here!
Today's
Stories
September 4-6,
2004
Sasan Fayazmanesh
The
Holy Empire: Who Are and What We Do
William A.
Cook
The
Day of the Lemming
September 3,
2004
Jeffrey St.
Clair
High
Plains Grifter: Jesus Told Him Where to Bomb
Rahul Mahajan
Bush's RNC Speech: an Annotated Response
Carl Estabrook
The
Book of Slaughter and Forgetting
Joshua Frank
The Florida of the Northwest: Oregon Dems Sabotage Nader Again
Gary Leupp
Music to My Ears: Sunday's March
James Hollander
Deja Vu in Manhattan: Assisted Political Suicide?
Mark Engler
Republicans
Among Us: a Week at the RNC, Inside and Out
Jesse Sharkey
Making Students and Teachers Pay for the Crisis in Education
Jane Stillwater
Calling the Cops on Your Own Kid
Stephen Green
Serving
Two Flags: the Bush Neo-Cons and Israel
Sex,
Drugs & the Blues!
Serpents in the Garden
CounterPunch's
Sizzling New Book on Culture and Sex is Now Available
Click here to purchase
September 2,
2004
Jeffrey St.
Clair
High
Plains Grifter: Part 3: More Pricks Than Kicks
Max Gimble
Et Tu, Menchu? Extrajudicial Killings and Clandestine Graves
in Guatemala
James Petras
President Chavez and the Referendum: Myths and Realities
Christopher
Brauchli
Bush and the Afghan Electoral Model: "If They Want to Vote
Twice, Let Them"
Todd Chretien & Jessie
Muldoon
Will the Democrats Expel Zell Miller?
Jack Random
Spite and Venom Day: the Turncoat and the Profiteer
Alan Maass
The Real Vietnam
Christa Allen
Contre Bush
Website of
the Day
[Redacted]
September 1,
2004
Alexander Cockburn
The
Stench of Doom
Kathleen and Bill Christison
Poor Larry Franklin
Dave Lindorff
Kerry's Litmus Test
Josh Frank
Protest in White: Not All of New York Rises Up
John L. Hess
Moles, Scoops and Flip Flops
Mike Whitney
Deconstructing Arnold
Jack Random
Kindergarten Night at the RNC
Andrew Wilson
War on the Pachyderms: Why Do Elephants Hate Us?
Jeffrey St.
Clair
High
Plains Grifter: Part Two: Mark His Words
August 31,
2004
Joseph Nevins
Escapism
and Global Apartheid: The Dominican Republic & the NYTs
Matt Vidal
Beyond
Bush's Rhetoric on the Economy
Neve Gordon
Kerry and the Middle East
Dave Lindorff
Bush
the Peace Candidate?
Mike Whitney
NPR Leads the Charge for War Against Iran
Jack Random
Opening Night: Playing the War Card
Jeffrey St.
Clair
High
Plains Grifter: the Life and Crimes of George W. Bush (Part One)
CounterPunch Photo of the Day
Pete Seeger in NYC
August 30,
2004
Justin Podhur
The
Disappeared Mayor
Shaun Joseph
The
Hypocrites at TheNaderbasher.com
Mike Whitney
Israeli Moles in the Pentagon: What More Could They Possibly
Want?
Ron Jacobs
Live, From New York: the Majority of Protesters Claimed No Candidate
David Lindorff
Sunday in Manhattan: the Sound of Marchin', Chargin' Feet, Boy
Dave Zirin
USA Basketball: The Team White America Loved to Hate
Sam Husseini
Israeli Spying on the US: a Long History
August 28 /
29, 2004
Alexander Cockburn
Zombies
for Kerry
Patrick Cockburn
Najaf Ceasefire Good for Iraq, But Weakens Allawi and US
Ray McGovern
Blowing Smoke on Intelligence
Dr. Juan Romagoza
From El Salvador to Abu Ghraib: Reflections of Torture Survivor
Ray Hanania
An Israeli Spy in the Pentagon? Ridiculous!
Fred Gardner
Eddie Lepp Busted by DEA: Facing Life for Growing Medical Pot
Diane Christian
Big Men: the Better Leader Lets You Live
William S. Lind
The Desert Fox
Paul D'Amato
The Left Takes a Dive for Kerry
Joshua Frank
Greens at the Crossroads
Mickey Z.
Media Declares War on Anti-War Protests
Winslow T. Wheeler
Sen. McCain's Pork Chops: an Exchange
Justin E.H.
Smith
The New Age Racket and the Left
Thomas St. John
Burning Slaves at the Stake: On "Sinners in the Hands of
an Angry God"
Ali Tonak
Help the NYPD?
Mark Engler
New York Says "No"
Justin Felux
Haiti: the Attica of the Americas
Poets' Basement
Gelman, Albert, Ford and Hamod
August 27,
2004
Gary Leupp
Neocon
Musings
Robin Cook
The
Ghosts of Abu Ghraib
Diane Christian
Disarming
Michael Donnelly
Situational Democracy: the Show Me the Green Party?
Jack Random
4F and Other Heroes: an Army of War Resisters
Mike Ferner
"To the Swift Boats!"
Mazin Qumsiyeh
7000 Palestinian Political Prisoners
Veronza Bowers, Jr.
"You Won't Be Leaving Tomorrow"
August 26,
2004
M. Shahid Alam
The
Clash Thesis: a Failing Ideology?
Diane Christian
War
Rules: Bush is No Sun Tzu
Derek Seidman
"They're As Bad As Wal-Mart:" Starbucks Workers Get
Organized
David Lindorff
Court to RNC Protesters: Drop the Rally
Christopher
Brauchli
Signs of Dissent: the Bush in the Bubble
Stew Albert
Reporting Suspicious Activity
Mark Donham
Judgement in Athens: Give the Koreans Their Day in Court
Saul Landau
Pinochet:
the Al Capone of the Southern Cone
Website of
the Day
The Kerry 527 Ad You'll Never See
August 25,
2004
Amelia Peltz
Can
I Have 9.8 Seconds of Your Time?
Noah Leavitt
Defining and Redefining Torture
Ron Jacobs
Takin' It to the Streets: It's Not About the Election, It's About
Democracy
James Brooks
Coronado Crosses the Jordan
Akiva Eldar
How to Win the Jewish Vote: Turn Gaza into a "Mini-Afghanistan"
Gemma Araneta
Chavez's New Brand of Populism
Philip Cryan
Uribe's Boys: the Death Squads of Colombia
CounterPunch Wire
Cheney Opens the Closet Door
August 24,
2004
Jeremy Scahill
John
Kerry: the Warchurian Candidate
Gary Leupp
"We
Want Them to Go Away"
David Domke
God
Willing: an Echoing Press and Political Fundamentalism
William Loren Katz
The Meaning of Hugo Chávez: Black and Indian Power in
Venezuela
Jonah Gindin
With Chavez? Reading the International Private Media
Fran Schor
Denying Atrocities: From Vietnam to Fallujah
Joe Bageant
Driving
on the Bones of God
Website of the Day
The Great America Lockdown: a Primer for the RNC
August 23,
2004
Winslow Wheeler
Don't
Mind If I Do: Porkbarrel and the War on Terror
John Pilger
Bush
May Be the Lesser Evil
Stan Goff
Swift
Boat Dogfight
Bill and Kathleen
Christison
Notes
from the West Bank: Build, Demolish, Rebuild
Mike Whitney
The Unraveling of Afghanistan
William Blum
Brave
New World of Iraqi Sovereignty
Ralph Nader
A Letter to the Washington Post: a Shameful and Unsavory Editorial
August 21 /
22, 2004
Cockburn /
St. Clair
"They
Want Blood:" The Bi-Partisan Origins of the Total War on
Drugs
Landau / Hassen
Failing
the Mission? Form a Commission
Brian Cloughley
The
Bush Team in Iraq: Moral Cowardice, as Practiced by Experts
Josh Frank
Nader as David Duke? The ADL Wants You to Think So
Mike Whitney
Reincarnating Mengele: the Torture Doctors of Abu Ghraib
Ron Jacobs
Day Labor Blues
Mickey Z.
Shooting at Whales: 40 Years After Tonkin
Fred Gardner
Dr. Wolman Comes Out: The Cannabis Consultants
Dave Zirin
Uprising in Athens: Iraqi Soccer Team Gives Bush the Boot
Josh Saxe
Witnessing Police Brutality in LA
Yanar Mohammed
Letter from Baghdad: a Democracy of Killings and Bombings
Helen Williams
Ali's Story: a Taste of Reality from Baghdad
Michael Donnelly
Elemental and NaturalForests, Fire and Recovery
Elizabeth Schulte
The Crisis in Affordable Housing
Poets' Basement
Adler, Albert, Virgil, Ford and Krieger
Hot Stories
Alexander Cockburn
Behold,
the Head of a Neo-Con!
Subcomandante
Marcos
The
Death Train of the WTO
Norman Finkelstein
Hitchens
as Model Apostate
Steve Niva
Israel's
Assassination Policy: the Trigger for Suicide Bombings?
Dardagan,
Slobodo and Williams
CounterPunch Exclusive:
20,000 Wounded Iraqi Civilians
Steve
J.B.
Prison Bitch
Sheldon
Rampton and John Stauber
True Lies: the Use of Propaganda
in the Iraq War
Wendell
Berry
Small Destructions Add Up
CounterPunch
Wire
WMD: Who Said What When
Cindy
Corrie
A Mother's Day Talk: the Daughter
I Can't Hear From
Gore Vidal
The
Erosion of the American Dream
Francis Boyle
Impeach
Bush: A Draft Resolution
Click
Here for More Stories.
|
Labor Day Weekend Edition
September 4-6, 2004
The Holy Empire
Who
We Are and What We Do
By
SASAN FAYAZMANESH
It is now nearly three years since nineteen
young men from Saudi Arabia and Egypt opened the Pandora's Box
by attacking the World Trade Center and Pentagon with hijacked
planes. But the answer to "why did they do it?" still
remains unsettled. "They did it because of what we do,"
some say. Others contend, "they did it because of who we
are." Alternatively, the answers appear as "they hate
us for what we do," or "they hate us for who we are."
Those who give the first answer
often discuss various US policies in the Middle East in the 20th
century. These policies could include such things as:
1) the establishment of the
state of Israel on the Palestinian land and the nourishment and
protection of this American-European settler state at the cost
of the brutalized, outraged, dispossessed, displaced, terrorized,
homeless indigenous population of the land;
2) maintaining corrupt, dictatorial,
brutal, oppressive, and, at times, medieval regimes who are friendly
to the US and, at the very least, tolerant of Israel, such as
the Shah of Iran, Sadat and Mubarak of Egypt, Hussein and Abdullah
of Jordan, the Emir of Kuwait, the Saudi family;
3) having military ties with
many of these regimes and even establishing bases in their countries,
an establishment that is often viewed by the indigenous people
of the region as an insult not only to their independence but
to their religious belief and code of ethics and conduct;
4) allying with some brutal
regimes, such as that of Saddam Hussein, or helping to create
these regimes, such as the Taliban.
In addition to tallying these
kinds of policies, the advocates of "they hate us because
of what we do" also point out that if you pose the same
question to the natives of the Middle of East, you would get
basically the same kinds of answers. The devoutly religious people,
however, might add to the answer a thing or two about Islam and
how the US-Israeli policies resemble those of the crusaders.
Indeed, if one listens to the likes of Osama bin Laden, one hears
much of the above complaints wrapped often in a religious cloak.
In sum, the first answer that
one gets to "why do they hate us?" is straightforward,
nonchalant, and somewhat behaviorist or empiricist in the sense
that it relies on what the patient, the native of the Middle
East, reveals to be the causes of his or her ailment. This answer,
however, is quite rare. It is found mostly in some independent
journals and online magazines.
The second answer, "they
hate us for who we are," is the predominant one. It appears
in the mainstream, corporate media. It is heard in the radio
talk shows. It is found in numerous online magazines and websites.
It is written by some academics, who have found fame and fortune
by writing about "who we are." It is spoken by the
US government officials. It can even be found in the 9/11 Commission
Report.
Given the large size and heterogeneity
of those who advocate "they hate us for who we are,"
the issue of exactly "who we are" remains mostly unclear.
But by putting together bits and pieces of some unintelligible
and disparate arguments, we can come up with some basic characteristics
of "us." "We" are: people with values and
culture, civilized, capitalist minded, democratic and free. In
other words, "they" hate us, because "they"
are without values or culture, uncivilized, anti-capitalist,
and despise democracy and freedom. Another version of this same
answer argues that they are envious of our values, culture,
civilization, capitalism, freedom, etc.
This widespread answer is not
as straightforward and nonchalant as the first. It is somewhat
Freudian in the sense that the patient would never divulge these
as the causes of his or her ailment. Thus the analysis tries
to go beyond what appears on the surface, locating beneath appearances
deep-rooted causes, such as envy. These invisible causes, it
is believed, will manifest themselves as the patient's symptoms.
The above explanation is, of
course, risky and ironic. It is ironic because most of those
who advocate this answer, particularly the academicians, usually
have no love for Freud and Freudian analysis. It is risky because,
as any good Popperian knows, one can never falsify such explanations
and, therefore, they are, at the very best, pseudo-scientific
explanations alongside astrology and parapsychology.
The answer is also vague and,
by academic standards, nonsensical. For example, any first year
college student who takes cultural anthropology would realize
that it is virtually impossible to define unambiguously "values"
and "culture." Even defining "capitalism"
or "democracy" is not easy in a course dealing with
economic history or development. Such difficulties, however,
do not seem to concern the proponents of "they hate us for
who we are," and, as a result, they often fall into numerous
contradictions.
For example, "capitalism"
is often used by these individuals in the sense of "consumerism."
Or, at times, it is understood by them to mean an economic system
based on trade or private ownership of means of production. But
none of these understandings would explain why Muslims should
hate capitalism. After all, Islam originated from the teachings
of a traveling merchant who, by profession, could not oppose
private ownership of anything, including the means of production.
His modern day followers have also nothing against contemporary
consumerism. If anything, a look at the Islamic societies shows
the same symptoms of commodity fetishism as anywhere else in
the world.
Or, take "democracy."
From its inception, the term was vague, since the "rule
of the people" only meant the rule of a small number of
"people" and excluded such "people" as women,
slaves and metics. The term is still ambiguous if one engages
in a serious analysis of the electoral process in the modern,
Western countries, particularly the US. But, again, the advocates
of "who we are" are usually not interested in such
analyses and understand democracy to simply mean "one man,
one vote" or a consensual and representative government.
If that is the case, then it is never explained by these individuals
why the US is hated most in those countries that are highly dictatorial
and, at the same time, closely allied with the US. After all,
the 9/11 hijackers originated from Saudi Arabia and Egypt, two
brutal dictatorships, whose citizens rightly view their lack
of consensual and representative government to be at least partially
related to the support of the US for their rulers. Indeed, the
biggest quandary that the US has faced since it claimed that
invading Iraq was for the sake of making it democratic, is that
the edict of "one man, one vote," or a consensual government,
will most likely result in an Islamic government in Iraq, a prospect
that, even though highly "democratic," is unacceptable
to the US and Israel.
In sum, it is relatively easy
to show that the semi-Freudian arguments of the advocates of
"who we are" can't hold much water. It is vague and
full of hard-to-define concepts; and once the concepts are defined
in a popular manner, as is often the case, the arguments usually
become internally incoherent and even contradictory. So why do
the "they hate us for who we are" crowd stick to such
a lame explanation? The answer, once again, goes back to the
US and Israeli policies, their aims and objectives, and the architects
and propagandists of these policies.
As an empire the US is bound
to exercise control over the Middle East and its natural resources.
This was accomplished throughout the 20th century by means of
indirect control, i.e., through close ties with surrogate regimes,
such as the Saudi family and the Shah of Iran. But the 1979 Revolution
in Iran, continued Palestinian resistance to occupation and subsequently
a former ally, Saddam Hussein going solo, shattered this policy
of indirect control and required dealing with the rebels in the
region head on. Hence, we got the old fashioned colonial invasion
and direct occupation of Iraq, the brutal and unrestrained attack
against the Palestinians by the Israelis, and the continuous
attempt to isolate Iran or scare it with military threat.
Israel, on the other hand,
is first and foremost interested in the real estate itself, which
could potentially stretch, if one goes by the Biblical prophecy,
from the "the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates."
This aim, Israel has figured, can best be achieved by riding
on the back of the giant empire. The result of this alignment
of aims is the creation of a modern Holy Empire, an alliance
between US and Israel that requires architects and propagandists
who would form public opinion and prepare the masses for wars.
Such a role in the US has been assigned to numerous think tanks,
institutions and groups, such as the American Enterprise Institute,
Project for the New American Century, Jewish Institute for National
Security Affairs, American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Washington
Institute for Near East Policies, Hoover Institution, and many
others. The task of these spin masters and public opinion makers
is an old fashioned one: demonize those who resist your aims
and objectives.
We see this act of demonizing
throughout the history. Indeed, the act is as old as history
itself. Herodotus, presumably the first historian, divided the
world into the Greeks and the "barbarians." As opposed
to the Greek race, the "barbarians," or the "strangers,"
he argued, are in every respect inferior people. When it comes
to thinking, Herodotus writes, the "Greeks have been from
very ancient times distinguished from the barbarians by superior
sagacity and freedom from foolish simple-ness." Even when
it comes to warfare, the "barbarians" are inferior,
he contends, since the Spartan king is told by the ruler of Ionia
that "the barbarians are an unwarlike people; and you are
the best and bravest warriors in the whole world. Their mode
of fighting is the following: they use bows and arrows and a
short spear; they wear trousers in the field, and cover their
heads with turbans. So easy are they to vanquish!"
Similarly, Aristotle, that
"giant thinker" of the "Western civilization"
who believed "that some men are by nature free, and others
slaves, and that for these latter slavery is both expedient and
right" opens his Politics by stating that "among
barbarians no distinction is made between women and slaves, because
there is no natural ruler among them: they are a community of
slaves, male and female." He then goes on to recount a whole
host of inferior traits of the "barbarians," such as
the fact that they-as opposed to the Greeks who own private property-have
"common property," or are "tyrannical," "despotic,"
"servile," "have a custom of plunging their children
at birth into a cold stream," or "are ready enough
to kill and eat men."
Are the above descriptions
of the "barbarians" not familiar in the context of
the present time? Are they not, almost word for word-except,
perhaps, for such things as cannibalism!-the kind of demonizing
that the advocate of "they hate us for who we are"
use? It is unnecessary to quote other propagandists of the "Western
civilization," such as those of the Roman Empire, the British
Empire, etc. to prove the point? Suffice it to say that even
the most famous, enlightened and respected thinkers of the "Western
civilization" could not escape the prevalent and grotesque
images of the victims of the empire and glorified pictures of
themselves. In the first few chapters of Adam Smith's famous
The Wealth of Nations there are, at least, 7 references
to the "savages," i.e., the North American Indians,
and 15 references to the "civilized" society, i.e.,
the "Great" Britain.
In the final analysis, the
architects and the propagandists of the Holy Empire are doing
precisely what has been done for 2500 years by all empires: calling
the victims of their aggression "barbarians," "savages,"
"uncivilized," "undemocratic," etc. to make
conquering them easier. But this act of demonizing has certain
drawbacks.
First, an empire whose citizens
are fed fantasy, and not facts, might be in for a very long and
costly war which could destroy the fabric of its society, both
economically and socially. The length of the war and its cost
could become so intolerable to the citizens of the empire that
they might ultimately prefer capitulation to a state of permanent
war. What the modern Holy Empire faces is not a few "terrorists"
that can be eradicated, but numerous brutalized "barbarians"
living on the periphery that are now adopting a unifying ideology.
The ideology is cloaked mainly in religion. But this is not unusual;
the ideology of the masses often takes a religious form. As Karl
Marx once observed, "Religious suffering is at the same
time the expression of real suffering and the protest against
real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature,
the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a
spiritless situation."
Ironically, for many oppressed
people in the twentieth century it was "Marxism" itself
which became a powerful, unifying religion. This was not the
esoteric economic and philosophical theories of Karl Marx, but
simple ideas that every liberation movement weaved uniquely for
itself under the rubric of some unclear "Marxism" to
fight colonial aggression and oppression. Now, with the passing
away of "Marxism," it is under the rubric of some even
less clear "Islam" that the masses of the Middle East
are congregating. These masses, these new "barbarians,"
have very little technology to combat the "civilized"
empire. But they are patient, and have time on their side. They
can lie in wait and slowly, very slowly, chip away at the empire.
In the long run they might even succeed in bringing the empire
down to its knees as the Germanic "barbarians," led
by Odoacer, made Emperor Romulus Augustulus kneel down before
them or as, in modern times, the "Gooks," led by Ho
Chi Minh, made the giant empire take flight from the roof of
its embassy. Are the citizens of the Holy Empire willing to put
up with such prolonged warfare? Are the economic and social costs
of such a war acceptable or tolerable? Is the outcome certain?
Second, as time passes, the
effectiveness of repeated propaganda diminishes. It becomes increasingly
apparent to everyone, including the citizens of the empire, that
no one has a monopoly over "barbarism" and "savagery."
The Greek, Roman, and British empires, for example, all showed
that they could act more savagely and barbarically than their
victims. This has already become apparent in the case of the
Holy Empire. We all witness on a daily basis what Coetzee vividly
describes as the ruthless empire that sends its bloodhounds everywhere
and feeds on "images of sacked cities, rape of the population,
pyramid of bones, and acres of desolation." Some of these
images have already made their way into the US corporate news
by default: the pyramid of naked prisoners at Abu Ghraib; the
torture, sadism, rape, sodomy, and hooding of prisoners; the
smiling faces of the "civilized" soldiers who get satisfaction
from acts of perversion; the torture and humiliation of the prisoners;
the terror in the faces of the "savages" facing the
bloodhounds of the "civilized"; the grins on the faces
of military personnel giving thumbs up next to the rotting corpse
of a prisoner, etc.
Other images are hardly ever
shown on the US daily news: the invasion of houses in Baghdad
or Ramallah in the early morning hours; the shattering of doors;
the terrifying men with headgear and assault rifles breaking
into private residences; fear in the faces of the occupants;
the demolition of houses in Fallujah and Gaza; planes and helicopters
attacking civilians; craters left by bombs; blood stained streets;
bodies of Iraqis and Palestinians laying in waste in the streets
of Najaf and Rafah; the siege of cities; lines of detainees;
the cages in the sun designed for unruly prisoners; the dead
animals in the zoos of Baghdad and Rafah; the tanks and bulldozers
waiting to attack defenseless Palestinian refugee camps before
dawn; the bullet ridden walls; giant holes in the bedroom walls;
dwellings turned into rubble; Palestinian women and children
sitting with dazed faces on piles of concrete, where their houses
used to be; the terrified Iraqis and Palestinians carrying their
belongings before the assault begins; the uprooted olive trees
with grieving Palestinian women standing in front of the bulldozer,
trying to save their livelihood; overflowing morgues; dead bodies
wrapped in shrouds; funerals, etc. Indeed, the world has seen,
in just the past few months alone, what "civilization"
can do. The more time passes, the longer the war, the more we
see the real face of this "civilization."
Ironically, one has to say
that the answer, "they hate us for who we are," is
correct, but there is a catch: "we" are everything
that we say "they" are! This solves the puzzle of "why
do they hate us?" It resolves the dichotomy and produces
a single answer: They hate us for what we do and who we are,
since "what we do" cannot be separated from "who
we are."
We are the Holy Empire, and
we do as we are.
Sasan Fayazmanesh is a professor of economics at Fresno
State University.
Weekend
Edition Features for August 7 / 8, 2004
James Petras
The
Anatomy of "Terror Experts": Meet the Mandarins of
Abu Ghraib
Fred Gardner
Run
Ricky Run: Football, Pot and Pain
Justin Delacour
Anti-Chavez Pollsters Panic: Fix Numbers; Reinvent Venezuela
Brian Cloughley
Persecuted by All; Supported by None: Who Would Be A Kurd?
Joshua Frank
The
Outsider: a Talk with Ralph Nader
Iain A. Boal
On "Shame": Warmed-Over Orientalism and Racist Projection
Chris Floyd
All About Eve: Open Season on Women in DC and Rome
Andrew Fenton
Fighting for Democracy and Justice in Haiti
Aseem Shrivastava
Saga of an Anguished Afghan
Neil Corbett
See Cuba: Sometimes a Cigar is Just a Cigar, Mr. Bush
Carol Miller
/ Forrest Hill
Rigged Convention; Divided Party: How David Cobb Won with Only
12% of the Vote
Tarek Milleron
Breaking the Principled Voter
Donald Macintyre
The
Battle of Najaf
Ron Jacobs
Spirits of The Dead: Why I Love My Petty Bourgeois Tendencies
Mickey Z.
Kid
Gavilan's Grave: Propaganda Scores a TKO
Poets' Basement
Adler, Ford and Albert
Keep
CounterPunch Alive:
Make
a Tax-Deductible Donation Today Online!
home
/ subscribe
/ about us / books
/ archives / search
/ links /
|