A Green Party that will win

Part I (July 1, 2023)

A Green Party that will win

Part I

Emanuel Pastreich

The collapse of civil society, the decay constitutional governance, and the stranglehold on the economy of multinational corporations that work,, hand in hand, with the military in a push for world war has created in America an unquenchable thirst for a political alternative. As a political party possessing a national infrastructure that is capable of offering something other than the punch-and-judy show put on by the Democratic and Republican Parties connected at the waist, the Green Party has an unprecedented opportunity to play the central role in American politics.

However, before the Green Party can seize this opportunity, it must first decide what sort of a political party it wants to be. 

The Green Party could transform itself into the most powerful political movement in the United States since the anti-slavery movement of the 1850s, and do so in a short period of time, if it vows to return the United States to the citizens and to wrest away control of government from the multinational corporations and banks--and the billionaires who lurk behind them. If the Green Party stands unconditionally for constitutional rule and an economy that is focused on the long-term needs of citizens, it can build a broad coalition of the disaffected who are disgusted with the prospect of a Biden-Trump zombie apocalypse. That is to say that is not too late for the Green Party to transform itself into a force that could win the 2024 presidential election hands down, and make deeps inroads in the Congress and in state politics. Moreover, by exposing the deep rot within the media, financial institutions, and political parties, the Green Party could set off a social and political revolutioni that will change everything.

Such a shift cannot be achieved by magic; if there were no costs involved, people would carried out that political revolution a long time ago. No, the rise of the Green Party requires the moral bravery to face crippling problems that other politicians are afraid to mention, the ethical vision to launch an ambitious plan restore deliberative democracy to the United States by ending the privatization of governance that stretches back to the unconstitutional establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913, and the ghastly contract with global finance signed in blood with the Kennedy assassination of 1963. That means the Green Party must be a political party with a real vision, not a catchy marketing slogan. It must be a party that is willing to take on the IT and finance giants and to rip the mask off the parasitic military industrial complex that has sunk its proboscis deep into the economy.

If there is moral commitment, the financial disadvantage of the Green Party will quickly become the decisive advantage in that the Democratic and Republican Parties have lost all legitimacy because they promoted devasting foreign wars after the notorious 9/11 incident (in which they are both implicated) and then they embraced together the COVID 19 operation in 2020 that allowed multinationals to wage unlimited warfare against our citizens.

Remember that the Republican Party in its original incarnation rose to prominence quickly when the rich and powerful tried to extend slavery throughout the United States in the 1850s and it was able to win the presidency in 1860 as a result of the vacuum created by the collapse of the Whig Party (a political crisis similar to the current corruption of the Democratic Party by IT multinationals).

That is to say that if the Green Party asserts itself as a political vanguard, the only party that is not financed by corporations, the only one able to speak out on issues that others will not touch, the Green Party will not only have overwhelming moral authority, it can effectively assert that the other political parties are NOT qualified to field candidates for any election because of their active participation in state crimes.

The Japanese philosopher Ogyu Sorai put it this way, “There are two ways to play chess. One is to master the rules of chess so completely that one can win in any situation. The other is to make up the very rules by which chess is played.”

That second option is precisely the strategy that will bring the Green Party to prominence: demand that the rules of the entire game be changed so as to correspond with the Constitution itself—a text that defines what is and what is not government. Then, and only then, can the Green Party demand that the interests of the citizens, not the rich and powerful, are the primary responsibility of government.  

But, if the leadership of the Green Party lacks the moral courage to take such a stand, to make efforts that could cut short vacation plans, there is another alterative that they may choose.

The Green Party can be a feel good about yourself, “think left, live right,” weekend meetings over café lattes identity politics party that avoids hot topics that might disturb the digestion of some party members, topics such as the reemergence of slavery, the drive for world war by multinational corporations, medical mass murder by vaccines, and the spread of deadly secret governance at the federal and state level.

But if they make that choice, it will mean that Green Party has zero chance of winning any major elections in our lifetimes, but perhaps it can help ease the consciences of educated Americans who feel a need to affirm that they are doing something, anything, as long as there is no risk to their TIAA-CREF retirement funds, as long as it does not require them to confront the lies that they are fed day and night by the media and by academic institutions.

That would be a Green Party that gives the impression something is happening when, in fact, not much is happening at all.

There is no scenario in which the Green Party slowly expands over the next twenty years. Either the Green Party makes a moral commitment to the battle against global capital and the emergence of secret governance today, or it will be regulated to the margins forever, or perhaps made illegal—as Donald Trump suggested in his recent speech of June 27 for the Faith and Freedom Coalition, a speech in which he called for the deportation of all socialists and Marxists, including American citizens.

I attended Green Party meetings in Champaign, Illinois from 2001 to 2004 and I was delighted to meet others who shared my concerns about the growing inequity in American society.

At the same time, however, I was deeply disappointed that those members avoided discussion of the false flag 9/11 operation or of the blatantly totalitarian governance of the United States under the Bush administration. The greatest threats to the United States, then and now, were considered taboo for most members of the Green Party.

Where we stand today

I declared myself as an independent candidate for president in 2020 because it was clear that the Democratic and Republican parties were so corrupt as to be little more than marketing gimmicks for the multinationals. Moreover, it was also clear that the alternative parties were incapable of fielding anyone who would address the real crisis in America at the time: the launch of a military-directed, multinational fear and intimidation campaign, better known as operation COVID-19, which was aimed at frightening and then impoverishing the population, then killing millions with so-called “vaccines.”

For me there was really no alternative but to run a real campaign for president even if it bankrupted me, even if it forced me out of the United States, even if it ended my friendship with those who could not bring themselves to abandon the sinking ship.

Sadly, the campaign of Howie Hawkins in 2020 confirmed my apprehensions about the Green Party. My disappointment had nothing to do with the personal qualities of Mr. Hawkins. The problem was that, whether because of conditions imposed by upper-middle class donors, or by classified directives issued by Homeland Security, the Green Party limited itself to addressing the topics permitted by the corporate media in a somewhat more thoughtful manner than the Democratic Party. It did not seize the initiative and it did not try to define the rules of the political game.

Qualifying to be a candidate for the Green Party

I was delighted when the Green Liberty Caucus of the Green Party recently reached out to me and invited me to speak with its members, and with other members of the Green Party, about what needs to be done to protect our country, and our Earth, in this dark hour.

Let me state for the record, first and foremost, that becoming the nominee for president of the Green Party is not my goal and that I feel that I can be most effective as an independent candidate running for truth politics even if I am never mentioned by the New York Times, Fox News or any other self-appointed arbiter of truth and relevance.

That said, I have learned an immense amount from the wise members of the Green Party over the last few months and I feel that this dialog, if extended to other possible candidates, and to citizens who might become active in the Green Party in the future, can be transformative for the Green Party, and for the United States, regardless of my fate.

If, in the course of events, I am allowed to enter the Green Party presidential debates and there is a consensus that I would be an appropriate candidate for the Green Party, I would obviously immediately align with the Green Party and file with the FED in that capacity.

If the Green Party continues to host open forums that are not subject to the strict presidential commission rules, and invites all possible candidates to debate and to present their visions and their policies, the Green Party will become the vanguard for social transformation.

That would mean that the Green Party demonstrates that it functions as a democracy, as opposed to the authoritarian forms of governance found in the other political parties, and that will send out a spark that can set the nation on fire.

The process by which the Green Party’s Presidential Campaign Support Committee (PCSC) selects the nominee for president reveals telltale signs that the choice is determined by financial support, rather than moral commitment and political vision.

For example, candidates for the nomination must demonstrate that he or she has a website with “online donation capacity” and that he or she has “demonstrated fundraising success consistent with running a viable national campaign by either (1) raising at least $5000 where no more than $250 from any individual donor may count towards this threshold and least $300 must have been raised from at least five states, or at least $100 from at least ten states OR (2) having received donations of at least $10 each from at least 100 individual donors.”

Although a low-threshold for an upper-middle class intellectual in American society, I can testify that these criteria are difficult to meet for anyone who is dedicated to truth politics and engagement with the real threats to our country.

Having a website that allows for on-line donations is irrelevant until the candidate is selected and then can easily set up using the core infrastructure of the Green Party after the nomination is determined.

A candidate dedicated to truth politics, someone who calls out for an investigation of the 9.11 incident, or the COVID-19 operation, is going to be flagged immediately by Homeland Security and subject to low-intensity operations to “combat false information” without exception. Although those operations may not result in the candidate being dismissed from the party, or being subject to harassment or defamation campaigns, it means that he or she will not be able to raise money regardless of his or her popularity.

Everyone in an administrative position in the Green Party knows this fact, and they have witnessed such campaigns against individuals within the Green Party, and against Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul (and others) in the mainstream parties. Please, let us not kid ourselves as to the reality of American politics.

Moreover, if a possible candidate takes a position that is not just a vague opposition to ‘imperialism” or “capitalism” but that spells out in detail how the privileged position of Wall Street and the Federal Reserve in the American economy can be dismantled, step by step, he or she will meet with opposition from privileged members of the Green Party who do not want to question the basic assumptions of American economic policy.

It may seem natural that a candidate needs to show his or her ability to raise money in order to be seen as a viable candidate. After all, the media ranks candidates in terms of their ability to raise money. That is correct; journalists in the United States assess the viability of candidates for office in terms of the degree to which they are indebted to the rich and powerful.

The candidates who are most capable of leading the Green Party to victory will be precisely those committed to addressing taboo topics and building a mass movement.

Perhaps we need to think about the qualifications for the nomination that are NOT included in “Rules and Procedures of the Green Party of the United States.” First, there is no credit given for moral courage, for commitment to the fight for social justice even at considerable risk to oneself.

Nor is there any mention of the need for honesty about state crimes.

For that matter, the creativity of the candidate, her or his ability to address issues in an effective manner, to inspire and lead the people, are not mentioned either. But these attributes are precisely what the candidate of the Green Party must have in order to take on the moneyed interests through a mass movement of working people.

If the Green Party is administered like a little Democratic Party, except a bit more progressive in its platform, a bit more attuned to the sensibilities of a narrow strip of thoughtful professors, doctors, and lawyers, then the party should just give up on running presidential candidates because it has zero chance of garnering sufficient funding. A Green Party that merely serves as a lobby, or caucus, to push the Democratic Party in a more progressive direction is a betrayal of the trust, and the personal efforts, of workers who support the party precisely because it is presented to them as an alternative.

No wealthy individual gives money to political parties unconditionally. The money is conditional on the organization not taking a stand on issues that might go against the perceived interests of the party member who can afford to give $5,000.

A new strategy for the Green Party

Among the political parties that are able to function in the totalitarian environment of the United States, I would rank the Green Party as number one.

In order to win, the Green Party will have to rely on the economic support of ordinary people who can barely afford to pay their rent, unlike the Democratic and Republican Parties funded by multinational banks who print up their own money. The Green Party cannot honestly take the money of working people unless it is committed, heart and soul, to the transformation of society.

Please allow me to suggest a few approaches that might make the Green Party central in American politics in a short period of time, probably in time to win the 2024 presidential election.

The Green Party as a democracy

First, the Green Party should be open and democratic in its internal administration if it wants to convince the citizens that it is serious about the democratic process.

I remember vividly my participation in Green Party events in Champaign, Illinois (2001-2004) and the manner in which the decisions made at the local level were not represented democratically in the party at the national level and how many topics were made taboo in the debates in a manner I can only describe as authoritarian.

There was literally nothing that I could do, or be a part of, in the Green Party other than attending discussions and listening to people; there was no way to organize, to make meaningful proposals that would be considered and implemented after a democratic process, or to advocate for strategies at the national level.  

If the Green Party transforms itself into a democratic institution, it can seize national political leadership in a manner that the Democratic and Republican Parties can never do because they are by their very nature dependent on multinational corporations that abhor deliberative democracy.

Theda Skocpol wrote a thoughtful book entitled “Diminished Democracy: From Membership to Management in American Civic Life” in which she describes how the participatory institutions in America have been killed off so that the citizen can no longer play a direct role in the NGOs, or the coalitions, and the political parties that supposedly represent their interests. If political parties do not allow local members to democratically determine policy, to advance ideas based on their merit and relevance, without concern for how much money they have in the bank, then we cannot expect state government or federal government to be democratic either.

That is to say that Green Party will succeed, not because it has money and can run TV commercials in swing states, but rather because the Green Party itself will become a model for democracy that will be emulated by cooperatives, local government, and eventually the federal government itself. As Gandhi advocated, we must “become the change we wish to see in the world.”

If the party does not include citizens at all levels of its administration, it can never lay the foundations for participatory civil movement capable of overwhelming the corporate parties in the streets, and among workers at Walmart and Amazon, by organizing the people in a fearless and visionary manner.

Embrace truth politics

As I watched the United States enter into a series of classified military agreements with allies that virtually guarantee an unstoppable drive for war with Russia, and then with China, over the last few months, and then I saw the preparations for the NATO Summit at Vilnius, Lithuania, planned for July 12, a meeting at which heads of state will sign off on a pile of military directives they have never read, I remembered the speeches delivered by the educator Rudolf Steiner in his lecture series, “The Karma of Untruthfulness.”

Steiner spoke out in 1917, as the nations of Europe tore each other apart precisely because of such secret military treaties that transferred the chain of command to an unaccountable military cabal--on both sides.

Steiner held that the previous decades during which establishment figures came to accept lies and deceptions as “the way things just are” was precisely what made that horrific war possible. Steiner wrote, “People do not feel a duty to pursue the actual truth, to seek truthfulness backed by facts—indeed, the very opposite mindset now rules the world, increasingly expanding its influence. External needs are always the consequence of what takes place in the minds of men.”

His point is as true today as it was then: playing stupid, accepting lies about the 9.11 incident, about the transfer of trillions of dollars to investment banks via quantitative easing, and about the assault on humanity under the COVID 19 operation is not a practical response, but rather a suicide pact.

Only a brave quest for absolute truth can save us from the current drive for world war.

The Green Party must follow the imperative of the African American author James Baldwin,

“Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.”

Or, as Frederick Douglass put it, “People might not get all they work for in this world, but they must certainly work for all they get.”

It will be the willingness of the Green Party to take on forbidden topics that puts it in the driver’s seat, not its willingness to conform with the absurd idea that lies must be embraced as a condition for political action. That horrific ideology has infected all of the political operatives in Washington.

Truth politics is not an option, but rather the only way to save the United States from war abroad, and from radical institutional collapse at home.  

Our culture is so smothered in denial, so fragmented by deep psychological trauma, that we must face the lies that have seized control of our country before we can hope to achieve anything of lasting value.

None of the candidates for president, or for any other office in the United States, have demanded that these crimes be investigated, that those responsible be arrested, or that the assets of those who planned these actions be seized.

Our failure to address these crimes, and the gangrene that they have left behind in our political institutions, has created a more dangerous system of governance, one in which the push for nuclear can go forward without any opposition, or even debate—something that was not true before.

Do you remember how Senator Robert Byrd was allowed to speak out against the invasion of Iraq in 2002? Do you remember how Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul were able to draft articles of impeachment (House Resolution 1258) against George W. Bush in 2008?

Such actions are no longer possible precisely because we have been foolishly silent on the threat to government institutions posed by state crimes left festering. The situation will not get better.

(to be continued)