"FEAR NO EVIL" Emanuel Pastreich 2024 Campaign
RT "Worlds Apart" interview with Oksana Boyko

RT "Worlds Apart" interview with Oksana Boyko


No transcript...

Worlds Apart


January 28, 2024

Host:  Oksana Boyko

Interview with Emanuel Pastreich

Independent Candidate for President of the United States


The relationship between the economy and politics lies at the center of any strategy for governance. The two are supposed to work in unison to produce a healthy and productive society. A conflict between the two, or the exploitation of one for the sake of the other, will inevitably throw a country into disarray. That is what happened to China in the 19th century and to the Soviet Union at the end of the 20th century.

Some ask, is it now the United States’ turn?

I'm joined by Emanuel Pastreich, president of the Asia Institute and former Green Party candidate for the U.S. presidency. Professor Pastreich, it's great to talk with you.

If there's anything that the Russian, Chinese, and American leadership can agree upon, it is that the world now finds itself at an inflection point. Doing business as usual is no longer feasible for material reasons.

There are no more resources to support the old way. And yet, the question of how we move forward still remains open. Who or what do you think will decide our future?


I think the future will be determined by those who grasp what exactly has changed in our world and who can postulate a new paradigm to explain what we witness that can be readily understood. The inflection point, as you mentioned, was determined by how technology has advanced so quickly, and has been abused so easily, that false realities are promoted as truth around the world. People are lulled to sleep by games, video, and pornography, while a handful of financiers around the globe manipulate the entire system, creating their own puppet enemies for the masses.

But many people still believe that they live in a nation state and they work with assumptions that are no longer valid because today banks are not banks, newspapers are not newspapers anymore. Understanding that gap between names and things has become the critical issue because the powerful lead us to chase after the latest bad guy, or blame a few bad apples, in the US.


U.S. dominance in political and economic affairs is reduced in a more polycentric world wherein various forms of government, usually customized to local conditions and local societies, coexist.

When you look at global trends, when you look at statistics, where do you think the world is moving--beyond, let's say, the cases of United States, Russia and China?


To start with, the choice between democracy and autocracy is a false one because the ultimate issue is who controls information, the means of production and distribution, and who controls money and debt. And increasingly in the United States, or for that matter, in China, Russia, and other countries, they are controlled by multinational corporations which are not an alternative to government, but rather are a form of government which is unaccountable.

And so, we're ultimately fighting against essentially strawberry, chocolate, and cherry flavors of totalitarianism and we need to grasp, as citizens of the earth, how daily life is increasingly being controlled by IT companies and a variety of other powers from the bottom up, forces that know no nation. BRICS offers an alternative in a limited sense, in that those countries oppose the slaughter in Gaza, they don't want the warmongering of NATO, and that's good. But BRICS is not excluded from control by global capital.


Well, it's a rather questionable proposition because, for example, Russia right now, is excluded primarily from the influence of global capital simply because of American sanctions. This is not a result of our will. Rather American capital has cut itself off from Russia and to some extent from China as well. That was because the Chinese government, or Russian government, is controlling its economy, imposing controls on what's happening within their societies. And that is the crucial issue that underlies this artificial distinction between autocracy and democracy.

I think that at the base of this misunderstanding can be traced back to a totally different understanding of what defines good governance. Both Russia, China and many other societies favor a societal framework that aims to deliver social goods, rather than individualist gains. I know you don't reside in the United States right now.


Many say that government is the enemy, and that somehow the private sector, which is another form of totalitarian governance run by multinational corporations and banks, is an alternative.

And that corporate governance has reached an extreme in which government and politicians merely represent different flavors of multinational corporations. Obama came to power representing IT, Facebook, and Google, as opposed to Trump or Republicans who were backed by different industries.

I would describe both as oligarchies.

I want to say firmly, however, that China, Russia, and other countries, are also wrestling with the same problems, that the battle of the nation state with the multinational corporation is a universal issue, and that it requires us to go back basically to the arguments made at beginning of the First World War about the contradiction between the nation state and global finance.


I think one important feature, which is sometimes criticized, of the Russian and Chinese approach to governance is the meticulous attention to the most trivial aspects of life. The government gives great attention to food, transportation, education, public healthcare, etc. Government regulation of those boring fields is seen by some in the West as excessive control, a “nanny state.”

But in Russian society, the perspective is different. These issues are what makes up the substance of life. These are the issues that people care most about, more than about abstract concerns. Even, let's say, concerns about the war in Gaza.

So, I wonder if you think Americans care about bread and butter issues, the boring and mundane, not ideological, aspects of policy which at the same time contribute to a grounded life.


My job is not to judge China or Russia, but rather to talk about the United States. It is clear that great damage was done to the United States by a systematic effort, basically from the Reagan administration on, to destroy bureaucracy, civil service, and the role of the intellectual in governance. Essentially, we’ve ended up with no government as a result of the rhetoric about reducing bureaucrats.

The role of the Reagan administration was to get rid of all the experts so that decisions had to be made by for-profit consulting firms that represent multinational banks and corporations, essentially, and billionaires and their strategic teams behind them.

So, this is what sort of a “government” we have in the United States. And the solution is, yes, to move towards what you suggest.

We must start to establish some form of government again; one in which you have people working there long-term who have expertise, who feel that their responsibility is not to serve the rich, but rather to serve the people following the ideals of the civil service. And that civil service was based in the British civil service system which, in turn, was based on the Chinese system.


I think that civil service can have almost a religious aspect to it. It's considered to be a duty and an honor to serve your people, to serve your country.

Do you think that aspect of patriotism, not promoting some ideology on the other side of the world, but that form of a humble patriotism of serving your community, serving your nation, do you think it's still remains in American society?


There are obviously people who are struggling to find some way of expressing their concern about the country and the direction that it's going in the United States—myself included.

Unfortunately, we also have this hall of mirrors in which high-paid consultants are hired to distract us, to lead us towards false leaders, cardboard messiahs, like Donald Trump and his crypto-fascistic approach to government based on ethnic nationalism and a mythical fight with the deep state by someone who is also funded by the deep state.

Or, on the other hand, we have Barack Obama, who's supposedly the first African-American president, but who was backed by Facebook and Google, and other IT and entertainment billionaires.

We have to move away from that false choice.

But the ultimate issue, I believe, is the role of the intellectual, whether it's in China, Russia, or the United States. We have people with specialized educations, skills which not everyone can have. It's not something to be ashamed of, being an intellectual.


What always fascinated me about your country is how Americans use persuasion and rhetoric to persuade themselves of the most unbelievable, and factually unsustainable, narratives.

For example, egalitarianism is held up as a key American value, and yet when you look at the government policies objectively, it is pretty clear that the entire system, both the economic and political systems, is geared towards enriching the rich and empowering the powerful. How do you explain this gullibility, for the lack of a better word, of the Americans?

Do Americans really believe that they live in meritocracy, in a free society?


We're looking at a collapse of the invisible aspect of society in America today.

We are watching the decay of values and the collapse of civilization, and with it, institutions. So that process is real, but it is invisible.

The result is that politicians are no longer politicians, they're self-serving businessmen, and intellectuals are not intellectuals but rather prostitutes for sale.

We see this trend most clearly in the flowering of false identity politics which is employed deviously to cloak, for example, the militarization of American society. The rise of the military is hidden by constantly praising how women, or African-Americans, are being promoted to be generals.

But this multiethnic diversity in the military has no impact on neo-colonialism and the drive for domination. Promoting women, sometimes without concern for credentials, is used to cover over the decay of government.

It is false consciousness, basically, that’s being promoted.And I think that trend is indicative of a collapsing system. At the same time, the shadow of the United States is obviously is bigger than the United States;

It's a global system.


We talked about the differences between the American system, or the Western system, of liberal democracy and the various so-called “autocratic” systems.

Let's speak concretely about the American electoral system because the United States is entering a interesting election year in which we see the same old choice that you had back in 2020, the only difference being that this time the roles are reversed.

I heard the joke the other day that back in 2020 Biden ran in order to prevent Trump from staying in office and now Trump is doing the same.

I want to ask you a question as somebody who has spent a lot of time in the United States. I studied there; I have friends there.

I know that the United States is a country with a very talented, very energetic and intellectually enlightened population.

There are many bright people there and there are also many people who are genuinely, authentically, concerned about their country, about the people around them.

Given those strengths, why do you think you're faced with the same old choice yet again?


Well, this second election between Biden, who's in a vegetative state, and Trump, who's a pro-wrestler turned politician, and now posing as the good guy handled by billionaires, is truly a zombie apocalypse.

The comparison has been made with the late Soviet Union, when we had Brezhnev, who lived to be 73, Andropov, who died at 69, and Chernesko, who died at 73—all of whom were younger than Biden and Trump. That comparison is quite meaningful. The rule of aging political figures much befits a late empire. And that form of politics goes back to the Romans.

Essentially, old people are much better as rulers when decisions are being made in the shadows and behind the curtains. Ultimately that represents a decay of institutions.

And that has extremely serious implications because so many countries base their governance systems on the assumption that the United States works.

But I also think, as an American, or for that matter, as a citizen of the Earth, that we also must be detached.

We have to recognize that republics throughout history, from the Greeks and the Romans to today, usually last for only 250 years.


The United States makes it very difficult for the rest of the world to stay detached because it keeps projecting its own inner problems onto the rest of us.

For some reason we all have to adopt this “brilliant” democratic system that doesn't seem to be functioning within the United States, as you have described. And yet that system is being pushed onto the rest of the world as if to burden all of us with American-style polarization, the American debt, and various issues distinct to American society.

So, I want to ask you, why do you think both the American leadership and the American people find it prudent to spend such resources on financing wars overseas, on fighting rivals, or adversaries, overseas, instead of looking inward and trying to address, with the resources they have, their own inner issues?


I wasn't saying that we should be detached in the sense that this state in America is okay.

I was saying, rather, that in our attempt to assess the problem, that we need to approach it in an objective and scientific manner.

Yes, the situation in the United States is extremely serious.

We have a regime, the Biden administration, which is linked to the Netanyahu administration, and to the British administration, and they have decided that they are willing to push for world war in order to stay in power.

Regarding the psychology of Americans, I think that the best analogy for understanding our psychology is the analogy to incest.

In the case of incest, for those who are abused by their parents, they often refuse to recognize that they're victims of incest, sometimes for decades.

And the reason for such denial is that the betrayal, being abused by someone that one trusted as a father, or mother, or brother, or sister, is so disturbing that it's easier to pretend it never happened, or to blame a third party, than it is to admit the truth.

The truth is that American citizens have been so abused, whether we start from the 9.11 incident, or other incidents in a long series, that include the massive transfer of trillions of dollars through quantitative easing and so-called COVID relief, that was together something like 30 trillion dollars that was transferred to billionaires, private equity, and banks. These incidents are so disturbing that it's easier psychologically to just pretend they never happened than to confront them.

That is what my campaign is really about. I wanted to say, I have no money. I'm blocked out of the media, but I'm going to tell the truth so that you know what really happened.


Well as somebody who studies in depth psychology, I find your metaphor both accurate and saddening. I think that it also rings true because if we look at how campaigns are conducted, or have been conducted for decades, that consist of the stirring up of very intense emotions so that there is very little emotional or mental differentiation.

One Russian expert described it as the politics of fear, or fear-mongering, on the Democratic side versus the politics of fury on the Republican side.

And when you pump up such strong, intense emotions, it is no wonder that half of the population will feel deeply conflicted about the results of elections.

Wouldn’t that make it impossible to govern or implement any policy changes?

Before we go into discussing your own run for the US presidency, can I ask you what could possibly return American political discourse, American political life, to a more civil and humanist nature?

By humanist, I mean, actually caring about the people who you're supposed to be representing rather than your own vested interests.


I think the change has to be from the bottom up. Change has to come from citizens who engage with each other and who create a model for what a government could be based upon how they interact with the people around them.

The political scientist Theda Skocpol wrote a book called Diminished Democracy in which she argues convincingly, that the only way we can achieve a democracy at the government level is if local systems of participation, whether it's clubs, or sports teams or neighborhood committees, are run democratically.

That means that the way to create a positive cycle towards democracy is to start practicing democracy, starting in your family.

First see how you interact with your family, your neighbors, and the people around you.  If those interactions are transparent and democratic, that will put pressure from below on the system for positive change.


Now, you made a run for presidency yourself.

As far as I understand, you are no longer running.

But what changes did you advocate? What were some of the or what were some of the ideas that you hope to bring to the political process?

And why did you think that it was possible to do that?


I originally ran for president as an independent in 2020 and delivered series of speeches that were widely read. There was a group within the Green Party, which is the third largest party in America in terms of number of members, who wanted to recruit me for the Green Party.

I would say that group was not necessarily progressive or conservative. They were open to many different perspectives, but they were focused on state crimes.

My position on the three truths: 9-11 truth, COVID truth, and Federal Reserve truth, matched up very well with their position. So, they recruited me, had me registered as a candidate, and they promoted me.

But the word went out within the Green Party, that I was not to be supported. As a result, I wasn't able to raise funds.

After a month of not raising any money, and being blocked out of the U.S.

mainstream media, I pulled out of the race.

I would be happy to run if it was possible, in the United States in earnest, but I think that I serve a more valuable purpose articulating what a candidate should say, rather than compromising like Robert Kennedy in order to appear in the media.


But do you think the American political system, as it stands today, allows for an authentically independent candidate to even enter the race, let alone win?

I mean, is it possible for a candidate to advocate a clear position, to be honest about what he or she wants to achieve, and to actually, if a miracle happens, to actually implement what he or she came to office for?


Well, I'm a case study in that respect.

It was possible to run for one month in the Green Party. But I was blocked out of all the media. Even though I held a prominent position that normally would be reported in newspapers, I wasn't.

It was impossible, basically, to run for office on a serious platform.

Why was it impossible?

I think it was impossible for me to run from the start, and it's not just me, this is true of everyone in the Congress, because of the honest platform I embraced. The situation would not have been different if I had been running for the House of Representatives.

The reason it's impossible for someone like me to run is because of secret governance.

There are three elements to secret governance.

The first is classified directives. The executive branch issues classified directives to me, or to you, which say that we can't talk about this, or we can't do this.

The second is secret law. The Congress passes laws which are secret. The existence of these laws cannot be disclosed without going to jail. Those secret laws, however, have the same binding power as federal law. These secret laws are employed to block activities offensive to the powerful.

For example, you can have a secret law that says Emanuel can't be on TV. No one will ever know why I never appear in the media.

And the third is non-disclosure agreements. In order to work in a political campaign, or to work for government, or to work for a corporation, you must sign an agreement that says that even if the government, or the company, breaks the law, you cannot disclose this fact to anyone. And if you do disclose these illegal activities, you will to jail, but those breaking the law will not.

Those three techniques permit extensive secret governance.


Well, Professor Pastreich, you are painting a very oppressive picture for all of us, but I think there was one very uplifting message, and it is that democracy, true democracy, starts within yourself, within your own family, within your own community, how you are treating life in general.

This is a matter of personal conscience that no secret service can control, and I think this is a great freedom that all of us have.

"FEAR NO EVIL" Emanuel Pastreich 2024 Campaign
Emanuel Pastreich, independent candidate for president of the United States, and journalist Peter Morris engage in open discussion of the real challenges we face with you. We do not hide from the true threats facing Americans, and we refuse to submit to limited hangouts, to promote cardboard messiahs, or to engage in narcissistic discussions about the insigificant. The discussion is directly linked to action as described in Pastreich's book "How to Take Down the Billionaires," and as practiced by Green Liberty.
Do join us and support us because we are running the only real campaign in 2024, one that will go to the finish line because we have NO intention of recognizing as president any of these puppets of global finance, private intelligence, foreign lobbying cartels, or billonaires--who wipe their rear ends with the Constitution. Better to follow the Constitution and to be blocked from the ballot than stoop down to take dark money from criminals, seen and unseen. The truth goes marching on. Come with us.
Leading the struggle to win back control of the United States from the parasite class.