Reminder that the Green Party Exists


In covering this election, I think it’s safe to say the Alt-Right has focused heavily on Donald Trump and the Republican Party. We were briefly interrupted when Hillary Clinton decided to attack our brand, and again when she posted about Pepe the Frog on her campaign website, but the Trump trend remains strong in our election content, and I think rightly so.

However, there are other candidates running for president. One is the Libertarian Party’s Gary Johnson, a former Republican governor of New Mexico (1995-2003) who wants to legalize marijuana and reduce immigration controls to passing a background check. The Alt-Right has already thoroughly deconstructed contemporary libertarianism for what it is—an intellectually bankrupt ideology blending “social justice” dildoism with free market autism—so it seems hardly necessary to devote any serious attention to a party destined for third place.

But what about a party destined for fourth place? The Green Party’s (((Jill Stein))), and her running mate Ajamu Baraka, are currently polling around 3%. That may not sound like much, but considering it exceeds the level of support for all third parties combined in 2012 and that presidential elections are won by single digits, it could matter quite a bit.

The Stein-Baraka ticket is not going to win, but I looked them up out of curiosity anyway. And I can tell you, my opinion of the Green Party has definitely not improved. In fact, from the quotes I’ve come across attributed to (((Stein))) and Baraka, I can’t really tell why they even call it the Green Party. The pair they’ve nominated to run in the election are quite simply stock characters from the far-left, a Jewish socialist and a black internationalist. Both identify as “human rights activists,” which translated from newspeak really just means third worldism and championing the moral authority of blacks, American Indians, Palestinians, etc. against people they identify as White (which for them include Israelis).

The Green Party should actually be called the Black & Brown Party, since “clean energy” seems to be more of a tertiary issue to their candidates relative to “liberation” and gibsmedats. If you have taken a (((sociology))) course, you have been taught the Green Party platform, and you already know its primary audience is going to be the children of the urban bourgeoisie/managerials.

In 2012, (((Stein))) essentially ran on an Occupy Wall Street campaign, one that (((Bernie Sanders))) would copy—and fail to win the Democratic nomination—on in 2016. Celebrity sociologist (((Noam Chomsky))), another college SWPL favorite, has endorsed her. Like many third-party candidates, she identifies Republicans and Democrats as two wings of the same System, though from her perspective both are controlled by muh corporations. At an event called Left Forum 2016: Is Sanders the Answer to Building Left and Black Power, (((Stein))) had this to say about the current Republican and Democrat nominees:

“The answer to neofascism is stopping neoliberalism. Putting another Clinton in the White House will fan the flames of this right-wing extremism. We have known that for a long time, ever since Nazi Germany.”

The way (((Stein))) frames it, voting for her is thus the only way to prevent Literally Hitler™ from returning to power. As I’ve written before, the left is committed to always labeling its enemies as fascists, since that is the most effective way to mobilize their base. It is the most horrifying thing in the the world to them, to be faced with the prospect of a serious enemy.

Like nearly all Greens, (((Stein))) is opposed to nuclear power despite it producing pretty much no carbon emissions and being cost-effective. I guess we can’t have nice things because reasons. She also likes labeling random policies as “human rights,” such as access to energy and free higher education. Human rights are of course just a moralizing, manufactured justification for gibs, so the term has no inherent meaning.

On foreign policy, she runs a typical third worldist angle, charging Israel with “apartheid, assassination, illegal settlements, blockades, building of nuclear bombs, indefinite detention, collective punishment, and defiance of international law,” and calling Benjamin Netanyahu a “war criminal.” It would probably not be hard to find her using the same language to describe the United States, as her running mate does (more on that later). Decidedly pro-Russian (which is odd for a skype), she calls American involvement in the Russo-Ukranian conflict a “Cuban Missile Crisis on steroids,” and voiced opposition to the new Ukrainian government because “ultra-nationalists and ex-Nazis came to power.” She has also tweeted that NATO fights enemies invented to generate profits for the arms industry. In practice, NATO interventions serve to improve the geopolitical position of Islamists, while defense contracts are just a bonus (they’d exist in peacetime anyway).

Domestically, (((Stein))) has called for reparations for African slavery, and demanded a South African-style “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” be established to oversee them. She also harbors an intense dislike for federal agencies, though presumably that commission would be one of them. These include the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which are of course in the hands of those evil neofascist corporations that target women, the poor, and minorities:

“There are issues about mercury in the fish supply that many low-income people and immigrant communities rely on, and in indigenous communities especially. This is a huge issue and the FDA has refused for decades to regulate and to warn people.”

She has said she would put traitor and self-exile Edward Snowden in her cabinet were she to become  president. (((Stein))) would also free Philadelphia cop murderer Mumia Abu-Jamal from prison, who she describes as a political prisoner in the same bucket as Bradley “Chelsea” Manning. This stance is very similar to that of the Black Lives Matter platform, which would effectively end the policing of violently anti-social black behavior and release black assassins and terrorists from jail.

Green Party vice presidential nominee Ajamu Baraka is well to the left of (((Stein))), and she has sometimes had to distance herself from his more extremely-worded comments, without condemning them. This is the inverse of how presidential tickets are typically crafted, where the top of the ticket is more the ideologue and the lower half more of a follower. In a verbose article in (((CounterPunch))) where he chastises the Sanderistas for not being third worldist enough, Baraka writes:

“[I]f today leftists in the U.S. can find a way to reconcile the suffering of the people of Yemen and Gaza and all of occupied Palestine for the greater good of electing Sanders, tomorrow my life and the movement that I am a part of that is committed to fighting this corrupt, degenerate, white supremacist monstrosity called the United States, can be labeled as enemies of the state and subjected to brutal repression with the same level of silence from these leftists.”

Baraka views the building of gas pipelines in the United States as issues of “decolonization” and has been arrested for protesting and trespassing against “corporate America and the colonial state.”

Like his running mate, Baraka is an anti-zionist, and charges Israel with “ethnic cleansing and 21st century colonialism,” which is basically the same frame of reference he has for the United States. He also sides with the Russians in Ukraine, describing the latter’s government as having “racist neo-Nazi elements.” Echoing (correct) Russian propaganda, he describes the war against Syrian president Bashar al-Assad as “carefully cultivated by Western state propagandists and dutifully disseminated by their auxiliaries in the corporate media.” And on the issue of Islamists expanding in Nigeria, Baraka said

“U.S. policymakers don’t give a damn about the schoolgirls in Nigeria because their real objective is to use the threat of Boko Haram in the northern part of the country to justify the real goal of occupying the oil fields in the south and to block the Chinese in Nigeria.”

It’s refreshing how woke some leftist non-interventionists are. But they are still our enemies. On the issue of Islam in Western countries, he clearly sides against what he perceives as White nation-states. He referred to the cucked intersectional peace demonstration in France after the Charlie Hebdo shooting as a “white power march” and #JeSuisCharlie as an “arrogant rallying cry for white supremacy.” Because nothing says White supremacy like socialist France refusing to ban Islam and expel non-European immigrants, and instead saying that they all need to come together as one “nation” and vaguely stand against “extremism.” That’s definitely what “White power” sounds like, multiculturalism and islamophilia.

After the Justice Department declared its intention to seek the death penalty for Dylann Roof, Baraka said it “should be seen as no more than another tactical move by the state as part of the last phase of the counterinsurgency launched against the black liberation movement.” It sounds like Baraka thinks arresting and executing violent White supremacists is anti-black. Maybe it is if you’re a Green.

He has hilariously described Obama as an “Uncle Tom president,” and identifies him as part of a “black petit-bourgeoisie who have become the living embodiments of the partial success of the state’s attempt to colonize the consciousness of Africans/black people.” Honestly, I can respect that narrative to some extent. Obama has been integrated into the Judeo-Saxon elite as a concession to its black political allies (who reject the radical anti-American marxism of the Greens). Obama is probably more sympathetic towards the Greens than Baraka believes, but in practice Obama has turned his back on the radicalism of his college days to achieve political power in what is still in many ways a centrist country. I understand his frustration. If you are a black internationalist-marxist, then yes, Obama is a total sell-out.

But then Baraka goes off the rails and calls Obama and (((Sanders))) “a tacit commitment to Eurocentrism and the assumptions of normalized white supremacy.” Neither of those politicians are Eurocentric. They do seek to move the country left as Baraka does, and are anti-White in their stance on demographics. But the Green Party seems to label any politics with Whites in positions of influence as White supremacist—and Obama and (((Sanders))) do rely on partial White support—so there’s that.

(((Stein))) and Baraka are ahead of their time for the United States. This country is not ready to elect a pair of sociology professors to the executive branch, not yet. While the entire spectrum to the left of former Virginia senator Jim Webb could be reasonably described as anti-white and cultural marxist, (((Stein))) and especially Baraka are unique among (semi) major candidates in how far they go. And because of that, they will never gain a large enough share of the center-left White bourgeois and managerial classes that are still necessary for liberals to win presidential elections, to say nothing of the low information voters of color those classes help mobilize electorally.

However, the “radical” third worldism and marxism of the Green Party are fairly common in, well, marxist third world countries. In such places, all elections are typically between neoliberals and post-colonial marxists, while in Western countries typical elections are just between neoliberals. In 2016, the US presidential election is between a civic nationalist/national populist and a neoliberal, which is unusual. Had Trump not won the nomination, we might perhaps be seeing a Bush v. Clinton election, both neoliberal. The Stein-Baraka ticket is thus totally out of place.

If the nationalists are defeated in this election and the country’s demographics continue to change,  in a few decades elections will likely regress to the third world model of neoliberals versus post-colonial marxists. We are only a few percentages points away from this. It’s the Flight 93 election, folks.

This entry was posted in America, Ideology, Politics and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Reminder that the Green Party Exists

  1. (Pedantic nitpick: (((Noam Chomsky))) is by training a linguist, and apparently quite a distinguished one at that, not a sociologist. Also, making hyperlinks in the comment box is really tedious, unless I’m missing something, so I’m just going to put my sources at the bottom of the comment.)

    Firstly, I’m kind of surprised that you’re so down on the Greens, if for no other reason than that they’re using their political leverage in a way that by default benefits Trump. (((Stein))) is currently drawing around 2-3% of the popular vote (1), comparable to what Nader got in the 2000 election. This serves no purpose whatsoever in a first past the post electoral system (2), beyond making Donald Trump more likely to win than he would be if (((Stein))) voters were to support Clinton. (Indeed, polls show that in a two-way contest Clinton would have a ten-percentage point leap in support among voters 18-24. [3]) The more attention, and by extension votes, (((Stein))) (and apparently to some lesser extent Johnson) gets vis a vis HRC, the better it is for Trump.

    But more broadly, I’d emphasize that the difference between the Green Party and the Democratic Party—and by extension the ideologies of leftism and liberalism—isn’t quantitative, it’s qualitative. I think OP generally recognizes this divide, but if you’ll indulge another effortcomment by me I want to explain (as a liberal) what I think the first-principles divide between the two is and why I think “third worldism” glosses over them. (And how it might affect the potential politics of the future you mention towards the end.) As it’s quite long, no hard feelings if you don’t respond.

    In my view, people like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, the people whom they hire to help them run the government, the staff of publications like Vox dot com or the New York Times, the median Democratic-leaning professor of economics or political science, etc. follow a political philosophy best described as liberalism. They want to create a national/global political and economic system that they believe is maximally rational in design and will maximize liberty and equality. They view old hierarchies as *ir*rational and negative sum: they think that equality will produce positive sum cooperation between different groups. They believe in a kind of incremental, technocratic, meliorism. I think fundamentally, liberals see their mission as gradually reforming the various hierarchies (legal, economic, international, etc.) of the world/nation to be more equitable, rather than destroying hierarchy altogether.

    Whereas I think the “third worldism” you’ve previously described is a thing (to use one of my generation’s singular contributions to the English language), but it’s a thing for leftists like (((Stein))) rather than liberals like Clinton. I didn’t really understand the essence of leftism until recently; I understood on some intuitive level that, say, (((Noam Chomsky)))’s views on international relations, Friederich Engels’ views on economics and BLM’s views on race relations were somehow connected, but I couldn’t have explained why. I recently had the (very unoriginal) realization that leftism is unified by its opposition to hierarchy, be it international, legal, economic or racial. I think leftists see the hierarchies of the old order as rationally structured to benefit some at the expense of others; and, consequently, their planned order destroying revolution as benefitting some groups at the expense of others. Rather than reforming hierarchy like liberals, leftists want to destroy it. I think leftism is a pretty uninfluential ideology in America in terms of substantive policy (as leftists themselves realize to their frustration), and it has relatively few adherents. (Mostly college/HS students, starving “writers”/artists and professors of pillow soft academic subjects like sociology, [x] studies and anthropology.) But its followers are good at concentrating in influential cultural loci and really annoying normies through their obnoxious style of advocacy for their views. (Not entirely unlike the alt-right, I would add, though the “Alt-right R Real SJWs!!!” mini-meme is stupid IMO.)

    My point being, the difference between Baraka and Barack isn’t that one wants to begin killing the Boers today and one wants to gradually work on a plan to begin killing the Boers ten years from now. They actually have very different, often mutually exclusive, substantive understandings of what the big picture political problems and solutions are. For example, the BLM “the War on Black Lives” platform (4) calls for a virtual wholesale elimination of the use of state power to contain black (and explicitly, singularly black) criminality and disorder. (And does in language evocative of crisis and militarized conflict.) Hillary Clinton’s platform (5) for “criminal justice reform”, by contrast, calls for stuff like reducing mandatory minimums for non-violent drug offenders and equipping police officers with body cameras. (And does so with a more implicit racial angle and language worthy of boring public policy debates.) I understand why the former is third worldist, and how it fits in with decolonization and an anti-white weltanschaung. (Though it’s worth noting that even BLM defines itself in opposition to /institutions/ and /ideologies/ that it sees as benefitting whites unfairly, not actually white /people/.) I don’t really understand why the latter fits within the concept you elucidated in an earlier article (6). (And, lest anyone doubt my anti-BLM credentials, one can click the hyperlink on my user name to find a long anti-BLM essay/rant.)

    And you can see this on a more impressionistic level: just watch these confrontations between the Clintons and BLM activists (7) and see if you can say afterward that you think these people are playing for the same team. Likewise, a big name BLM leader rather rudely declined an invitation to a white house civil rights summit extended by president Obama (8).

    What I’m getting at here is that it just irritates me when people, like Stefan Molymeme and Jared Taylor in this top quality content conversation [9], complain about the endless hordes of “those who”, “everyone who”, etc. telling them that they, personally, should feel guilty as a huwhite person for the injustice of the transatlantic slave trade and fork over infinite gibsmedat in recompense. (Shockingly, despite the alleged plethora of pro-white guilt, pro-endless, infinite reparations gibs advocates, they manage to finish the conversation without actually /naming/ one, let alone one of prominence.) If you look hard enough, you can find people like that somewhere; but there aren’t that many of them, and they generally don’t do important stuff like “run the government” or “operate big corporations”. (Ta-Nehisi Coates is /kind of/ an exception, but this has gone on long enough without litigating the particulars of that.)

    Getting to your points about the future of political divides, I bring up all this possibly trivial seeming stuff because I think there’s the possibility for a major ideological/empirical realignment within liberalism against leftism in the future. Syme made a mind-blowingly insightful point in “1984”: “In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.”(10) In my view, this is the problem with a lot of liberals today: they realize on some level that parts of the Narrative inflected by leftism are bullshit and that what they’re doing now isn’t going to work. But they don’t have the language they need to articulate certain empirical realities while staying faithful to their principles. If nothing else, this was my own experience: I intuitively felt that “Between the World and Me” was deeply wrong, but it wasn’t until I guiltily read this [11] classic crimethink from Steve Sailer that I understood why.

    (Random little point on U.S. demographics/politics: though whites are indeed shrinking to plurality rather than majority status, part of that is caused by an increase in the Asian population, and Pew projects that by 2065 the white+Asian population share will be 60% while the black population share remains steady at ~13% [12]. Immigration from Latin America is starting to peter out somewhat due to a fall in fertility rates, and current immigration from Asia already is greater than from Latin America. And I’m not even sure that Marxism is going to be super popular among American mestizos—and it isn’t really today— given current happenings in Venezuela, Colombia and Cuba. Point being, I think in the future a center-left neoliberal coalition like the current Democratic Party is probably going to be much more dominant than a Latin America style Marxist one.)

    Sorry for dropping another meandering effortcomment, fam; I’m reaching levels of autism and free time that shouldn’t even be possible.



    • I get that there is a distinction between American liberals and the hardline leftism of the Green (Red) party, but I would place them in the same coalition if things ever got hot.

      I’m currently reading a history of the Spanish Civil War, which is in many ways a good allegory. The right won that war for a number of reasons, but a crucial reason for the left’s defeat was its disunity. The Spanish Republicans, communists, socialists, and anarcho-syndicalists did not get along while the Catholics, Carlists, and Falangists did.

      I would say the Greens and the Dems are a lot like that. They’d both be in the Third Worldist coalition against Nationalists, even if the (((Steins))) of the party hate the Clintons of the other for dogmatic reasons.

      On the subject of marxism becoming more relevant (or not) in the US with regard to demographics, I have a draft I’ve been sitting on that covers those sorts of questions. In particular should the USA become that 60% White-Asian and 40% Black-Mestizo society, I would expect most elections to be between neoliberals and open marxists.


    • Kadphises says:

      The globalist anti-white mindset among “liberals” and leftists is identical. The crucial difference is in the way Israel and the Jews are seen. “Liberals” view them as an eternally oppressed and persecuted victim group whose status as such is not to be questioned. Letftists mostly see them as Whites. So, Israel is an obligate and sacred “ally” for the former, just as for evangelicals, but a racist imperialist apartheid state for the latter. Similarly, financial capitalism is seen as a means of liberation by neo-liberals, and as part of “White oppression” by leftists. Both ideologies are the product of the Jewish “culture of critique”, but while “liberals” try to implement these ideas as intended, leftists take them out of the historical context in which they were produced by the Frankfurt School and earlier Marxist Jews, and make them dangerous not only for Whites, but also for their inventors’ own survival.


  2. brick house says:

    > The Green Party should actually be called the Black & Brown Party

    Members have joked it should be called the ‘White Party’ because it was populated almost entirely by whites.

    I have to say I like half their platform. But reparations – if we’re going to square accounts, we could generously call it quits for all the welfare they’ve received and for the difference in length + quality of life several generations of them have had here vs what they would have had in Africa. But as part of /any/ package, they’d have to accept going back, never to return.

    Ah yeah, dreams.


    • Not surprising that it is mostly White (or Jewish). POC are mostly low information voters and have probably never heard of Stein.


    • Bar Tar says:

      If reparations were assessed by an objective tribunal of occupying alien overlords, they would assess the net retroactive balance owed to be something on the order of 5 or 6 trillion dollars per year for the last 60 years…from Black to White.

      Plus several hundred thousand honicides. Or is it millions?

      Plus occupying and destroying what should rightfully be the very best real estate on the planet: the prime-time interior-city real estate of every major city in America.

      Plus the horror that is twerking, inflicted on White women.

      And, oh yeah, the only reason there are 1,100 million Africans in Africa instead of 50 million is because of food and technology shipped in by gullible whitey. And if we don’t get of this crazy train there will be over 4 billion Africans by the end of this century, again 100% thanks to whitey.

      So no, no reparations, and if there were any justice in the world every Black alive would grovel on its knees for another day of precious, previous life, every hot Black woman (I use that phrase loosely) would be a concubine bearing IVF-implanted white babies, and the rest would represent the last generation of their race as they grovel in the dust at the feet of their rightful masters.

      “The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

      So sayeth our Eternal Lord and Savior, in His greatest wisdom, Charles Robert Darwin, may He forever sit divinely at the right hand of God.


  3. lingane says:

    please, what “muh” means ? It’s seems a funny word, but very hard to translate


  4. Michael Adkins says:

    Where do Stein and Baraka stand concerning Black-on-White crime?


  5. Robert the Bruce says:

    The Germans called their own Green party ” Watermelons,” Green on the outside, Red on the inside !


  6. Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2016/10/09) - Social Matter

  7. Pingback: What Will Become of the Empire? Visions of Late Modernity in United States | ATLANTIC CENTURION

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s