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/mangerials.
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.