The Green Party is swept up in an exciting discussion concerning the possible nomination of Professor Cornel West, a distinguished intellectual who represents the traditional cultural norms of the Green Party, for the candidate for president. West has been a long-time associate of Jill Stein who recently announced his candidacy for the People’s Party.
There has also been discussion in the Green Party of a broad coalition with Mr. Robert Kennedy Jr., who has declared his candidacy for the Democratic Nomination, while explicitly expressing his desire to form a broad front for the profound political transformation of the United States.
There is one major difference and one major similarity between the campaigns of West and Kennedy. The major difference is that whereas Mr. Kennedy shows seriousness and motivation in his preparation and displays a sophisticated strategy to seize the initiative by driving out the deadwood from the Democratic Party, and the form a united front from left to right, the initial efforts of Professor West suggest that there is less seriousness and less strategy behind his actions, but that he is rather engaging in a creative improvisational act as a “jazz man in world politics.”
There is a similarity to the two candidates: the avoidance of discussion of massive state crimes, especially a discussion of the nature of the crimes, how they should be addressed granted the capture of the Federal government by multinational corporations, and how the victims should be compensated.
Kennedy, to his credit, has done much to question the creation of the bogus COVID 19 pandemic by global finance and other interest groups as part of an effort to destroy the economic and political freedoms of citizens. He has invaluable experience working for decades to end the assault on the health of citizens by the pharmaceutical industry and the pollution of the environment by chemical and petroleum corporations.
At the same time, Kennedy has been very circumspect about the damages that should be paid to the millions of victims of COVID-19 “vaccines,” never advocating that the assets of the multinational corporations and banks who organized this fraud be seized for compensation (as far I as I know). Perhaps he is politically smarter than I am, but he seems to prefer focusing on small fish like Anthony Fauci.
Kennedy has been silent on the 9.11 incident and on the massive transfer of trillions of dollars to private banks through quantitative easing and the 2020 COVID bailout.
Within the political environment of the Green Party, and the Democratic Party as well,it is considered common political sense to play stupid and to avoid any action that might even suggest that9.11 and COVID-19 were state crimes. Demanding arrests of the responsible and compensation for the murdered and injured is beyond the pale. Perhaps that fish is just too big to land safely in the little boat of the Green Party, or even that of the Democratic Party.
A powerful argument can be made, however, that we have no choice but to go after the super-rich for the state crimes and global conspiracies they have promoted, to seize their assets, and to punish them in accordance with the law—as any of us would be punished in a similar case.
We simply cannot allow a class society to form in which those who have a certain amount of assets are no longer subject to the law, and in which some crimes, payment of money from the Federal Reserve to private banks, trafficking of humans by the rich, or false flag operations such as terrorist attacks or shopping mall shootings, are considered off the books.
If we just throw up our hands and say that these obvious crimes never happened, if we think that it is not worth risking our lives for something so vague and broad as justice in an imperfect world, the rich will continue with their diabolical plans, easily making up for time lost over the last six months. The next scam will be even worse, even more devastating.
Qualitative easing, the 2020 COVID multi-trillion dollar bailout of banks and corporations, destruction of local economies using fake lockdowns that empowered Walmart, Amazon, and other multinational corporations and destroyed local businesses, affected a massive transfer of wealth to the super-elite.
Although things may seem normal for the moment now that we do not have to wear ridiculous masks or take poisonous vaccines, we have become dependent on multinational corporations for all aspects of life to a degree that is unprecedented.
The creation of a radical class society will be permanent. The super-rich have constructed a separate realm for themselves that is beyond the reach of the law and the Constitution—and that is entirely untaxed. This new system cannot be altered by an election, and it cannot be undone simply by proving that vaccines are not safe, or even by sending little people like Fauci to jail.
The only way to undo this nightmare is to embrace completely a mass movement to rectify state crimes. The moment that we take on state crimes, we will be granted the moral authority to seize the assets of those super-rich and their enablers. After all, they set up this nightmare system with their advisors and facilitators and they did so in a cruel manner. It was diabolical, immoral, and illegal.
Taking that position will also give us the legal right to seize their assets and jail them because they violated both the law and the Constitution in these criminal actions.
If we say will seize their assets as compensation for their criminal actions(and all of the super-rich were involved) then we can justify legally seizing them, and bring the government back under the control of the people. If they are treated as we would be treated, then, yes, we are morally and legally entitled to strip them of their hundreds of billions of dollars, to make them into normal people like us who must follow the law.
Organizing a program to do so will be relatively easy once we are prepared.
The failure to address state crimes, and other weaknesses of the two candidates, mean that it is too early to close the door on the debate about other possible candidates for the Green Party, or on the debate about the platform of the Green Party candidate.
In addition, there are reasons to be concerned that the nostalgia politics that have enveloped the West and Kennedy campaigns, and on which their followers rely on as they promote them, could be a hindrance to building a broad movement that will allow them to overwhelm the organized opposition from vested interests that they will face.
Highlighting the deep ties of these two candidates to some of the best of American political history, thereby locating their campaigns within the contours of previous social movements, makes them more accessible, and more appealing while minimizing the less impressive parts of their lives.
There is a risk in that smart political move. When West wraps himself up in the mantle of Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King, it is at times a poor match for his inclusive message, or for the unique challenges posed by the technological totalitarianism that we face. This battle is fundamentally different from the civil rights movement that was West’s rite of passage as a youth.
So also, Kennedy’s achievements in fighting for medical freedom at the Children’s Health Defense, or elsewhere, are obscured by the sepia images of John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy that make up a good part of his campaign videos. The Kennedy brothers met a tragic fate when they rightly faced down the military-industrial complex. But the actual policies of the Kennedys in office are not necessarily a model for responding to today’s crisis—I would hold that Adlai Stevenson II’s platform may offer a better precedent
The glorification of past heroic figures can inhibit the hard work of building local movements that must be continued regardless of the election outcome if we want real change. Simply voting for one candidate will never be a magical transformative event. But, of course, that is precisely the message favored by political consultants.
