They’d Welcome You With Open Arms — A Case For #GreenEnter
The Green Party doesn’t have a branding problem, the Green Party has a neoliberal corporatist propaganda problem.
Does anyone else think it was kind of weird how Rachel Maddow started attacking Jill Stein, seemingly out of the blue, right before the DNC decided to spit in the eye of its progressive base once again by electing Tom Perez over Keith Ellison? At the time I assumed that she did it for the same reason she keeps collaborating with the deep state’s push toward a military confrontation with Russia: she’s an asshole. Ever since the elections at the DNC Winter Meeting in Atlanta, however, I’ve wondered if maybe I was a bit too charitable in my assessment of her.
On paper, there was absolutely no reason for Maddow to go out of her way to smear Jill Stein as a Russian agent during her appearance on Viceland’s “Desus and Mero” show; the election was months ago, Stein got a mere one percent of the vote, and is now operating in no official capacity within the US government. The photo Maddow showed of Stein at an event in Moscow —also attended by Vladimir Putin— was from 2015, and had already done the rounds in August of 2016 when the Democrats were just getting started with their moronic Russia fearmongering and McCarthyist smear jobs on their political opponents. Why would a powerful political pundit with a surging viewership go out of her way to smear the name of a forgotten candidate from a small party with a photo from 2015 which had already been circulated in 2016?
It could be that she was already smearing Michael Flynn for appearing in the same photo and, because she’s such an asshole, couldn’t resist the urge to down-punch someone who poses no threat to her or her establishment while she was at it, adding yet another name to her ever-growing blacklist of secret Kremlin operatives out of spite. It could also be that she’d heard the rumors that Tom Perez was a lock for DNC Chairman, and, knowing the outrage this would inevitably cause progressive Democrats, decided to smear the only political party that’s currently ready, willing and able to absorb progressives from that party and hit the ground running. That, not Flynn who had already resigned at that point, could very well have been Maddow’s real reason for bringing up the photo in the first place.
Either way, corporate liberals picked it up and ran with it, going out of their way to make sure everyone within their sphere of influence was well aware that the former Green Party candidate once sat at a table with the Russian president. Public interest in the Green Party had greatly waned in the chaos and outrage over the Trump presidency, so why were all these pro-establishment Democrats suddenly taking an interest in Jill Stein?
In my last article I floated the idea of a GreenEnter being perhaps the most energy-efficient and effectual path forward; it was relatively well-received going by the comments I’m seeing on social media, but one concern that came up a number of times from a few different readers was that the Green Party has a “branding problem” and a “stigma”, that there’s too much public perception that it’s a fringe party for hippies. This seems to be a major argument in the progressive movement for the need to create a new party, or to dispense with the approach of political parties altogether.
I’m wide open to any and all ideas people have for taking over America’s political left with an anti-corporatist movement (including DemEnter if people still want to try that approach), but I think most folks who paid close attention to corporate media’s coverage (if you can even call it that) of Jill Stein’s campaign will agree that the Green Party doesn’t have a branding problem so much as it has a corporatist propaganda problem. The deluge of deceitful smear pieces and hit jobs against Stein was deafening to anyone who supported her; I was putting a ton of effort into refuting them via my old gig at Inquisitr and even my prolific typing fingers couldn’t keep up with the constant outpouring of corporatist vitriol.
Now, here’s the real thing, so listen up — it’s obvious to me that literally any movement that tries to hijack the Democratic party’s progressive base will be instantly inundated by such propaganda campaigns from establishment mouthpieces like Rachel Maddow, and the more threatening they become the more aggressive, dishonest and vitriolic those campaigns will get. People don’t think of the Green Party as a fringey hippie party of stoner edgelords and commies because the party has done a poor job of getting its message out there, they think that because the neoliberal corporate media has been aggressively smearing its image since its inception to keep it marginalized and ensure the continued functionality of the one-party Dempublican extortion scheme. That’s one of the many reasons I keep talking about this revolution as first and foremost a media war; too many people severely underestimate how pervasively the corporate media is influencing the way people think and vote with its nonstop barrage of psy-ops upon the American psyche.
So that’s going to happen with a new party too. We can be dead sure of that. As soon as the fragments of our movement starts to coalesce into one again (which I imagine will happen over the next couple of months or so), no matter what we call that party or what beauty we put into it or how vigilant we are with our ethics or how watertight our funding practices are, they will find six ways from Sunday to wedge us with smears. That is a given. That will happen.
And be aware that they will craft their most ingenious smears to divide us on the inside. It’s easy to smear a movement from the outside, but their real genius is to use smears to fragment us on the inside. Look to the anti-science smear on Jill Stein during the general election as a prime example — a hot topic for progressives but internally between us there happened to already be a very passionate divide over. A leaked email from a neoliberal think tank laid out it plans to sow discord and division among progressives over Stein's stance on a few issues. All the think-tank had to do was subtly intimate that she might be anti-science and concern-troll us into talking about it like it was a real thing; they didn’t have to find proof, they just had to intimate that proof was out there and our cognitive bias took over and found proof where there was none. I’ll say that again for those in the cheap seats — they didn’t even have to find proof! They said this in the email; "You don’t have to prove that Jill Stein is an anti-science conspiracy theorist. You just have to say, 'There are unanswered questions about whether Jill Stein is an anti-science conspiracy theorist.'”
They know that if you look hard enough for anything on the internet you will find it, especially if you think it’s there already and you’re looking with your bias-lens on. So like good little boys and girls, we went and did that for them and we brought these unfounded and insubstantial snippets to each other in our groups and collaborations and just by looking at them in isolation we blew them out of proportion, and we started arguing and fragmenting ourselves. Just by using our own cognitive bias against us. Isn’t that genius-level evil?
That, my friends, is a perfect wedge, and they used it perfectly. They really are geniuses at this; I can’t emphasize that enough. They’ve made a study of this for a lot longer than we’ve been aware that they’ve been using it. Your homework today is to read up on the email that started that particular smear to see how simple it is to start one of these. Our only immunity to these things is to know how they happen and to spot them before they take off, so let’s get woke to these strategies.
The other major criticism of the Green Party, which I’ve spoken to in my last article but will repeat here, is that it’s too poorly coordinated and under-funded to be a political heavy hitter. This too I attribute to the success of the corporatist propaganda machine in manipulating people’s perceptions and dissuading them from working with the only functioning party that has the refusal to accept corporate funding built into its platform, but also, the fix is easy — they just need more people. If we can win the media war with these bastards (and we can), we can bring about a GreenEnter that, if it’s sufficiently large and energized, will inevitably cause one of the two major parties to lose party viability and collapse. This influx of new Green Party members would mean a massive influx of resources and brain power; more funding, more voices in the media war, more creativity and innovation, more coordination and organization, and more quality candidates. I am here arguing that the only problem with the Green Party is that there aren’t enough people on its side, and that’s easily and immediately rectified by joining it in large numbers.
So there you go kids, a few things to chew over. We’re still a ways off bringing everyone back on stage for the big number, and we all have our roles to play in our various insurgencies and coalitions, but it’s on the horizon and we need to talk about these things before we come back together again, because it’s these divide-and-conquer strategies that have killed our movement time and time again. We need to develop herd-immunity to wedges, and we do that by being woke to the strategies that the elite use to divide us and educating each other on what they look like in the wild and make a big noise when we spot one.
I live for the day that one of these concern-troll strategies pops up in a group and all it gets is a one-word comment — “Wedge” — and falls unseen below the fold. That will be our quiet victory party. When the weight of the elite is shrugged off our shoulders like a winter coat on a sunny day, we will have won. For good this time.