| We talked to Rolf Stolz[wp], a founding member of the Greens, about the change of this party from an anti-war party critical of the US to a party that now marches firmly on a war course in accordance with transatlantic[wp] guidelines.
- On what points does the current policy of the Greens absolutely contradict the political convictions of the founding party?
- The elementary contradiction becomes clear when you look at the question of war and peace. The Greens started out as a peace party, whereby two directions always came together from the very beginning. One direction that considered a limited, peace-oriented Bundeswehr[wp] as inevitable, and one direction that advocated radical pacifism[wp] and non-violence[wp]. Nevertheless, there was a unifying bond between the two parts in the effort for peace. And in Europe, the priority for both directions was peace with Russia. At that time this still concerned the Soviet Union[wp], then later the Russian Federation[wp].
- The second fundamental break is how the Greens faced the political system in general. Petra Kelly[wp] has called the Greens an "anti-party", out of a clear understanding that in the post-war period a certain lobbyism developed around the parties, and as a result the influence of big economic powers on the parties increased more and more. This critical distance from the established party system has been completely abandoned and the Greens have inserted themselves into the German political system as a sort of green FDP[wp].
- The next decisive break concerns the idea of how to organise the relationship between humans, nature and natural resources in the broadest sense. This is about the extinction of species[wp], but also about the question of energy production, which has a massive impact on nature. And there, more and more concessions are being made, which in the meantime have led to the Greens being completely gutted as an ecological party. There is still an outer shell and many very committed people at the grassroots level who, for example, stand up for animal protection[wp]. But that does not change the course that is being pursued from above at the level of the federal government and various state governments, which only represents a climate policy[wp] dictated from outside.
- The final decisive break is the break with the grassroots democratic[wp] principle. Things are now being pushed through from the top down in the Greens. There are no real discussions internally any more about the policies that are being pursued. Directives are only issued from above, sometimes downright dogmas. In climate policy, there has been no open debate. This should definitely have taken place in relation to Fritz Vahrenholt's[wp] book "Unwanted Truths". However, this debate was not held; instead, the outcome was already determined from the outset. We now have a development within the party that is reminiscent of Soviet party congresses, where everything was also predetermined.
- What was the decisive moment from which the Greens developed differently? Were there external influences?
- Of course, there are a lot of factors that came together. One can briefly say that in their early days, the Greens were fought by the other parties in the same way that the Alternative for Germany[wp] is fought today - as a vicious political opponent that must disappear and, if necessary, be destroyed.
- That changed in 1985, when the first red-green state government came into being in Hesse under Holger Börner[wp]. At that time, Joschka Fischer[wp] became Minister of the Environment. The Joschka Fischer of these eighties was no longer the street fighter he had been in the seventies. However, it can be assumed that the material that was available on the Fischer of the 1970s from the various state agencies and secret services[wp] provided an excellent basis for political blackmail, which ultimately ended with him sitting on the lap of the American Secretary of State Madeleine Albright[wp] as German Foreign Minister.
- There was a development of the Greens in the 1980s that led to very clever political declarations, which, however, by their very nature could not be implemented immediately. These demands included, for example, in 1986: "Germany out of NATO!" ("Westdeutschland raus aus der NATO!") and "Withdrawal of all foreign troops from Germany!" ("Abzug aller fremden Truppen aus Deutschland!").
| Quote: |
«In the meantime, we have a kind of "neo-SA" in Germany, which irrationally calls itself "Antifa"[wp] and is extremely violence-oriented.»
|
- On the other hand, the completely unreal idea still prevailed at the time that there would be an independent democratic socialism[wp] in the GDR[wp] after November 1989. There were forces that wanted to perpetuate the German division. But there was also always a minority, to which I also belonged, who advocated non-alignment[wp] and a peace treaty[wp]. All that was thrown overboard.
- Then, at the end of the 1980s, there was a change within the leadership, in which the so-called fundamentalists were replaced by a so-called realpolitik leadership. It was obvious that certain powers were not simply watching, but intervened through their intermediaries. It was then characteristic that the Greens were the last party, even after the PDS[wp], to come down to earth and grudgingly accept reunification[wp] only in April 1990.
- What influence does the World Economic Forum (WEF) have on Green politics today? After all, Ministers Habeck[wp] and Baerbock[wp] are explicitly among the "young global leaders" of this organisation?
- That plays a big role, these are very different circles, but they are also closely connected, from the Bilderbergers[wp] to the WEF[wp]. And one has to say the following: Petra Kelly, with whom I was a personal friend, was an employee of the EU bureaucracy. She was in a certain dependence on this employer, who first of all ensured her livelihood, but over the years she had gained a great inner and outer independence, and nobody dared to question what she was doing. Even where it affected the power considerations of certain circles.
- On the other hand, various important people in the Greens do not need an employment contract with one of these so-called global players. And it is not even necessary to pass money over the table or under the table, but there is a very clear consciousness behind it: We are politically destroyed and out of the window if we go against the tide. On the other hand, our careers are promoted from all sides if we applaud, and one gets into the highest offices of state. Habeck and Baerbock have certainly proven that, and that is also the reshuffling that has taken place here in Germany. It would be close to a revolution if the Greens were today what they once were.
- Now German politics has more or less the character of some South American dictatorships, where power shifts from the reds to the blues and from the blues to the reds, and it is simply different groupings that exercise this power and then of course also use it high-handedly for their own interests, but where not much changes in the basic political orientation.
- This is now evident in the major energy crisis, which is on its way to becoming an economic crisis. It is also shown by the war in the Ukraine, where strict neutrality would have been necessary. In terms of Green principles, this could only have meant staying in contact with both sides and trying to continue trading with both Ukraine and Russia, and also to engage in cultural exchange. But under no circumstances to supply weapons and to disseminate one-sided statements. And above all, of course, not to create a policy of sanctions. Such sanctions always have a devastating character, and when one sees how in the case of Syria these sanctions are directed against the largest part of the population, not least also against the Oriental Christians, then one can only regard such a policy as a crime. This also applies to the current war in Europe.
- Do you see the possibility of a change of political direction within the party or at least a change at the grassroots?
- The whole situation is extremely deadlocked. A kind of petrification through fear has set in, which occurs when people are threatened with a pistol or a machine gun. They will not attack the threatener at that moment, but they will also not run away in order not to be shot from behind, but they will stand still petrified. And that is the situation of those in the party who do not agree with the present course.
| Quote: |
«The whole situation is extremely deadlocked. A kind of petrification through fear has set in, which occurs when people are threatened with a pistol or a machine gun.»
|
- For anyone who opposes the current course is immediately defamed as an "agent of Putin" and a "supporter of Russian militarism" - by people who are themselves clear bellicisers, of all people. This is a term that was hardly used in the past, because this type of person tended to hide somewhere. In the meantime, however, we have open, declared warmongers on a scale that is reminiscent of the early 1940s.
- There is a tremendous fanaticism behind this. If you consider that such statements were made that Russia must lose this war at all costs, that the Putin system[wp] must be destroyed, etc., then you can see that there is a great deal of fanaticism behind it. And there, of course, in the meantime, you can see how the very anti-social media is being used to give people the go-ahead to be shot down. This can reach into the working life of every individual, it can even lead to assaults. We now have a kind of "neo-SA" in Germany that irrationally calls itself "Antifa"[wp] and is extremely violence-oriented. So all these are factors why a lot of things remain underground and people don't dare to go out on the streets and people also don't understand that it's no longer about which party someone prefers or votes for. It is about basic human rights, peace and freedom. Everyone is called upon either to stand up against it and show their colours or to stand up for the positive things mentioned with an unequivocal statement.
|
We are fighting a war against Russia, 25 de energo de 2023 (0:27 min.)