The Greens

There is a very good article by Greg Sheridan in today’s Australian concerning the Greens and extremism.

As he states

The Greens are a pernicious and extreme party; they are now in power in coalition in Tasmania and are part of a power-sharing arrangement with the Gillard government in Canberra …

Consider Quiggin:

As I said last time, I’ll be advocating a vote for the Greens

It is time for right-thinking Australians to rise up and hold the Greens to account as they once did against One Nation. The Greens are a carbuncle on the bottom of Australia that needs to be lanced.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

157 Responses to The Greens

  1. Pickles says:

    Nail Your Colours To The Mast
    Put Greens Last

  2. Sid Vicious says:

    It is interesting to contrast the media attention given to One Nation and the media free pass given to The Greens. I wonder if that would be the case if Bob Brown was a redhead.

  3. Peter Patton says:

    Sid

    Follow the class differences between those two political parties. 😉

  4. Peter Patton says:

    Samuel, while The Greens continue to attract people who show such economic perspicacity by declaring that the west’s banking and auto industries would be nationalized by mid 2009, I don’t think we have too much to fear from the Watermelons.

  5. MarkL of Canberra says:

    PP:

    Follow the class differences between those two political parties

    (Sticks head out windonw, listening for media response)

    Ouch!

    When you poke the MSM with a pointy stick, PP, you really sharpen it!

    This really is a case where the failure of the media is on open display. Why aren’t the greens being held to account through examination of their policies in the media??

    MarkL
    Canberra

  6. Sinclair Davidson says:

    I agree the Greens are economic illiterates and populists but I’m still putting Labor last at the next election (like I do at every election).

  7. TerjeP says:

    Sinclair – do you put the Greens above the ALP in your senate vote also?

  8. Sinclair Davidson says:

    Don’t know – I vote above the line.

  9. THR says:

    The Greens are attacked on a daily basis in the News Ltd press, particularly the tabloids. The actual track record of the Greens is hardly ‘pernicious’, and one significant difference between the Greens and One Nation is the fact that the latter push divisive racial rhetoric (‘we’re being swamped with Asians).
    And I’m not sure that anybody really held One Nation to account. They attracted a large vote in 1998, and disintegrated in the years to come.
    In any event, unless the ALP can shift back to the left, the Greens vote will continue to grow.

  10. Yobbo says:

    If they got what they wanted with regard to increasing the top tax rate to 50%, ending the US alliance, or their “cancel all non-refugee migration” policies it would sure be “pernicious” for Australia.

  11. DavidJ says:

    One Nation was very easy to destroy just by broad brushing their belief system as racist. Nobody wants that label.

    Greens on the other hand want to save the planet. Nobody wants to hurt the planet.

  12. Troy says:

    The Greens have a lot of policies I like; marijuana decriminalisation, gay marriage, euthanasia. There are at least as many horrible policies to tip the scales the other way. There could be a good opportunity for the LPD to pick up disaffected Green voters in the next few years when people realize just how Red their economic policies are.

  13. Peter Patton says:

    THR

    and one significant difference between the Greens and One Nation is the fact that the latter push divisive racial rhetoric (‘we’re being swamped with Asians).

    You do realize this syntactic black hole is boilerplate class warfare stuff from these people, don’t you? One of the things that strikes me more and more is how as a group how gormless the Greens are. The seeming paradox with the significantly higher education levels is a conundrum needing a lot more inquiry.

  14. Troy says:

    Greens on the other hand want to save the planet. Nobody wants to hurt the planet.

    So we should label them commies and authoritarians.

  15. Peter Patton says:

    One Nation was very easy to destroy just by broad brushing their belief system as racist. Nobody wants that label

    Even easier than that was the bipartisan adoption of their main policies. 😉

  16. Peter Patton says:

    And I’m not sure that anybody really held One Nation to account.

    O.M.G. You mean give them a jolly good talking to? Sending them to their room without ice cream?

    They attracted a large vote in 1998, and disintegrated in the years to come.

    Nope. No being called to account here.

  17. THR says:

    You do realize this syntactic black hole is boilerplate class warfare stuff from these people, don’t you?

    Except that the ‘class warfare’ of the Greens exists only in your imagination. If you have some evidence of it, please bring it forward. In terms of policy and practice, there’s nothing Marxist about it. One Nation, on the other hand, were racially divisive, singling out Asians for particular scrutiny, and spreading fanciful stories about Asian ‘ghettoes’. All of this turned out to be pure garbage, as is most hostility to newcomers (these days it’s directed toward Muslims). Beyond that, Hanson had only crank policies.

  18. THR says:

    Nope. No being called to account here.

    Who called them to account? Howard in 2001 adopted their rhetoric and tactics. By 2003, Hanson was in jail, and the electorate had moved on. I wouldn’t say this is quite the same as a day of electoral reckoning for One Nation.

  19. Peter Patton says:

    Actually not only is it the ultimate electoral reckoning, it is the ONLY one that matters.

  20. Yobbo says:

    Hanson being sent to jail was one of the low points in this country’s history. Not sure why anybody would want to celebrate it.

    That, and the jolly greens supporters who beat up a group of senior citizens attending a One Nation rally.

    The anti-One Nation forces in general showed themselves out to be far worse than what One Nation ever were.

  21. Yobbo says:

    Beyond that, Hanson had only crank policies.

    Unlike the greens, who have immensely rational policies like these.

  22. C.L. says:

    The Greens are a carbuncle on the bottom of Australia that needs to be lanced.

    I think this is grossly unfair to carbuncles.

  23. THR says:

    Unlike the greens, who have immensely rational policies like these.

    I’m guessing most people in most places would actually support those policies. Calling for democratic influence over the economy is what both he Tea Party and French protesters what, no?

  24. dover_beach says:

    The anti-One Nation forces in general showed themselves out to be far worse than what One Nation ever were.

    I never had any sympathies for their policies but found the treatment of those attending their meetings appalling but instructive.

  25. Peter Patton says:

    It was the Greens first public expose of class warfare.

  26. Mother Hubbard's Dog says:

    The Greens are a carbuncle on the bottom of Australia that needs to be lanced.

    Where is Lance Boyle when you need him?

  27. . says:

    The principles and goals are fine. The measures are ass backwards yobbo.

  28. dover_beach says:

    Calling for democratic influence over the economy

    democratic influence? I enjoy how people attempt to mask the smell of a turd by the addition of democratic; this practice is rampant.

  29. Yobbo says:

    Calling for democratic influence over the economy is what both he Tea Party and French protesters what, no?

    They don’t want democratic influence over the economy, they want to make “fair trade” rules compulsory for all Australian foreign trade.

    But you knew that, or at least you would have if you bothered reading past the first line down to what their actual policies are.

  30. C.L. says:

    In any case, Bob Brown and the Greens have a loathing for immigration that’s probably far more ideologically radical than that of the Hansonites. Indeed, their chauvinism on this subject is comparable to the racism of Arthur Calwell or Gough Whitlam.

  31. THR says:

    But you knew that, or at least you would have if you bothered reading past the first line down to what their actual policies are.

    There’s nothing terribly controversial in those policies. They’re populist, if anything, and some of them seem to me a little tokenistic.

  32. Peter Patton says:

    THR

    Ah, hullo, the Greens ain’t democrats dude. It is their aaim to establish a world government theocracy.

    The Australian Greens believe that:

    economic development must be compatible with, and subservient to [WTF?], ecological sustainability.

    Instead of praying to Mecca, the Muslims will now have to Submit to Gaia of Geneva!

    So how is this ‘sustainability’ to be gauged, and more importantly enforced By the rule of law? Democratic institutions, perhaps?

    The Greens will:

    remove Australia from existing bilateral Free Trade Agreements, where possible.

    That might or not be a good idea. I’ll leave that to the trade guys. What will replace the bilateral agreements?

    The Australian Greens want:

    International institutions that are democratic

    Mentioning the word ‘democratic’ is always easy marks, but do they know what it means? Coz these international institutions will simultaneously

    and that promote even, sustainable development

    Even development across the entire globe “promoted” by “international institutions”. Ladies and Gentleman can somebody remind us all once more what International Socialism and Communism were trying to do for most of the 20th? Oh, and could someone pass THR some smelling salts. 😉

    But this time, they’re keeping Trotsky under wraps, Rather, this democratic, sustainable, self-determing new humanity will emerge through the

    use multilateral international trade agreements and membership of multilateral finance organisations to promote human rights and environmental sustainability

    This international politburu does not advocate famines and gulags, but will rather

    provide incentives for developing countries to pursue economic development strategies that encourage self-reliance

    Ve haff vays of making you self-reliant.

    Barely a clause later they completely lose interest in trade, as they breathlessly prepare the developing world for the North Korean model:

    and prioritise the sustainable production of goods and services from local sources.

    You kinda wonder why they were all so breathless over their international trade politburu, if their REAL aim is a race to the autarkic bottom.

    By now, they’ve shed the green integument, dump ANY interest in democracy or trade. Now, proudly parading around in fleshy glorious red

    seek the creation of a UN sanctioned regulatory environment to govern the operation of transnational companies, tax havens and flags of convenience.

    But wait! Just as they had got the ‘multilateral politburu to regulate, and force submission of all, they turn nasty.

    support abolition of, unless radical reform can democratise, the IMF, World Bank and WTO.

    WTF? I dare somebody to post this mob is not a rewarmec Communist rabble.

  33. Steve Edney says:

    Calling for democratic influence over the economy

    democratic influence? I enjoy how people attempt to mask the smell of a turd by the addition of democratic; this practice is rampant.

    Yes, about as democratic as Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea.

  34. Peter Patton says:

    And quelle surprise</i< that Frank Brennan has come out as a Greenbot. After all, he is an upper middle class non-mercantile white luvvie, and shares the exact same racist attitudes towards the Aborigines.

    http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=22755

  35. Peter Patton says:

    And quelle surprise that Frank Brennan has come out as a Greenbot. After all, he is an upper middle class non-mercantile white luvvie, and shares the exact same racist attitudes towards the Aborigines.

    http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=22755

  36. thefrollickingmole says:

    THR

    Then you will have no trouble explaining how this single bit of their policies would work.

    3.global economic systems must be democratic, transparent and accountable.

    The key word: GLOBAL.

    So lets just postulate the greens decide to use the UN as the democratic arbiter of “global econoimic systems”.

    Thats the UN which has Islamic theocracies on the panel for human rights, China and other command style economies which peg their currencies, and basket cases like Zimbabwe all as members.

    Explain what you think a global system would look like put through that mince maker?

    Or wouyld you rather just admit its a non rational and rather silly bit of meaningless window dressing tarted up to look like rational thought?

  37. THR says:

    Ah, hullo, the Greens ain’t democrats dude. It is their aaim to establish a world government theocracy.

    With this inauspicious beginning, I really can’t see any sane argument, Patton. The Greens are neither Trots nor Marxists. I’ve invited you to provide evidence to the contrary, and you’ve not done so. Internationalism is not in itself communism.

    Thats the UN which has Islamic theocracies on the panel for human rights, China and other command style economies which peg their currencies, and basket cases like Zimbabwe all as members.

    Explain what you think a global system would look like put through that mince maker?

    There’s no doubt the UN is deeply flawed, and could be a lot better. That by itself doesn’t prove we ought to abandon it, or abandon internationalist principles so mid-size nations like ours can cling to the skirts of the nearest strong man.

  38. Gab says:

    The Greens are neither Trots nor Marxists.

    THR, a sincere question – what then is the Greens’ ideological base?

  39. MarkL of Canberra says:

    THR:

    Except …One Nation, on the other hand, were racially divisive, singling out Asians for particular scrutiny, and spreading fanciful stories about Asian ‘ghettoes’.

    Proof, please.

    MarkL
    Canberra

  40. . says:

    In addition to what Mark L sez:

    THR, would you ever live in Cabramatta?

  41. FDB says:

    All this deranged, panty-bunching nonsense about the Greens is pretty pathetic.

    Anyone would think you’re feeling threatened Samuel.

  42. thefrollickingmole says:

    THR

    The UN is a deeply corrupt self serving nest of both well meaning and brutaly thuggish people.

    Its not enough to say “its crap, but it might get better”, thats a dodge, not a rational position.

    Again, just what do you think a glodal economic system” designed by a UN commitee would look like?

    Especialy if it is funded free from the interferance of nation states..
    “15.at the international level, support the implementation of a currency transaction tax (Tobin Tax) to discourage global currency speculation and to provide an independent tax base for international institutions.”

    “19.seek the creation of a UN sanctioned regulatory environment to govern the operation of transnational companies, tax havens and flags of convenience.”

    22.support abolition of, unless radical reform can democratise, the IMF, World Bank and WTO.

    So everything for the benevolent UN to regulate and manage eh?

  43. FDB says:

    Were you not around at the time of Hanson’s maiden speech MarkL?

    Or are you drawing a silly distinction between what Hanson and her followers said and the party’s official policy wording?

  44. daddy dave says:

    I partly agree with THR. THe Greens – the traditional, Bob-Brown type Greens, aren’t Marxist. However, what THR doesn’t realise is that they are increasingly getting card-carrying marxists in their ranks. Kinda like the Tea Party takeover of the GOP, except on the left.

    what then is the Greens’ ideological base?

    They are definitely anti-capitalist in many ways. There seem to be a lot of half-baked economic ideas floating around in Green-world, self-sufficiency, public transport, small scale business over large scale, ideas about agriculture and food distribution, lots of stuff. It’s quite ad hoc and not neatly tied together in coherent system like Marxism.

    What we don’t need or want, but they do, is some clever Green scholar to link all these ideas up into a brand new economic philosophy. If that happens, they’ll have a clear policy agenda and be able to articulate it, and we’ll be in deep trouble.

  45. JC says:

    FDB, don’t flatter yourself.

    No one is frightened (in the traditional sense) of Adam Ant, Christine New Technology-Milne and the Bobster, at least no one here.

    What people are concerned with is the influence these lunatics may have in public policy and also the fact that we seem to be using the Australian Parliament as some sort of mental asylum for a small number of people.

    Instead we ought to be showing the care the really deserve being the mental health ward of a pubic hospital.

  46. JC says:

    Seriously FDB, you and all the other Greens voters are freaking enablers and ought to be scorned for what you’re doing.

    You’re basically enabling a bunch of obviously mentally disturbed people instead of sitting them down and saying…

    “Look Christine, Bob, Adam Ant.. you need to see someone soon about whats happening in your head”.

    Instead you celebrate their insanity in the same way people used to cheer on village idiots.

    Shame on you FDB.

  47. dover_beach says:

    THR is right in saying that the Greens are not, strictly speaking, Marxists; but the Greens are definitely socialists.

  48. Peter Patton says:

    Actually, the Greens haven’t really bothered to add a lick of paint to their international socialist agenda. They’ve even dragged the old leftist anti-Semitism with them.

    Under “International Relations” they have 39 points. Right at the bottom their is one link

    Australian Greens Resolution on Israel/Palestine which comprises an extra THIRTY points! In other words, nearly 40% of the Greens’ foreign policies are directed against Jews!

    Remember above their democracy, dialog, blah? Check out the detail the Australian Greens go into for a tiny area thousands of miles away.

    The Australian Greens:

    call on all parties to comply with United Nations (UN) resolutions, international law, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Convention.

    Er, as the Greens are not a member of the UN, on what possible delusion to “call on” anybody? And why do they even mention the UN and international law, if they go on to deliver orders, which are not consistent with the UN or international law?

    2.2 the termination of the occupation of the Palestinian territories and the establishment of a secure and viable state of Palestine alongside Israel, based on 4 June 1967 boundaries with both states sharing Jerusalem as their capital

    1. On 4 June, 1967, Israel did not have any boundaries. Why?

    (i) In 1948, Jordan illegally invaded Judea and Samaria, illegally occupying, then annexing the area, and renaming it the West Bank. Only three on States on earth recognized the annexation. On 4 June, 1967, Jordan still occupied that area.

    (ii) In 1948 Egypt also illegally invaded and occupied Gaza.

    (iii) Similarly Lebanon and Syria.

    Even though an Armistice Agreement was reached among all the Parties – Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon – the Arabs refused to negotiate either a final peace treaty AND or even recognize temporary borders:

    It is also recognized that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.

    The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/arm03.asp

    Similarly, the in 1949 at Lausanne, the Arabs walked out of the UN Mandated United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, which was supposed to be the mechanism to deal with the refugees.

    Thus on 4 June, 1967, Israel had no borders, was still at war with Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. Thus, once again the Arabs just abandoned the Palestinians.

    For 2 years before 4/6/67 Israeli spies had tracked Syria’s secret Soviet-provided underground military buildup. During 1967, the Soviets increasingly fed its client Syria, false info that Israel was planning to invade Syria, which the Syrians fed Egypt under the terms of their defence pact signed a year earlier.

    In May, 1967, Egypt expelled UN peacekeepers from the Sinai; in disobedience of the 1949 Armistice, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to Israel’s ships – an act of war against Israel. On 1 June, Iraq moved troops into Jordan. The Egyptians thought Israel was massing on the Syrian border, but the airforce tricked the Egyptians, and ina sensational raid on the Sinai wiping out Egypts [Soviet supplied] airforce, before mopping the lot of them up within a week!

    So Bob, Lee, Christine, Abbott WHAT 4 June 1967 boundaries!?

    2.3 a just and practical negotiated settlement of the claims of the Palestinian refugees that provides compensation for those who are unable to return to their country of origin, Israel or Palestine

    (i) It seems they might have finally woken up that there is not, never has been a “right of return” to Israel.

    (ii) As there was never a ‘Palestine’ during this period, discussion of Israel’s borders with it are irrelevant.

    (iii)During the Jordanian illegal occupation/annexation of the West Bank from 1949 to 1967, the West Bank Arab refugees were given Jordanian citizenship.

    THEREFORE, ON 4 JUNE, 1967, THE WEST BANK ‘PALESTINIANS’ WERE NEITHER ‘PALESTINIANS’ NOR REFUGEES. They were citizens the nation – Jordan – which once again illegally attacked Israel. And of course, thousands were members of the Jordanian defence forces.

    Thus, a “just and practical negotiated settlement of the claims of the Palestinian refugees” would be to tell the Palestinians they have no claims, and by the way how would they all feel about moving into Jordan?

    2.4 the right of each state to independently manage its own affairs, including foreign relations and economic development, without the dominance of one state over the other

    Here we have the “We are all North Korea now” policy again.

    2.6 the promotion of a culture of dialogue, harmony, peace and reconciliation between the peoples of Palestine and Israel, both in the Middle East and in Australia, fostered through educational, cultural and other institutions

    I am too stunned to possibly comment.

  49. Peter Patton says:

    dd

    Come on dude. I have provided a tonne of argument and data on the Marxists Greens, both on this thread and the other.

    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2010/11/16/the-demographic-of-green-voters-rich-but-destined-for-extinction/#comments

  50. Peter Patton says:

    db

    THR is right in saying that the Greens are not, strictly speaking, Marxists; but the Greens are definitely socialists

    And all my posts showing THR is every possible of flavor of WRONG does not wash with you?

  51. dover_beach says:

    PP, some of it does, some of it doesn’t. I just don’t think much hangs on the Greens being categorised as Marxists; it’s simply bad enough for me, anyway, their socialists.

  52. Peter Patton says:

    No one has said that.

  53. Peter Patton says:

    Oh OK, yeah even I argued that the extent to which marxists are entering, it is a marxism with a very post-modern spin. And Socialists are much worse than Marxists. Socialists do stuff. 😉

  54. MarkL of Canberra says:

    The Australian Greens believe that:

    all peoples in the world have the right to sustainable economic development.

    Comment: If true, why do they oppose globalisation and even cheap energy supplies? We have millennia of coal available to underpin this goal – greens say it should not be used.

    economic development must be compatible with, and subservient to, ecological sustainability.

    Comment: And who determines what this is? Oh, the greens, of course. This is a clear statement of totalitarian intent, with the greens in charge..

    global economic systems must be democratic, transparent and accountable.

    Comment: which means what? How are these terms defined? Does this mean democratic according to Green wishes, transparent to Greens (so giving them authority) and accountable to greens, so giving them power over all economic activities?

    global economic systems must promote and respect human rights, including the rights of workers, women and children.

    Comment: This implies that this is not done now in this country, which is false. If done globally, this implies global governance mechanisms. Good luck imposing THAT on the People’s Republic!

    global economic systems must enhance the right of communities to democratically determine their own future and priorities.

    Comment: babble speak. What if my community decides that it wants coal-fired electricity without any environmental protections or stack gas scrubbers? Y’know, like the people’s Republic does business? Is that all peachy?

    debt crises result from the actions of both debtor and lender nations; governments and international institutions should introduce policies to reduce both large deficits and large surpluses.

    Comment: Oh, so full operational control of the global banking system. The Obamessiah’s ‘government’ has introduced gargantuan deficits. So the greens oppose that?

    the inadequate response to the global challenges of climate change and oil depletion poses a grave threat to the global economy.

    Comment: Climate change is a natural phenomina and there is no shortage of oil at all, merely a shortage of cheap and easily accessible oil. So the greens support deepwater drilling, oil shale and tar sand extraction, and nuclear power to ‘combat’ the ‘oil’ and energy shortages? Goody!
    Oh, wait…

    MarkL
    canberra

  55. Rococo Liberal says:

    PP

    It doesn’t matter if the Greens are Marxist, what matters is that they have a totalitarian ethos.

  56. Mother Hubbard's Dog says:

    Many of the Greens supporters are members of St Marx Uniting Church…

  57. Peter Patton says:

    THR

    With this inauspicious beginning, I really can’t see any sane argument, Patton. The Greens are neither Trots nor Marxists. I’ve invited you to provide evidence to the contrary, and you’ve not done so.

    You have posted this to me about 4 times now. Why? I have never said otherwise. Are you deliberately making these false representations to bait and switch so you can avoid having to face facts?

  58. Peter Patton says:

    RL

    Now, even YOU’RE parroting THR’s lies.

  59. MarkL of Canberra says:

    PP on Israel, agreed.

    it’s interesting that the region south of the Litani, west of the Jordan and north of the Negev has only contained three fully and completely independent kingdoms/states (defined by their having a local elite and an independent foreign policy) since the end of the Bronze Age.

    And no, archaic Canaan was not independent, it was a geographic descriptor for a slew of city-states beholden to or under the suzerainty of either the Hittites, Seha River-land, Arzawa, the Medes, Mesopotamians various or Egyptians.

    These three polities two Jewish Kingdoms of antiquity and modern Jewish Israel.

    There has been a continuous Jewish presence there since the Bronze Age. Even the Roman-imposed diaspora after the Judean Wars left ~80% of the local population Jewish.

    There has never been an independent ‘Palestinian arab’ entity in the area until the Israelis left Gaza, and it’s the plaything of a death-cult now.

    MarkL
    canberra

  60. Peter Patton says:

    FDB

    All this deranged, panty-bunching nonsense about the Greens is pretty pathetic.Anyone would think you’re feeling threatened Samuel.

    You think a new 3rd Party who has achieved the unprecedented power, influence, and legitimacy as, you know, like, kinda THE GOVERNMENT AND STUFF could only attract the critical eye of people who are “deranged…” And that they are somehow lacking in their unmanly fear?

    Oh, and psssssstttt…in a little over 48 hours, they might also hold the BOP in what was once Australia’s greatest city.

    But being so sensible and smooth-pantied you can see the real bigger picture of contemporary politics. You must have an eagle way to be so foaming and knicker-knotted over a bogan sheilah, TWELVE fricking years ago.

    Were you not around at the time of Hanson’s maiden speech MarkL? Or are you drawing a silly distinction between what Hanson and her followers said and the party’s official policy wording?

    Well let us focus on this immensely powerful woman in 2010 Australian politics.

    THR

    one significant difference between the Greens and One Nation is the fact that the latter push divisive racial rhetoric (‘we’re being swamped with Asians). And I’m not sure that anybody really held One Nation to account.

    Both you and FDB can hold away:

    THE ORIGINAL PRINCIPLES AND OBJECTIVES OF THE ONE NATION PARTY

    1) To bring about the necessary changes for fair and equal treatment of all Australians, within a system of government recognising and acting upon a need for Australia to be truly One Nation. GREENS AGREE

    2) To ensure the rights of individual citizens to freely express themselves and participate fully in all aspects of our democracy. GREENS AGREE

    3) To protect and nurture our sovereignty and national pride. GREENS WANT TO GIVE IT TO THE UN

    4) To protect and preserve our flag, history and way of life and improve our standard of living. GREENS OPPOSE ALL THESE.

    5) To encourage, enthuse, protect, nurture and educate our young so they have equal opportunity to achieve all they can and take their rightful place in a decent society. GREENS SORTA CLAIM TO AGREE. BUT THEY’RE NOT TOO GOOD ON THE ‘CHILDREN THING’.

    6) To actively pursue and promote treaties, investment and development as deemed appropriate and in the national interest. GREENS OPPOSE. THEY OPPOSE THE NATIONAL INTEREST. N.KOREA HERE WE COME.

    7) To ensure the honour and memory of those who gave their lives in defence of our country. LET’S NOT GIVE THEM A CORONARY

    8) To appropriately honour and reward those who risk their lives in defence or our country, in particular those who sustained wounds in the process or now suffer aliments as a consequence. DITTO

    9) To ensure those accused of crimes are dealt with justly and those convicted of crimes endure appropriate penalties. GREENS HATE JUSTICE

    10) To ensure law abiding Australians, with legitimate purpose, will always have access to firearms to undertake various activities including the defence of themselves and their families in their own homes.

    11) To ensure our society remains benevolent in its approach to our fellow citizens in genuine need. GOTTA SAY, I’VE NEVER THOUGHT OF THE GREENS AS ‘BENEVOLENT’ TYPES. BUT BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT.

    12) To treat all Australians equally and justly and with government assistance based on need not race. THE GREENS’ BETE NOIR. THEY ARE TOTALLY ABOUT RACIST LAWS.

    13) To support and advocate traditional family values and uphold the institution of the family in its fight against the many who aim to breakdown this important unit of any decent society. GREENS BREATHE FIRE. THE COMMITTEES OF WHITE, NON-MERCANTILE UPPER MIDDLE CLASS RULES.

    14) To re-vitalise and support our defence forces and personnel and ensure Australia builds and maintains an appropriate level of national security and defence.

    15) To restrict immigration except that related to investment and for this to continue at least until Australia’s unemployment crisis is resolved. GREENS AGREE.

    16) To repeal the native title legislation, abolish ATSIC and reverse the effect of the Wik Legislation.

    17) To restrict foreign ownership of Australia, end the sale of public assets and repeal United Nations treaties of no benefit to Australia. GREENS AGREE 10000%

    18) To restore tariff protection, revitalise Australian industry and manufacturing and initiate financial support for small business and the rural sector, in particular in the interest of creating national wealth and employment. GREENS AGREE 10000%

    19) To take positive action on such matters as taxation reform, education, health, unemployment, crime, the environment and the discrimination created by political correctness. THE GREENS WOULD BE SPEECHLESS HERE.

    20) To re-establish and maintain a genuine publicly-owned national bank like the Commonwealth Bank used to be, to develop our country for the benefit of all Australians. GREENS AGREE 10000%

    21) To abolish divisive and discriminatory policies, such as those related to Aboriginal and multicultural affairs. THIS WOULD MEAN UNEMPLOYMENT FOR THE GREENS’ LARGEST CONSTITUENCY.

    22) To secure the election to public office of members committed to the objectives of the party. HEH. ENTRISM.

    http://www.onenation.com.au/obj.pdf

    So FDB, you One Nation flag wavers by marriage, what do you have to say for yourselves now?

  61. MarkL of Canberra says:

    PP… wow. And bravo.

    I had not realised that the Greens agreed with so much of One nation’s agenda, or that their agenda was so opposed to all the greens own shibboleths.

    No wonder greens still foam at the mouth so much so long after One Nation is gone!

    MarkL
    Canberra

  62. Rococo Liberal says:

    MarkL

    Yes it is interesting that the Greens never criticise totalitarian countries, no matter how much pollution those countries cause. Like Amnesty International, the Greens are always ready to condemn Western countries harshly if their governments divagate by a fraction from an impossibly high standard of behaviour. But they never criticise the reall villains

  63. Peter Patton says:

    RL

    The more I research them, the more I am stunned by just how, er, er, dumb, gormless, ill-educated, and vulgar they are.

  64. Peter Patton says:

    Mark L

    Than THR. Without him, I’d know none of this. And the fact he knows none of this is not a good harbinger for the quality of our democracy. I mean he votes for them, and knows nothing about them.

  65. Rococo Liberal says:

    PP

    Gormless is the perfect word for a Green.

  66. THR says:

    THR, a sincere question – what then is the Greens’ ideological base?

    Have a look at this summary of the research:

    http://web.overland.org.au/previous-issues/feature-tad-tietze/

    The base are environmentalists and disaffected ALP voters.

    Proof, please.

    Hanson said that ‘we’ are ‘being swamped’ with Asians. That’s proof both of idiocy and racial demagoguery.

    So everything for the benevolent UN to regulate and manage eh?

    The alternative, mole, to a flawed internationalism is a brutal unilateralism. If there are no international mechanisms, it’s basically up to the US, China, Russia and the EU to divide up the spoils as they see fit. Now, they do that within the UN anyway, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t support internationalism in principle. Within certain parameters, I’m not even sure why right-libertarians would have a problem with it.

    Come on dude. I have provided a tonne of argument and data on the Marxists Greens, both on this thread and the other

    You’ve produced nothing but hot air, Patton. A ‘marxist’, or even ‘socialist’ party must have some connection with workers controlling the means of production. The Greens have no truck with this. On paper, the ALP are far more ‘socialist’ than the Greens, except that the ALP simply never live up to their stated principles. Your attempts to link the Greens with One Nation are simply tendentious stupidity, and too feeble-minded and churlish to be worthy the time of refutation.

    Yes it is interesting that the Greens never criticise totalitarian countrie

    RL suffers from selective amnesia. The Greens have been the only party to consistently criticise China.

    THR, would you ever live in Cabramatta?

    The value of my statements is irrelevant to where I would live, you logic-deficient buffoon. In any event, I wouldn’t live west of Woolhara.

    But seriously, I live in Melbourne, and have lived and worked in those ‘multicultural’ areas that have you wetting your pants in fear.

  67. Peter Patton says:

    THR

    Why do you keep posting that same stuff, even though I keep pointing out I never said that.

  68. . says:

    “The value of my statements is irrelevant to where I would live, you logic-deficient buffoon. In any event, I wouldn’t live west of Woolhara.

    But seriously, I live in Melbourne, and have lived and worked in those ‘multicultural’ areas that have you wetting your pants in fear.”

    Logic fail.

  69. Peter Patton says:

    Are you actually denying there are any marxists or socialists in The Greens? Is that where your problem is?

  70. John H. says:

    Green scholar to link all these ideas up into a brand new economic philosophy. If that happens, they’ll have a clear policy agenda and be able to articulate it, and we’ll be in deep trouble.

    Exactly Daddy Dave and therein lies trouble. There are increasing numbers of people in the world who are dissatisfied with both the Right and Left. They are looking for a New Kind of Economics and it aint coming from the establishment. Anyone who puts up a half plausible new economic philosophy (more correctly – capable of being sold to the general public) is going to attract interest. I know we have some serious environmental problems and I also know that is not going to change. For example, just this week a large US study found increasing levels of IgE(allergy related immune agent) in the US population, a marked rise from the 1970’s. Something is going on. I have some idea of what that is but there is no point articulating that view here.

  71. Peter Patton says:

    THR

    ROFL. Dude, Tad is a freaking marxist!

  72. THR says:

    Why do you keep posting that same stuff, even though I keep pointing out I never said that.

    You seem to be in two minds. You keep saying the Greens are Marxists, then you’re saying that you never said that. Pick a story and stick to it.

    Dude, Tad is a freaking marxist!

    If so, he’s a Marxist from whom you could learn a thing or two about empirical evidence.

  73. THR says:

    Logic fail.

    Hardly. I’ve lived and worked in the ethnic parts of Melbourne’s North and West. I’ve lived on streets where nobody spoke English. Apparently, in dot’s whacky world or mystery, one can only make arguments about the Greens if willing to live in Cabramatta.

  74. MarkL of Canberra says:

    Proof, please.

    Hanson said that ‘we’ are ‘being swamped’ with Asians. That’s proof both of idiocy and racial demagoguery.

    Where, when, in what context? Link please. Was this a warning about multiculturalism? About not assimilating immigrants, what?

    I also know that she attended citizenship ceremonies in her electorate where she welcomed new citizens, many of whom were Asian, warmly and openly.

    Why?

    Because they had become Australians. It was the Indian wife of a Straits Settlement Sino-Indian friend who told me this, as they were both there in Ipswich at the time.

    They found her friendly, open, a good local member, and anxious to point out that her views were aimed at reinforcing traditional assimilationist Australian values. She was, according to them, a supporter of a multiracial Australia but not a multicultural one.

    BTW, they both agreed with this. Still do. That’s very much a Straits Settlements thing (Malaysia has three tiers of citizenship based on race), and they are both fine Australian citizens.

    MarkL
    Canberra

  75. Peter Patton says:

    Actually, no. He’s reading the same books I was reading in 2nd year uni. He hasn’t got any further than books, though. Don’t get me wrong, he’s a lovely bloke, and very involved politically, as well as the good work he does with the real loons, but his socio-political analysis is sophomoric.

    Oh, and I have been saying all along that marxists/socialists have been increasingly ENTERING The Greens in large numbers, with tensions already revealing between the pure Greens (like Bob) and the Reds (like Lee). That doesn’t mean the Reds are insincere and couldn’t give a rats about the green stuff; it’s just a lower priority.

  76. THR says:

    The context was Hanson’s maiden speech. She finally gets into parliament, and she can’t find any topic more worthy than that of Asians forming ‘ghettoes’. The broader context is laughable – 14 years hence, few in Australia have any problem with Asians, ‘assimilated’ or not, and hysterical denunciations of their alleged ghettoising have gone the way of One Nation itself.

  77. THR says:

    Oh, and I have been saying all along that marxists/socialists have been increasingly ENTERING The Greens in large numbers, with tensions already revealing between the pure Greens (like Bob) and the Reds (like Lee).

    By the same reasoning, you could say that the Libs are crypto-banker republicans, because they let Turnbull become leader, and because his faction is at odds with the loonies on the right. Go back to the Greens policies and practices. They’re not Marxist.

  78. Peter Patton says:

    Where did I say they were?

  79. dover_beach says:

    even ‘socialist’ party must have some connection with workers controlling the means of production.

    Really, the worker’s ‘control’ the means of production in work of St Simon or Robert Owen? Not even the productivist idiom of socialism is limited to worker’s ‘controlling’ production. The Greens, are the inheritors of Babeuf, Maréchal, etc; they are to a man distributivist socialists.

  80. thefrollickingmole says:

    “..to a flawed internationalism..”

    So Iran being on a comittee responsible for womens rights is a “flaw”.

    I wait in breathless anticipation as to what would constitute an “epic fail” then.

    Seriously why is the broad left so enamoured of the UN? It does a lot of things badly. Its short lived predicessor did badly as well.

    If, as you say, the UN is dominated by other power blocks anyway why defer to it?

  81. THR says:

    The Greens, are the inheritors of Babeuf, Maréchal, etc; they are to a man distributivist socialists.

    Even here, the comparison is quite limited in its validity, since the Greens prize ‘sustainability’ above all else.

    If, as you say, the UN is dominated by other power blocks anyway why defer to it?

    You’re verballing me. I never said I was in love with the UN, or that we should always defer to it. My point is that internationalism ought to be supported in principle, including international law and international agreements.

  82. Peter Patton says:

    Your attempts to link the Greens with One Nation are simply tendentious stupidity, and too feeble-minded and churlish to be worthy the time of refutation.

    And yet The Greens passionately share at least 50% of One Nation’s policies, and in the context of that comparison, the Greens come off very shabby compared to ON.

    Read it and weep.

    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2010/11/18/the-greens/comment-page-2/#comment-127755

  83. Peter Patton says:

    Now, THR have you failed to deny my links above showing socialism within Greens policies. And your attempt to backhand the charge of international socialist influences in its international relations and economics policies has failed, and suggests you might not quite get what’s going on.

  84. THR says:

    And yet The Greens passionately share at least 50% of One Nation’s policies, and in the context of that comparison, the Greens come off very shabby compared to ON.

    You have to twist and distort the meaning of every policy to find equivalence between ON and the Greens. This on the back of calling them ‘theocratic’. Perhaps it is you who is confused about what’s going on.

  85. Peter Patton says:

    My point is that internationalism ought to be supported in principle

    It might well be your point, but so far all you’ve done is assert “ought”. FAIL.

    including international law and international agreements.

    Except the Greens contradict themselves all over the shop.

    1. They vow to tear down many of the most functional and foundational multilateral bodies and laws.

    2. They vow to tear up Australia’s economic agreements.

    3. It’s a pity their pro-international law rhetoric is so negatived by their pig ignorance on the topic. Their anti-Jew obssession is so bad, they completely FAIL international law. Once again that international socialist inheritance.
    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2010/11/18/the-greens/comment-page-2/#comment-127755

  86. Peter Patton says:

    THR

    They are theocratic. They have made it quite clear they are contemptuous of democracy and states, and that these should have to be subdued by world government, which will represent Gaiai.

  87. dover_beach says:

    Even here, the comparison is quite limited in its validity, since the Greens prize ‘sustainability’ above all else.

    Quite limited? ‘Sustainability’ in no way limits ‘distributivist’ socialism; it does, however, limit productivist socialism, which makes sense of the Strange Times crew.

  88. . says:

    “I’ve lived and worked in the ethnic parts of Melbourne’s North and West. I’ve lived on streets where nobody spoke English. Apparently, in dot’s whacky world or mystery, one can only make arguments about the Greens if willing to live in Cabramatta.”

    Why gee you must have loved that. Still you haven’t answered my question, which was a segue to, do you believe there are no ethnic ghettoes in Australia?

    Newtown is the Anglo-Celtic one.

  89. FDB says:

    Wow, those are some poor quality responses to my questions (those of you who bothered to answer).

    This is actually a bit sad to read.

    Carry on without me.

  90. FDB says:

    I’m sure you’ll do fine, and make some terribly funny jokes at my expense, but this intellectual wasteland is getting spooky.

  91. JC says:

    These are dickheads you’re voting for, FDB. What a pitiful bunch of losers they are.

    Those young adults who ventured overseas for a working holiday in the 60’s and 70’s and ended up in some pokey London bed-sit will remember the cold winter nights when you had to put a coin in the gas meter to avoid freezing to death, or, if you needed a hot bath. If you wanted to read or use your secret Sunbeam frypan (cooking in rooms was prohibited) it was a coin in the light meter. The daily cost of energy, then, certainly focused the mind of the earnest young traveller.

    As the cost of electricity in this country is now getting out of control, with estimates of a 50% increase in a five years, it seems incredible that Julia Gillard and the Labor Party are taking all of the flack, while the real engineers of the impending ‘electricity crisis’, the Greens, are snug-as-a-bug under a cosy blanket of self-righteousness. Everything in the Government’s attempt to accommodate or acquiesce to Green demands and theories have gone pear-shape. Roof insulation, green loans, solar energy, wind farms — and now the sustainability of our aging power-generation industry. And yet no one blames the Greens?

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/11/turning-off-the-lights

  92. Infidel Tiger says:

    We’ll light an incense stick in your memory. RIP.

  93. THR says:

    Why gee you must have loved that. Still you haven’t answered my question, which was a segue to, do you believe there are no ethnic ghettoes in Australia?

    Not in Melbourne, no. Nor are there any in the parts of Sydney I know. I’m curious as to how you define ‘ghetto’, dot. Is there a particular quota of noodle joints allowed before a suburb becomes a mere ‘ghetto’?

  94. . says:

    A very economically depressed area dominated by an impenetrable criminal sub culture with leadership from violent criminals in the geographically dominant group, whose activities entrench more poverty.

    Shit, they’re everywhere!

  95. FDB says:

    Not going away altogether IT, sorry to inform you.

    I’m just going to limit my contributions to Greens Derangement Syndrome threads to observations of said syndrome.

    Reasoned argument with people who are wilfully ignorant, paranoid and just plain silly is, well… just plain silly.

  96. THR says:

    A very economically depressed area dominated by an impenetrable criminal sub culture with leadership from violent criminals in the geographically dominant group, whose activities entrench more poverty.

    The places that come closest to this description are the Anglo-Australian enclaves of the Latrobe Valley, with loads of drug use, crime, unemployment, poverty, and Jayden Leskie-type drama. There’s certainly nothing in the above description that could apply to anywhere in Melbourne. The closest would probably be Frankston, which again, is another Anglo-Australian enclave.

  97. Peter Patton says:

    You have to twist and distort the meaning of every policy to find equivalence between ON and the Greens.

    Really? Let’s see.

    On Globalization: Which is which?

    Pauline Hanson’s One Nation is strongly opposed to the “free trade” economic policies, which over the past twenty years have led to the gradual destruction of the Australian manufacturing industry, with the resulting loss of hundreds of thousands of Australian jobs, an increasing dependence on the import of foreign goods to satisfy basic local demands, and a deteriorating trade balance, creating a massive and rapidly growing foreign debt problem.

    national governments must not allow the pressures from the globalisation of trade to override the democratic preferences of their citizens.revoke sections of the National Competition Policy that seek to impose market values in public, social and environmental areas of Australian life

    On the Constitution:

    One Nation accepts that under the Australian Constitution, sovereignty is ultimately resident in the people, humbly relying on the blessing of almighty God. Any changes to the constitution or adoption of international laws can only be done by the people through referendum.

    [While} Parliament is the central authority of representative and responsible government, we will adopt Australia’s international human rights obligations into domestic law and enact an Australian Bill of Rights.

    On Free Markets and Neoliberalism:

    Governments have an important role to play in regulating markets and correcting market failures, but markets where they function well have an important role to play in the allocation of resourcesLong term government borrowing is the preferred mechanism for funding long term infrastructure investments.

    the free market economy, by externalising the environmental and social costs of greenhouse gas emissions is creating the greatest market failure of all time, namely climate change.

    Policies of unilateral tariff reduction, deregulation of the financial system and free trade are ideologically motivated. Tragically, the ideology driving these policies is seriously flawed. Our competitors have continued to protect their industries and their national sovereignties while Australia has exposed itself to de-regulation, free trade, globalisation and economic rationalism

    economic development must be compatible with, and subservient to, ecological sustainability.
    global economic systems must be democratic, transparent and accountable.

    Multiculturalism:

    Multiculturalism has failed everywhere. It is negative and divisive, a weight that is drowning our once safe and cohesive society. One Nation will abolish multiculturalism and the Racial Discrimination Act and promote assimilation, nationalism, loyalty and pride in being an Australian. (One Nation will eliminate the Department of Multiculturalism).

    Fully resource the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, expand its mandate to reflect the full range of Australia’s international human rights undertakings and reinstate its capacity to determine Australian human rights complaints.

    Water:

    We Propose to assist in the establishment of Federal funded, no catches, no blackmail, water management plans Australia wide, to ensure adequate storage and supply of water and prevent its degradation. We do not believe in the commercialisation of a God given resource resulting in the exploitation of Australians for the profit of a few.

    Public ownership and control of all major water supply, distribution, drainage and disposal systems. Sustainable water use planning to be required for all new developments and agricultural use.

    On National Sovereignty:

    Ratify all United Nations Human Rights Conventions, including their optional protocols; progress the conclusion of an optional protocol to facilitate the examination of individual complaints of violations of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.allow and encourage the United Nations Human Rights Council to investigate alleged and potential human rights abuses in Australia, and comply with any recommendations.

    The UN is not a government; so that signing a treaty at the UN is not ‘negotiating a treaty with another government’.Signing a treaty by which the Australian government binds itself to implement UN programs and renders itself and the Australian people subject to oversight by UN agencies is not a “reaffirmation of sovereignty’. It is a surrender of sovereignty by any recognised meaning of the words.

    One Nation will withdraw from UN treaties on migration and refugees that conflict with our sovereign rights and laws, and amend laws if required.

    ONE NATION will review all treaties and withdraw from those illegally signed and of no benefit to us. Globalisation means Australians giving up their country and we oppose it.One Nation will not recognise any treaties or trade agreements that are signed in breach of the Australian Constitution that have clearly eroded sovereignty and are harmful to Australia. We will withdraw from them and take the appropriate Constitutional actions.

    ONE NATION will review all treaties and withdraw from those illegally signed and of no benefit to us. Globalisation means Australians giving up their country and we oppose it.For the peace and prosperity of Australia and the rest of the free world, we need to return to our own sovereignty and rid ourselves of all harmful UN treaties and the gravy train that they enjoy at our expense

    One Green Nation Economic Policy:

    Timely and cost effective solutions to social, environmental and economic challenges can be achieved by a cohesive industry policy…industry policy and major infrastructure decisions to be consistent with national environmental and social goals.

    Each Australian government has the obligation to nurture and protect the industries which employ its citizens in preference to the industries of other countries and of foreign organisations.

    On Government Owned Businesses:

    To re-establish and maintain a genuine publicly-owned national bank like the Commonwealth Bank used to be, to develop our country for the benefit of all Australians.

    ensure that natural monopolies and other essential public services are under public ownership

    Sustainable, equitable economic progress is best achieved by government ownership of natural monopolies and new government investment in strategic assets.

    Capital Xenophobia or Commitment to Internationalism?

    To actively pursue and promote treaties, investment and development as deemed appropriate and in the national interest.

    remove Australia from existing bilateral Free Trade Agreements, where possible. Support abolition of, unless radical reform can democratise, the IMF, World Bank and WTO.

    reduce Australia’s foreign debt and foreign ownership through use of trade, financial and regulatory measures to ensure more productive use of foreign capital and strengthening of Australian manufacturing, recognising the need to support economies in developing countries.

    Global economic systems must promote and respect human rights, including the rights of workers, women and children. Global economic systems must enhance the right of communities to democratically determine their own future and priorities.

    Require the Foreign Investment Review Board to broaden its assessment of the national interest to explicitly include Australia’s long run energy security.

    One Nation believes in equality in aid. Charity begins at home. First in line for funding will be Australian aid and emergency services and a national disaster fund. Any surplus to foreign aid will be reviewed and provided only in Australian-made products and services to those in genuine need.

    Trade Policy:

    To restore tariff protection, revitalise Australian industry and manufacturing and initiate financial support for small business and the rural sector, in particular in the interest of creating national wealth and employment

    To restrict foreign ownership of Australia, end the sale of public assets and repeal United Nations treaties of no benefit to Australia.

    Population Policy/Immigration:

    A population policy must underwrite any immigration policy.Merely maximising the population is hardly a worthy goal for humanity.

    A population policy considers the interrelationship between population, the environment, resource usage and carrying capacity, the economy and quality of life. In other words, it asks how many people can live in Australia, at what standard of living, and with what environmental impact.

    A population policy must be the result of unbiased scientific thinking and not be highjacked by the self-interests of pro-immigration elites.

    Population policy should not be driven by economic goals or to counter the effects of an ageing population.

    To restrict immigration except that related to investment and for this to continue at least until Australia’s unemployment crisis is resolved

  98. THR says:

    So, after all that bluster and foolishness, Patton, there are basically two areas on which ON and the Greens agree, and that’s on free trade/ skepticism toward globalisation. Even then, the two parties are coming at the problem from completely different positions, and even then, they’re merely reflecting popular opinion. Thanks for demonstrating that One Nation and the Greens aren’t very much like each other at all.

  99. THR says:

    And Patton, just as a brief illustration of your pathetic intellectual dishonesty, here is the Greens’ actual immigration policy. Enjoy:

    http://greens.org.au/policies/care-for-people/immigration-and-refugees

  100. . says:

    “The places that come closest to this description are the Anglo-Australian enclaves of the Latrobe Valley, with loads of drug use, crime, unemployment, poverty, and Jayden Leskie-type drama. There’s certainly nothing in the above description that could apply to anywhere in Melbourne. The closest would probably be Frankston, which again, is another Anglo-Australian enclave.”

    I never said they were exclusively non Anglo…

  101. THR says:

    I never said they were exclusively non Anglo…

    So why frame the problem in ethnic terms, a la Hanson?

  102. MarkL of Canberra says:

    THR, the relevant section from Hanson’s maiden speech is:

    Immigration and multiculturalism are issues that this government is trying to address, but for far too long ordinary Australians have been kept out of any debate by the major parties. I and most Australians want our immigration policy radically reviewed and that of multiculturalism abolished. I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians. Between 1984 and 1995, 40 % of all migrants coming into this country were of Asian origin. They have their own culture and religion, form ghettos and do not assimilate. Of course, I will be called racist but, if I can invite whom I want into my home, then I should have the right to have a say in who comes into my country. A truly multicultural country can never be strong or united. The world is full of failed and tragic examples, ranging from Ireland to Bosnia to Africa and, closer to home, Papua New Guinea. America and Great Britain are currently paying the price.

    Arthur Calwell was a great Australian and Labor leader, and it is a pity that there are not men of his stature sitting on the opposition benches today. Arthur Calwell said “Japan, India, Burma, Ceylon and every new African nation are fiercely anti-white and anti-one another. Do we want or need any of these people here? I am one red-blooded Australian who says no and who speaks for 90 % of Australians.” I have no hesitation in echoing the words of Arthur Calwell.

    Source: http://www.australian-news.com.au/maiden_speech.htm

    (See? That was not hard)

    You have grossly misrepresented what she said. She clearly stated this in terms of a diatribe against multiculturalism and the formation of ethnic ghettoes where the culture and even language was different from the rest of Australia.

    That is plain vanilla. Who in this country wants the formation of ethnic ghettoes?

    MarkL
    Canberra

  103. JC says:

    Who in this country wants the formation of ethnic ghettoes?

    We’ve always had them, Mark.

  104. Peter Patton says:

    Actually, of the 11 policy areas, they are the same on 7 and differ on 3, with 1 borderline [population/immigration].

    I included the 4 because they amplify just what is so wrong with these complete airheads.

    The 3 they differ on really should ring alarm bells for any Australian thinking about our national governance and prosperity:

    1. Constitution
    2. National Sovereignty
    3. Multiculturalism.

    Just go through and compare ON and Greens on these three, and tell me in all seriousness you can still possibly voted for the dorks.

  105. . says:

    I didn’t. You can attack her ideas about what immigration will generally lead to but ethnic ghettoes exist for most ethnicities. If you deny they exist, you’re not going to be very convincing to people who find her message appealing.

    They didn’t have to spread fear about ethnic ghettoes. They came up with a half baked solution for them.

  106. John H. says:

    I’m sure you’ll do fine, and make some terribly funny jokes at my expense, but this intellectual wasteland is getting spooky.

    Then off to Scientific Blogging for you. Lots of good stuff there, much higher level of debate but of course you’ll have to put up with scientists reporting on various environmental issues. For libertarians that reads as: fucking beta male leftwing commo shitbrained scientists.

  107. THR says:

    You have grossly misrepresented what she said. She clearly stated this in terms of a diatribe against multiculturalism and the formation of ethnic ghettoes where the culture and even language was different from the rest of Australia.

    I’ve misrepresented nothing, and you’re clutching at straws (again). In her very first speech, she made ‘ethnic ghettoes’ the topic. She claimed that these Asians (a third of the planet’s population) have ‘their own culture’, and they they don’t assimilate. Where are these Asian ‘ghettoes’? Where the hell were they in 1996? Certainly not in Ipswich.

    Still lying, PP. Here’s the Greens on multiculturalism:

    http://greens.org.au/policies/care-for-people/multiculturalism

    So, you prefer One Nation’s policy?

  108. Peter Patton says:

    ROFLMAO. Which just goes to prove what I have long suspected, you simply never read the sources. Dude, mt Greens quotes came from the exact links you are now posting for ME to read!

  109. MarkL of Canberra says:

    Actually, THR, it is obvious that you have not bothered to read has maiden speech at all. You’ve just glommed on to a soundbite, and are building your usual castles in the air.

    The great bulk of her maiden speech singles out aborigines in a way I find deeply unpleasant, even if the point she was reaching for (welfare poverty traps) is obvious. The thrust of the speech was a pretty unsophisticated attack on multi-culturalism.

    it’s all simplistic, but even that seems to be beyond your ability to comprehend fully. Ethnic ghettoes are not the topic, but an example she tried to use (poorly) to illustrate the failures of multiculturalism.

    You’ll miss such things if you don’t actually read the source document, y’know.

    MarkL
    canberra

  110. MarkL of Canberra says:

    PP:

    Dude, my Greens quotes came from the exact links you are now posting for ME to read!

    That’s THR SOP, PP. it’s rather amusing.

    MarkL
    Canberra

  111. THR says:

    Ethnic ghettoes are not the topic, but an example she tried to use (poorly) to illustrate the failures of multiculturalism.

    Absolute rubbish. If somebody came out and, in their first speech to Parliament, started rambling about Australia being overrun with ‘Jewish ghettoes’, I doubt you would be so blunderously charitable.

    Dude, mt Greens quotes came from the exact links you are now posting for ME to read!

    Offering you free tutelage is becoming increasingly tedious, PP. You’ve so far demonstrated that both the Greens and One Nation dislike aspects of free trade and globalisation. Bravo. Now, before you embarrass yourself further with claims that Chairman Mao runs the Greens, perhaps you can look at point 8 of their economic policy:

    government finances must be sustainable over the long run; budget deficits and surpluses must balance each other over the business cycle.

    So, the Greens are not, in fact, ‘socialist’, but rather Keynesian, unless I’m greatly mistaken.

  112. THR says:

    Dude, mt Greens quotes came from the exact links you are now posting for ME to read!

    Again, this is shameless lying. I did a double check of this post, and nowhere have you cited the Greens policy on multiculturalism. You are now reduced to flat-out lying. Pathetic.

  113. Peter Patton says:

    Please tell me you didn’t make the socialism accusation AGAIN!?

    I have not “cited” anybody’s policy on anything. You can do that yourself. I have provided quotes on how the 2 parties differ/agree on a small number of policies, which is 100,000 times more insight than you have been able to provide on The Greens.

  114. dover_beach says:

    So, the Greens are not, in fact, ‘socialist’, but rather Keynesian, unless I’m greatly mistaken.

    Your greatly mistaken. Look at there entry under Care for People/Social Services; they’re socialists.

  115. Peter Patton says:

    db

    I’ve worked out why there is this constant disjuncture. 2 digit IQ.

  116. THR says:

    Your greatly mistaken. Look at there entry under Care for People/Social Services; they’re socialists.

    The policies listed here are not inconsistent with Keynesianism. Secondly, the policies here are broadly conmpatible with, for instance, the Hawke-era ALP. Left of centre, to be sure, but not by as much as some here proclaim.

    I have provided quotes on how the 2 parties differ/agree on a small number of policies

    You’ve worked yourself up into a lather to make a non-point. That’s what you’ve done on this thread, and what you’ve done on most threads. Have an appletini, dear, and tell us about your 2nd year Classics course.

  117. Peter Patton says:

    Well given all the fricking work I did to get all those quotes, I hope you will at least pick one of the policy areas and argue the point.

  118. MarkL of Canberra says:

    THR, I think the way you opine about things without ever having actually read them is very funny. It’s not intellectual dishonesty, it is simply not smart enough for that.

    Read what Hanson actually said. As you have proven here innumerable times that youa re utterly incapable of even basic analysis, here’s a predigested analysis for you:

    Start quote
    Analysis of the Hanson speech
    Martin Lehmann – 8 September, 2003

    This is the speech that drove the ruling elites and left-wing media into paroxysms of self-righteous fury. The Murdoch, Fairfax and Packer journalists, together with the politically correct zealots from the ABC and SBS seized on these words, twisted them into a parody of lies, deceit and slander to launch one of the most defamatory, vicious and scurrilous attacks on the character of a person ever seen in Australia. The journalists spewed out venomous propaganda reminiscent of Nazi Germany. And they followed the Nazi principle that no matter how big the lie, if you tell it often enough it will be believed.

    The lies they told were:

    1) Hansom is anti-Aboriginal

    2) Hanson is racist

    3) Hanson is xenophobic

    4) Hanson is a threat to Australia and to Australia’s reputation.

    Other journalists, in typical lazy journalistic fashion, uncritically repeated the lies until all journalists were quoting each other and the lies had become “fact”.

    What followed next is a shameful stain on Australia’s proud tradition of democracy and fair-go.

    The journalists whipped each other into a frenzy of loathing and hatred of Pauline Hanson, her One Nation party and her followers.

    Journalists denigrated Pauline Hanson’s character by dubbing her “the fish and chip lady”, made fun of her limited education and attempted repeatedly to ambush and humiliate her on national television. Although our voting is by secret ballot, the journalists created the myth that One Nation voters were from the lowest levels of society.

    The journalists feeding frenzy spread to the academics, the elites, left-wing students, the taxpayer-funded ethnic councils and assorted thugs. Hanson received death threats, people attending public meetings were abused, spat upon and violently assaulted.

    At Hanson press conferences we were treated to the unedifying spectacle of hordes of jostling, squalling journalists trying to outdo each other in screaming loaded questions and abuse at the object of their fury.

    The Australian democratic process was threatened. Public political meeting were cancelled. Political parties were stampeded into placing One Nation last on their how-to-vote cards, effectively disenfranchising one million voters in the 1998 federal election.

    What did Hanson actually say?

    Nowhere in the speech is Hanson disparaging of Aboriginal people. She is however, critical of the handouts available only to Aboriginals. She attacked the Aboriginal “industry” and ATSIC.

    It is interesting to note that The Australian newspaper, which has run numerous politically correct articles on Aboriginal deprivation over the years, has in recent times under editor Michael Stuchbury, run articles exposing the corruption, in-fighting and abuses of power at ATSIC. Hanson called for ATSIC to be abolished. Seven years later the Howard government is attempting to do just that. Nobody is labelling Stutchbury or Howard as racist.

    Most people have come to realise that the billions of taxpayer dollars poured into ATSIC and other Aboriginal bureaucracies have created a black aristocracy, together with a group of wealthy white leeches, while the majority of Aboriginals see little improvement in their lifestyle.

    Aboriginal leader Noel Pearson recently claimed that welfare was poisoning his people.

    In fact the removal of Aborigines to remote settlements, the destruction of their initiative and motivation through the corrosive influence of welfare and the feeling of hopelessness engendered by being denied access to the rapidly evolving, modern competitive society is probably doing more to promote Aboriginal genocide than any past actions.

    Hanson’s basic theme is that all Australians should receive equal treatment. This implies cutting back on special Aboriginal welfare and encouraging Aborigines to seek a fulfilling life learning job skills and battling to get ahead like the rest of us. That’s racist?

    “I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians” – this is the statement that really fired up the elites and the left-wing media. It is a harmless enough statement. But the fury it provoked exposes the hypocrisy and double standards of the ruling elites. Most Asian countries would be in fear of being swamped by Westerners. Malaysia’s loopy Mahatir regularly makes disparaging remarks about Western culture. A recent 60 Minutes feature revealed that a large number of Indonesian students (Indonesia’s future leaders) are hostile to Australia and its cultural values.

    In his revealing book, The Year The Dragon Came, Chinese author, Sang Ye says: “China is a country with a strong xenophobic, isolationist tradition; a place where deeply racist sentiments are not uncommon.”

    Sang Ye based the book on interviews with over one hundred Chinese immigrants living in Australia. It is instructive to hear what the immigrants think of Australians. Sang Ye says, “Nearly all of the interviewees here referred to Australians as “devils” (guizi) or “foreign devils” (yang guizi) or the slightly more polite “foreigners” (laowai), apparently oblivious to the fact that in Australia, its they who are the foreigners.”

    None of this evokes any response from the elites and the journalists.

    When Hanson made the “swamped by Asians” statement, politicians and bureaucrats scrambled to publish misleading immigration statistics disputing her figures.

    A report in The West Australian in August 2003 exposed the lie of the fabricated statistics when it revealed that over 400,000 Perth residents, more than a third of the population, were born overseas. The report stated, “About 14 per cent of Perth residents were born in South-East Asia.” It went on to say that over half of the population of inner city suburbs such as Highgate and East Perth (well-known Vietnamese enclaves) were born outside Australia.

    Hanson was making the point that multiculturalism was dividing the nation and posed future problems for Australia. Many mainstream Australians would agree.

    End quote

    So you are stuill gullibly swallowing near decade old memes, long after One nation is political dust and ashes.

    That’s nuanced!

    MarkL
    canberra

  119. dover_beach says:

    The policies listed here are not inconsistent with Keynesianism. Secondly, the policies here are broadly conmpatible with, for instance, the Hawke-era ALP. Left of centre, to be sure, but not by as much as some here proclaim.

    The fact that a set of policies are not inconsistent with Keynesianism or the Hawke-era ALP does not mean that they are not also socialist. I don’t know why you’re going to such lengths to pretend they’re not socialist.

  120. Peter Patton says:

    db

    I have posted recently on the gay marriage thread.

  121. THR says:

    The fact that a set of policies are not inconsistent with Keynesianism or the Hawke-era ALP does not mean that they are not also socialist. I don’t know why you’re going to such lengths to pretend they’re not socialist.

    Because to make the Greens ‘socialist’, you’ve had to water down socialism to mean anything vaguely left of center.

    Well given all the fricking work I did to get all those quotes, I hope you will at least pick one of the policy areas and argue the point.

    Okay then. Compare One Nation and the Greens on trade. The Greens’ policy is quite friendly to international trade, but based on certain provisos.

  122. THR says:

    Oh dear. Mark L thinks he has a point. Why say it in one sentence (i.e. ‘I hate elites!’) when you can say it in 27.

    1) Hansom is anti-Aboriginal

    2) Hanson is racist

    3) Hanson is xenophobic

    4) Hanson is a threat to Australia and to Australia’s reputation.

    All of these conclusions were entirely correct, but not necessarily on the basis of Hanson’s maiden speech alone. Her first speech merely demonstrated that she was willing to score points with some cheap race-baiting at the expense of Asian ghettoists.

    Although our voting is by secret ballot, the journalists created the myth that One Nation voters were from the lowest levels of society.

    Many of them were, morally speaking. Have a look at radical right-wing/fascist fringe groups in Australia, and most of them splintered from One Nation, because the latter wasn’t keeping it sufficiently real in the racial purity stakes.

    It is a harmless enough statement.

    Is it? I defy you to replace ‘Asians’ with ‘Jews’ in a comparable speech and come to a similarly disingenuous conclusion.

    Hanson’s basic theme is that all Australians should receive equal treatment. This implies cutting back on special Aboriginal welfare and encouraging Aborigines to seek a fulfilling life learning job skills and battling to get ahead like the rest of us. That’s racist?

    Potentially, yes, if somewhat inadvertently, but that’s a different debate.

    Aboriginal leader Noel Pearson recently claimed that welfare was poisoning his people.

    Problems with ATSIC notwithstanding, the empirical evidence (not to mention the political) clearly demonstrates that Pearson is full of shit. The NT intervention made things worse for central Australian Aborigines. Pearson serves as little more than a convenient alibi for welfare cuts.

    In his revealing book, The Year The Dragon Came, Chinese author, Sang Ye says: “China is a country with a strong xenophobic, isolationist tradition; a place where deeply racist sentiments are not uncommon.”

    Jaysus O’Fucken Christ. Nobody is disputing that some Chinese are racist. Relevance, please.

    Hanson was making the point that multiculturalism was dividing the nation and posed future problems for Australia. Many mainstream Australians would agree.

    Most ‘mainstream’ Australians reside in suburbs with plenty of Asians and aren’t scared of them. Most ‘mainstream’ Australians are not worried about Asian ghettoes, even if some can be manipulated into dishonourable positions on seabound asylum seekers.

    Incidentally, where are these Asian ghettoes? And were where they in 1996? If not Ipswich, then where? Broken Hill? Gundagai?

  123. dover_beach says:

    Because to make the Greens ‘socialist’, you’ve had to water down socialism to mean anything vaguely left of center.

    THR, I’ve already suggested where the Greens sit within the socialist tradition, i.e. within the distributivist tradition. This is hardly watering-down socialism.

  124. MarkL of Canberra says:

    Oh dear. Mark L thinks he has a point. Why say it in one sentence (i.e. ‘I hate elites!’) when you can say it in 27.

    Ah yes, THR’s usual pattern of making up rubbish, ascribing it to someone else, then crying about it.

    1) Hansom is anti-Aboriginal

    2) Hanson is racist

    3) Hanson is xenophobic

    4) Hanson is a threat to Australia and to Australia’s reputation.

    All of these conclusions were entirely correct, but not necessarily on the basis of Hanson’s maiden speech alone. Her first speech merely demonstrated that she was willing to score points with some cheap race-baiting at the expense of Asian ghettoists.

    How twee. You really, truly DO still believe all this stuff.

    Priceless, my boy, you provide excellent cheap entertainment.

    Where, pray tell, are these ‘Asian ghettoists’ you gibber inanely about?
    Do we have ‘Asian ghettoes’?
    If so, where are they?

    Although our voting is by secret ballot, the journalists created the myth that One Nation voters were from the lowest levels of society.

    Many of them were, morally speaking. Have a look at radical right-wing/fascist fringe groups in Australia, and most of them splintered from One Nation, because the latter wasn’t keeping it sufficiently real in the racial purity stakes.

    Ah, THR. Self-appointed moral arbiter of the nation.
    Umm… You have proof of this moral inferiority of One nationists?
    Please provide it.
    You have proof that these amazing self-propelled splinter groups exist?
    Who are they? What factions of ON did they splinter from?
    or is this just more pie-in the sky babblespeak from planet THR?

    It is a harmless enough statement.

    Is it? I defy you to replace ‘Asians’ with ‘Jews’ in a comparable speech and come to a similarly disingenuous conclusion.

    WHy do you hate Jews so much, THR? I mean, rampant anti-semitism is SOP among the left and always has been. I really like ’em. Good people. The only western liberal democracy in the Levant, and as a nice bonus they routinely kick the hell out of the theocratic totalitarians who attack them all the time.

    Hanson’s basic theme is that all Australians should receive equal treatment. This implies cutting back on special Aboriginal welfare and encouraging Aborigines to seek a fulfilling life learning job skills and battling to get ahead like the rest of us. That’s racist?

    Potentially, yes, if somewhat inadvertently, but that’s a different debate.

    You missed the core of the analysis that this was CENTRAL to ON. Why am I unsurprised that this went waay over your head?

    Aboriginal leader Noel Pearson recently claimed that welfare was poisoning his people.

    Problems with ATSIC notwithstanding, the empirical evidence (not to mention the political) clearly demonstrates that Pearson is full of shit. The NT intervention made things worse for central Australian Aborigines. Pearson serves as little more than a convenient alibi for welfare cuts.

    Oh, so you do support the racist do-goodism that has condemned Aborigines to poverty traps for the last 40 years. So as well as being anti-semitic, you hate Aborigines too!

    Good Lord. you are revealing a lot about yourself tonight. And most of it is disgusting.

    In his revealing book, The Year The Dragon Came, Chinese author, Sang Ye says: “China is a country with a strong xenophobic, isolationist tradition; a place where deeply racist sentiments are not uncommon.”

    Jaysus O’Fucken Christ. Nobody is disputing that some Chinese are racist. Relevance, please.

    What, you are too thick to see it? Well, at least you admitted it.

    Again.

    Hanson was making the point that multiculturalism was dividing the nation and posed future problems for Australia. Many mainstream Australians would agree.

    Most ‘mainstream’ Australians reside in suburbs with plenty of Asians and aren’t scared of them. Most ‘mainstream’ Australians are not worried about Asian ghettoes, even if some can be manipulated into dishonourable positions on seabound asylum seekers.

    So even when things are handed to you on a plate, you are still unable to comprehend them.

    I love the way I set low standards for you, and you fail abysmally in your efforts to reach them.

    Incidentally, where are these Asian ghettoes? And were where they in 1996? If not Ipswich, then where? Broken Hill? Gundagai?

    Umm, THR? They don’t exist. I’ve been saying it all along. They don’t exist. You’re the one who thinks they exist. But they do not exist. You have to cut back on your intake of bong-water, child.

    One more time,there are no Asian gehttoes, laddie. They. Don’t. Exist.

    Got it now?

    So stop pining for them – you obviously hate Asians too as well as Aborigines and Jews, and want them all to be forced into ghettoes.

    You are a dreadful person and a typical lefty, for having such blatant racist views.

    MarkL
    canberra

  125. THR says:

    Ah yes, THR’s usual pattern of making up rubbish, ascribing it to someone else, then crying about it.

    Marky, you’re increasingly resembling one of the shrill rightist teens from AWH. Perhaps you’re ‘arguments’ would find a better audience there. There’s really little of substance in your turgid gibberish – I’m allegedly anti-semitic, allegedly anti-aboriginal, allegedly misunderstand your repeated attempts to soft-pedal Hanson’s xenophobia, etc.

    A couple of brief points:

    You have proof that these amazing self-propelled splinter groups exist?

    Yes. Look up the Australia First Party, and the Australian Protectionist Party. Don’t look too closely. You’d fit right in there.

    Oh, so you do support the racist do-goodism that has condemned Aborigines to poverty traps for the last 40 years.

    Ah yes, it was ‘racist do-goodism’ that colonised, displaced, and excluded Aborigines from our economic system. Nice work, Sherlock.

    One more time,there are no Asian gehttoes, laddie. They. Don’t. Exist.

    Yet you don’t hesitate to quote ‘mainstream Australia’ in defence of your own Hansonism.

    You are a dreadful person

    It’s difficult to think of a more flattering compliment, than to be regarded as ‘dreadful’ by pondscum like yourself.

    You have to cut back on your intake of bong-water, child.

    Yet another reference to minors. Is there a police station somewhere that you need to sign onto, as per your bail conditions?

  126. MarkL of Canberra says:

    Oh, you did not get it? Why am I not surprised?

    The analysis was not mine, it was by Martin Lehman and was done in 2003.

    I put in teeny hints for you. Just subtle ones.

    These were his name, a statement that it was a predigested analysis, and ‘start quote’ and ‘end quote’ to clearly delineate this as Martyin lehman’s material. I also gave a link.

    You missed all of that, of course, in your heroic stand against the world as the lefty superhero.

    How amusing thaty you have not been arguing with me at all, but with Lehman, in 2003.

    And you missed it!

    MarkL
    canberra

  127. John H. says:

    Note to Administrator:

    Of late Catallaxy has been dominated by whiney little prats trying to score points against one another. Tell them to fuck off.

  128. THR says:

    I’m sorry that you feel that way, John. Mark and Patton here follow me around on Catallaxy and make commenting tedious. Some of us are trying to hold discussions sensibly, despite the continual stupidity of others.

  129. Peter Patton says:

    THR

    The Greens’ policy is quite friendly to international trade.

    ROFLMAO. Or maybe I’ve missed something?

  130. MarkL of Canberra says:

    PP: well… not really. The pressure the dumb SOBs are placing on IMO to curb icky stack gases in merchant ships will drive fuel prices through teh roof and deepen the already severe depression in freight rates.

    That could tip the industry into the same sort of permanent depression we saw 1921-1939.

    And, of course, the Greens policy on trade is that they must approve of it and tax it, on behalf of gaia.

    MarkL
    canberra

  131. Peter Patton says:

    Mark, in fact it is their trade policy, which most exposes their international socialist world government genetic makeup.

  132. John H. says:

    I’m sorry that you feel that way, John. Mark and Patton here follow me around on Catallaxy and make commenting tedious. Some of us are trying to hold discussions sensibly, despite the continual stupidity of others.

    Don’t sweat it THR. You have thrown yourself in the lion’s den of this place and have become a target. It aint worth the trouble dude, I gave up on that long ago. My equivalent would be trying to convince people here that we have real problems with pollution. Pissing against the wind.

  133. THR says:

    This is the Greens’ actual policy on international trade:

    The Australian Greens will:

    11.support mechanisms to promote sustainable international trade.
    12.remove Australia from existing bilateral Free Trade Agreements, where possible.
    13.enter into multilateral trade agreements, except where a bilateral trade agreement favours a developing country.
    14.use multilateral international trade agreements and membership of multilateral finance organisations to promote human rights and environmental sustainability.
    15.at the international level, support the implementation of a currency transaction tax (Tobin Tax) to discourage global currency speculation and to provide an independent tax base for international institutions.
    16.provide incentives for developing countries to pursue economic development strategies that encourage self-reliance and prioritise the sustainable production of goods and services from local sources.
    17.prohibit the trade in goods that have been produced through the exploitation of children and other vulnerable people.
    18.ensure that Australian companies operating internationally comply with international human rights, labour and environmental standards.
    19.seek the creation of a UN sanctioned regulatory environment to govern the operation of transnational companies, tax havens and flags of convenience.
    20.use Australia’s involvement in international trade fora to advance the needs of developing countries.
    21.use multilateral international trade agreements and membership of multilateral finance organisations to seek the cancellation of the debts of least-developed countries and the removal of punitive loan conditionality imposed on poor countries.
    22.support abolition of, unless radical reform can democratise, the IMF, World Bank and WTO.
    23.resist the development of international trade regimes that seek to extend the concentration of control over intellectual property.
    24.establish mechanisms to prevent the debt crisis from recurring, such as introducing the potential for penalties for surplus as well as debtor nations

    http://greens.org.au/policies/sustainable-economy/global-economics

    There’s very little there that’s vaguely leftist, much less ‘socialist’. At most, you could call the policies ‘left liberal’.

  134. Peter Patton says:

    Gee thanks THR, for the benefit of your insight, but I was commenting ont that source yesterday morning.

    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2010/11/18/the-greens/comment-page-3/#comment-127637

  135. THR says:

    Yes, and you cherry-picked and misrepresented. The policy clearly says that multilateral would replace bilateral agreements, a point that is omitted from your attempted hatchet job.

  136. Peter Patton says:

    John H

    I hope you’re not including me there. The reason I am unimpressed is that I have put quite a bit of work into figuring out the Greens, and just where they fit re socialism. And I have been extremely generous in sharing the research and my take on it. And all I get back is 2 days of THR posting 20 times the same uninformed boiler plates.

  137. Peter Patton says:

    All this really, really has gone over your head, hasn’t it? The exquisite site of you get huffy because one poster presents well over 50 quotes from 2 parties. And WHY did I do that? Because you claimed they had nothing in common. And then for the rest of the discussion, rather than contradict or refute the teaming evidence posted on this blog that you were so far wrong, but then all you focused on for the entire thread was one sentence in a bogan lady’s maiden speech FOURTEEN fricking years ago. And yet, not once did you engage with the policies of the broader movement.

    And what was I doing while you were obsessing on Pauline? I was continuing with my researched, thus injecting more evidence and discussion on subjects from trade to the Arab-Israeli conflict to water to blah.

    And NOW, you turn around and chuck a hissy fit right at the end for ‘cherry picking’ and ‘misrepresenting’?

    This thread really has been a bit too fast for you, hasn’t it?

    Tell me. Are you autistic?

  138. MarkL of Canberra says:

    John H

    My equivalent would be trying to convince people here that we have real problems with pollution.

    It depends. If by pollution you mean actual pollution (heavy metals into waterways, high concentrations of SO2 in urban areas, phosphate runoffs into waterways etc etc, then we’d be in agreement.

    If you mean the beneficial trace gas CO2, essential to plant life and at historic atmospheric lows in the geologic record, then we would not agree.

    MarkL
    canberra

  139. THR says:

    Because you claimed they had nothing in common. And then for the rest of the discussion, rather than contradict or refute the teaming evidence posted on this blog that you were so far wrong, but then all you focused on for the entire thread was one sentence in a bogan lady’s maiden speech FOURTEEN fricking years ago

    No, I’ve provided plenty of evidence that the Greens are vastly different in policy and practice to ON. You’ve simply made assertions of equivalence, which turn out to be mere froth upon basic scrutiny.

    As for Hanson – there’s no doubt whatsoever that immigration was the key issue for ON, and that nationalism was the underlying ethos of ON policy. This was reflected in Hanson’s idiotic and divisive comments, and is reflected in ON’s broader policy.

  140. MarkL of Canberra says:

    HRT:

    there’s no doubt whatsoever that immigration was the key issue for ON,

    Wrong. Do the research. Their key issue was the failures and dangers inherent in multiculturalism. Immigrationw asa subset of this and was little more than a warm-over of traditional Australian government policy over the last century, ‘we select who enters’.

    Without, of course, the ALP’s ‘white Australia’ nonsense. ON never had that.

    Interesting that the result of the failure which is the multiculti dream are being starkly illustrated in Europe right now.

    MarkL
    Canberra

  141. MarkL of Canberra says:

    PIMF!

  142. THR says:

    Interesting that the result of the failure which is the multiculti dream are being starkly illustrated in Europe right now.

    Again with the Euro Armageddon fantasies. Most of Europe is not, in fact, multicultural at all. The UK arguably is, but the other big nations (Italy, France, Germany, Ukraine, Russia) are not.

  143. dover_beach says:

    There’s very little there that’s vaguely leftist, much less ‘socialist’. At most, you could call the policies ‘left liberal’.

    I can’t believe you’re continuing to deny that the Greens are socialists.

  144. Peter Patton says:

    THR

    Given you have so shamelessly shown your utter ignorance about ON, and even more so The Greens, don’t you think it’s time you gave up telling those of who ARE very informed, and who ARE curious, and so when they encounter new fields and ideas they ARE prepared to dive in, and learn about them? Whereas you do NONE of these things.

  145. THR says:

    Wrong, Patton. To wax Birdian, you’ve simply lied and lied. For instance, you cited ON’s trade policy above:

    To restore tariff protection, revitalise Australian industry and manufacturing and initiate financial support for small business and the rural sector, in particular in the interest of creating national wealth and employment
    To restrict foreign ownership of Australia, end the sale of public assets and repeal United Nations treaties of no benefit to Australia.

    Now, you’ve claimed that Greens policy is basically the same as this. I’ve demonstrated that it isn’t. You’e claimed that the Greens are crypto-Trots. You’ve not provided a shred of evidence for this. You’ve diverted discussion to Israel-Palestine, which has nothing to do with the thread. Give up.

  146. Peter Patton says:

    THR

    And you STILL haven’t made even one comment to support your cringeingly vulgar presumption you were adding to the thread, by saying at 10:27 p.m.:

    Okay then. Compare One Nation and the Greens on trade. The Greens’ policy is quite friendly to international trade, but based on certain provisos.

    I nearly wet myself, as it was quite clear you had no idea, that I had been researching, sharing, and analyzing The Greens and ON perspectives om trade for over ten hours by then.

    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2010/11/18/the-greens/comment-page-3/#comment-127637

    But wait, there’s more. Over a day after this discussion of Green and ON trade policies had been conducted on this threa, you triumphantly slap this down

    This is the Greens’ actual policy on international trade

    completely oblivious you were merely dumping – to ignorant to select/synthesize – the whole laundry list from the very same source I had been using above.

    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2010/11/18/the-greens/comment-page-3/#comment-127637

  147. Ev630 says:

    I think the positive outcome here is that THR and John H have had a little moment of bonding amidst the turmoil.

  148. Peter Patton says:

    Oh, but da stoopid. It Burns!

  149. John H. says:

    If you mean the beneficial trace gas CO2, essential to plant life and at historic atmospheric lows in the geologic record, then we would not agree.

    “beneficial” – that belies the wrong way to think about these things. It can be but if you look at recent studies you find that increasing CO2 has a very wide effect on plant growth, including increased toxin production. Absolutes are dangerous in this game. Another eg. minute amounts of radiation exposure might be good for us because it can induce cell repair functions.

    Pollution: I’m much more interested in estrogenic and anti-androgenic compounds, particularly given human male fertility has been declining for decades. Given the known effects of these compounds I have to wonder if the increasing rates of breast cancer and testicular dysplasias point to a level of pollution that is directly impacting on human health.

    PS: I don’t have to wonder at all. It’s happening, right now.

    I could write reams about this but it is a waste of time.

  150. Ev630 says:

    Oh, but da stoopid. It Burns!

    And yet they keep coming back to touch the stupid.

  151. MarkL of Canberra says:

    JH:

    Pollution: I’m much more interested in estrogenic and anti-androgenic compounds, particularly given human male fertility has been declining for decades. Given the known effects of these compounds I have to wonder if the increasing rates of breast cancer and testicular dysplasias point to a level of pollution that is directly impacting on human health.

    Strictly speaking, the term ‘pollution’ is not what you are driving at, you are looking at a subtle alteration to the environment in which humans are affected at teh cellular level.

    There are some interesting speculations possibly linking this to increases in immune system deracinations (such as the spread of arthritic conditions among children) and even to mental health issues such as depression.

    We need another word. ‘Pollution’ has too much baggage and too little defined meaning in this context.

    FYI I and my extended family are part of the kConFab multi-generational breast cancer research program for damned good reasons.

    MarkL
    Canberra

  152. John H. says:

    We need another word. ‘Pollution’ has too much baggage and too little defined meaning in this context.

    That’s a interesting point Mark but for me it is moot. I’m only interested in the biological and ecological implications, if people want to argue about precise meanings then I’ll leave them to it. In the scientific literature the word “pollution” is mostly absent.

    There was a recent news release which basically put forward the picture that modern city life represents a big challenge to our immune responses. This relates not to the adaptive arm but the innate responses. It is interesting that in depression elevation of inflammatory mediators is very common, in fact some are now arguing that depression is primarily a dysfunction of the immune response. That is incorrect though, it is the over time shift in the stress response axis that leads to blah blah … acronym city stuff so I won’t bore you with that. I’ve covered some of it on my blog posts on depression.

    There is also abundant evidence of increasing frequency in immunological chronic pathologies. This should be a serious concern in the public realm but is receiving scant attention. The literature is replete with studies of this kind and at present it is extremely difficult to pin down precise causation. Unfortunately people think that science has consistent standards for evidence. Baloney, the degree of precision we can attain in particle physics is not possible when dealing with open systems. We don’t have the right tools for that.

    That relates to a MUCH bigger problem, that being that biology may not be *entirely* reductive through present day physics and chemistry. I’m too old to think about such matters but have read enough of the primary literature to appreciate that at a fundamental level our conceptual tool box is missing a few important items. Progress is being made but perhaps, dare I suggest, there needs to be something of a Kuhn like revolution. That may already be underway but I’ll be long dead before that hits the textbooks.

  153. Peter Patton says:

    And while those of us who know about such things discuss the boneheaded Greens’ foreign policies, they could do a lot worse than giving the world’s biggest dole bludgers a kick up the ass by shutting down the UNRWA.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/19/palestine-aid-models-must-change

  154. Pingback: The Future of the Greens at Catallaxy Files

Comments are closed.