Extreme Greens are not left wing

Via The Australian:

Bob Brown says he was shut out of an independent review into the NSW Greens because he was “too moderate”, as controversial state MP Jeremy Buckingham labelled the attempt to broker peace as a “Band-Aid on a weeping wound”.

Mr Buckingham was asked to stand aside from the NSW Greens upper house ticket earlier this month due to allegations against him. He has denied the allegations and was cleared of wrongdoing in an independent investigation by firm Workdynamic Australia.

He told The Australian yesterday the NSW Greens were “rotten and corrupt”. “It’s a Band-Aid on a weeping wound that is the rotten and corrupt NSW Greens party. This type of review happened only a few years ago and resulted in virtually no reform,” he said. “The resolution does not deal with the immediate issues of the party refusing to conduct a democratic recount should I leave the Greens ticket, and capitulates to the extreme Left who are running riot.”

Yes, they are. But they are not left wing. Their open borders dogma is extreme right wing, playing directly into the hands of Australia’s worst labour-exploitative corporations:

That they can’t see that they are the useful idiots of the right is Australia’s great living standards and environmental tragedy.

Comments

    • I think I hate them most because of their sanctimonious high horse moralising about how non-rac!st and progressive they are compared to all other bigots. They do it for their own self centered dopamine rush, it literally gets them off and how much of a “good person” they think they are. Whilst at the same time they are managing to destroy everything they were founded on.

      • Gavin, I think the phrase you’re searching for is “smug, supercilious, self-satisfied, comfortably well-to-do, virtue signalling snobs”.

        This is not a criticism of the Greens in particular.

        Like elites throughout history, the Post-Modern Elite seeks to weave a cloak of virtue to conceal the nakedness of its self-interest.

        Like elites throughout history the Post-Modern Elite demonises and belittles those whom it exploits. Proprium humani ingenii est odisse quem laeseris .

        Like elites throughout history, the Post-Modern Elite cultivates a caste of theologians: articulate sycophants whose role is to craft eloquent arguments justifying the power, privilege and prestige of their patrons.

    • More like a religion full of zealots.

      They are following the same path Greenpeace took. The founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, commented that he had left Greenpeace because it “took a sharp turn to the political left” and “evolved into an organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas”. They no longer care about preserving the environment.

    • And probably alt-left and close to the US Dems socialist left. One thing for sure more communist and think money grows on trees. We serioualy need to get behind SAP to look after the environment. Message again is to put the majors last.

      • Your statement re ‘think money grows on trees’ is incorrect. Sadly, much like the other major parties the Greens also believe the Government is like a household and must ‘balance the budget’. In that regard they are the followers of right-wing neoliberal economics as much as every other major party.

      • One thing for sure more communist and think money grows on trees. We serioualy need to get behind SAP to look after the environment.

        Again, it’s worth pointing out the policy differences between the Greens and SAP – especially if you leave immigration out of it – are very minor.

        This is particularly true from the “communist and think money grows on trees” angle. And pretty much any so-called “identity politics” issue as well.

    • The Greens are going through their own Night of the Long Knives, the process by which a party of protest transforms itself into a party of power, typically by eliminating the original True Believers and consolidating power in the hands of the “hard men”.

      This is why it is so difficult to implement change in any political system dominated by parties.

      See also Appendix II here.

  1. Funnily enough in the election material Jenny sends out to us (with our names and addresses on), she never puts that pic in!

  2. The Greens are what people in the psychology profession call “not right in the head”. They are a bunch of stupid, puffed-up, self-important poindexters who have not idea at all what they are doing. They are currently engaged in the in the interesting process of spontaneously combusting while eating themselves, and will go the same way as the Democrats, except that they will cause a lot more harm while they burn and chew on each other.

    And as for Mr Buckingham’s analogy, I think they have something more akin to a sucking chest wound, than one that is merely weeping. Either way, bandaids ain’t the answer.

    • The USSR subsequently fell, but the nests of useful idiots in the West continued on

      So, ultimately not that useful.

  3. Yesterday I received an end of year report from the NSW Greens, I replied that there was no mention of Climate Change in it
    “And not a mention of Climate catastrophe ?
    What else matters if we do not first try to save life on Earth?
    Please adjust your priorities, time has run out.”
    This in part was what I got back;
    Thanks for your feedback

    Thanks for picking up that we haven’t adequately highlighted this work in our end of year update. Keeping climate change on the agenda is of course a key priority – even if we have much more to do to win the campaign!

    Kind regards,

    Yeah Right, so important they forgot about it.

  4. “Extreme Greens are not left wing”

    Is there a tribunal that decides such things?

    Many in The Green movement consider themselves to be on the Left. But the classical far-Lefty disowns them as they never joined the Marxist clubs and ranted about internationalism and worker’s revolutions etc. It’s totally true that The Greens are working to help the far-Right progress their open boarders policy and mass immigration to depress wages, but they would never wear the label as that’s where the racists live. And then we have the ACTU being a champion for mass immigration and identity politics that has more in common with The Greens than the classic Left.

    The Left-Right political continuum is broken.

    Politics has fragmented into tribes of self interest that use ideology and morality as window-dressing to further personal and tribal ambition. In it’s most disgusting form it gives rise to the James Bond of the Nationals – a moron strutting his stuff for a shag. Australian politics is now like African politics; what matters is the tribe you belong to and what you can get for them not the hollow platitudes you utter about governance and values that unite us. None of these remain across the political divide.

    If Bob Brown can’t sit at a table with the NSW Greens we can all know for sure that they do not have a Green bone in their bodies. The label doesn’t matter, The Greens have jumped the shark.

    • It’s totally true that The Greens are working to help the far-Right progress their open boarders policy and mass immigration to depress wages, but they would never wear the label as that’s where the racists live.
      […]
      The Left-Right political continuum is broken.

      No really. In as much as “open borders” people exist on the left, their objectives and motivations are far different than the neoliberal/supply-side advocates of “open borders”.

      If Bob Brown can’t sit at a table with the NSW Greens we can all know for sure that they do not have a Green bone in their bodies. The label doesn’t matter, The Greens have jumped the shark.

      The NSW Greens certainly do appear to be broken.

      • drsmithy

        Let me put it another way. If a people smuggler seeking profit or a member of an NGO supports people smuggling for ideological reasons the outcome is the same. That we label one group as evil and the other virtuous depends upon artificial separation of motivation divorced from outcome. Motivation matters zero – outcome is the real deal. So it is with the Left/Right dichotomy. Presently different motivations converge to the same outcome. Both The Greens and the Right are globalist in their focus, but so too are the ALP and what we call the “Left” generally. Globalism (whether a wish to move capital or people) has made the old political dichotomy redundant as no-one is concerned with citizens of this nation – the wises of the electorate – just global markets and global ideology.

        Can you be on the Left if you are a champion for outcomes that impacts upon the working class, reduces quality of life and permits the destruction of unions and the environment? No. Can you be on the Right with such ideology, most certainly. It’s hard to be half pregnant.

        Ipso facto, there is no Left in Australian politics. Because you can move politics so far to the Right that being Left is purely relative, arbitrary and meaningless. So if The Greens want to call themselves Left who’s stopping them? That room is empty. They can’t call themselves ‘Green’ as they abandoned environmental sustainability as a key principle.

        Just who might have sat to the left or the right of the French king in 1789 matters no more in Australian politics.

      • Let me put it another way. If a people smuggler seeking profit or a member of an NGO supports people smuggling for ideological reasons the outcome is the same.

        But that is a single action vs a policy base. It’s not a reasonable comparison.

        That we label one group as evil and the other virtuous depends upon artificial separation of motivation divorced from outcome.

        Most people consider intent to be a critical aspect of judging outcome. Murder vs manslaughter, to use an obvious example.

        Intent matters when you are making a judgement past a singular outcome. Because intent is relevant to predicting future actions and outcomes.

        Intent also matters because it influence execution which can obviously quite significantly change outcome. Would a lefty “open borders” policy have the same outcome if everything else operating around it were being run by the lefties as well ?

        Because you can move politics so far to the Right that being Left is purely relative, arbitrary and meaningless.

        Sure. If you’re the kind of person who wants to make that relative judgement, rather than an objective one, to suit an agenda.

        They can’t call themselves ‘Green’ as they abandoned environmental sustainability as a key principle.

        No they haven’t, unless you think the sole and only environmental issue is immigration.

        TL;DR. You are peddling a false equivalence fallacy.

      • Drsmithy

        I said:
        “Because you can move politics so far to the Right that being Left is purely relative, arbitrary and meaningless.”

        You replied:
        “Sure. If you’re the kind of person who wants to make that relative judgement, rather than an objective one, to suit an agenda.”

        Well I’m not aware of an agenda other than an empirical observation – as far as that is possible in politics. The ALP has moved to the right unless you think that the political universe revolves around it? Then you are the relativist. The ALP has permitted the Right to progress further to the Right and I’m honestly surprised that anyone would contest this!

        “Most people consider intent to be a critical aspect of judging outcome. Murder vs manslaughter, to use an obvious example.”

        Both end up with a dead person. Intent might suggest that you did not kill in a premeditated way (manslaughter). However if you knowably progress an outcome where a reasonable person could expect death to result it is not manslaughter – its murder. The comparison being that for the Left to progress mass immigration and open boarders and claim not to know the impact is unreasonable. You cannot hide behind policy semantics i.e. to return to your example – if the Left has a policy that says that a bullet to the head did not intend to cause death there is no mitigation of murder as ignorance is not a defence. You are in fact saying that the Left is allowed to be ignorant and the Right should know better. In fact the outcome is the same and should be judged as such.

        I’m about the last person who is going to make an appeal for moral equivalence (if this is what you mean?). I’ actually arguing for rationale and evidence-based assessments.

        I say: “They can’t call themselves ‘Green’ as they abandoned environmental sustainability as a key principle.”

        You reply: No they haven’t, unless you think the sole and only environmental issue is immigration.

        There is no way that a Green party can abandon sustainable human population and call itself Green. Increased human ecological footprint makes virtually every single environmental issue worse. It was the key policy platform of Bob Brown’s Greens because it linked with every other environmental issue. You cannot isolate population form energy, species loss, carbon footprint, water, salinity, phosphorous, erosion etc etc. It makes no sense.

      • I’m honestly surprised that anyone would contest this!

        I’m not ?

        Both end up with a dead person.

        Yes.

        But one of them is very likely to end up with more dead people in the future and one is not.

        The comparison being that for the Left to progress mass immigration and open boarders and claim not to know the impact is unreasonable.

        See previous answer re: process.

        The left’s version of “mass immigration” and “open borders” may not necessarily produce the same outcome should they not have the same intent or accompanying process.

        There is no way that a Green party can abandon sustainable human population and call itself Green.

        But the assertion “[they’ve] abandonded sustainable human population” comes via the (very) indirect chain of reasoning that goes something like “they don’t agree with my view on what constitutes sustainable human population AND how to manage it AND my inference of their beliefs and policy based on the opinion pages of some media outlets and random people who may or may not actually speak formally for the party”.

        It was the key policy platform of Bob Brown’s Greens because it linked with every other environmental issue.

        “Bob Brown’s Greens” abandoned your idea of “sustainable human population” in the ’90s. Bob left in what ? 2011 ?

        “You cannot isolate population form energy, species loss, carbon footprint, water, salinity, phosphorous, erosion etc etc. It makes no sense.”

        You should take that up with the vast number of people here implying the only environmental policy worth considering is reducing immigration.

  5. What I have learnt over the years:

    Right wing pricks are smart and left wing lunatics are stupid. Left wing MPs mean well but they have no understanding of: bogan psychology, natural monopolies, construction costs, and 3rd world “qualifications”.

    Of course, some are fake. Bob Hawke said “no Aussie child will live in poverty by 1990”. What did he do about it? Did he make bus travel free for kids? Did he give them free food at school? Nope. He kept negative gearing going.

    Right wing pricks = “how do we take money away from services and give it to the rich without the plebs noticing?”

    Thus far, it has worked: the federal ALP has won just one election in the last 25 years.

    • The appeal to self interest and greed has indeed been a successful strategy for the neoliberal ideologues. Never sustainable the whole system looks like it will now come crashing down.

    • What I have learnt over the years:
      Right wingers are always miserable inadequate people whose sole aim is to make others as miserable as they feel beneath their fake smile and pretence of values. They always hate other people.
      It is a lot easier to be right wing than left wing. Society rewards right wingers and being right wing doesn’t involve thought it just involves prejudice. You can be a real dummy and be right wing in fact it probably helps.
      In contrast to be genuinely left wing you need some analytical skills. There are very few genuinely left wing people anymore.
      Instead the right created a false enemy during the neoliberal period which attracts apolitical/liberal nothing type careerists who are attracted to high drama non political issues in order to offset the ethical vacuum which exists in all liberals.

      Increasingly people call these liberal frauds leftwing. But that’s only because they don’t have the slightest clue what it means to be left wing.

      For example anyone whoever supported Keating is not left wing. Which rules out the entire liberal class, alleged progressive media, most of current ALP, and a few commentators on this site who purport otherwise.

      • But aren’t we arguing over labels? Was Nero Left or Right wing – and who cares? Because he burned Rome (according to lore). The Left-Right dichotomy is a soap opera distraction. Currently we have psychopaths on both sides destroying the nation-state’s obligation to protect its people, culture and environment and we urgently need to confront the takeover of democracy by corporations and party machines that serve themselves.

        Some place there are almost empty clubs with the odd Marxist and Trotskyite ranting about unfair labels.

        You are correct about Keating. But ask him and he will tell you that he is from the Left. Ask Hawke and he would say the same. The reality is that they unpicked the Left to align it to a New Labour that began our march to opportunism, debt, deregulation etc

    • Best summary of the harsh political reality I’ve ever read.

      Hawke also used to say “Never underestimate the intelligence of the Australian electorate”. He was taking the piss of course.

    • Best summary of the harsh political reality I’ve ever read.

      Hawke also used to say “Never underestimate the intelligence of the Australian electorate”. He was taking the piss of course.

    • Yup, she invokes a need to punch her in the face from me. Very few manage to do that, but she has the gift.

  6. Hill Billy 55MEMBER

    Nary a comment on the planned deployment of up to 3,500 of the UK’s finest against their equivalents of the yellow vests should Brexit implode in January. Surprised, to say the least!

  7. Some great comments here, thanks all.

    I think I am more left wing in some ways than many “Leftists”, as I’m concerned by many things that are, I’ve learnt, concerns of the “class war”….

    Fancy that! A capitalist entrepreneur with deep class sympathies 😛

    • You might find this an interesting conundrum: if the central tenet of socialism is that workers are in control of the means of production, then is a self-employed business or trades person, *who employ only themselves*, involved in capitalistic or socialistic endeavour? Clearly, they own the means of production, as they are the producer of their own goods or services.

      The original economic liberal Adam Smith, often misquoted and misrepresented by the mouth-breathing neoliberal corporocrats; he of the “invisible hand of the market” which was mentioned only once in the Wealth of Nations; who was openly hostile to the idea of ‘mercantilists’ – his word for corporocrats – and who advocated for strong government intervention and regulation in the wholly predictable sectors where natural monopolies would lead to “market failure”, actually advocated a ‘free market’ where the players were all of a like size and power. Where corporations existed, their dominance must be resisted, else cartels and monopolies would be the result: exactly what we have today – power, education, health, infrastructure: all are examples of natural monopolies that should never be in the hands of corporations.

  8. In the recent Victorian election, the Greens were smashed. Victoria has some of Australia’s most degraded environment and it is still logging in its water catchments. Labor’s and the opposition’s environmental policies are inadequate and the Greens didn’t really campaign on pressing environmental issues. The same fate awaits the NSW Greens and also the federal Greens.

  9. It’s ironic, isn’t it, that “extreme right wing” can mean: uber libertarianism and open borders; AND nationalism and secure borders.
    “Left wing” can mean “supporting the workers” with immigration limits, and it can also mean utopian Kumbaya-singing brotherhood-of-man borderless one-worldism.

    I think H&H is in somewhat of a minority these days in NOT applying “extreme right wing” to opposition to open borders! It would be nice if a lot more people understood that Donald Trump, Nigel Farage, Marine LePen, Pauline Hanson, et al are not extreme right-wing and “racism” is nothing to do with any of it. “Racism” is a convenient and slanderous label to shut down fair discussion.