The Greens have literally gone mad

Here’s is what a green looks like:

Here is what a Tampa green looks like:

And here is what The Greens look like when you put them together:

A NSW Greens MP has lashed out at the “destructive extreme left forces” in her party after members formally asked fellow MP Jeremy Buckingham to step down.

The Greens NSW State Delegates Council passed, by consensus, a proposal to request Mr Buckingham vacate his position on the ticket during a meeting on Saturday, weeks after he was accused of sexual misconduct.

It was agreed his presence would stop the party from campaigning effectively ahead of next year’s state election, a statement said.

The MP has been the subject of a 2011 sexual harassment allegation re-aired under parliamentary privilege by factional rival Jenny Leong, although an independent investigation recommended no adverse findings against him.

He denies the alleged incident involving a party staffer and another claim by Ms Leong of intimidation.

Mr Buckingham on Sunday accused the council of abandoning grassroots democracy and due process, and of rewarding the “bullying and smearing behaviour” of his factional opponents.

When asked if he would be standing aside Mr Buckingham told reporters: “No.”

NSW Greens MP Cate Faehrmann on Sunday lashed out against the party on Facebook, saying it had been infiltrated by “destructive extreme left forces who will stop at nothing to weaken those in the party”.

She claims there has been a “hateful” campaign against Mr Buckingham who she says has been subject to “bullying and attacks”.

Australian Greens leader Richard Di Natale last month also called for Mr Buckingham to resign, saying the issue had gone on for “far too long”.

This is my natural political party yet they give me the creeps. Sure, there is some whacko ideology at work but it looks to me like the problem is both more simple and more difficult. The Greens need a very high caliber organisational psychologist to define who is doing what and why.

Otherwise they are in deep trouble.

Comments

  1. Unfortunately, the Greens are not a true environmental party. There is more of the inside of the watermelon than the rind, sadly. 🍉

    • The Greens have been infected by neoliberalism just like most political parties. What “commie stuff” do you think they’ve got planned, exactly ?

      • The redness is not so much ‘commie stuff’ as non-environmental, bleeding heart issues that serve to dilute their appeal

      • Its not exactly a secret that the NSW Greens are partially made off of an ex communist faction.. Its where the NSW communists went, into the Greens. The Lee Rhiannon drama, and this, is just but one symptom of the factional argy bargy going on for control of the NSW party.

      • Not communist but there are some top grade identity marxists in the nsw greens. not a single one of them gives a fig about the environment.

  2. Party that turned to represent only minorities, hijacked by feminism and lgbtbla. They need to be reminded that not capitalists but socialists were responsible by largest mass murders starting from socialist Hitler then Stalin and Mao. Scum as Chomsky said ‘beat people with people stick’

    • Exactly this.

      The Greens were consumed with Identity politics and for those who understand the basics ( so not R2M) this means intersectional politics. I call it Ivy league mattress carrying misandry.

      Either way – there is a deep disconnection with social politics, class politics, environmental issues and a literally obsession with identity politics – feminism, racism, gender, ethnicity etc.

      It really is bottom of the barrel intellectually speaking.

      • Exactly this

        Talking of “bottom of the barrel”, that would be anyone agreeing that Hitler was a socialist.

    • Yes good old socialist Hitler – by the time he was in full flight he was explicitly opposed to the working class, had become a champion of the middle classes & held fascist nationalist ideals. Read up on the Weimar republic, the socialist parties and Nazi party knew exactly where they stood relative to one another and the violence was savage.

      Anyway the point is moot – any ideology taken to the extreme usually ends in violence.

      • I’m always amused when people call Adolph a socialist (he was a National Socialist —Nationalsozialismus— a different animal altogether).

      • Much like Xi these days in China ….. both a nationalist and socialist. Applying a final solution to China’s indigenous muslim population and taking agressive military tactics in the South China Sea ….

      • Does it matter. Lenin et al. didn’t much care for the peasants either. It is not so much the underlying philosophy as the corrosive, corrupting influence of power. The ones grasping for power mostly all end up with oligarchic tendencies and deeply contemptuous of the proles.

      • probably outweighed by the increase in life expectancy brought by western medicine. Net positive.

    • Indeed. They’re putting social progressiveness on niche identity issues ahead of social progressiveness on everything else. (Once again, pleasing the 1% who happen to have niche identity issues and want to feel better about themselves as well as by lucky happenstance the non-1%ers with the same niche identity issues, but not really doing as much as they otherwise could for others.)

  3. Sustainable Australia should recruit Buckingham and the other genuine Greens.I suspect the rest will get trounced in the next election as they did in Victoria. They are like an undergraduate level socialist club.

    • Sydney desperately needs to send jenny leong back to South Australia without a return ticket she is pure cancer

    • The greens only got trounced because they had a tiff with lib/lab. Their primary vote was miles above the other minor parties but lib/lab preferences did em in.

      • They will face the same situation in other elections as the major parties no longer want to deal with them. ALP would be happy to win back inner city seats and in upper house they are willing to deal on environmental issues but not other aspects of the hard left green agenda.

    • UBI is plain nuts?

      Dare to do a trial on it? If it is so bad, why do right wing politicians not release the results of UBI trials?

      Milton Friedman and 1000 other economists wanted UBI. Iran has had it since 2011 and its neighbours lack UBI. Do you think it is better to live in Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan?

      • Why do you think that if UBI is $18,000 per annum or whatever, that prices the average punter pays for everyday essentials like shelter, food, and transport would not admittedly increase to eat up that extra $18,000 per annum?

        That is the issue I see with UBI — no way to keep others from thinking, “Ooooh! More disposable income for my buyers! Time to increase prices!”. For reference: First Home Buyers Grant.

      • Why do you think that if UBI is $18,000 per annum or whatever, that prices the average punter pays for everyday essentials like shelter, food, and transport would not admittedly increase to eat up that extra $18,000 per annum?

        This shouldn’t happen with a competitive economy not subject to the arbitrary whims and profiteering of oligopolies and monopolies, where competitive market forces will derive the lowest pr…..

        Ah, I see what you’re saying.

      • Ah yes.

        Since we live in a system with powerful parasitic elements, any good given to ordinary folk will sooner or later be sucked up by the parasites, thereby annuling the benefit.

        What action should be take?
        A) Resign ourselves to the parasites and stop producing more good stuff.
        B) Fix the system so the parasites stop hoovering-up all the benefits.

  4. In my circle are two active Greens. One a salt-of-the-earth environmentalist. The other a total ratbag who endlessly and stridently parrots far left garbage without understanding what he is saying. Unfortunately the ceaseless barrage from the bad is causing the good to withdraw. So, does Gresham’s Law also apply (in a roundabout way) to politics?

  5. “The Greens need a very high caliber organisational psychologist to define who is doing what and why.”

    When the lunatics take over the asylum they rarely consult psychiatrists.

    This was once the party that I most closely affiliated with as well. But I cannot bring myself to vote for a party that has abandoned its core Green principles and been hollowed out by the radical-Left. It is better that this party dies if it does not have the internal commitment to sustainability and evidence-based policy. Otherwise it is just a Green Trojan horse that has been dragged into the inner suburbs. Once people cotton on Sustainable Australia will gain momentum rapidly.

  6. Bob Brown leaving ended them. Would never vote for them but that was the coup de gras. Di Natale’s a wimp and Sarah Hanson-Young is a crybaby.

    Sooner they’re gone and replaced with a proper environmental party a la SA the better.

  7. It’s funny because Greens moved substantially toward the right in last few years (they because neoliberal party)
    It’s just this fake left social crap they they are now serving to the public

    greens used to be libertarian kind of communists who saw these social issues as capitalist propaganda – now they are source of that propaganda

    • Pretty sure the Greens have always considered sexism, racism, bigotry, et al, to be “bad”.

      I could only find a copy of their policies on the WayBackMachine to 2003 (though it’s referencing 2000 as the policy date), but even there it’s talking about LGBTalphabet rights, diversity, s0cial justice, affirmative action, etc.

      https://web.archive.org/web/20030419085426/http://resources.greens.org.au/fulldoc.php3?title=Policy%20Index&author=&date=1002376800

      • Those issues have also been championed by ALP at least going back to Whitlam, so Green’s pretense that they “own” that territory is bunk.

        On the economic issues they come across as unrealistic or plain nuts (e.g. UBI). If they don’t stand up for the environment what have they got to offer that differentiates them from the typically very progressive ALP candidates that campaign in inner city electorates?

      • Those issues have also been championed by ALP at least going back to Whitlam, so Green’s pretense that they “own” that territory is bunk.

        I’m not sure what “pretense” you’re talking about, but given the ALP supported Howard’s changes to the Marriage act and then spent a decade making sure they weren’t removed, I question the idea that they were “champions”.

        Not to mention the humanitarian catastrophe of Labor’s refugee policies.

        So to suggest there’s no room for a party that reflects a substantial chunk of the population’s views not represented by Labor or the Coalution, is ridiculous.

        On the economic issues they come across as unrealistic or plain nuts (e.g. UBI).

        There are plenty of reasons why a UBI is a bad idea, but I doubt they’re any of the ones you’re thinking of.

        The Greens economic policies are mostly similar to (earlier) Hawke/Keating Labor and arguably rightwards of earlier Labor. But you probably think they were nuts as well.

        If they don’t stand up for the environment what have they got to offer that differentiates them from the typically very progressive ALP candidates that campaign in inner city electorates?

        It may not seem that way reading MB, but there are many other and more fundamental environmental issues facing the country, than immigration, which realistically is little more than a multiplier of those more fundamental issues, anyway.

        Stop immigration tomorrow and the myriad serious environmental problems – land clearing, water misuse, pollution, coal power, etc – would continue on the same trajectory as today.

      • I was thinking of old school greens from 80s (prior to federal party)

        That’s a little further back than “the last few years”. 🙂

        My point is more that despite what seems to be MB consensus that it’s only gone downhill since Bob Brown left, in reality the party’s policies reflected concern for “identity politics” and “social justice” issues – many directly and explicitly supported by Brown himself – from well before his resignation as leader.

      • Population growth (immigration in the case of Australia) is our most serious problem, because as it continues, it acts as a multiplier for and makes the solution of our other problems more difficult or impossible. A lot of the environmentally damaging activities that go on (such as coal mines) are paying for the additional imports needed by the larger population.

        https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/87ef6ac7-da62-4a45-90ec-0d473863f3e6/files/nomination-human-population-growth.pdf

        It is true that we have a greedy elite driving a lot of the damage with no concern for the environment or other people, but such elites have been reined in in the past. That is why we stopped slavery, child labour, and the worst types of pollution, even though rich and powerful people were making money from all of these things. It the destruction is being driven by the human need of poor people, then there is much less hope of stopping it. This is why ground water has been pumped dry in Syria and India.

        https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/07/world-aquifers-water-wars/

      • A lot of the environmentally damaging activities that go on (such as coal mines) are paying for the additional imports needed by the larger population.

        You think the export driven coal market would slow down if the local population was lower ?

  8. FiftiesFibroShack

    They’ve had a problem every since Brown retired. The woke crusaders are a bit of a turn-off, too.

  9. The biggest Internal conflicts the Greens have is: the live in the country self reliant types vs everyone into high density city living leaving the country in its natural state type. Two completely different ideologies trying to rally under the one banner. Then throw in the other radicals for good measure.

  10. Greens involvement is actually starting to make environmental issues harder, because they are associated with left social justice ideology (that not everyone agrees with) and not with evidence based environmental science that is irrefutable. This is switching off a whole chunk of the community that are otherwise very concerned with environmental issues and over-development. Their facebook pages are filled with social justice issues, but not much of the real environmental stuff, like the biodiversity collapse, plastic pollution and CO2 emissions.

    If you mention population growth and/or Sustainable Australia on a Greens facebook post you will be subject to a torrent of abuse for being a Dick Smith rac1ist and all manner of crimes. If SA can keep it together and hold to its good policy you can see some real potential.

    Hopefully, with momentum, some of the really good Greens operators will shift over to SA.

    • Greens involvement is actually starting to make environmental issues harder, because they are associated with left social justice ideology (that not everyone agrees with) and not with evidence based environmental science that is irrefutable.

      They are associated with both.

      However, a great deal of time and money is spent fomenting hysteria about the former, by people who benefit greatly from a lack of attention on the latter.

      • Nonsense. Greens voters are the least concerned about population growth in Australia, even compared just to the major party voters. They talk a good talk about some of the other issues, even as the population growth undermines them. More housing developments over endangered species habitat, more carbon emissions from Third World migrants with vastly increased consumption, etc., etc.

        https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/apr/24/australians-growing-more-concerned-over-immigration-guardian-essential-poll

      • Nonsense. Greens voters are the least concerned about population growth in Australia, even compared just to the major party voters.

        Uh huh. Based on what ?

      • Perhaps, or the opposite, the Greens are encouraging environmental issues to be polarised as ideological by putting ideology ahead of environmental concerns and pragmatic environmental solutions. It is incorrect to say the two are operating in parallel, the environmental objectives are set by the ideology in many cases.

        Population obviously, others include housing density, transport and cars, energy (including the nuclear debate), waste management etc, all of which are tinged with the ideological perspective of the party. Quite valid and pragmatic environmental solutions are off the table because there is a social change objective, even if it means no environmental gains at all.

  11. Greens involvement is actually starting to make environmental issues harder, because they are associated with left social justice ideology (that not everyone agrees with) and not with evidence based environmental science that is irrefutable. This is switching off a whole chunk of the community that are otherwise very concerned with environmental issues and over-development. Their facebook pages are filled with social justice issues, but not much of the real environmental stuff, like the biodiversity collapse, plastic pollution and CO2 emissions.

    YES …. sadly