Mostly correct, however the Green ideology does use Judeo/Christian style guilt and fear, they push that aspect of their religion constantly.

"The world is watching"
"We're a rich country"
"Catastrophic (apocalyptic) climate change is upon us"
"The country is over populated"
"Marriage inequality"

Political correctness is not LIKE a religion, it IS a religion.

Exactly. The modern Greens are not opposed to religion: they ARE a religion. They have their infallible high priests whose pronouncements must not be questioned, their hordes of fanatical acolytes, and their gospel of Puritan self-loathing and dramatic sacrifice. Like all religions, they get their kicks from imposing their own rules on others. Like all religions they do their best to suppress opposing views and to blacken the moral reputations of dissenters. They even have people prepared to kill their children for them -- http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=352991&CategoryId=14093

When people start dying for no rational reason, you KNOW it's a religion.

Excellent article.

Thanks for insight into the minds of green supporters. You will however need to keep this quiet, otherwise they might claim tax exempt status as a religion.

Yes, it is an excellent article. However, it's quite apparent that the first 3 commenters didn't read it.

@ SM: Castles is actually arguing against the idea that the "Greens are an alternate religion encroaching on the turf rightfully held by the established churches". Perhaps you should read beyond the subtitle before submitting your usual spin.

Too funny.

Not a religion, eh, Mr Castles?

Now let me see. How would it go?

"Our Mother, who art the Earth, Hallowed be thy name, etc..."

To an outsider such as myself, they do seem to preach this concept very strongly. And what's all this anti-Israel stuff about? Why have they got their knickers in a knot about Jews? Pardon my ignorance, but I really don't know. Where did that come from?

They may not be a declared religion, but they certainly seem to go about their business in a similar way.

Seems like a balanced assessment of the situation to me.
All political parties are motivated by some kind of moral vision. And express their vision using moralistic language of one kind or another.

Even Hitler had a very twisted dark "moral" vision. The theocratic rulers of Iran and other Islamic states have their own moral vision too which we Westerners find repulsive - and quite rightly too.

But what kind of moral do Pell and Andrews really promote. They are both on the right-wing side of religion. I would classify Andrews as a "religious" extremist. Pell has been instrumental in facilitating the Opus Dei takeover of the "Catholic " church in Sydney.

This dreadful image is taken from a film which was effectively an Opus Dei propaganda vehicle.

http://www.allmoviephoto.com/photo/2003_the_passion_005.html

Of course both Pell and Andrews get their kicks watching this unspeakably vile sado-masochistic snuff/splatter film

Meanwhile this reference gives an overview of the twisted Opus Dei world-view http://www.odan.org/corporal_mortification.htm

Pell is also very much associated with the charming outfits described in this reference.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/lynde-and-harry-bradley-foundation

All of which, including Opus Dei operatives were actively involved in the applied right-wing politics as described in The Shock doctrine by Naomi Klein.

Of course both Quadrant and the IPA are essentially Oz fellow travelers of the outfits listed and described in the above reference.

So somehow in the scheme of things the Greens are supposed to be a threat to our humanity, freedom, and Western Civilization too?

Remember too, that the Greens do not have any real power to change anything at a fundamental level.

Plus check out the hysterical essay by Mervyn Bendle on the Greens and eco-fascism on the Quadrant website. It is basically just a string of right-wing cliches.

A nice stimulating article from Mr Castles.

I would like to focus on some of the early comments in response - particularly along the lines of "The greens are a religion!"

Someone even went as far as "Not a religion, eh, Mr Castles?"
Well... no. He didn't say anything of the sort.

The thing about a vague nebulous word like Religion is that it can mean almost any set of beliefs and principles - especially if held and defended with passion.
Holding principles and being prepared to defend them isn't itself a bad thing.
The "Dark Side" of the religious mode of thought is when it becomes dogmatic, inflexible, judgmental, controlling, impervious to reason etc.

All political ideologies - Left, Right, Green and brown have the potential to fall into that mode.

What Mr Castles article does is to point out that a good deal of the more strident and heated opposition to The Greens comes from that Dark Side of the more tradition and conservative religious elements in our society.
That's worth thinking about.
It's worth saying.

I am a Member of the ALP, and anti green.
I was not always, truly am not sure if I was blind or if they are just getting worse.
I fear for my country, much more for the standard of political debate,the true understanding of party's and issues.
And the impacts on Australia.
I blame,honestly truly totally, Murdock press his ownership kills, in my view honest news reporting.
I can find much to fear, to concern me, in the greens.
But question the fairness/understanding and maybe IQ of those claiming they are or such. Nazi.
Yes it is true, they have no power at all, nothing can be done by them.
Without the support of other party's.
Currently that party is mine, now lets stop the shouting!
Tony Abbott, yes our Tony say no, tried EVERYTHING to get them on his side, EVERYTHING!
If, and it was a chance they said yes, todays ilthought out damning would be aimed at him.
INDEPENDENTS not conservatives PAST conservatives refugees from their once party, and a green elected on LIBERAL preferences keep Labor in power.
Abbott, without a single policy of worth, with both saddle bags full of non core promises, rides in Comfort the Murdock carriage, maybe only as an informed passenger.
Yet here time and again we see things like most posts in this thread, highlighting indeed spotlighting, magnifying inventing problems and ignoring our country is as much a victims, our Medea has driven political discussion in to the lower end of the gene pool.
I reserve the right to one day put in print, if allowed my reasons for thinking most Australians could never bring them selves to vote green, balance however not silly claims from extremism.

Bad boy!

I told you: Don’t put your finger in the pie!

I am talking of the pie that Adele Ferguson in Business Review Weekly (March 24-30-2005) called- “The $70 billions Sacred Cow”- that you should leave alone.

But things have changed in the last six years; the Cow has gone fatter and a number of new heifers are feeding in the same lot.

See later, I hope

An interesting article.

I thought OLO's Graham's article in The Oz was very good.

I want to like the Greens. I really do. They look earnest and dedicated to wiping the smiles of our faces when we do something wrong, like making money or building a desalination plant.

I remember when I was just a twinkle in my Dad's eye there was a party called the Democrats - full of teachers and researchers. They fought amongst themselves and in the end destroyed the party.

Going right back there was the DLP, who also fought amongst themselves and with almost everyone else, including the ALP - which kept them out of power for 20 years.

It's the time of the Greens. I just hope they hang around long enough to do some good - and not block supply.

@ Morganzola.
I did read the article correctly, as I said in the other thread, I'd be MORE inclined to vote for them if they ditched the Judeo Christian guilt and the neo Marxist foolishness and were genuinely "Pagan", in the modern sense of the word.
"Pagans" don't believe in Apocalypse and the closed systems that flow from that way of thinking, Nature worship is based on renewal and rebirth, eternity is now, so to speak.
A higher purpose or spirituality is a precondition of human existence, not to mention happiness and wellbeing, if the Greens can capture that then they'll be a real agent of change.
A "Green Revolution" can't happen in a soulless post modern "flatland" of Liberal levelling and neo Marxist social control, it has to be based in the primal and the primeval, the base clay, if you will of our polytheistic, "organic" past.
I think Julius Evola, a thoroughly modern man said it best:
"When people look into my eyes I want them to see ancient Rome".

Yes everybody is religious including those that presume to be stridently anti-religious. As is the case with some of the regular contributors to this forum who stridently subscribe to the now world-dominant "religion" of scientism - JonJ for instance

A quote from my favourite "Philosopher"

The human world is now ruled by the point of view of scientific materialism.
Scientific materialism has deprived humankind of all profundity of view - relative to the nature and significance of the conditional universe, and relative to the Reality of the Divine
Scientific materialism is a global cultural "program", which has so effectively supported the ego's motive to achieve a perfectly independent state of "self-sufficiency" that, as a result, the human collective has brought itself to the point of global destruction and universal despair.

Plus this reference describes the baneful limitations of the mind forged manacles (Blake) or iron cage (Weber) in which we now ALL trapped. With NO exceptions including all of those that presume to be religious in the conventional sense.

http://www.aboutadidam.org/lesser_alternatives/scientific_materialism/index.html

Ancient Rome and Julius Evola?
No thanks!
It was a slave state and a brutalistic empire.
All such appeals to the GORY days of the presumed "golden" past are indicative of how we are completely devoid of any living Wisdom Tradition.

Being “Green” is a Religion?

Not sure and I am not really interested

“Communism” was not “A Religion”

But I am certain that in not being a religion, it was more devout about its views than even the Spanish Inquisition and treated “heretics” to the ordained “communist view” with the same intolerance as the Spanish Inquisition

So do I care that Being “Green” is or is not a religion

No I don’t

But what I do care about is

The right of non-greens to pursue the religion of their choice

And on this matter, the omnipotent attitude of greens to impose their “collectivist” minority will over everyone else is the danger (just as the adoption of Sharia law in Australia presents problems)

Environmental activism is one thing, spouting off about how other people will be allowed to live their lives is an entirely different matter

Most of the time “tolerance” is the best option but when faced with despotic greens demanding they turn back the clock 300 years, “tolerance” bynon-greens holds some risks

and then it becomes like democracy, the worst of solutions (except for all the other so called “solutions”)

I will be “tolerant” until the first green tells me what I am allowed to do… and then, for me and most other right-of-centre libertarian moderates, the costs of tolerance become too expensive to maintain.

Deep green ideology IS “based on death, guilt and fear”, and has many intriguing parallels with Judeo-Christian religion.

It has an Eden myth of sustainability – an ideal world in which mankind and nature are in harmony. It admires the primitive, the indigenous and cultures it believes are closer to this ideal than we are.

It proposes that mankind’s selfish actions preclude us from attaining that Eden We are heading to hell in a hand basket, due to climate change, resource depletion, over population, peak oil or some other manmade calamity, and that only a complete change of lifestyle will save us. The parallels with the religious paradigm of paradise lost, and the links of sin – damnation – threatened apocalypse - repentance - salvation are striking.

Its devils are big business, transnational companies and others who exploit resources and people for the sake of greed. Its saints and prophets are eco-warriors, Al Gore, David Suzuki and Paul Ehrlich.

There are other echoes of religion in the sanctimonious, judgemental way some deep greens view their neighbours’ behaviour. Our gambling habits, the cars we drive, the homes we live in, the number of children we have, the holidays we take and the food we eat are all targets for pious green disapproval.

And, at the far extreme, there are those who fully embrace the earth as goddess, who literalise Lovelock’s metaphor and worship Gaia.

Not all green voters and activists adhere to these beliefs, just all not all Labor voters are full-blown socialists and not all liberals are economic rationalists. But there is enough truth to the characterisation to make parallels between environmentalism and religion interesting and valid.

@ Col Rouge:

Would you mind sharing with us just one example of where the Greens have attempted to restrict or remove "the right of non-greens to pursue the religion of their choice"?

I know that facts aren't your strong point, but I'm quite familiar with Greens policy and I've never heard the suggestion of such a thing.

Just one example will do, thanks.

Col, never mind that EVERY-thing that you are, do, think, feel, purchase etc etc is a product of, created by, and circumscribed by the system altogether.
Most of which is now supplied by Corporations which now have more power than any government - as does big money too.
Everything is mediated or more correctly propagandized by the corporate "advertising" industry and especially TV which is easily the most powerful culturally formative influence.
TV "culture" now rules the world.
All of the "news" is essentially propaganda.
As are all of our forms of "entertainment", especially everything that you see or watch on TV or at the movies. This includes every "news"-paper, magazine and book that you read, including popular "escapist" novels. And of course comic books too.

Which is to say that most, or even all, of what you do is essentially the result of the unconscious and sub-conscious programming that you have been exposed to since the moment you were born.
Every body, including mom and dad, your local religious pastor or priest, and your school teachers have been telling you what to do.

In fact we all "live" in an invisible cultural script which keeps the entire system going.

This was one of the themes of the Matrix Trilogy films. No questions or other possibilities are/were allowed. AGENT SMITH was everywhere - we are ALL Agent Smith in our soporific unconsciousness.
All the dreadfully sane "normals" were quite "happy" to accept the Blue Pill.
Never mind that just below the surface the replicating machines were on the verge of destroying the last remnants of authentic humanity.

The Red Pill was strictly verboten.

Vance Packard via The Hidden Persuaders told us all about this decades ago. As did Stuart Ewen in Captains of Consciousness.

Plus why not check out the book This Little Kiddy Went To Market by Sharon Beder. A book which describes and explains how the corporations get children to be "faithful" consumers via TV.

Thatcherism was used as a religion to support capitalism, at the expense of the less fortunate.
Their motto being "There is no such thing as a society".

John Howard described the Liberal Party as a broad church. They worship themselves.

Ho Hum: "Yes everybody is religious including those that presume to be stridently anti-religious."

So you have added telepathy to your list of accomplishments -- anonymous telepathy too! -- and claim to know the minds of other contributors better than they do themselves. With those powers it's hard to see why you bother reading posts at all. Why not simply pluck our responses directly out of our cerebella?

Deep Green, that's a label I could get to like :)
Believe it or not a lot of non indigenous Australians have a deep spiritual connection to this land, what's more we're not self conscious about wanting to preserve it.
We don't cringe at the idea of having our own, for want of a better word,"dreaming".
My homeland is in central Victoria, I'm not from anywhere else, the ancestors who came here on ships are part of our mythology, beings who now exist out of time.

As a child I hunted and fished along the Loddon and Campaspe rivers.
My father, uncles and other kinsmen took us to camp for extended periods in the bush where they told us the names of all the plants and animals and their habits. At night we'd look up and pick out the constellations, we learned how to take a bearing from the stars, how to move through rough country at night, how to recognise the calls of the night birds and nocturnal animals.
We'd also visit places of great spiritual power, Mount Franklin, Mount Alexander or Turpin's Falls and travel further west to the Grampians, Lake Hindmarsh, the Little Desert.

Every person should feel the spiritual, supernatural connection to the first ground their feet touch, even if that ground is in Collingwood or Balmain or Fortitude Valley.
As I said in another thread, "mythbusting", the denial or suppression of a people's spirituality is only done for one reason, to harm them.

Jon J all of your posts say essentially the same thing over and over again. As such your ideological bias and world-view is completely obvious.

In essence human society is no different from a beehive or an ant colony. In a beehive, the queen simply pumps out eggs. And the other bees are "designed", in the grid-pattern of that particular species to have their particular functions. Each type of bee has its own genetic and chemical triggers, as a result of which it acquires a certain appearance and functions in a certain set manner. Every bee unconsciously fulfills its pre-patterned role, eventually becomes obsolete and dies. Apart from the queen none of the bees is any more important than any other bee.

Human society functions in exactly the same manner. There is a necessary biological replication process, by which replacement organisms are made - and also a process of replicating states of mind and emotion - and then you (the temporary link) become obsolete and drop dead. We are all just products of the human grid-patter.

What we cling to in our strutting self-importance is eventually shed without a moments hesitation - like excrement. From the perspective of the universe the body-mind "you" has has no ultimate importance.

Altogether the human process continues on automatically and unconsciously.
Nobody has any real clue as to what they or the process altogether is about. Everybody plays an unconscious pre-patterned role. Including all of the presumed "rugged individualists", the so called libertarians, the rebels and the seeming heroes too.

Some people pretend that there is some "genius" behind or driving Western "Civilization". But it is all just as much a part of the same unconscious beehive or ant colony grid-pattern replicating itself.

Ours is an unconscious "civilization", we are all quite literally sleep-walkers.

But it is possible to wake up, and thus "create" or participate in a Conscious Process and destiny.

I think that most discussion of this supposed tendency towards the supernatural among the Greens stems from the conflation of the generic "green" (i.e. environmental) and the political Green (i.e. a member or supporter of the Greens political party). Part of this confusion has historically been deliberate on the part of media detractors, and its effects are now seen in the mostly ignorant responses to the article.

In the 10 years or so that I've supported the Greens, I've become familiar with the Party's philosophy, structure and processes at every level from branch to National Council, and there is absolutely no spiritual or religious orientation in the Greens political party - but there is a strong commitment to tolerance of all religions. Like every other political party, they have a few nutters lurking on the fringes and voting for them, but they get nowhere near being able to influence anything much in the Greens. As a tolerant atheist, that suits me fine.

You do get the pagans, Wiccans, Gaia worshippers etc floating around the wider environmental activist scene, but as I don't have much involvement with specifically environmental groups I wouldn't know how influential they are. How many such people are there in Australia anyway? My guess is that most of them would actively eschew the political process.

What is obvious is that those who rave on most about the Greens political party being a religion in itself, or being comprised of Gaia-worshipping young ferals, are those who demonstrably know the least about Green philosophy, history, policy, structure and practices. In other words, they just make it up.

These guys really want environmentalism (or even the 'Greens') to be a religion. That way it is easier to rally their troops against them, using of course the Good Book's commandment No. 1.

It is of course increasingly difficult to rally the troops against what many might describe as a considered political opinion. Political opinions of course may be wrong (in fact they probably are to some degree in some way or other, by definition), but at least in a democracy people who hold them are accorded the respect of actually holding them, even if they disagree. But alternative religions? Nah, they're fair game for the true believers.

Shrill on, true believers.

So what do we call Bob Brown now?

The Grand Lizard?
The Mother Superior?
His Ozone Holiness?

It looks that at least he has Juliar kissing his ring piece.

...and you sucking his tailpipe.

@SM:

Haven't had time to read the article yet, I see. Puerile name-calling doesn't get you off the hook - it just proves that your contributions here are nothing more than those of a malignant and ignorant shill who'll publish anything to try and discredit the Greens, with absolutely no regard for truth and honesty.

Obviously, you don't want people to know the truth. And you accuse Gillard of being a liar! You have a hide like a rhinoceros.

Shadow Minister it is not my intention to side with the greens against you.
Not too to infer sainthood on them, or to child like chant the rubbish religion has any part to play in their party.
I understand, you must be driven by fear at present.
Not that your contributions have not always had an element of nastiness and a seeming allergy to truth.
But your effort here is, well even you know how silly it is.
Your fear,driven by your party's sponsor standing on the brink of his own massive Watergate, doors closed no escape possible.
Is well founded, but just a tip, chanting mindlessly the same lines, unfounded tripe, we see daily in these conservative comic books is not going to help.
Take the advice offered by the greens leader here,look at read under stand greens policy's.
You do not need kiddy stuff, use their own words.

The greens are a joke, and I was poking fun at them. I notice the complete lack of calls for other posters to back off when they call TA names, but the strong defence of Brown and Juliar.

When I see the Green/Labor glee club being civil, I will too.

As for the carbon tax that will export jobs, raise prices, raise emissions by 5% by 2020 and blow a further $7-10bn hole in the budget, on top of hurting me personally in the pocket, I think it stinks.

Sorry about this Shadow Minister, at times I too have got down in the gutter.
Usually in my view as a counter to you and a couple more.
I openly share fears about the Greens, maybe for different reasons than you.
But you are acting,the Jillie stuff, and much others unlike someone who can use the English Language to describe his/her thoughts.
You know, you do , I think a better standard of Conservative though exists, to say the least than yours.
You should also know I remember the Murdock press once went on strike, not wanting, their words, to work in a propaganda factory.
At some time in the future, those looking back may be forgiven for thinking the slanderous standards of public debate/politics can be laid at those feet and the fact Tony Abbot, in my view a man of no substance, may only be a puppet, let us watch closely his party's printing press/Murdock in the coming months
I note the greens however will not answer questions but are quick to denigrate my thoughts.
In that future time of review they may not exist, a conservation party will, but the sugar coating icing on top of the green cake hides the true nature and possible impacts of such lost soles.

Morganzola the greens lust for power is what will inevitable drive them to determine the religious inclination of everyone… it happened in their past life as Bolsheviks and as they say -
Just as a Leopard does not change its spots,
So too, when you open a watermelon you find a Red inside

Ho Hum… you lost me after the first 10 words… you are too deranged to bother reading

If you want to get ahead with corporations….. I suggest you follow your superannuation payments and become one

Kipp I do like it when someone else quotes Thatcher

I voted for her and here’s the full quote
"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

I suggest you focus on the following:

“There are individual men and women, and there are families.”

“No government can do anything except through people”

“It's our duty to look after ourselves”

“People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

Speaking personally:

I always support the individual over the state and

From the huge negative geared investment relief and historic tax write-offs I have available, which will create the tax refund coming

means I have certainly met my “obligations” to the state

I wonder if you have or are you just standing there, waiting for a welfare handout?

@Col Rouge:

So you can't find just one example of where the Greens have attempted to restrict or remove "the right of non-greens to pursue the religion of their choice"? Can't say I'm surprised, because such an act would completely contradict actual Greens policy and philosophy, about which you clearly know absolutely nothing. However, rather than doing the decent thing and retracting your silly claim, you bluster on about the Greens being Bolsheviks or some such rot.

If you ever both to acquaint yourself with actual Greens policy on religious tolerance, you'll find that they are much more amenable to freedom of religion than any other political party in Australia. Indeed, they have members and supporters from virtually every religion that is practised in Australia.

However, for some reason you'd rather confabulate and prattle on with hateful bunkum you make up yourself. Oh well, at least I can just put you on my 'ignore' list without feeling that I'm being rude. I did genuinely try to have a civil discussion with you on various threads, but it seems that you're incapable of having an honest and polite debate.

Ciao - give my love to Klaus xx

No need for me to get involved in the last two posts.
Both are generated by self interest, Col however understands I question his understanding, ability to think.
I do however want to highlight my view of impacts the greens are having in the Murdock Scandal.
First I wish for nothing less than FULL investigation of his Australian products, all of them.
Labor, in no way unlike Browns greens, is trying to put distance between them and greens.
I on this issue am for Brown, firmly.
IF EVER the whole truth about the riding instructions,the editorial policy's directions and demands is shown, heads will roll.
They will be like a semi trailer load of spilled pumpkins rolling down a steep hill.
My party,under attack from this Scandalous truth, is anchored to a party that most fear.
And bound by that anchor to drown, unless it has the guts to understand, generations of us have been victimized by this man, it is time lets have him.
My fellow posters ,consider, if we dare look at our behavior here we must never forget we make question time look like a Royal tea party.
Col drop the red under the bed insanity look only at the policy's and wanted directions, your arguments based on that are not ones that can be challenged.
Defense, Coal, every policy has spiders for our way of life.

Interesting that the biggest fan of a "party of tolerance" should be so intolerant of someone else's views that he has an "ignore" list.

Col, I must say that as a young man I was significantly taken with a leftish political viewpoint and I still believe that individuals in our nation who are for some reason unable to support themselves should have some expectation that the state will provide for them. However, as I grow older and possibly more heavily encrusted, not to mention more aware of the limited time we spend on this planet, I am leaning ever more strongly to the side of individual primacy as the principal informant of policy.

I am self-employed, I make no claims upon the state for anything other than the minimal provision of services such as roads and I don't go around committing crimes. I haven't made a Medicare claim in nearly 15 years and I haven't claimed any kind of benefit, special purpose rebate or anything else in over 12 years, not even Rudd's $900 Harvey Norman handout. As far as the state is concerned, I'm close to a model citizen, yet the same state takes money from me to give to people who earn more than me, who use state services at a prodigious rate and who claim that without this money they would be unable to live in a proper manor (no, it's not a typo).

So I have little confidence that a State under the control of a minority group who gain their major support from people who get nearly all of their income from the State (ie; mid-level public servants, mostly women) will be a state that will have any interest in the views of people like me, who actually support themselves. Instead, such a State will impose greater burdens on me, while spending even more on handouts designed to buy the votes of the feckless.

As embarrased as I am to say it, given some of my earlier utterances, Thatcher and even Howard are starting to look like they had the right idea.

@ Antiseptic:

Being tolerant doesn't mean that one has to cop persistent abuse from those one tolerates. Col Rouge has demonstrated that he's not interested in civil debate based on facts - rather, at least as far as my interactions with him are concerned, it seems that all he wants to do is insult me personally and tell lies. Nobody has to tolerate that.

Col (or anybody else) can play that sort of puerile and tiresome game as much as they like, but I've decided that I won't be part of it. I'll bend over backwards to explain politely my views and the basis for them, but if it becomes obvious that someone is just being obtuse or abusive for the sake of it, then I add them to a very short list of people whom I just ignore.

It seems to be quite an effective strategy. You ought to try it sometime.

Morganzola the practice of Greens is to appear as all things to all men until they acquire power and it goes to their head

I recall the Green controlled council in Victoria enforcing green laws against land owners who cut trees on their own land

The prosecuted and fined one land owner $50,000 for daring to cut a fire break around his own house

But when the black Saturday fires arrived whilst his neighbours burned that landowners house survived

Just as the left make philosophical swoons over Marx they also ignore the acts of Lenin and Stalin in their implementation of Marx…

The problem remains… the nature of authority in every “collectivist” system, regardless if you call it Marx or Green, will always produce the Lenins and Stalins who get to decided who would be fed and who would be starved to death
In the devolved power structure of Libertarian Capitalism no one, least of all such animals as Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot etc never get to make those types of decisions.

Ah Belly “Col however understands I question his understanding, ability to think.”

You see that is the difference between you and me Belly

Whilst you “question” my ability to think

There is no doubt regarding your INABILITY to think

You regularly hurl you low grade abuse my way…

It is a good job I support the freedom of expression which your side of politics is so hell bent on curbing.

Antiseptic… I guess you are starting to come around to something which dearest Margaret said

“……, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first.”

I recommend http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/thatcher.php

As a one source for your future readings :-)

Morganzola… there is a special corner with water proofed walls where you can go and dummy-spit all you want and then nanny comes along and wipes up the drool after you,

You serve it out, so get used taking it too
Its called “growing up"

Antiseptic you will be aware I remain ALP, and that I once considered Morgan a mate.
I once too handed out green HTV and felt they too to be my fellow travelers.
My friendships here left, blown away in a wind of anger at my thoughts and ideas that most Australians want an end to boat people.
That more than not, the prices they pay look to be for financial refuge no other.
I too, sorry but honestly, think a majority, harsh as it is, are concerned with Muslim separatism.
I doubt that my thoughts are truly not shared by MOST Australians.
My isolation came after expressing a truly held view.
Think many if not most would be glad to just vote one, as we can in my state elections.
I question the Senate, control by minority views.
As difficult as my ex Friends find it, as much as they wish to say these things result from my ill conceived thoughts fact is they are true and Mainstream.
In a post above I should have done better, this is what I should have said Labor now knows .
For every voter lost to the greens we find nearly two lost to conservatives, because of discust at the ideas greens drive us.
We are weaker on Murdock, childish but true, because we do not want to be linked to the greens.
Abbott talks DD election in truth Labor would if it gets its agenda in place do it too.
I have committed the crime of saying what I think, look for no forgiveness no hand holding.
I do however draw a line between the thoughts[ getting more lucid] of Col, raving and ranting, mud slinging is to fail.
Turning your back, being a big kid is to Morgan I wish your little tribe well but reality too.
Taking on the conservatives in General comments is no pain but the holly looking down their noses of the greens is, well no need to go there.

Morganzola:"I'll bend over backwards to explain politely my views and the basis for them"

In fairness, I must say that you have improved in that regard since I last spent much time here, but the tendency to make a snide comment then take exception to anybody critiquing it is still strong. I'm afraid I see the same sort of thin skin in many Greens supporters, which gives me no confidence in the ability of the Party to be an inclusive, broad-based political force rather than simply a beneficiary of reaction against the general incompetence of the Government. Time will tell.

Col, I've no great desire to become a fanboi for Thatcher, but I have come to appreciate the emphasis on the individual and family as the basic social unit. The period since Thatcher has seen a concerted effort to reconstruct society in a Feminist mould, which has included a strong effort to undermine families as economic units that support themselves first and foremost, not to mention the efforts to disrupt the normal structure of the nuclear/extended family that has served so well.

Someone pointed out to me yesterday that the last time we had business conditions like this, we were at the bottom of Keating's J-curve, with interest rates at 17% and social welfare spending around 30% of revenues. Today they're at 7% and 45% respectively, mostly due to the enormously increased spend on "women's issues" and social reconstruction measures. The number of such measures has nearly doubled since the Keating recession.

The Greens are simply more of the same with an even greater disconnect from the reality of wealth generation. It's a party of people who've never paid their own way and regard this as perfectly natural. My nan used to put the biscuit barrel up where kids couldn't reach it - these kids could do with a nan like that. In their world, Nan just keeps making more biscuits no matter how many they eat and no one should ever put the jar up too high for the kids to reach.

@Antiseptic:

Thanks for your observation. However, when it comes to "snide", you really are pitching from within a glass house. With respect, your own gratuitous snideness frequently detracts from any sensible ideas you might be trying to communicate. It's a shame, because when you drop the aggro you sometimes post intelligent comments.

As far as the Greens appearing "thin-skinned" on occasions, I actually agree with you. Petulance is not a good look, and too often Greens MPs appear unnecessarily sanctimonious, IMHO.

A brief word ( a 90's flashback) from "our" *Patron Saint of Love Making*

" ... It's interesting that you have this symbol of *Pan* isn't it. Which if I were to put it into today's language is the "God of All Embracing Experience," where the cup is full and overflowing. ... "

..

My view is that as mere pathetic mortals, we ought not presume that we have jurisdiction over *Luv* or some right to make rules over whom should be allowed to Luv whom or otherwise, or that any one of us truly understands it "fully."

(Note: I am referring to mature consenting adults.)

..

I am no friend of those who abuse children by mandatory detention without trial or charge. Perhaps as Pell is Abbott's alleged svengali it ought not be surprising that the Liberal and Nationals support this.

..

Wake up Australia. You have a foreign muppet of ill repute as a head of state, foreign troops in foreign bases on your soil who largely do as they please, 83% of your mining wealth goes offshore to parasites, you pay 5 times too much for all the red chinese crap in your shops that breaks sooner rather than later AND as long as the above remains unchanged, it is extremely unlikely that you will ever be accepted as a true regional partner and member of ASEAN.

..

The *Greens* present a feint glimmer of hope in more ways than one, i.m.o.

..

*Vote1 GreenBrowny for President*

Antiseptic: As a person now in his 40th year of work in this country, a tax payer all along, and a long time member of the Greens I take exception at your comment "It's a party of people who've never paid their own way" you could not be more wrong with your ill informed view. You know little about the Greens or their membership.

Paul, what's your line of work and is it in the private or public sector?

For the record, I'm a self-employed person who has been that way since 1999 and worked for 20 years before that in geotechnical engineering, with a few years in retail as a youngster. I started my current business in 2005, after being a contractor in the telcommunications sector of the construction industry for about 6 years.

I'd like to like the greens, but they have little time for people like me and lots of time and money (other people's, of course, in both cases a lot of the time) to devote to non-productive parts of the economy and creating CFD schemes masquerading as a serious effort to address the problem of reducing greenhouse emissions.

@Antiseptic:

I have to agree with Paul1405. Your comments about the Greens are obviously not based on any real knowledge of the party, but seem rather to be merely repetition of the same old disinformation that is endlessly dished out in the tabloid media, shock jocks and lunar right blogs. As it happens, the demographics of Greens voters indicates higher than average earnings and a tendency towards middle age.

I'm a small businessman, and I know many others - and professionals including doctors, lawyers etc who are Greens members. I don't get the sense that you really "want to like" the Greens, rather that you want them to be like you. You know that with your attitudes to women you'd last about 5 seconds in the Greens anyway, I reckon.

By all means criticise the Greens for their various failings, but could you please try and base your criticism on facts rather than tabloid factoids? Thanks.

Morganzola:"As it happens, the demographics of Greens voters indicates higher than average earnings and a tendency towards middle age."

Would you care to back that up? I've seen claims from credible sources that they are overwhelmingly supported by young professional women, who often have higher incomes than average.

Morganzola:"professionals including doctors, lawyers etc"

See above. Some young lawyers love the Greens, just as some young lawyers love the ALP, because young lawyers are often idealistic and they want to "make a difference".

Young doctors are often naturally compassionate and intelligent people who understand that environmental change is happening and would like to see something done about it.

For those reasons I'd like to like the Greens too, but I find it difficult because they haven't given me anything to like and they're too prepared to wreck things they don't like.

M<organzola:"You know that with your attitudes to women you'd last about 5 seconds in the Greens anyway, I reckon."

I thought the Greens were a "Party of tolerance"? So much for the casting of pearls: the swine were never able to appreciate them...

@ Antiseptic:

I haven't got time to look for it right now, but I think the source was one of Graham Young's reader surveys from here, or maybe Crikey. It certainly accords with my own experience in a decade of involvement with the Greens at every level of the party. In terms of gender, it's roughly 50-50.

Intolerance? You'd be tolerated alright mate, but what I meant is that from what you write here, you couldn't stand more than five minutes of hardcore gender equality in practice. All that PC and feminism would send you nuts, I reckon :)

It matters not what the Greens stand for, their goals or even contributions to the Australian nation.

What matters is belief.

In this case Antiseptic believes:

>> I've seen claims from credible sources that they are overwhelmingly supported by young professional women, who often have higher incomes than average. <<

This belief must be terrifying to someone who holds deep antipathy towards women in general. If Antiseptic attended a Greens meeting he may well be faced with the prospect of having to speak to an intelligent, well educated young woman. By his own admission we have reached the foundation for Antiseptic's dismissal of the Greens - its not about the environment, its the women.

Belief trumps reality repeatedly.

Morganzola, keep looking for that link, I'm genuinely interested.

Oh dear, Ammonite, you "believe" that Antiseptic is antipathic to women, because he is antipathic to the worst forms of Feminism. That means you're unable to hold a rational conversation. A shame, but that's what happens when the old "sororal solidarity" thing is allowed to override the cerebrum.

As it happens, I'm not concerned about that at all in respect of the Greens, merely referring to the fact that they are a party informed by the views of a privileged few, many of whom have noble aspirations, if somewhat hazy ideas of how much it's all going to cost, but certain that someone will, because someone has always paid for what they want.

Their intent may be good, but as my old Mum was so very fond of saying, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I'm sure there must be a few part-time actress, full-time unemployed types in there as well.

Antiseptic "the Greens, merely referring to the fact that they are a party informed by the views of a privileged few,"
I don’t know about the ‘privileged’ but are not all political parties made up of the ‘few’. As for policy the Greens are very much a grass roots driven party, we don’t take ‘donations’ from the ‘privileged few’ be they unions or be they the big end of town, they all expect something in return. Therefore policy is very much formulated from the bottom up. Unlike the two conservative parties where policy is driven from the top down with a good measure of outside influence thrown in. Business wanted a GST so we got one, Unions wanted industrial laws overturned so they were. The ‘popular media’ is very influential, politicians like Gillard and Abbott are far more interested in what Alan Jones and his ilk, or some opinion poll, has to say than the views of ordinary Australians, then again who knows what their views are, their view that counts is the one they express at the ballot box.

The fundamental problem I have with the Greens is their inconsistency.

On the one hand, they rely heavily - and noisily - on the science behind climate change to inform their views on how to terminate Australia's mining industry.

While on the other, they violently oppose nuclear power, which could dramatically shift the country towards green energy. And get all hot and bothered when scientists find ways to grow crops that avoid the need for nasty nitrogen-based fertilisers.

Seems to me they are simply trading on our fears.

It would appear that Bob Brown has chosen political expedience and has kept away from the carbon tax. If this gets up he will take much of the credit, and if it fails, Juliar and Labor can take the blame.

@ Pericles:

I'm part-way through responding to your anti-Green spin on another thread, but I can't let this go unremarked:

"they violently oppose nuclear power"

I assume your choice of words is typically careful, in which case I'm disappointed once again at your disingenuousness, which is becoming something that characterises your various pronouncements on the Greens. You know very well that a major element of the Greens' philosophy is their commitment to non-violence.

Yes, there have been various instances of anti-nuclear demonstrators having been engaged in violent protest against nuclear energy in Australia, but I challenge you to nominate just one instance where Greens members have been involved.

The reality within the Greens is that issues like nuclear energy and GMOs are continuously debated. Many of us are more receptive than others to considering conditions under which such technologies might be appropriate, but I agree that the weight of opinion within the Greens is strongly against them, which is reflected in current policy.

I'm happy to respond to reasonable, bona fide questions and requests for clarification, but can I ask that you lose hectoring tone and disingenuous spin?

Lastly, just to avoid me wasting time - can you also lose the coyness with respect to AGW? On balance, are you persuaded that the theory of AGW is likely to be true?

The reason I ask is that I want to ascertain whether your apparent obtuseness derives from genuine scepticism or, as is becoming apparent, it is driven by outright denialism.

The violence is metaphorical, morganzola.

>>You know very well that a major element of the Greens' philosophy is their commitment to non-violence.<<

You just wanted to find an angle that avoided the issue. Quite understandable, in the circumstances.

>>Lastly, just to avoid me wasting time - can you also lose the coyness with respect to AGW? On balance, are you persuaded that the theory of AGW is likely to be true?<<

"On balance", I'm not persuaded that it is even the right question.

There are, as we have seen from the various discussions cluttering up the airwaves, any number of factors involved. It would not surprise me one little bit, for example, if we eventually find that while the theory of AGW turns out to be sound, it has only a marginal impact on our way of life, compared to a multitude of other factors.

What I do agree with is that we should continue to find alternatives to our present dependency upon fossil fuels, and concentrate on ecologically more sustainable energy sources. But I refuse to turn it into a religion, and submit to the Green bully pulpit.

"It would appear that Bob Brown has chosen political expedience and has kept away from the carbon tax. If this gets up he will take much of the credit, and if it fails, Julia and Labor can take the blame."
Shadow Minister as a Green all I can say to your comment is YES! Labor has to pay the price for our support, it don't come cheap. There is this misconception that there is a cosy relationship between the ALP and the Greens, not that I know of. We have our agenda and we work on that

Oh, *Pericles* has been sooking ever since she/he found out the result of the last election. If I recall correctly, no one got what they wanted according to him/her at that time. .. ROFL!