Why the Greens are “Evil” By James Reed
I agree fully with the sentiment expressed by David Llewellyn Smith, that the Greens are "evil." That may seem extreme, even melodramatic, but as he and Alexander Downer note, their philosophy seems grounded upon cultural Marxism, with a mythology of an oppressed and oppressor classes. Only thing is, the Greens have entirely mixed up the picture, reversing the order of things. The ordinary people, as seen by their position in the Voice referendum, often come out as the bad guys, while the minorities are always as pure as the driven snow, or some metaphor not involving whiteness.
As noted below, the Greens, who should be pro-environment in some shape or form, are pro-immigration, I hypothesise, because of the present ethno-racial influx. There is not much environment here, in the classic sense, but plenty of New World Order cultural Marxism. They all need to be voted out of office.
"I can't recall ever agreeing with Alexander Downer. Most of the time, it has been violent disagreement. Until today:
Over the past four months, the Greens have been in full view. Any doubts about their evil ideology have been cast aside. This is a party driven by critical theory. They split society into two. You're either an oppressor or you're a victim. The lives and human rights of what they perceive as the oppressor class are non-existent. The only people who matter are the so-called oppressed. This absurd derivation of Marxism defines all of us by race, gender and sexual preference.
Precisely. It is a derivation of frustrated French Marxists turned post-structural theorists. Yet, ironically, it is about as Marxist as Alexander Downer himself. Given it makes class inequality much worse.
Today, we have another housing stunt from the "evil racist" Greens:
The Greens are threatening to impede passage of the government's "help-to-buy" housing scheme, as they seek to force Labor into winding back tax breaks on investment properties.
…However, the Greens say they will use their balance of power in the Senate to force Labor into paring back negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts in exchange for their support in the Senate on the government's housing bill.
Labor's help-to-buy scheme, which is expected to be up and running this year, would help 10,000 prospective buyers a year by the government taking equity of 30% (for an existing build) or 40% (of a new-build) in their homes, meaning smaller deposits and loans for the owner's share.
…The Greens are believed to be proposing limiting negative gearing to a single investment property. The party is also proposing to replace the capital gains tax discount to a more modest concession linked to the consumer price index.
Chandler-Mather and Greens leader, Adam Bandt, said the revenue raised from such changes should be re-directed to more public housing.
The help-to-buy scheme is the latest in a long list of house price inflating malpolicy from Labor governments that should be rebadged the "help-to-inflate-prices" scheme.
Everybody should be happy to see it die. Which it will. Because the scheme is not politically equivalent to changes in negative gearing.
The former policy is not widely known, helps very few, and is intrinsically stupid. The latter is the supercharged third rail of Australian politics that already cost Labor power in 2019.
Labor will just let "help to inflate" disappear instead of changing negative gearing. And blame the "Greens" for it.
It is interesting to mull what would happen if the Greens were in power and did limit negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions.
These would be useful reforms to weigh on house prices.
But, presumably, even the Greens would grandfather the policy. So, the savings recycled into public housing would take time to accumulate.
And as the Aussie-hater Greens raised immigration even further, plus private construction fell with house prices, the housing supply crunch would worsen for years ahead.
If you want to fix the housing crisis, tax concessions AND immigration must be cut."