The “turmoil” in Wikileaks over preferecnes: the real reasons and Greens role in its making!!!

I would like to state first that I am not member of any party at the moment. I am also not doing any work for any party, including Wikileaks, at the moment.

In regard to the “turmoil” inside the Wikileaks currently, which resulted so far in resignation of candidate on the second place in Victorian ticket and many National Council members’ resignations, I expect that:
1- The turmoil resulted when Wikileaks party refused to accept to be a “shop front” for the Greens, when they (Greens) asked Wikileaks to run fake tickets under Wikileaks banner to enable re-election of Greens struggling senators. Information emerged that Greens offered to help Wikileaks (which was hesitant to run candidates in Western Australia because of limited resources) run fake ticket to attract voters from both Labor and Liberals and then direct them to the Greens through preferences. The Greens committed to finance the campaign and provide all logistical and organisational support it needs. This is clear bid to rig our electoral system with fake candidates to deceive voters.
After many opinion polls conducted in Western Australia, Wikileaks party came to understanding that good campaign could see Wikileaks candidates get more votes than unpopular Greens senator. So they refused the offer and instead run strong candidates and good campaign.
2- The Greens flooded the Wikileaks party with members at all levels to be able to know all decisions and directions inside the Wikileaks party. The Greens used these “sleeping cells” also to try to destroy the party at the right time (current time). Some Greens members are indeed on the National Council and as candidates. Otherwise, why the main reason for Dr Mathew’s resignation (and the resignation of the other National Council members) was that the preference deals will see Scot Ludlum lose his seat. And how would such high profile officials in any party abandon the party from the first obstacle or debacle they face???
3- The Greens cannot claim high moral ground when it comes to preferences. The Greens entered or tried to enter at many different occasions preference deals with very extreme right parties. This include the preference deal reached with One Nation at 2001 election, which saw the Greens candidate, Kerry Nettle, win senate seat in NSW on just 4.5% of primary vote, defeating Democrats on 6.5% and One Nation on 8%. The Greens claimed that there was no deal with One Nation and that One Nation just decided to give the preference to the Greens candidate. This is mere lies, as the Greens entered intense negotiation to convince the One Nation to preference the Greens ahead of ALL other minor and major parties. The negotiation was conducted between Jo Edwards and Geoff Ash form the Greens with One Nation campaign manager. Read my detailed account on this deal on http://jamaldaoud.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/why-did-one-nation-preferecned-greens.html . The Greens also got preference deal with One Nation during Cunningham by-election 2002 that saw Greens candidate win. This is in addition to many secret negotiations between the Greens and Liberals which resulted in deals in Victorian election 2006, but was refused by Liberals in NSW 2007.
4- The Greens themselves, as according to their high profile candidate Hall Greenland, are no more than eco-Fascists and very extreme right. For Hall Greenland, Greens are more right-wing and conservative than Fisher and Shooters party, which is not following any ideological right, apart from fighting to increase recreational hunting sports.
5- This is not the first time the Greens is engaged with this low and cheap politics to destroy rivals that have potential to deprive Greens from seats. In 80s and early 90s the Greens were successful in swamping the Socialists and destroy the movement by spreading division and tactics to destroy morale. We also experienced such dirty tactics for the last 4 years when we tried to expose the real regressive agendas of the Greens. We will keep posting some of these tactics in the next few days.
6- Despite all these, we believe that time is approaching when the Greens will be totally exposed and will pay dearly for such dirty tactics.

Australians should not allow the Greens to rig our political system by resorting to dirty tactics of running fake candidates, spread roumers and lies and hide behind progressive face to achieve destructive agendas.

We do not know what is the urgency of mass resignations of people who were arguing from the first day of the need to make Greens happy, the need of keeping Greens in politics and the need to consult the Greens on decisions. The people who resigned in the last week in mass were in fact citing the Greens interests and not their “own” political party’s. Otherwise, the whole issues raised in their resignations are not urgent issues that require destroying the movement altogether and could wait until the dust of this crucial election settled...

Why did One Nation preferecned the Greens in 2001?

In the mid of October 2001, Jo Edwards (Greens campaign manager in NSW and then media advisor for Senator Kerry Nettle) got on the phone. On the other side of the line was One Nation campaign manager. One Nation was cornered, where all political parties refused to make preference deal with it. One Nation was made to be perceived as the only racist evil. Though other parties, including Liberal party, was more racist than One Nation. Currently, the politics of both major parties were stolen from One Nation policy on refugees and asylum seekers.

The One Nation negotiator wanted to come with clearer picture of the Greens politics to see how close the Greens policy to the One Nation’s. Apparently, One Nation negotiator was contacting all minor parties to put them in order on their Preferences Voting card. One Nation knew that no political party would dare to swap preferences with it. But at least they want to make sure that they give their preferences to the party that have something in common.

One Nation negotiator asked the Greens many questions about their (Greens party) policies on immigration, globalisation, work relations .... The negotiations continued more than once. Only Jo Edwards and Greens power broker Geoff Ash knew the details of the negotiation. No party member (including myself at that time) was aware of these details.

At the end of the negotiations, One Nation was convinced that the Greens was the closest party to them on many platforms. This understanding was echoed in their decision to give their preference to the Greens. The Greens candidate, Kerry Nettle, won her seat on One Nation preferences. It was not random preferences. It came after intense and serious negotiations including exchanging documents and policy statements.

This was not the last time One Nation preferenced the Greens and gifted them seats. In the following year and during Cunningham by-election, One Nation took the same decision. They put the Greens second. And the Greens candidate Michael Organ, won the seat for 2 years.

Now we leave it to all of you to think: why did One Nation extreme racist party decided to give preferences to the Greens??? Does this ring bell about the Greens real commitments and politics?? Why the Greens is the only pure White political party in Australia?? Do you know that the Greens want our government to phase-out migration program gradually??? Did this come hand in hand to explain why the Greens did not use the power given to them in the last 3 years to end the suffering of refugees and asylum seekers, despite the big noise against this treatment???

We do not believe that fascist party like One Nation would decide to preference Greens more than once on no basis. For any principled politician, he/she should refuse to negotiate with any fascist extreme racist party like One Nation....

And the story has continuation.....