Brendan Darcy and is it time for you to eat your greens as part of a balanced diet?

(Above: eek, Tasmania is full, or so Dick Smith told us).

Today nation we write of a most disturbing shocking and startling secret, a revelation which will shake the commonwealth to its foundation stone (or stones).

The last time Barnaby Joyce posted to The Punch was the 7th June 2010. (articles by Barnaby Joyce). Ever since we've been denied the pearls of wisdom delivered by the battler from the bush.

Worse still those damn independents and greenies who've been voted in by fools, mug liars and dupes, and who think somehow they've got the same rights and entitlements as Barners, have taken to calling him a fool or a piece of 'incredible unfortunateness'. (Key independents berate "fool" Barnaby Joyce).

How incredibly unfortunate. With Wilson Tuckey gone, and Steve Fielding soon to join him, but not before the serial pest makes a last useless stand, hasta la vista baby, no wonder this nation is teetering on a precipice, a cataclysmic disaster, and sweet Barners silenced and helpless to save the nation from its massive debts.

Meanwhile, The Punch has had to scour high and low for a scribbler to demonise the Greens, and luckily they've found Brendan Darcy, one time senior ministerial adviser to Kevin Andrews, such a fine and forceful Minister, who delivers a fine frothing and foaming in The Greens plan for Australia: A big Tasmania.

There's so many things that are appealing about Darcy's piece it's hard to know where to start.

Oh heck, why not where he starts, with Tasmania, gridlocked into genteel poverty by nasty greenies. Odds bodkins, but he fails to mention incest, dribbling idiots and apple eaters, settling instead for its population growth being "historically anaemic for many decades."

Strange, that's not how I remember it in Dick Smith's population puzzle opinion piece. Tasmania was as full as a goog and devouring Australia's resources, no doubt Darcy's ideal outcome for the apple isle. Why I have a dream of Tasmania as the world's new Manhattan, with fine subways criss crossing below the towering apartment blocks and offices, and many excellent art galleries, and once everybody congregates there at world's end, it might well come to pass ...

But of course the real problem is that Bob Brown comes from Tasmania, and if he's not a Satanist, then certainly he's a mix of 'Roussean' primitivism and old fashioned Puritanism, which given his open acknowledgment of his homosexuality, might make anyone with an actual awareness of Puritanism wonder what precise brand of Puritanism it is that Brown embraces.

Memo to Darcy. Capitals mean things. If you want to talk about Puritans, a member of a group of English Protestants who in the 16th and 17th centuries advocated strict religious discipline along with simplification of the ceremonies and creeds of the Church of England, use a capital P. If you want to berate someone for being puritan - one who regards pleasure or luxury as sinful, use lower case, and then please explain the concept of sin in relation to a homosexual atheist.

And while you're at it, please explain what you mean by 'Roussean' primitivism, since it's all too easy to suspect that it's just primitivist shorthand abuse as a substitute for a much more complex and detailed understanding of Rousseau. If I want generalised abuse of Rousseau, Edmund Burke did it much more elegantly, and with considerably more wit and knowledge, along with an equal amount of error. Perhaps the Rousseau wiki might help you out.

Let's not dally too long with Darcy's whale lover and Gaia and mystical nonsense abuse - that's only par for the course, let's instead get down to Darcy's political proposals:

The Greens are also concerned about what we eat, where it comes from and how we commute. This political party are desperate to make us feel guilty about it and to regulate our behaviours; hence the Greens’ policies to levy junk food, ban GM foods, to roll out electric cars that no one wants and to introduce ‘traffic light’ food labelling.

By which we can deduce that Darcy wants us all to choke on the vomit induced by force feeding ourselves crappy hamburgers, embrace chemicals and anti-biotics in our food, and roll out V8's and 4WD's until we use up every last drop of oil on the planet, and while we're at it, have a complete absence of food labelling so we don't have a fucking clue about what's going down our throats.

It's at that point that you begin to wonder exactly what point Darcy is making. Is it that coeliacs shouldn't know what's in food, by way of labelling, and instead of an amber or a red light, they should just tuck in, and then present themselves at the nearest emergency ward a couple of hours later, praising Darcy for the joys of traffic light free food labelling?

Don't know about coeliac disease? Try living with a sufferer, and see how you feel about Darcy's profoundly insensitive stupidity ...

Sure, there's a lot of gluten free wankers out there, but that's surely better than being a Darcy style brain dead wanker ... because, you see, food labelling, wherein you discover what is in the stuff you eat, in other words, information, isn't something to be demonised unless you happen to be a gherkin or someone fellow travelling with big players who think the pigs should just put their snouts in the trough and be silent ...

Let's skip over John Howard and Bob Brown valiantly battled together to save Tasmanian old growth forests, and were defeated by socialist Greens, since you can buy a copy of fairy stories to your taste at any major bookseller, not the independents long ago forced out of business, and just be quiet and drink your gluten-free wheat juice - so that we can get to the nub of the matter:

The electorate knows what is buying when it votes for the major parties. Their respective platforms are mercilessly blowtorched by a skeptical media.

Um, so what did we find out in relation to the matter of climate change from the skeptical, or even a sceptical, media? Why, either (1) that climate change is crap, but can easily be sorted by an army of 15,000 people doing useless cheap make work schemes, or (2) climate change is real, but needs 150 good and true citizens to gaze at their navels and work out what to do, since politicians are incapable of doing it.

Was it just coincidence that right at that moment my eye slid across the page to pick up this twittering tweet?

Join the club The Punch, by running a standard hatchet job on the Greens which only in the most indirect way acknowledges that climate change might be of concern to some.

How to solve this? Here's the solution for a brain dead media ...

Remember how they loved Susan Greenfield, because she's a baroness, and Monckton because he's a Viscount? Well now there's an actual Lord, one Lord Julian Hunt, scribbling Pakistan's lesson on global warming. Surely if he's a Lord, never mind the science, we should all pay attention?

This trend is fuelled by global warming and potentially by any intensification and alteration of the El Nino-La Nino cycle. To understand the reasons global warming is playing a role, look at the main climatic trends in south Asia. In addition to more extreme rainfall, there is also a reduction of ice over the Tibetan plateau and changing precipitation patterns, with less snow at higher levels, plus more rapid run-off from mountains.

How does climate change help explain this? First, the warming in temperatures leads to less snow. Second, the less stable atmosphere causes deeper convection and intense rainfall. The less stable atmosphere also leads to more airflow over mountains and less lateral deviation - so that the monsoon winds and precipitation can be higher in north-western India and Pakistan and weaker in the north-east.

Sorry, I got distracted there for a moment. The good Lord thinks there might be a little problem confronting the world, never mind the current 20 million made homeless in Pakistan by the flooding:

Given the stakes, not least because of the sizeable proportion of the world population affected, these issues need urgent study and also preparations on the ground by the affected countries. Unless this happens, including better flood-warning systems and water-management infrastructure put in place, societies and governments in the region will be unable to respond to the devastating combination of changing environmental stresses, growing population and geopolitical instability.

Naturally Darcy is seriously alarmed as well, and so gets down to the nitty gritty of the dangers of Greens policies:

Everyone should know the Greens want to close down zoos and increase the corporate and personal tax rates. Everyone should know they want to take State aid money from non-government schools, close down our mainstream immigration program and aim to reintroduce death duties.

Take money away from Scientology and Exclusive Brethren schools? Tax the rich? Steady Darcy, they don't need you proselytising for them, making their policies sound wise and sensible ...

That these policies are not widely known reflects poorly on contemporary journalism.

No longer an environmentalist movement, the Australian Greens is a political vehicle for ambitious wreckers.

The most effective tools of Green politics include middle class angst and hyperbolic catastrophism. The wealthiest, most educated parts of our inner city suburbs are especially vulnerable to this contemporary campaign of guilt-ridden millenarianism – exactly where the Greens’ polled best in 2010.

Yes, and don't forget that British Lords are also part of inner city gluten-free elite guilt-ridden by millenarianism. Shame on you British Lord, it's only 20 million people in Pakistan, which by current conversion rates amounts to perhaps twenty people caught in a flood in Australia ...

Meanwhile, Darcy continues to amaze and impress with the force of his logic. His best line of attack is that the Greens show a reverence for the natural world, and therefore deserve contempt for their mystical mumbo jumbo, but the mainstream parties also show a reverence for the natural world, and therefore deserve lashings of praise for their restrained, sensible Gaia love.

No contradiction is intended, for Darcy is bigger than Walt Whitman in his capacity for embracing contradiction and producing a profound synthesis:

I am shocked by how many Liberals and Labor campaigners are too afraid to attack the wrecking ball Greens, as if embarrassed by their own perceived lack of reverence for the natural world.

The truth is both the Labor and Liberal Parties have their own long positive narratives about environmental protection.

You see! Labor and Liberal are as reverent as the Greens, and surely therefore as deserving of Darcy's contempt? No way, Jose, because Gaia worship done the right way is good Gaia worship:

Think of the role Labor played in stopping the Franklin River dam and the Antarctic Treaty to halt the exploitation of its natural resources.

For the Liberals, Malcolm Fraser stopped sand mining on Fraser Island as well as whaling; Howard increased the marine protection areas of the Great Barrier Reef from 5 to 33 per cent; and Kennett stopped the destructive practice of scallop dredging in Victoria.

Stop it, stop it, I love the Gaia loving ways of the big parties.

I say to Labor and Liberal supporters: the Greens have no right to bully you! Stop apologising!

Yes, climate change is crap, yes we only need an army of workers to march out and do battle with it, yes 150 citizens putting on their thinking caps will sort it out. Why on earth apologise for that!

Now how about a bit of meaningless blather. I love a bit of blather in the morning:

Real policy wonks know environmental management is about balance, off-sets and evidence based science, not to the exclusion of human interaction, for material, recreational and health benefits. Real policy wonks don’t pretend there are no losers. Real policy wonks don’t promise 100 per cent renewable energy.

Yes, that's hard edged cutting edge wonky policy mean machine stuff, no doubt why they promised 150 thinking citizens and an army of 15,000 marching out to catch carbon in their butterfly nets ...

Now in a bipartisan way, let's hear it for the biggies ...

Economic management and national security are at the core of public expectations for our mainstream political parties. The parties that can manage our economy and our security concerns are not surprisingly the best to manage our environmental assets.

Yes, yes, no point in being independent, just tug the forelock and fall into line, since if Napoleon doesn't know best, then surely Farmer Jones does, and if they just sit down over an evening meal, once the riotous animals and their recent electoral indiscretions are put aside, everything can be worked out in a way that's best for ... Napoleon and Farmer Jones ...

But wait, Darcy has one last blinding insight:

As a first step, Australians need to remind themselves the Greens are just politicians and should be treated accordingly.

Is that why some people voted for them? Because they're just politicians and so should be treated accordingly, rewarded with a vote if you happen to agree with their policies, or perhaps just because you hate useless Toorak tractors ... and dumb scribbling by the likes of Darcy ...

Well here at the pond, we actually don't follow any party line, Liberal, Labor, Barnaby Joyce, or the Greens - since all by definition as politicians are honorary loons on the pond - but when we see someone like Darcy desperately scribbling away in a bid to demonise the Greens, it's easy to see just how inept the big parties and their political hacks are in dealing with the thought processes required by modern politics, and how it's likely Greens and independents will go on picking off seats so long as this is the best level of debate that can be put forward ...

(Below: eek, Tasmania isn't just full, it's devouring all our resources. Bob Brown, you fraudster you).