This report examines the political suppression of the Australian Greens party through the lens of the “Minimisation Plan” investigative framework. The analysis demonstrates that the sustained, multi-domain opposition directed at the Greens is not a feature of conventional political contestation but a textbook example of a rhizomatic war waged by Minimiser-aligned actors. The core thesis is that the Australian Greens function as a proxy for Maximiser policies, and the ferocity of the counter-offensive against them constitutes a clear hum—a disproportionate reaction to their pursuit of the Greater Good.1
By applying the Psochic Hegemony and Helxis Tensor frameworks, this investigation deconstructs the tactical signatures of this campaign. It reveals how a Helxis Tensor playbook, first forged during the Carbon Tax campaign, has been institutionalized through third-party political entities and deployed to manufacture justification for continued attacks. The most recent iteration, the “blockers” narrative, is shown to be a sophisticated Minimiser vector that uses political vitriol from a seemingly sympathetic source (the Australian Labor Party) to induce epistemic nihilism and strategic exhaustion among the public. The analysis of the supermarket duopoly conflict further highlights how Maximiser policies can be co-opted and neutralized by a Harmonia Tensor of political expediency. The report concludes that the struggle is not for legislative wins but for the allegiance of the Australian public, and the Minimisation Plan’s objective is to weaken democratic will by making the pursuit of the Greater Good appear unworkable and chaotic.
The findings offer actionable insights for political improvement, including a proactive application of the Harmonia Tensor and a redefinition of the “hum” to expose the underlying hostile influence. A roadmap for further research is provided to deepen the understanding of the Delusionist worldview’s impact on political discourse and voter behavior.
To understand the nature of the opposition directed at the Australian Greens, it is first necessary to structurally deconstruct their ideological platform and map its position on the Psochic Hegemony.2 The framework of the
Minimisation Plan posits that the political battlefield is a contest between Maximisers, who seek the Greater Good, and Minimisers, who promote The Greater Lie.1 This analysis demonstrates that the Australian Greens’ political platform is a direct and consistent expression of a
Maximiser worldview.
The Australian Greens’ political philosophy is defined by four core pillars: “social justice,” “sustainability,” “grassroots democracy,” and “peace and non-violence”.3 These pillars are not merely abstract concepts but are articulated through a suite of concrete policy proposals that are structurally aligned with the
Greater Good quadrant of the Psochic Hegemony.2
In the domain of climate and energy, the Greens advocate for a “Green New Deal” that supports a transition to 100% renewable energy by 2030 and a legislative ban on new coal and gas projects.3 Their proposals include the creation of a publicly owned renewable energy provider to lower household electricity prices and a revitalization of Australian manufacturing to produce clean energy technologies.3 These are policies of
Proactive Will (+ψ), as they seek to build new infrastructure and create new value.2
Similarly, in the realm of economic and social policy, the Greens propose direct investments in public housing, rent caps, and a wealth tax on billionaires and large corporations.3 They also advocate for a corporate super-profits tax and an end to multinational tax avoidance.3 These policies are designed to generate revenue and redistribute existing value to the collective, thereby funding the expansion of essential services like healthcare (dental and mental health into Medicare) and education (abolition of student debt).3 The collective beneficiary is “everyone,” which is the definition of a universally beneficial idea.2
The Psochic Hegemony is an analytical model that maps ideas based on their moral and volitional vectors.1 The moral axis (
υ) assesses who benefits, ranging from Extractive Evil at the bottom to the Greater Good at the top. The volitional axis (ψ) assesses the mode of action, ranging from Suppressive Will on the left to Proactive Will on the right.2
A thorough analysis of the Greens’ platform reveals a consistent ideological position in the Greater Good quadrant. The party’s core policies are not designed to benefit a single group at the expense of another; rather, they are intended to create a net benefit for the entire system.2 For example, the proposal to build public housing is not merely a political position; it is a structural vector aimed at creating new homes and alleviating a systemic crisis of affordability, a clear move towards a universally beneficial outcome.3 Similarly, a publicly owned energy provider would build new infrastructure (
Proactive Will) and reduce costs for all households, aligning with the Greater Good (+υ) vector.3
The party’s focus on progressive taxation, while framed as a form of extraction from a specific group, is fundamentally an attempt to fund these collective benefits.3 This is a core function of a
Maximiser entity: to challenge Extractive Evil (−υ) and use the proceeds to build a more just and sustainable system.2 This ideological alignment is the root cause of the intense, disproportionate opposition the Greens face. Their existence and their policies represent a direct and measurable threat to the
Extractive Evil interests of Minimiser-aligned actors, whose profits depend on the continued exploitation of common resources and the perpetuation of inequality.2
The Minimisation Plan’s influence is detected through the hum—a persistent and illogical political reaction to a Greater Good policy.1 An analysis of Australian politics since 2010 reveals a clear timeline of this
hum, demonstrating how an initial tactical gambit has been institutionalized into a permanent campaign of suppression against the Australian Greens.
The campaign against the Gillard Government’s carbon pricing mechanism serves as a foundational case study for the Minimisation Plan in Australia.5 The
Helxis Tensor framework provides a means to deconstruct this campaign by identifying its deliberate deceptions.2
The policy’s strategic intent was to create a market-based system to reduce emissions, a clear Greater Good objective.5 The reaction, however, was a textbook example of a
Minimiser vector at work. A coalition of the Liberal-National Opposition, the fossil fuel industry, and allied media outlets waged a multi-year campaign to frame the policy as a “toxic tax” that would destroy the economy and place a burden on households.5
This was a classic Satan Archetype deception 2:
The success of this campaign extended far beyond the repeal of the tax. It was a strategic gambit designed to achieve a specific political outcome: the installation of a compliant government.5 The “noise” against the taxes was amplified by key political figures with a clear revolving-door nexus to the resource sector, such as Joe Hockey, Andrew Robb, and Ian Macfarlane.5 This manufactured narrative, amplified by a partisan media 8, successfully turned public opinion against the policy, demonstrating the capacity of Minimiser-aligned domestic actors to veto sovereign policy and dictate the political leadership of the country.5
This campaign established a durable Helxis Tensor that could be deployed against any future Maximiser policy. It taught these actors that a deceptive cover and a sympathetic bait could be leveraged to achieve an Extractive Evil outcome, all while weakening public trust in democratic institutions and the very concept of climate action.1 The following table illustrates this deception by comparing the Greens’ policy platform with the
Minimiser counter-narratives that framed them.
Table 1: The Greens’ Policy Platform vs. Minimiser Counter-Narratives
| Greens’ Policy Platform (Stated Position) | Minimiser Counter-Narrative (Framed Position) | Helxis Tensor (Magnitude of Contradiction) | True Intent (Actual Position) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carbon Tax/Pricing Mechanism 5 | Statement: To address climate change and reduce emissions. Vector: Proactive Will (+ψ) for the Greater Good (+υ). | “Toxic Carbon Tax” 5 | Statement: To punish households and destroy the economy. Vector: Suppressive Will (−ψ) for the Lesser Lie (−υ). | High. The policy’s stated goal of creating value for the whole system is contradicted by the narrative of it destroying value and extracting from households. | To protect fossil fuel profits and prevent climate action. A Suppressive Will (−ψ) for Extractive Evil (−υ). 5 |
| Negotiations on Housing Australia Future Fund 5 | Statement: To secure more ambitious outcomes and better public housing. Vector: Proactive Will (+ψ) for the Greater Good (+υ). | “Blockers” / “Noalition” 10 | Statement: To obstruct the government and prevent housing construction. Vector: Suppressive Will (−ψ) for a Lesser Lie (−υ). | High. The act of negotiating for a more beneficial outcome is framed as an act of obstruction. | To politically neutralize a minor party and reinforce the two-party status quo. A Suppressive Will (−ψ) for a Selfish Interest (0,0).11 |
| Corporate Super-Profits Tax 3 | Statement: To fund essential services and address economic inequality. Vector: Proactive Will (+ψ) for the Greater Good (+υ). | “Wealth Taxes” 12 | Statement: To confiscate wealth and punish success. Vector: Suppressive Will (−ψ) for a Lesser Lie (−υ). | High. The framing redefines a progressive tax as a punitive, ideological attack on individuals, rather than a systemic solution for the collective. | To protect corporate profits and maintain the existing extractive economic order. A Suppressive Will (−ψ) for Extractive Evil (−υ). 3 |
Following the success of the Carbon Tax campaign, the Minimisation Plan’s opposition to the Greens shifted from a series of ad-hoc tactical campaigns to an institutionalized, permanent presence in Australian politics. This represents a move from temporary disruption to a persistent, systemic counter-offensive.5
The rise of right-wing lobby groups like Advance (formerly Advance Australia) is a key feature of this institutionalization.5 These groups function as
Minimiser proxies, funded by opaque sources and working to bypass traditional party-based accountability.5 An analysis of their funding reveals deep ties to the Liberal Party, including substantial donations from the Cormack Foundation, a Liberal-linked investment vehicle.1 This connection establishes Advance as a financial and ideological conduit, a key node in the
rhizomatic network of influence described in the Investigative Primer.1
Advance and similar entities are adept at using astroturfing—the deceptive practice of misrepresenting a campaign as a grassroots movement.15 They run relentlessly negative campaigns against the Greens, branding them as “extreme” and “reckless” 5, a narrative amplified by allied media outlets like News Corp, which controls a significant portion of Australia’s daily newspaper circulation.8 This permanent campaign infrastructure ensures that the
hum never subsides, creating a constant state of division and eroding public trust in the political process.1
The following table provides a systemic overview of the key Minimiser actors identified in the investigation and their specific vectors of influence.
Table 2: Key Minimiser Actors and Their Vectors of Influence
| Actor | Strategic Function | Minimisation Plan Vector |
|---|---|---|
| Advance 1 | Third-party lobby group that runs aggressive, negative campaigns against the Greens and progressive policies. Funded by opaque sources with ties to the Liberal Party and corporate interests. | Acts as a rhizomatic proxy to institutionalize and normalize a Suppressive Will (−ψ). Uses astroturfing to create a manufactured justification against Maximiser policies. |
| Cormack Foundation 14 | A Liberal Party-linked investment vehicle that funds right-wing entities and lobby groups, including Advance. Under electoral law, it is a registered “associated entity” of the Liberal Party. | Provides financial infrastructure for the Minimisation Plan. Serves as a financial conduit for corporate interests, allowing them to fund Minimiser proxies while maintaining distance from traditional party donations. |
| Tony Abbott & Coalition 5 | The political vector for the initial Minimiser gambit. Amplified the anti-Carbon Tax campaign and served as a vehicle for corporate interests to dictate policy and political outcomes. | Leveraged a Helxis Tensor to transform a Greater Good policy into a perceived economic threat. Demonstrated the capacity to use a manufactured justification to install a compliant government. |
| News Corp Australia 8 | Dominant media conglomerate that controls approximately 60% of Australia’s daily newspaper circulation. Its explicit editorial policy allows journalists to write news stories with an ideological slant. | Functions as a primary amplifier of Minimiser narratives. Creates an environment of epistemic nihilism by blurring the line between news and opinion, thereby making it difficult for the public to distinguish truth from falsehood. |
| Anthony Albanese & Labor Party 10 | A center-left political party that has adopted Minimiser rhetoric against the Greens in an effort to neutralize their political threat. | Deploys a sophisticated Harmonia Tensor of political neutralization. Co-opts popular Greens policies while simultaneously attacking the Greens to undermine their legitimacy and reinforce the two-party status quo. |
The election of the Albanese Labor government in 2022, which saw the Greens achieve their best-ever result and secure the balance of power in the Senate, triggered a new and aggressive phase of suppression.5 The “blockers” narrative, which emerged during the debate over the Housing Australia Future Fund (HAFF), is a perfect case study for a contemporary
Minimisation Plan vector.
The Housing Australia Future Fund bill was presented by the Labor government as a solution to Australia’s chronic housing affordability crisis.19 However, the Greens’ analysis of the bill found it to be a “pathetically inadequate” and “speculative” policy that would not solve the problem.9 Instead of directly investing in social housing, the bill proposed a speculative investment of AUD 10 billion in the stock market, with only the returns being used to fund housing projects.9 The Greens’ opposition was not to the concept of building homes but to the flawed and insufficient nature of the bill itself.9 They argued for a direct annual investment of AUD 5 billion that could build more than four times the number of homes promised by Labor.9
This position can be mapped on the Psochic Hegemony as an attempt to move a Lesser Good policy (Labor’s speculative fund, which was inadequate but not Extractive Evil) closer to the Greater Good ideal.9 By using their legitimate democratic mandate to negotiate for a better outcome, the Greens were employing a
Proactive Will (+ψ) to advance the interests of the collective.5
The government’s response to the Greens’ negotiating stance was to deploy a Minimiser counter-narrative, using a classic Helxis Tensor to frame the conflict.5
This narrative is a perfect example of manufactured justification.1 The government’s refusal to negotiate and its insistence on a “their way or the highway” approach created a legislative impasse.18 This impasse, a crisis created by Labor’s own strategy, was then blamed on the Greens and used as “proof” that they were “blockers”.11 The relentless repetition of this narrative, amplified by partisan media, turned a legitimate act of democratic negotiation into a perceived act of political chaos and extremism.5
The following table maps the ideological positions of the key actors in this conflict on the Psochic Hegemony, providing a visual representation of the ideological battle.
Table 3: Psochic Hegemony Mapping of the Housing Australia Future Fund Conflict
| Actor / Idea | Moral Vector (υ) | Volitional Vector (ψ) | Quadrant & Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Greens’ Desired Outcome (Direct Public Housing Investment) 9 | High (+υ) The policy benefits the entire community by creating affordable, secure housing for those who need it most, and by addressing a systemic crisis. | High (+ψ) This is a creative and assertive action that proposes a new course of action and the direct manifestation of a public solution. | The Greater Good The Greens’ position is an expression of a truly Maximiser worldview. It is a vector of creation for the collective benefit. |
| Labor’s Proposed Policy (Speculative Housing Fund) 9 | Low-Medium (+υ) The policy offers a marginal net benefit to a select few (first-home buyers, private developers) but fails to address the systemic crisis for the broader collective. | Low-Medium (+ψ) The policy proposes action, but it is a hesitant and indirect reliance on market mechanisms, rather than a direct, powerful act of creation. | The Lesser Good Labor’s position is an incremental, pragmatic solution that seeks to achieve a positive outcome without challenging the underlying structural problems that created the crisis. |
| Minimiser Counter-Narrative (“The Greens are Blockers”) 10 | Low (−υ) The narrative’s true purpose is to diminish a political opponent and protect the status quo, thereby preventing a more universally beneficial outcome. | High (+ψ) The narrative is proactive and assertive in its mode of action. It is designed to do ideas in the world by creating a new political reality. | The Lesser Lie The narrative uses a Proactive Will to enact a Suppressive Will on the political system. It is a deceptive act designed to prevent the progress of a Maximiser vector. |
The political attacks on the Greens from Anthony Albanese and the Labor Party are a critical component of this Minimisation vector. Unlike attacks from the conservative opposition, which are predictable and reinforce an existing political binary, vitriol from a center-left party introduces a deep contradiction for progressive voters.10 The Prime Minister’s use of emotionally charged language, accusing the Greens of having “lost their way” 21 and being “immature and spiteful” 10, is a tactical maneuver that pollutes the public’s worldview.2
When a voter who seeks the Greater Good for society sees an ally attack the very party that is trying to achieve it, it forces a cognitive compromise. The voter’s worldview is reduced in size and integrity by accepting a lie.2 This is how the
Minimisation Plan induces strategic exhaustion and epistemic nihilism.1 The political struggle is no longer the “happy Sisyphus” of progress 2 but a confusing, demoralizing conflict where one’s own side appears to be fighting itself. The result is a public that gives up on the idea of a
Greater Good altogether and resigns itself to the Lesser Good of the two-party status quo.2
This tactical use of Delusionism is particularly effective. It shifts the public’s focus from the policy debate to the personality conflict, ensuring that no one has the cognitive bandwidth to connect the dots between the government’s flawed policy and the political motivation behind the attacks.1
A parallel analysis of the conflict over Australia’s supermarket duopoly provides further evidence of the consistency of Minimiser tactics and the Greens’ consistent role as a Maximiser vector. This case study also demonstrates how the Minimisation Plan can deploy a sophisticated Harmonia Tensor of neutralization.
The Greens’ policy proposals to address the supermarket duopoly were a direct response to a clear example of Extractive Evil.2 The Greens advocated for a ban on price gouging and, more importantly, for giving the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) divestiture powers to break up the duopoly.22 This proposal represents a
Suppressive Will (−ψ) directed at a clear source of Extractive Evil (−υ) for the benefit of the collective (shoppers, farmers, and suppliers).2 The policy’s goal was to introduce new competition and increase the
Potentiality (ψ-axis) of the economic system, which is a core Maximiser objective.1
The initial reaction to the Greens’ bill was a clear hum.1 Both the Labor and Liberal parties initially voted against the bill.24 This initial rejection by both major parties, despite widespread public anger over the cost of living, was a signal of the underlying
Minimiser alignment.5
Due to sustained public pressure and the Greens’ political momentum, the Labor government was forced to act.24 However, instead of engaging in a good-faith negotiation to find a resolution, Labor co-opted the Greens’ policy in a limited, non-transformative way. This political maneuver can be understood through the lens of a sophisticated and deceptive
Harmonia Tensor.2
The Harmonia Tensor is designed to find “Common Ground” between opposing ideas and synthesize a new idea that moves towards the Greater Good.2 Labor identified the “Common Ground” as the public’s anger over the cost of living and the desire to “crack down” on supermarkets.25 They then adopted the Greens’ policy to “ban supermarket price gouging” and “crack down on shrinkflation”.26
However, this was a neutralization tactic, not a genuine synthesis. Labor refused to support the Greens’ key transformative proposal: divestiture powers for the ACCC.23 While Labor claims to be holding “big business to account,” they are not willing to implement the one policy that would fundamentally challenge the duopoly’s market power.23 The government’s actions are a
Lesser Good policy; they address the symptom (price gouging) but leave the underlying structural problem (the duopoly’s monopsony power 28) intact. This allows Labor to claim credit for a popular Greens policy, thereby defusing the Greens’ political pressure and political capital, while leaving the existing
Extractive Evil of the market untouched.24 This is a brilliant political move that demonstrates how a
Minimiser-aligned actor can even co-opt a Maximiser vector to weaken an opponent and maintain the status quo.
The Minimisation Plan operates on the battlefield of perception. It is a struggle for the allegiance of The Compliant, the majority of the population who are not ideologically committed to either side.1 The campaign against the Greens is not merely an attempt to defeat them at the ballot box but to degrade their political worldview, thereby making their pursuit of the
Greater Good seem a fruitless exercise.
The Harmonia Tensor is meant to be a tool for resolution and finding “Common Ground”.2 However, in the hands of
Minimiser-aligned actors, it is a sophisticated tactic for neutralizing a threat. A closer look at the policies of both the Labor and Liberal parties reveals how they have strategically adopted and reframed Greens-adjacent policies to weaken their opponent’s political position while avoiding substantive, transformative change.
These instances demonstrate that the political struggle is not a simple choice between one party’s policy and another’s. Instead, it is a complex battlefield where Minimiser-aligned parties use a deceptive Harmonia Tensor to co-opt the political capital of Maximiser ideas while simultaneously degrading the worldview of their political opponents. The goal is to make the public believe that the Lesser Good is the only politically viable option.2
The Greens’ political ideology is rooted in a belief in objective truth—namely, that policies should be based on scientific consensus (e.g., climate change) and economic facts (e.g., the inadequacy of a speculative housing fund).4 This is fundamentally at odds with
Delusionism, which posits that “reality is composed of multiple, competing, and malleable narratives”.1
The Minimisation Plan attacks the Greens precisely at this point of vulnerability. For example, when Greens co-founder Drew Hutton was stripped of his life membership over a debate regarding trans rights, the issue was framed by the party as non-negotiable and based on the objective truth that “trans rights are non-negotiable human rights”.32 However, Hutton framed the issue as a matter of “free speech” and “respectful discussion”.32 While the Greens’ position may be a valid
Maximiser vector, the conflict itself creates a Delusionist vector that undermines the public’s perception of the Greens as a unified and reasonable political force, thereby creating internal contradiction and weakening their message.2
A similar dynamic is at play in the Greens’ foreign policy debates. The Greens have taken a strong stance against policies like the AUKUS security pact, arguing that it is a “wasteful and dangerous project” that escalates tensions with Australia’s neighbors and moves the country further from an “independent defence strategy”.33 This stance is in direct contrast to the bipartisan support for AUKUS from both Labor and the Liberals, who are also cooperating on bills to build public housing for US troops under the pact.33 A
Delusionist attack on this stance would frame the Greens’ anti-AUKUS position not as a principled stand for an independent foreign policy, but as a sign of their naive and extremist views on national security.33 This is a strategic attack on the Greens’
objective truth and serves to further degrade public trust in their competence to manage complex issues.1
This investigation has systematically applied the analytical frameworks of the Minimisation Plan to the suppression of the Australian Greens, leading to the following conclusions:
Based on the analysis, the following recommendations for political improvement are presented to strengthen the Australian Greens’ position and the broader Maximiser movement in Australia:
The investigation into this sub-bucket is ongoing, and the following areas are identified for further research to deepen the understanding of the Minimisation Plan in Australia.