The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Stable Population cuckoos invade Australia > Comments

Stable Population cuckoos invade Australia : Comments

By Malcolm King, published 4/7/2013

The SPP is using environmental and heritage groups - much as cuckoos lay their eggs in the nests of other birds - to hatch their anti-immigration message in the lead up to the September federal election.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. Page 11
  10. All
Mr Malcolm King appears to be a “spoiler” and distracter. His ‘copy and paste’ actions on previous articles appear to be one of paid PR hack………. intent on wasting our time and totally disinterested in logical argument re sustainability. In fact, his intent appears malicious.

Mr King’s desperate and hysterical tactics do tell us one thing – that the sustainability advocates he attacks are achieving growing success in getting the critical issue of population back on the agenda.

Remember what Mahatma Gandhi said: First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

The real question is - who is paying this PR hack Malcolm King to ‘fight’ sustainability advocates by spreading malicious falsehoods? This will be the real story...
Posted by Ralph Bennett, Wednesday, 10 July 2013 10:08:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not so sure I know what you're talking about Ralph. You and the anti-populationists seem to be writing your own chapter on mental illness for the (DSM-IV).

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/memory-of-100-in-the-backyard-at-mums-starts-to-fade-20130707-2pkb6.html#ixzz2YOwTvxWp

How about this comment on the Stable Population Party Facebook page today referring to Associate Professor Carolyn Whitzman from Melb Uni (as quoted above) being in the clutches of developers.

"Her position appears to be funded by the high rise property development industry to spruik propaganda. They are in cahoot$ with some institutions, via the almighty dollar, with uni's etc under pressure from decreased Gov funding." said the SPP. Any comment? She's fairly high profile.

Also one of your mob on another story said ABARE stats are shonky. Any evidence? So far anyone who disagrees with the SPP/SPA line is a mad growthist. I think you mean capitalist.

You appear to be just another version of the Family Planning movement from the 1950s who did such bloody work sterilising poor people in Africa, Kerela and Latin America. You wave the Aussie flag but really, you're just Pauline Hanson in a rented koala suit.
Posted by Malcolm 'Paddy' King, Thursday, 11 July 2013 9:33:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Malcolm King,

There is a difference between saying that a position has been funded by property developers and saying that the person in it is "in the clutches of the developers". Funding doesn't always influence the outcome. The Koch brothers funded the physicist Richard Muller to investigate global warming, but he reversed his previous position as a climate sceptic and supported AGW after looking at the evidence.

You are wilfully misinterpreting what was said and are certainly no stranger yourself to wild accusations against various people and organisations, sometimes in direct contradiction to the policy statements on their websites. None of the organisations that you have been attacking support coercive family planning or racial discrimination in our immigration intake, for example, but you keep coming up with the same tired old "Pauline Hanson" type insults. Why are your accusations against the Australian Conservation Foundation (because they think that our population growth is damaging the environment) any more responsible than saying that ABARE is shonky?

Is your PR firm being paid to attack parties and organisations that object to Australia's Third World level of population growth (1.8%)? If so, who is paying you?
Posted by Divergence, Thursday, 11 July 2013 10:13:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Divergence, what? No comment about Rhwanda? No comment about Guns and Steel or whoever it was? Please tell us more about your selective sampling of the Productivity Commission as (a) your economic paradigm is at war with the concept of productivity; (b) you hate the concept of GDP (c) you are clearly a stooge for the ACF.

I'm now more interested why the ACF has taken an overtly political position and is campaigning on population reduction (family planning), yet it still has it's tax deductability status. It's not a political party, although is acting like a lobby group. Curious.

If I remember rightly, a few posts ago, you called young home buyers 'pollution' because they wanted to buy a home. 'Externalities' I think you called them.

My favourite quote of yours is a few years old but here goes:

“Scroll down to the graphs in this paper, and you can see a graph of real wages for building workers and agricultural workers in Tuscany, Italy from 1370 to 1860. It is obvious that the average person was far better off in 1400 after the Black Death than in 1860, despite more than 450 years of technological progress.” Divergence, Tuesday, 28 April 2009 4:35:51 PM

... better off after the Black Death .... and you wonder why people don't take you seriously.

The SPA/SPP are a front for global family planning. Their ethics come from sociobiology and it's principle policy is anti-immigration.
Posted by Malcolm 'Paddy' King, Thursday, 11 July 2013 10:55:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Malcolm King,

It is a lie that I called young home buyers pollution or externalities. I had just given a long list of problems that come with higher density in my previous post on that thread, such as traffic congestion, overstretched infrastructure, etc., as reasons why people might object to more density in their neighbourhood. These problems (traffic congestion, and so on) are the externalities, not the people themselves. You are simply twisting what I wrote. Nor do I have any connection with the ACF. That is a lie as well. If the Productivity Commission report says that there is no significant per capita economic benefit from immigration (and I didn't misquote them), then it is your economic paradigm, not mine, that is at war with the concept of productivity. I don't "hate the concept of GDP", although it isn't a perfect measure of human welfare.

It is a fact that living standards were very high for ordinary people after the Black Death. Even your ally Rhian admits it. Prof. Malanima, whose work I was referring to, clearly shows the inverse relationship between population and real wages in Northern Italy up to the 20th century. If you think that you know more about his field than he does, take it up with him.

What is wrong with making family planning available in poor countries to people who want it? Or with stabilising the population at a level where people can have good, free lives without trashing the environment? Do you believe in open borders, so that people have an absolute right to immigrate, regardless of the effect on the host country?

Is your PR firm being paid to attack organisations that oppose our Third World (1.8%) level of population growth? If it is, who is paying you? I am going to keep asking these questions, and I hope that others will as well, until you answer them.
Posted by Divergence, Thursday, 11 July 2013 11:46:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Paddy, what happened to Cheryl?

Well I must thank you for again raising the population growth debate. You are doing great things for the sustainability ethic.

It’s a very interesting approach – to take such a loopy position as to totally embarrass the pro-growth-forever fraternity by your association with them, and to really fire up the population stabilisers in response.

This is just what SPP needed!

It is great to see the number of sensible respondents on this thread. It has come a long way since the early days of OLO.

So the message is spreading. The message that high population growth is crazy and stable populations are essential for a healthy future is rapidly expanding, thanks in no small part to your self-sacrificing style of repeatedly raising the issue.

It won’t be long now before it becomes a powerful force in politics, in Australia and around the world.
Posted by Ludwig, Sunday, 14 July 2013 3:32:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. Page 11
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy