Well Ludwig,

I actually don't expect any members of the SPA or Unstable Population People to respond as most blather on about energy or water or food and are mindlessly focused on consumption rather than productivity. Your mob are looking through the wrong end of the telescope and are stuck with that whacko Malthuse in the 18th C.

You never got around to attacking this article on OLO:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13640

because it wiped the floor with your current and jaded understanding of Australia's industrial and political economy. If you wish to convince people beyond your own group of group thinkers of the efficacy of your ideas, the anti-pops need to do much more research and critical thinking.

Almost all of the anti-population bearded gnome commentary (except Michael in Adelaide who has departed) over inflates resident long term migration by 50 per cent. You are including short time stayers, 457s and int students. Not only are your first principles wrong, you don't understand the stats. If you don't understand the stats you can't make policy and therefore are not relevant on the Australian political scene.

But you will get votes from the far right - and that is what you are secretly hoping. No need to explain. We understand your divisive popularism.

Cheryl, whoever is included in the figures this year was also included last year, yes?
And it still went up 18%.
Imagine if we had a general population growth of 18%. Yikes!
Yet this is no problem for you.

Ludwig, I dislike public funding even more.
I'd prefer to see an end to both public funding *and* company donations.
Only individual persons should donate, and remove the discouraging bureaucracy.
Only people who donate humungous amounts should have to deal with any reporting obligations.

I also don't think it's just big business pushing this.
The Greens are silent on big immigration, yet are very anti-business.
It think it's mainly the PC/progressive ideology.
Even if big business changed its tune, the lovey-dove crowd would still be demanding we help millions more to a "better life", especially as living conditions in the Third World are only going to get worse.

Excessive immigration is already ruining our environment, degrading our quality of life, straining our infrastructure, pushing up housing costs, driving down wages, intensifying job competition, eroding our historic national identity and culture, and threatening to transform Australia into an incoherent hodgepodge of conflicting peoples and cultures. And yet both the major political parties want MORE, MORE, MORE. What did Australians do to deserve such a treasonous political class?

Both Labor and the Liberals need to explain why they believe Australia needs to be running the largest per capita immigration programme in the world. They also need to explain to us how such massive immigration helps, rather than hurts, the interests of native-born Australians.

While they're at it, perhaps they could explain why they wish to transform the Australian nation as it had evolved by the late 20th Century (a demographically European nation of mostly British Isles ancestry).

Why does Australia have to be transformed via massive immigration? What have they got against it?

Shockadelic wrote: "With 3 out of 4 immigrants now being non-European, there will inevitably be a tipping point, when Australians finally twig that they're being *eradicated*."

One can walk around some of the streets in our capital cities and not see a single white face in areas that were overwhelmingly white Australian only a couple of decades ago. If that isn't ethnic cleansing, then what is?

Oh wait, sorry, it's called "diversity".

I wonder, does "diversity" increase globally if Australia becomes an Asian colony due to immigration in a world already dominated demographically by Asians?

<< I dislike public funding even more. >>

Shockadelic, I’m not too fussed on it either. I reckon big business should pay the same amount that they are now giving in donations, but in such a way that it is not geared towards influencing government decisions.

Perhaps our government should work out how much money they get from donations on average each year, and come up with a tax on business that provides a similar amount, which is biased towards the big businesses that give the big donations.

It is surely a critically important point to strive for real democracy, which cannot happen while our government is very highly influenced by big business. And this is surely of the utmost importance for our future wellbeing.

We should also be appealing directly to all manner of businesses to divorce themselves from the push for continuous expansion and embrace a regime of sustainability.

Let’s start a campaign of ‘outing’ the big donators and criticising them for striving to unduly influence government decision-making. Let’s espouse a no-donations policy as being the right thing to do, and congratulate big companies that don’t make political donations.

Hello VivienneO, welcome to OLO.

Two very good posts.

Cheers.