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 Party 'green-washing' racism > Comments

Stable Population Party 'green-washing' racism : Comments

By Malcolm King, published 22/8/2013

The anti-population party's dodgy international connections and preferences show it's true colours.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. All
Sheesh Malcolm, get a life!
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 22 August 2013 8:09:45 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
I noticed that Malcolm King has carefully avoided discussing the economic, social, environmental and political problems associated with a high population growth rate, and attacked the messenger.
Posted by mac, Thursday, 22 August 2013 9:23:50 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
I wonder who pays Cheryl/Malcolm king for this garbage or if he is really off his trolley?
Posted by Robert LePage, Thursday, 22 August 2013 9:36:30 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
The idea that anyone or any group can only be interested in population issues for nefarious reasons is short sighted and generally reverts to strawman arguments. I was tempted not to bother with the article for that reason.

There are two aspects here. If you believe in population growth without a cap then lots more needs to be done for infrastructure including decentralising by building new cities to take the overload from Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. Maybe the arid areas need to be populated with modern technology bringing water and power and agriculture suited to these zones.

The idea that one can use arguments about other countries being overpopulated as a reason to repeat the trend always amuses. Why not assist those countries with education and agricutlure to offset the need for large families rather than just move people around just on on that basis.

This author is looking for reasons to demonise those who care about the environment including the effects of population. I should add that I don't personally know anything about the SPP.

Lets look at one argument. There could be other reasons for refusing to assist first home buyers for example. What about the idea that subsidies and grants are bandaid policies that do not address the underlying reasons for housing unaffordability.

Yes there are some people who are racist all around the world and act on that basis. But please don't let those people put blinkers on your own eyes as regards population policy and questioning the emphasis of values around economic growth.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 22 August 2013 9:49:06 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
A very good article that tells it like it is!
Most intelligent people already know the hidden agendas of silly little parties like the Stable Population Party.

To say that Australia is over populated is laughable.
Racism is the real order of the day, and any political party that models itself on anything to do with Beck or any of the other mad American racists, should have no place in our Australian political election.
Posted by Suseonline, Thursday, 22 August 2013 9:50:05 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
Pelican,
Your well reasoned arguments on the topic stand in stark contrast to Malcolm feeble tempt at character assassination, conspiracy theory and diatribe. You are correct and there is no need for me to repeat your careful response to practical matters concerning population.

He is simply playing the man and not the ball, which is the last refuge of a debater who is out of ammo in the form of a decent reasoned point of view.

We all have to feel very sorry for Malcolm I think. He deserves our best wishes for a speedy recovery from whatever is afflicting his brain.
Posted by Peter Strachan, Thursday, 22 August 2013 9:57:48 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
How about we ignore the lies in this article and we have a sensible discussion? Listen to David Attenborough to hear him sum up perfectly the issues the world faces. http://youtu.be/1sP291B7SCw

Or how about this excellent piece from Growthbuster Dave Gardner? http://www.growthbusters.org/2013/08/planetary-overload-faked-out-by-the-holy-grail-of-economic-growth
Posted by Hotspurs, Thursday, 22 August 2013 10:10:54 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
I clicked on Malcolm King's name and it is interesting to note the attack campaign he has been running against the SPP. He is clearly worried the electorate are buying into their forward thinking policies. You don't spend this much energy continually attacking a group if they are as insignificant / crazy as Mr King has been attempting to paint. Or maybe he is just a paid mouthpiece for big business, like Bernard "I wannabe a demographer" Salt
Posted by Hotspurs, Thursday, 22 August 2013 10:18:47 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
At the end of the day, if we are truly a democracy, then it should be a matter that is open for public debate. Given that polls repeatedly reflect that Australians reject a big Australia yet the major parties repeatedly suppress the issue or misdirect attention onto a few hapless boats suggests that the major parties are dodging the issue of population completely. Yet we can readily draw parallels between our current situation and Egypt 50 years ago and what's in store for us if we continue down this path.

The party does not make claims about us being full or over populated, it simply wants to give a voice to the majority of people in Australia who's concerns on our pro-populate policies are repeatedly ignored/dismissed or discredited when all around they can see things are getting rapidly and progressively worse. It seems to be a mission of people like Malcolm to ensure any concerns about quality of life, wildlife and our ability to actually work more proactively globally are never considered - that would be uncomfortable for Malcolm because it would mean he has to actually consider how Australians might feel and how those languishing in ruin here and abroad might benefit more if we direct aid more towards tackling the everything issue of population.

But let's ask the majority on the street for instance if they
a) feel more secure and are more optimistic about their future
b) believe Liberal/Labor/Greens can better manage a big Australia

The majority will say no.

Malcolm has attacked the party on at least three occasions without having an understanding of what the party is actually standing for. The party has members from all walks of life including different races who understand the message.

On the bright side, it is good that Malcolm is giving the party publicity so perhaps we should thank him for that.
Posted by Matt Moran, Thursday, 22 August 2013 10:31:44 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
Gee thanks Malcolm.

I'd never paid any attention to this mob,or other minor parties/collections of ratbags.

However after you've told me "The SPP's aim is to split the Green Party vote, shaft immigrants and create Fortress Australia", you can be sure I'll have a good look at them. Nice to find some right thinking people.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 22 August 2013 10:31:48 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
Pat asks if someone is paying Malcolm King to repeat this stuff. The answer is that King runs a PR business called Republic Media, which offers a service whereby he writes and places articles in the media to promote particular views. His claims of past achievements, on Linked-in, include boasts like:
“ Wrote and placed $150K news, features, op eds in local and national media and nullified major crisis media management issue and returned brand to health”.

He is guarded about his clients: but from the repetitive titles and equally repetitive contents of his published pieces, the clients clearly include some part of the growth lobby which wants an ad hominem campaign against those questioning population growth in Australia and especially in S.A.

Incidentally, for refutation of King's nonsense about the Stable Population Party siphoning votes away from the Greens, see psephologist Anthony Green's very different analysis at
http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2013/08/senate-preferences-act.html#more

So is Malcolm King a paid troll? Check his previous publications and decide for yourself.
Posted by Livio, Thursday, 22 August 2013 1:14:22 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
So no refutation about Numbers USA's involvement in the SPP?

No refutation about Jane Sullivan making up the per head infrastructure spend and using a 1986 source?

No refutation about the ridiculous Pythonesque implementations problems of this pack of laughing clowns.

The SPP is simply a front for racist american organisations who are using them like glove puppets.

Livio, you left your ID when you tried to hack in to my Linkedin site. If I was a PR hack, I wouldn't be bloody using my real name. I'd use a name like .... Livio

Here's another treat for you.

http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/54774
Posted by Malcolm 'Paddy' King, Thursday, 22 August 2013 1:48:56 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
What a perversion of the english language it is when a policy of no immigration, without any preference to any racial group, can be called racist. Of course "racist" is the new universal pejorative. I am sure that the deposition of Julia Gillard was an instance of racial discrimination, but have not yet been able to work out how. The universal pejroative used to be "un-Australian" but that is obviously now out of date.

When are people going to get the point that the world cannot cope with a population of 7 billion, and that when it gets to 10 billion things are going to get much worse. The only action we can take against countries that allow such huge population increases is to make then choke on the increase. To allow then to unload their surplus population here only exacerbates the problem. If the greens had not been taken over by the extreme left with its policies of redistribution and aggressive internationalism, I am sure they would have the same policy.

An excellent party, that will be getting my vote.
Posted by plerdsus, Thursday, 22 August 2013 2:39:57 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
Ahh Hasbeen, you’ve got yourself in a tangle this time! You have long agreed with me regarding population growth and therefore you should be supporting SPP all the way!

But you love ratbags like this Paddy King fellow who delight in knocking the stuffing out of anyone who dares to even question vested-interest greed-mongering short-term-focussed stuff-our-national-future-wellbeing big-business-and-unscrupulous-politician-driven never-ending rapid growth.

So yes, go have a good close look at SPA. I’d be most interested to see what you come up with!
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 22 August 2013 2:59:29 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
SPP that should be.

.

Matt, I agree that Paddy is giving SPP invaluable publicity, which is excellent, given that the mainstream media seem to have very little interest in this party or the huge issue of population size and growth-rate.
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 22 August 2013 3:05:19 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
No Luddy, I only love ratbags like Bob Katter, who have some basic logic as the foundation for their ratbaggery, & can be admired for being fairdinkum.

Those like this bloke, who are simply rationalizing a fallacy, don't even get into the ratbag class. They are just conmen.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 22 August 2013 4:29:00 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
Time to own up Malcolm.

Who's your client?
What's their interest in slandering those who raise the population issue?

And how much are they paying you?

When we know who they are it will be time to have an argument -- with them, not with their hired mouth.

P.S. Would it by any chance be an arm of the Property Council?
Posted by Livio, Thursday, 22 August 2013 4:52:54 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
Denial of contraception is as abusive as enforced contraception. The suggestion that family planning programs are a failure is false. The truth is that the World population would be stable but for the 200+ million women who want, but do not have access to contraception. And that comes from that renowned white supremacist organisation, the WHO.

Perhaps if Malcolm thinks contraception so useless as a birth control measure he should advocate its abolition in developed countries.

What a joke, and I imagine that women wanting access to family planning would not think Malcolm a champion of their rights so much as an advocate for their oppression.
Posted by Fester, Thursday, 22 August 2013 10:30:04 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
If one looks at the index of Tanton's The Social Contract Press TSCP from winter 1997-98, a special on Australia, several Australians or 'usual suspects' pop up, with Tanton last contribution (pg2):

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=15206

Of interest is Denis McCormack of the Reduce Immigration Party and declares he is the Oz correspondent for TSCP:

http://www.ironbarkresources.com/articles/mccormack.htm

Coincidentally he promotes a "write-on" campaign:

http://reduceimmigration.wordpress.com/links/why-should-immigration-be-reduced/

as promoted on VDare's website:

http://www.vdare.com/posts/write-on-campaign-in-australia

Who are Vdare?

" VDARE.com is an anti-immigration hate website "dedicated to preserving our historical unity as Americans into the 21st Century." VDARE.com also regularly publishes articles by prominent white nationalists, race scientists and anti-Semites." (many of whom have contributed to TSCP, regularly)

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/VDARE

Lucky for sustainability and the environment that everybody seems to know everyone else, yet are rather coy.
Posted by Andras Smith, Friday, 23 August 2013 2:48:33 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In addition the fact that even most Republicans avoid Tanton:

http://www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com/smoking-gun-memo-proves-tanton-network-manipulates-republicans

Interesting how the various 'environmentalists', like VDare (not unlike BNP) which Tanton and TSCP liaise with, use 'electoral tactics':

'Green washing is portraying oneself as pro-environment but camouflaging the anti-immigration motives. While the SPP's rhetoric sits to the left of the Greens, its policies would find a home with the British National Party.'

Coincidentally the pro environment group Sierra Club in the USA was the subject of a takeover from 1998:

“Without a doubt,” wrote law center staffer Mark Potok, “the Sierra Club is the subject of a hostile takeover attempt by forces allied with Tanton and a variety of right-wing extremists.”

http://grist.org/article/nijhuis-sierra/

but eventually "How the Sierra Club Learned to Love Immigration":

http://colorlines.com/archives/2013/05/how_sierra_club_learned_to_stop_worrying_and_grew_to_love_immigration.html
Posted by Andras Smith, Friday, 23 August 2013 4:49:31 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"No more than 4 posts per article in any given 24 hour period."

How about a limit on authors rehashing the same material over and over again?

This is the *fourth* anti-SPP article by Malcolm King this year.
The last was just 7 weeks ago.

Why is OLO being so indulgent?
Posted by Shockadelic, Friday, 23 August 2013 6:05:37 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
The two postings above by Andras Smith are typical of his work. As I have pointed out "Andras Smith” is pretty clearly the Andrew Smith who used to post inflammatory comments on the academic website “The Conversation”, where he was accused of being a troll and much criticised. He was also forced to admit he was a migration agent, which means he had a vested interest in the arguments he was making for high immigration and rapid population growth. (Failing to draw attention to one’s vested interests is a No-No on that website.)

As Shockadelic points out, Smith relies on ad hominem arguments to cover an indifference to evidence. Smith’s modus operandi (as identifiable as a fingerprint) is to trawl through highly polemicized US websites for material to discredit US environmentalists and population campaigners, and then attempt to attach guilt by association to his Australian opponents. (He works a double-act with Malcolm King.) Apart from this being an invalid argument, it seems not to have occurred to Mr Smith that he could far more easily be tarred in the same way by association with prominent Australian pro-population-growth advocates, since these include a remarkable number of business persons who have been “disgraced” or pursued by the National Crimes Authority.

Concrete and sensible arguments for stabilising Australia's population can be found on the website of the Stable Population Party at http://www.populationparty.org.au/ Note that this group has no need to run Smith's and King's type of ad hominem attacks, because it can offer hard data and logical arguments.
Posted by Livio, Friday, 23 August 2013 9:26:30 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 Cheryl Paddy King is a troll who writes articles for vested interests.
It is fruitless to argue or debate him because he is only doing it for the money.
The best way to remove this pest from forums is not answer him at all.
With any luck he will give up and go away till he comes up with another pseudonym.
Posted by Robert LePage, Friday, 23 August 2013 9:39:49 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
Poor SPP's. They have adopted a 'last days of Hitler' in the bunker mentality. They think these unpaid news stories in OLO, New Matilda, Green Left Weekly, News Ltd, the Greens internal bulletins and the local newspapers are good news - like the sound of Russian artillery.

It's only a small group of people who have formed their own cult and accuse everyone who has done critical research of being trolls. Shockadelic even wants to censor me because I have pulled the plug on their dangerous little sociobiological and sociopathic party. Here's a heads up. I'm not the only one.

I was beaten to the punch by a week re the dodgy relationship between Numbers USA and the SPP. A senior News Ltd journo had been there before me. Oh dear.
Posted by Malcolm 'Paddy' King, Friday, 23 August 2013 10:00:10 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
"News Ltd"? LOL.
Posted by mac, Friday, 23 August 2013 3:32:34 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
All refugees fleeing persecution are welcome to find safe ground on Australian shores. However, you do not leave the processing facility with your reproductive parts intact.
Surely forfeiting your rights to breed would come a long second to exiting this planet.
Would quickly sort the wheat from the chaff.
Posted by carnivore, Friday, 23 August 2013 7:32:49 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
Malcolm 'Paddy' King "Shockadelic even wants to censor me"

You've already published almost identical material *three* times before.
You could have simply added an update comment to one of your existing articles.

If Stephen King sent four manuscripts to his publisher, all of them about "evil dogs" in suburban Connecticut with the same name, would it be "censorship" to reject the last 3?
"Stevie, babe. We've already done that!"

"They have adopted a 'last days of Hitler' in the bunker mentality."

It's the leftists/progressives who are growing hysterically desperate.
The "sheeple" are waking up and won't swallow their reckless, utopian fantasy anymore.

"I have pulled the plug on their dangerous little sociobiological and sociopathic party"

Well now you've done that, you don't have to do it AGAIN.
Posted by Shockadelic, Saturday, 24 August 2013 4:06:12 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
Sometimes you need to hear a message a few times for it to get through, Shockadelic. I was at a SPP night bush gathering recently, and all its idiosyncrasys made little sense to me until I read a few of Malcolm's articles. The white hood and cape night visibility gear we all wore was a little fringe aesthetically, but practical apart from keeping the eyeholes aligned. The burning cross was pretty, but lousy for warmth. And although the pickax handles were easy to carry to the remote setting, they were no good as seats and worried me some when the keener attendees began cheering and waving them about. Good for the pinatas though, or at least I thought they were pinatas.
Posted by Fester, Saturday, 24 August 2013 6:19:57 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
Fester, maybe it's you and Malcolm who need to "get the message" that the vast majority of immigration critics, even those racially-motivated, don't wish any harm to anyone.

We just want a policy based on something more realistic than the Disneyland ride "It's A Small World".
Posted by Shockadelic, Sunday, 25 August 2013 1:12:44 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
From the USA a great quote:

' All this "concern" for the "environment" by anti-immigrants folks such as yourself makes me think of the writings of PJ O'Rourke "overpopulation" was a guilt-free way for white liberals to be racist. Invariably the "over-populating babies" which got the white liberal panties in a bunch were not white suburban babies in this country, but were brown babies born in other countries. Interestingly enough, if you do a little research on John Tanton (the money behind NumbersUSA, FAIR, etc) you will note that he started out as a white liberal concerned about overpopulation.'

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/silver-city-nm/TL5SEM06PUTT0RAAC/p5

Were they "liberal" in the first place?

From Imagine 2050 "Top 10 Reasons Why FAIR Should Drop John Tanton from its Board"

If it walks like a duck, acts like a duck, it is probably a duck? Or just smoke and mirrors....

http://imagine2050.newcomm.org/2011/04/17/top-10-reasons-why-fair-should-drop-john-tanton-from-its-board/

And from Tanton himself, the WITAN Memo III 1986:

'Here is a set of questions and statements that I hope will help guide our discussion of the non-economic consequences of immigration to California, and by extension, to the rest of the United States'

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2002/summer/the-puppeteer/witan-memo-iii
Posted by Andras Smith, Sunday, 25 August 2013 1:59:35 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Andras,

My concern is that women have access and education. There is much evidence to suggest that women with control of their fertility will have both better health and economic circumstances, both for themselves and their children.

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do/Global-Development/Family-Planning

According to this site,

<This collective effort will result in 200,000 fewer women and girls dying in pregnancy and childbirth, more than 100 million fewer unintended pregnancies, over 50 million fewer abortions, and nearly 3 million fewer babies dying in their first year of life. It will also enable more girls to finish school and earn more income over their lifetime. >

So by opposing family planning programs in developing countries, this is the status quo that you, PJ and Malcolm would uphold.
Posted by Fester, Sunday, 25 August 2013 7:27:41 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
Cat got your tongue, Malcolm Cheryl etc King?

I asked back on Thursday arvo who your client is, and whether it is in fact a branch of the Property Council (a developers' alliance).

I thought you'd be eager to tell us if it isn't in fact the Property Council. Instead.... a strange silence from the voluble one.

So, the Property Council then?

Next question, how much are they paying you?

--To save people flipping back, here's what I wrote on Thursday arvo.

--
Time to own up Malcolm.

Who's your client?

What's their interest in slandering those who raise the population issue?

And how much are they paying you?

When we know who they are it will indeed be time to have an argument -- with them, not with their hired mouth.

P.S. Would it by any chance be an arm of the Property Council?

Posted by Livio, Thursday, 22 August 2013 4:52:54 PM
Posted by Livio, Sunday, 25 August 2013 12:02:14 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
Livio,

I'd also be very interested in an answer.
Posted by mac, Sunday, 25 August 2013 4:14:15 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
Hi Livio,

The debate cannot advance until an accepted estimate of per capita infrastructure cost is found. Malcolm's info would suggest around 100k, SPP would suggest much higher, but without a figure it is all hot air.

If Malcolm is a sock puppet for an anonymous client then that is his lot. We all have to make a living in this world.
Posted by Fester, Sunday, 25 August 2013 6:03:08 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
Malcolm King and Andras Smith are beating up phony hysteria on racism to distract attention from the growthists' sledgehammer assaults on our environment, security, social cohesion, personal freedom, and quality of life. These problems would all be just as great or nearly as great if all the additional people were fifth generation native-born white Australians rather than migrants. King et al. also want you to overlook the fact that there is no significant per capita economic benefit from mass migration (according to the Productivity Commission, not one of Malcolm King's mythical fellow travelers) or that the population growth reduces the bargaining power of labour and concentrates more and more of the nation's wealth in fewer and fewer hands.

For the real reasons why many Americans support NumbersUSA, see these graphs from the Economic Policy Institute. The real value of the minimum wage is worth less than in 1967

http://stateofworkingamerica.org/chart/swa-wages-figure-4-ae-real-minimum-wage/

Most American men are now earning lower real hourly wages than in 1979, despite 35 years of technological progress.

http://stateofworkingamerica.org/chart/swa-wages-figure-4c-change-real-hourly-wages/

Productivity and real hourly compensation for non-supervisory workers went up together from 1948 until the early 1970s, then sharply diverged, and the wages stagnated.

http://stateofworkingamerica.org/chart/swa-wages-figure-4u-change-total-economy/

CEO to worker compensation ratio since 1965

http://stateofworkingamerica.org/chart/swa-wages-figure-4-ceo-worker-compensation/

It is worth pointing out that the US had approximately zero net immigration from 1921 to 1965. Mass migration is not the only factor behind social inequality, but it is an important one. See Roy Beck's testimony to Congress on the meat packing industry

http://judiciary.house.gov/legacy/beck0311.ht

(cont'd)
Posted by Divergence, Monday, 26 August 2013 10:50:59 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
(cont'd)

King et al. hope that shrieks of Racist! will have the same effect that shrieks of Witch! or Heretic! had in the 16th or 17th centuries, shutting down critical faculties. I can't speak for anyone else, but I am not a fan of (genuine) racism. It is needlessly hurtful to individuals, wastes talent, and creates animosity between groups of people. Nor do I believe the theory behind it. I have worked with plenty of Asian scientists and some Africans who were very capable. Some were highly creative. A number of Asian countries and Barbados (a black country) are all on the UN's very high human development list, while a number of white countries rank low.

If you have to compare the harm that is done, though, racism is not the ultimate evil, at least until you get into the Hitler class. I would rate the harm done by the boosters to our environment and society well above that done by a garden variety Australian racist.
Posted by Divergence, Monday, 26 August 2013 11:08:45 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
It has been many years since I've had someone justify racism on the grounds that there are worse evils and then in the same post, quote back to me Roy Beck who has lost the support of the right wing of the Republican Party and who is a racist of the southern states kind.

Divergence believes we should forgive racism because according the the PC report, immigrants aren't worth as much (initially) as Australians. To use that in an economic sense, is to simply restate the SPP's core principle - how much is a human life worth if they are poor?

It is abundantly clear that the SPP and SPA have direct links with Numbers USA and the former is up to its neck in it and knows it.

Has the SPP received any monies or favours in kind from either Beck or Tanton or people acting for them?
If so, has this money been declared to the AEC?
What did William Bourke mean when he wrote the SPP might work with Numbers USA after the election?
When the SPP met in Adelaide late last year, what discussion took place about attacking Sarah Hanson-Young?
Was there a strategy to use Australian opinion leaders such as Bindi Irwin to embarrass US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and gain publicity?
Do members of the SPP know of these international right wing connections?

There are a lot more worrying questions than answers about the SPP and its alliances.
Posted by Malcolm 'Paddy' King, Monday, 26 August 2013 11:33:11 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 is at it again, casting aspersions on those who seek an ecologically sustainable population for this country, the US and/or the world. Clearly he's in the pay of Big Business or the real estate world who profit from high population growth rates. Remember JK Galbraith's saying: "The price of private affluence is public squalor". That's exactly what Malcolm King and his paymasters are advocating: private affluence. The way to achieve it is to advocate population growth and see inequality massively increase. Those who seek to stabilise population are protecting, not only the environment and other species, but the poor who are the losers when population numbers grow inexorably and infrastructure doesn't keep up (it never does).
Posted by popnperish, Monday, 26 August 2013 12:17:08 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
Those questions are still unanswered, Mark.

You see I know the SPP is up to its neck in it and that all the green washing won't help you one iota. Bourke really needs to come clean on his relationship with Numbers USA. It has killed off any hope the SPP had of running an ethical and transparent campaign, which is a pity as I am sure some SPP members are true environmentalists.

http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/54774

The above story shows just how far the SPP and SPA have drifted from green values, from social justice issues and from environmentally conscious voters. If you had resisted the overtures of Roy Beck and Numbers USA, and thought more about what the public are willing to accept, rather than defaulting to group think and fundamentalist population control dialogue, the SPP would have done much better.

I wish you well in the lead up to the election.
Posted by Malcolm 'Paddy' King, Monday, 26 August 2013 1:26:09 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
Name your client Malcolm.

There's no point in arguing with their hired mouth.

--

I'd suggest no one replies to Malcolm till he confirms if the Property Council is his client.

At present he's just seeking to provoke a long series of replies, to improve his article's ranking on Google.
Posted by Livio, Monday, 26 August 2013 11:54:03 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
Divergence "A number of Asian countries and Barbados (a black country) are all on the UN's very high human development list, while a number of white countries rank low."

38 out of 47 are White (with Hong Kong falsely included as a separate "country").

Ever heard of the 80/20 rule?
The vast majority of world "development" is White, yet we are a global minority.
Why back the wrong horse when the winner is staring you in the face?

There are *no* White countries in the "low" category. They are almost all African (i.e. Black)

There might be a couple in "medium", depending on how broad your definition of "White" is (Latin American).

The only "very high" non-White country with a *large* population is Japan.
That's it.

So a global per capita map of high development would basically be a map of the White world (with Japan the only significant exception).

"racism is not the ultimate evil, at least until you get into the Hitler class."

Which is why the Malcom Kings of the world will always remind us of this freak historical aberration over and over and over again.

Meanwhile, Janus-faced, they applaud the The Dalai Lama, Gandhi and Malcolm X for defending "their" people (note: not *all* people, THEIR people)
Posted by Shockadelic, Tuesday, 27 August 2013 6:21:16 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
Hang on, what's this I read on the SPP Facebook posted yesterday?

An SPP member asked Bourke who Numbers USA were. Here is Bourke's reply.

"If you Google that group name it says they are a US immigration lobby group, or similar. But unlike us, they're seemingly just focused on immigration, not the broader issue of population re sustainability. We don't know much about them but they were at a broader social meeting a couple of us attended a year or two ago in Sydney, so we assume that is where the so-called "link" claim comes from. We had no prior or post contact, as our issue os population, not immigration."

You've got to be kidding Bourke and SPA representatives met Roy Beck earlier this year. There's a two page interview with Beck on page three of the Feb edition of the SPA newsletter including a picture of Beck, Bourke and SPA members! What's going on? What have they got to hide?

http://www.population.org.au/sites/default/files/newsletters/nl201302_108-web.pdf

The SPP stand for nothing else but slashing immigration!

Here are the questions with one more added:

1. Has the SPP received any monies or favours in kind from either Beck or Tanton or people acting for them? If so, has this money been declared to the AEC?

2. What did William Bourke mean when he wrote the SPP might work with Numbers USA after the election? Why did he not tell the SPP member of the more recent meeting with Numbers USA?

3. When the SPP met in Adelaide late last year, what discussion took place about attacking Sarah Hanson-Young?

4. Was there a strategy to use Australian opinion leaders such as Bindi Irwin to embarrass US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and gain publicity?

5. Why don't the SPP come clean about its international right wing anti-immigration connections to its members?

6. Why is the SPA claiming tax deductivity as an 'environmental group' when it is a lobby group dedicated to social engineering Australian society?
Posted by Malcolm 'Paddy' King, Tuesday, 27 August 2013 9:06:14 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
Consider this
Global replacement rate is 2.33 children per woman.
USA = 2.4, UK = 1.7, Aus = 1.76 (2000-05), so telling people to "take responsibility" is really pointing the finger at the third world.

Claiming 'education' is the solution & presenting rich educated populations wanting one child as evidence is ingenuine. Since only the well off can afford education, that evidence rather points to the effect of material security on family size.

Large families provide the only security the poor can achieve, risky as that strategy is for them. But their desperate need for security questions how the first world exploits the third world to provide the standard of living WE demand.

India uses 1.3ha of the earth / person - we use between 3 & 4 times that, but sustainability (and justice!) demands we reduce that to 2ha. Still, it's more pleasant to focus on their ignorance, isn't it.

We should demolish the fraud being committed - we haven't got time to be going down wrong paths blaming the poor or population numbers for the state of the planet or its future!

Selling an idea (eg. over population) is often about telling enough truth to slip in the lie unnoticed from which self interested people can profit.

Chris Baulman
@landrights4all
Posted by landrights4all, Tuesday, 27 August 2013 2:21:34 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Malcolm King,

You are assuming that NumbersUSA really is some sort of hate group just because the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) says so. SPLC is a politicised organisation on the Left that is notorious for trying to shut down debate by labelling political opponents as racists or "haters", while ignoring genuine hate speech from groups that it supports. Here is what a Cornell law professor has to say about them

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/08/splcs-hatewatch-gives-cover-to-hate/

Even people on the Left who agree with most of their positions are disgusted by their tactics.

“I feel that the Law Center is essentially a fraud and that it has a habit of casually labeling organizations as “hate groups.” (Which doesn’t mean that some of the groups it criticizes aren’t reprehensible.) In doing so, the SPLC shuts down debate, stifles free speech, and most of all, raises a pile of money, very little of which is used on behalf of poor people.”

http://harpers.org/blog/2010/03/hate-immigration-and-the-southern-poverty-law-center/

There has been ongoing controversy about the SPLC's financial management and fundraising methods, as in the Montgomery Advertiser series in 1994 that was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize.

Here is what the Center for Immigration Studies has to say about the smear tactics

http://www.cis.org/immigration-splc

And here is a link to the NumbersUSA site. If you can find anything racist, I will give $50 to a charity of your choice.

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/
Posted by Divergence, Tuesday, 27 August 2013 2:40:01 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
Hi landrights4all,

The current philosophy of family planning in the developing world is one of choice, not of coercion. What is your objection to women having a choice? Is is not true that both denial and enforcement can constitute an abuse?

Frankly, I cannot understand the vigor of Malcolm's attack. SPP is one of many minor parties which question the wisdom of Australia's immigration policy. By singling it out, he only gives it publicity. Surely a more logical approach would be to argue the benefit of high immigration. Such an approach would challenge the policy stance, yet give no prominence to anti-immigration parties.
Posted by Fester, Tuesday, 27 August 2013 6:11:57 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
Thanks Divergence,

That will be my next story. Fester is right. Next time it needs to be on a larger canvas.
Posted by Malcolm 'Paddy' King, Tuesday, 27 August 2013 6:49:29 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
Shockadelic,

Here is a link to the UN's latest Human Development report with Human Development Index rankings

http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

Asian countries on the very high human development list are Japan, South Korea, Brunei, Singapore, and Hong Kong. I would agree with you that Hong Kong doesn't belong, as it is not an independent country. Barbados is a black country on the list, and so is Seychelles, where African blacks are the largest single ethnic group, although there are also French, Indians, and Chinese. Then there are Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, white, but not European.

It is true that I should have said that there are a number of white countries ranking lower, not low, although Afghanistan and Yemen are on the low human development list and a number of Latin American countries and Moldova (a European country)are on the medium human development list.

My own view is that if people are poor, backward, and conflict ridden, the problem is far more likely to be due to their culture than their genes. Being white is clearly not a necessary or sufficient condition for very high performance.

Landrights,

Here is a link to the Global Footprint Network 2010 atlas

global footprint network ecological footprint atlas 2010

They are an international thinktank of engineers, scientists, and economists, and have done the numbers on consumption and resources. If you go through their tables, you will see that the billion people in the richest countries are responsible for about 38% of the consumption. Most consumption is in poorer countries. If there are enough people, it doesn't matter if per capita consumption is low.
Posted by Divergence, Tuesday, 27 August 2013 7:18:19 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
Hi Divergence,

landrights4all, by claiming very low consumption of the World's poor, enforces the premise that a lack of fertility control hampers economic development. Rand Corporation presents a large body of evidence to support the view that well conducted family planning programs enhance economic development.

I myself hold the old fashioned view that consumption is a measure of achievement, not of shame.
Posted by Fester, Tuesday, 27 August 2013 8:36:53 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
Divergence,

I have a Mr David Duke who supports the work of NumbersUSA, especially re the illegal immigrant amnesty. I will save it for later.

David Duke was the Grand Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan.
Posted by Malcolm 'Paddy' King, Tuesday, 27 August 2013 9:44:53 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
Divergence, as I said, a map showing high development levels would basically be a map of the White world.

And lo and behold, your UNDP site has one.

http://hdr.undp.org/en/data/map/

The gender equality-adjusted map is even more obviously White, with Japan disappearing and only South Korea remaining as a *significant* anomaly.

All the other countries you mention have tiny populations, so little impact on the "world" picture.

Middle Eastern people are classified Caucasoid, but are not "White", a term used only for European ancestries.
The Afro-Asiatic and Turkic cultures are unrelated to Europe.

The only non-European peoples related to us are the Indic and Iranian peoples, and that connection was severed thousands of years ago.
And the maps don't paint a rosy picture of them either.

"My own view is that if people are poor, backward, and conflict ridden, the problem is far more likely to be due to their culture than their genes."

And? Why bring people from those troublesome cultures here?
Why artificially impose a problem that never needed to exist in our society?

"Being white is clearly not a necessary or sufficient condition for very high performance."

Look at the results, not theoretical possibilities.
If you judged people by their stats, not their genes, you still end up with the same result.
It's gold, gold, gold for Whites.

There are many wise sayings about situations like this (If it ain't broke, don't fix it; When you're on a good thing, stick to it, etc.)

Why are we ignoring the wisdom of the ages for an unverifiable utopian fantasy?

We are trading in a Rolls Royce for a Subaru!
And this is an *irreversible* act.
If we decide later the Subaru just doesn't cut it, we can't get the Rolls back.
It's already been in the crusher.
Posted by Shockadelic, Wednesday, 28 August 2013 2:28:54 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
David Duke and Shockadelic. What a team for the white race and for a white Australia!

I have some early details about Numbers USA and will provide a more comprehensive analysis of the SPP relationship soon. I understand that it goes back some years.
Posted by Malcolm 'Paddy' King, Wednesday, 28 August 2013 8:34:35 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,

You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel if all you can come up with is David Duke. The question is not whether Duke supports NumbersUSA, but whether NumbersUSA supports Duke. Have they invited Duke's support? Haven't you ever encountered someone who you wished didn't agree with you? Of course, the White Nationalists want lower immigration, because it keeps out people that they don't like, but that doesn't mean that there aren't good reasons for opposing unending population growth, via immigration or otherwise. You need to show that NumbersUSA is racist, not that racists might support it for reasons of their own.

Shockadelic,

Japan and South Korea aren't tiny countries, and even if a country is tiny, performing so well is still a big achievement. It is true that most of the people in the countries that perform best are white, but it is no guarantee. As you probably know, I support cutting immigration back to zero net, but that is still tens of thousands of people every year. In deciding who to take, what is wrong with judging people as individuals? If they come from an incompatible culture, then we obviously should be extra careful. Importing jihadists is stupid, but what is wrong with taking a top Arab scientist such as Ahmed Zewail, who won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry?
Posted by Divergence, Wednesday, 28 August 2013 3:16:07 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
Divergence,

http://americasvoiceonline.org/blog/new-cnc-report-connects-john-tanton-cis-fair-numbersusa-to-forced-sterilization-drug/

Americasvoiceonline is lefty but tends to quote reports fairly and directly. They represent the soft left: pro-environment, young, social democrats. In fact, they are your voting constituency, such as it is. The Quinacrine reports gives some damning history to Beck's allies.

The real problem you have is those meetings the SPP had with Beck in 2010 and six months ago as I reported. While Beck screams 'I'm no racist', he has strong support from sections of the Klan and the very far right of American politics, who run second hand military stores in the deep South and want little physicists such as yourself, to 'squeal like a pig'. Duke and Beck drink from the same cup but they don't like to be photographed doing it.

The SPP is gullible and naive. That's what I'd plead when both the AEC and the media come calling. In the meantime, I'd have a crack at answering those questions. Think of it as an exercise is media crisis management.

You see those meetings with Beck to start the SPP, the Tanton connection, the reports coming out now of Numbers USA tactics (see Bindi Irwin, see SPA Feb 2013), losing the Chicano vote, the revolt in the Republican party due to Beck's wedging and the SPP's attempt to wedge the green vote in Australia, are your inheritance. It's the SPP's contribution to modern Australian society. A viral racism grown in America and desperately trying to sporn here via the SPP. Well done young man.
Posted by Malcolm 'Paddy' King, Wednesday, 28 August 2013 5:15:05 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
We need more immigrant maths teachers! The SPA's latest media release on infrastructure spend is a cracker and repeats a shocker which I pointed out on OLO last month. Here’s the SPA release.

http://www.population.org.au/articles/2013-08-28/high-population-growth-costing-us-dearly

A couple of years ago, Dr Jane O'Sullivan, a Queensland SPP Senate Candidate, wrote that Australia's infrastructure spend is currently 25 per cent of GDP due to high population growth. Hands on belly stuff. She based her figures on Lester Thurow's 1986 article 'Why the Ultimate Size of the World's Population Doesn't Matter' in MIT's Technology Review.

Thurow estimated that it required 12.5 per cent of GDP to expand capacity at 1 per cent per year. Dr Sullivan said, "Australian estimates would suggest that figure is right in our ball-park too… So, if we're currently growing at two per cent per year, then 25 per cent of our GDP is currently being used to expand capacity to accommodate the people who are not yet here. This means that the GDP available per capita to serve current residents is 25 per cent less than the advertised per capita GDP."

That’s where you get the $200K figure spend per person. Wow. Why bother raising bonds or investing overseas? Lets all fund it off the domestic tax base! LOL.

What Lester actually said was: "If the United States had a four percent population growth rate, one half of its entire GDP would have to be devoted to investing in those new Americans."

Population growth has slowed dramatically across the developed world just as demographers predicted it would. Dr Sullivan's quote of four percent population growth is based on a Thurow hypothetical and has no relevance in the States or here.

Australia's population growth rate is 1.8 with the trend rate at 1.4. Australia's spend on infrastructure, as a percentage of GDP, was 10.5 per cent in 2012.

SPA boss Goldie cites the 2006 Productivity Commission which states that immigrant have little economic worth – except for all those who start businesses, employ people, pay taxes, develop cures for cancer or see below:

http://www.theage.com.au/executive-style/strive/they-came-they-conquered-20130419-2i4wf.html
Posted by Malcolm 'Paddy' King, Wednesday, 28 August 2013 8:05:53 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
Divergence "Japan and South Korea aren't tiny countries"

I said the others were (Qatar, Seychelles, Barbados, etc)

Japan and Korea are the *only* significant non-White peoples who have *proven* themselves.
They are actually related to each other, so maybe "success" is genetic with them too.
You either have it (Whites, Japanese/Koreans) or you don't (the rest).

"If they come from an incompatible culture, then we obviously should be extra careful."

But we can't "profile" peoples/cultures/nationalities.
That would be "waysist".

Why even bother taking the risk?
We know European cultures/peoples are compatible, as they're related to us.
We share a common history.

If we want to help people from the developing world, what about all those remnant White colonial minorities (British, French, German, etc) that face the wrath of resentful natives?

There are probably at least a few million of them, and they're educated, smart, numerate, literate, etc.
Their adjustment to our society would be easier and quicker.

And as economic and environmental crises loom, they will be desperate to get the hell outta there.
Why not welcome our "siblings" and "cousins" into our home as our *first* priority?

"I support cutting immigration back to zero net, but that is still tens of thousands of people every year. In deciding who to take, what is wrong with judging people as individuals?"

But we aren't "judging" anyone.
We aren't getting the leading scientists, artists, etc.
We are getting the dregs.
Posted by Shockadelic, Thursday, 29 August 2013 2:42:17 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,

Below is Numbers USA holding an anti-immigration town hall meeting a couple of weeks ago. Note the invitees: Tea Party, Eagle Forum and the Remembrance Project. That’s Numbers USA inviting them. It’s not the Tea Party, Eagle Forum and Remembrance Project members just walking by and thought they’d drop in and see what was happening.

http://conservativebyte.com/2013/08/tea-party-to-hold-immigration-town-hall/

Their websites don’t say they are racists. They just want the Mexicans, Chicanos, Jews, Africans and Asians to stay where they are and “Grow where they are planted” to quote Beck. Ha!

The Remembrance Project are people who have banded together in fellowship and revenge over Americans who were killed by immigrants. Your young groovy suburban eco-voters are going to love the Eagle Forum too. Look them up.

Here is a post from the KKK promoting Numbers USA all the way back to 2002!

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t43964/

Note ‘Skinhead power’ from Anderson South Carolina says ‘excellent site www.numbersusa.com - and it’s free’. I always thought it was the Jews who were known for parsimony.

Remember what I said about Beck and SPP drinking from the same cup? What has the SPP got itself mixed up in? You keep the $50.00. You’ll need it. The SPP is three degrees away from the KKK and its greenwashing/wedging environmental tactics are pure Numbers USA.
Posted by Malcolm 'Paddy' King, Thursday, 29 August 2013 7:17:55 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,

Appearing on the same platform at a town meeting with some pretty unpleasant people like the Tea Party doesn't mean that NumbersUSA endorses all of their views. It is sort of like the Greenies and the farmers getting together to try to stop coal seam gas mining or fracking on agricultural land. NumbersUSA and the Far Right groups are only united here in trying to stop the Democrats' amnesty bill that has already passed the Senate, the most serious effects of which are a massive increase in legal immigration, which is already very large, and creating a magnet for more illegal immigration. The business lobby is getting the open borders to cheap labour that it craves. The billionaire Warren Buffett has said words to the effect that there is a class war and his side is winning. This bill is another pre-emptive strike. Getting the bill defeated by motivating people to lobby their Congressman is a much more important objective than demonstrating moral purity by recoiling in horror from the Far Right. What did NumbersUSA say at that town meeting? You aren't able to find any racist words or policies, so you can only try to smear the organization with vague associations.

You seem to think that racism is the ultimate evil, or you want other people to believe it, but I regard people like you as a far greater threat to our environment and society than people like Shockadelic, even though I don't agree with him about race. He might actually care about the environment and the welfare of his ordinary and disadvantaged fellow citizens.

So far as Jane O'Sullivan is concerned, you should look at her peer-reviewed article in Economic Affairs, not just her OLO piece. She refers to Lester Thurow, but does her own independent calculations. She is actually more conservative than the Curtin University study on infrastructure costs referred to by William Bourke.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0270.2011.02125.x/pdf
Posted by Divergence, Thursday, 29 August 2013 6:42:07 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
Divergence/SPP,

they didn't appear, they were invited. The meeting was about working together to come up with strategies to promote the anti-immigration agenda. I had the agenda emailed to me through a third party.

It is not like the Greens and the farmers getting together over a coffee. That's a good one. It is like Numbers USA getting in to bed with far right racist groups, getting them to do their dirty work, and then saying 'it's not us'.

You can belittle and deflect all you like and use terms like 'class' but the SPP has no environmental credentials and absolutely no runs on the board re social justice.

You are the most trenchant (or delusional) of the SPP executive. The fact that SPP preferenced Hanson and One Nation before the Greens is more evidence of the SPP's perfidious nature.
Posted by Malcolm 'Paddy' King, Thursday, 29 August 2013 7:13:44 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
Malcolm King what exactly is wrong with "stay[ing] where they are"?

Isn't that what most people do?
Less than 3% of the world population are immigrants.

So over 97% of humans do, if fact, "stay where they are", or more accurately, stay where they're born.
Would it make much difference if that was 98%, 99%, 100% in the future?

"Staying where you are" is the historical and contemporary *norm*, despite all the hoopla about "immigrants building nations".

If living conditions in some countries are pitiful, that is *not* our responsibility.
And we could only ever take a tiny fraction of those affected, leaving the vast majority unchanged.

What does change is *our* society.

The argument for non-discriminatory immigration is presented hysterically, obsessively and deceptively, which is not what "enlightened" people would do.

It is based on nothing factual beyond being a "species", which means *nothing*.
(Define anything that our "species" does that is culturally invariant.)
Its basis is theoretical, idealistic, fantastical.

On the other hand, the "racist" argument is based on reality, probability, anthropology.
A shared, related history going back thousands of years.
The obvious advanced development of White-majority countries.

Even if we agreed Japanese and Koreans (and *only* them) are at the same level, that wouldn't justify demographic disruption (especially when they refuse to reciprocate this in their own countries).

If we want to "help" people, we could just as easily accept any of the millions of our educated White "siblings/cousins" who currently live in former colonies, surrounded by an often-hostile Coloured majority.

There is no honest, logical, factual argument *against* a White-restricted policy.
If you have one, please "enlighten" us.
Posted by Shockadelic, Friday, 30 August 2013 1:21:03 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,

NumbersUSA and the Far Right groups such as the Tea Party are united about stopping the Democrats' amnesty bill, but where is your evidence that NumbersUSA has endorsed any of their other policies? Because you and I might agree on one issue, say, encouraging chilren to read, that doesn't mean that we agree on everything.

I am not on the executive of SPP and have had no input into its preferences. By the way, unlike Cheryl, I really am female.

As I recall, though, One Nation was pretty far down the SPP preference list. The Greens are hopeless on population, even though they have a nice sounding policy. When Julia Gillard said that she didn't believe in "hurtling toward a Big Australia" and then did the exact opposite, the Greens didn't say a word, even though they were in a very strong bargaining position. They also essentially want open borders for anyone claiming to be a refugee. (As a practical matter, it is very difficult to deport a failed asylum seeker who has destroyed his travel documents.) There is no point in cutting per capita consumption to reduce our carbon footprint and then keep adding people, as well as the bigger coal exports that are required to pay for the imports needed by the bigger population. This is simply window dressing, creating the illusion that something is being done. (According to the Australia Institute, the average migrant's carbon footprint doubles on coming to Australia. Their children will also be consuming at the same rate as everyone else here.) So far as the environment is concerned, only the total impact matters. The Greens are preaching about the environment, but the environment always loses when it is in competition with their "social justice" or "humanitarian" objectives.

If population growth is cut back, I will be happy to shift my attention to what I consider the next most serious environmental issue.
Posted by Divergence, Friday, 30 August 2013 1:27:51 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
Well, Divergence, you and me might agree that we should get together and kick out the Chicanos and the Cubans but then disagree on abortion. WE might get black people onside for now, but turn on them later.

But you're with Numbers USA on anti-immigration and you agree with their policies down the line re anti-immigration and you have no issue that they come to Australia and help Bourke establish the SPP and give Bindi guidance on her population essay.

One side of my family in the 1930s agreed that the Jews were clearly part of the problem in Germany - and remember the Jewish bankers not giving loans to shop keepers during the Depression. They thought smashing Jewish shops was OK and do you know why? Because they were easily identifiable and easy to blame. They were sociobiological 'vermin'. This reductionist thinking is the SPP's political philosophy.

Who's fault unemployment? Black, Jews, short people. Can't buy a house - who do you blame? Immigrants or population (synonymous with the SPP). You and the SPP use a kind of naive reductionism to boil complex economic and sociological problems down to a simplistic and ridiculously flawed level of abstraction, which you use as a racist carrot to voters. Who is to blame? Population, aka people, aka - not you or me - but the last people off the boat or plane.

Wake up.
Posted by Malcolm 'Paddy' King, Friday, 30 August 2013 2:52:45 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
Nonsense.

You made up a lot of stuff in one of your previous articles about how SPP wanted to bring in trade protectionism, boot out New Zealanders, stop foreign students from coming, and have the government tell people how many children to have. All lies and easily refuted by just looking at SPP's website. You also go in for the conspiracy theory that there is some kind of secret agenda. Where is your evidence for that?

There is no secret agenda. We are simply past the point where a much bigger population is of any benefit to the average citizen, even in narrow economic terms, while it puts more pressure on our environment, increases social inequality, crowds us, and gives us lesser standards of infrastructure and public services because governments can't keep up. If you imagine that house prices could have nearly tripled since the 1970s in terms of the median wage without the demand from mass migration, you are delusional. Personally, I don't care if the additional people that are being imported by the Labor and Liberal wings of the Property Party are black, white, or brindle. I would be just as concerned if the politicians stopped mass migration, but raised the baby bribes high enough to replace it with really massive growth by natural increase. Shockadelic may care about race, but I don't.

"The aim is wellbeing for all Australians, present and future, and to preserve the biodiversity of our ecosystems, with enough space and resources to live well and in balance with each other."

http://www.populationparty.org.au/Philosophy-Objectives-Core-Values
Posted by Divergence, Friday, 30 August 2013 3:50:11 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
Deja vu: "There is no honest, logical, factual argument *against* a White-restricted policy.
If you have one, please "enlighten" us."

I'm still waiting, Malcolm King.
You're the self-appointed spokesperson.
Give me an argument that isn't hysterical hyperbole or STFU.
Posted by Shockadelic, Saturday, 31 August 2013 4:49:24 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
suseonline; What mob is it that pays you to write your rubbish?
Can anyone get on the bandwagon?
I could do with some extra income.
Posted by Robert LePage, Saturday, 31 August 2013 9:50:53 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
Quite simply PPP are correct and Malcolm King is incorrect. Source: I have a PhD in population biology and therefore a deep understanding of what Gause demonstrated in 1934 when organsims compete for resources in an agar plate. The consequences for yeast cells are no different for any organism in a finite resource area.
ps: working as a population geneticist I get whiff of inbreeding here.
Posted by spinifex, Sunday, 1 September 2013 10:53:26 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
As a senior demographer in the APS, I have read most of King's articles and while he seems abrasive, his data and general thrust is about right. His article on 'first world' global population trends was correct.

I don't know much about the Stable Pop Party but it would be in their best interests to study urban planning and demographics before establishing their policies. Both ANU and Melbourne University have excellent programs on population dynamics.

I have no issue with using a biological model but the tendency is to create instrumentalist policies through reductionism. Modern thinking has moved on from Malthuse although his writings are important in a historical sense when rereading Darwin.

Much of the SPP's data is not data but media claims or subjective opinions on climate change or fairly wild extrapolations about the ramifications of climate change. I am mindful that as a scientist, I am conservative in this regard and make no comment.

I know that I sound like an old stick in the mud and I wish I could make the population issue sexier but alas, it is only one issue - and I'm afraid a rather minor one - when we examine the issues facing modern Australia.

Australia's population has risen in the last ten years through temporary immigration and more recently, with international students being counted as 'residents'. That created some very wild news stories. I am sure you knew that.

I have looked at their website, and from a data and policy POV and there are some grave errors of fact re NOM, analysis, interpretation of data or migration exists. It does not mention the recent 280,000 undercount by the Census. Nor does it mention global trend re movement to the cities which creates some significant infrastructure problems. Even so, I wish you well in the election.
Posted by Ivannotsoterrible, Sunday, 1 September 2013 12:36:00 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
Time goes by, so slowly.

Well, has the magician skipped town in a hurry?

Strange how those who dedicate their lives to fighting "racism" never have an explanation of *why* exactly it's wrong or less preferable to race-neutrality.

The issue is almost always connected to immigration, so the quesstion isn't really whether "racism" is wrong, but whether a "racist" or race-biased/race-restrictive *immigration* policy is better or worse than an everything-and-anything-all-at-once policy.

The potential dangers and problems of people from 6000 different cultures all living in the same city are fairly obvious, the potential benefits of a restricted policy are also obvious (That's why our first federal parliament chose it. They weren't stupid or evil people).

Surely, after all these years, you'd think Mr Spokesperson would have an answer he could just cut-and-paste into every thread he starts!

But no, they never do.

All they can do is trot out the dusty museum exhibits (Nazis, KKK), which they know have no chance in hell of ever happening again (and had little to do with immigration, being attacks on their own citizens).

The problem there was *fanaticism*, not racism per se.
There are just as many tragic relics right next to those, that have nothing to do with race (e.g. Soviet and Chinese communism, witchhunts).

One day the atrocities of the Multicultural Era (and the civil wars that ended it) will be in a glass case next to the above at the Museum of Tragic Utopian Fanaticism.

People will shake their heads and wonder "What were they thinking?!"
Then swallow the latest Disney-meets-Watchtower snake oil.

You'll wake up one day, but it'll be too late.
Posted by Shockadelic, Monday, 2 September 2013 1:35:02 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
Ivanthenotsoterrible,

Here is a link to the section of the 1994 Australian Academy of Science report that recommended that we not go above 23 million.

http://www.science.org.au/events/sats/sats1994/Population2040-section8.pdf

"If our population reaches the high end of the feasible range (37 million), the quality of life of all Australians will be lowered by the degradation of water, soil, energy and biological resources. Cities such as Sydney and Melbourne will double or triple in size, multiplying their current infrastructure problems and their impact on the surrounding regions of the continent. Alternatively, new cities of their present size and impact will have to be sited, built and serviced. Moreover, this large population would continue to grow for decades after 2040, and the quality of Australian life would continue to fall."

The Productivity Commission has said that there are no large-scale per capita economic benefits from mass migration, so the above losses aren't balanced by any corresponding benefits - at least for ordinary people. (p. 6)

http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/113407/annual-report-2010-11.pdf

"An understanding of the economic impacts of immigration is sometimes clouded by misperception. Two benefits that are sometimes attributed to immigration, despite mixed or poor evidence to support them, are that:
*immigration is an important driver of per capita economic growth
*immigration could alleviate the problem of population ageing."

It is the Australian Bureau of Statistics that counts international students and temporary migrants as immigrants (so long as they are here for more than 12 months), not something that SPP cooked up. It also counts them as emigrants when they leave. What matters is the balance between immigration and emigration, and it is heavily skewed.

Ultimately, our population and all our human social constructs, such as cities and economic theories, depend on the natural world. Globally, we are facing serious losses or shortages of fresh water, arable land, biodiversity, fish stocks, cheap fossil fuels and minerals, and capacity of the environment to safely absorb wastes. Perhaps it is better to listen to natural scientists like Spinifex on these issues rather than social scientists.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7263/full/461472a.html

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/
Posted by Divergence, Monday, 2 September 2013 10:56:40 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
Thank you for your reply. I am not au faut on blogs but they are interesting, although I fear too time consuming. I actually worked on the 2010 PC report or rather, had some input. The terms of reference were fairly narrow and vague.

We were not trying to determine whether migrants added economic value. We know from baseline studies both here and in the US that educated migrants add value to national productivity. What we don't know is how much. It could be slender as you assert. The idea was not to use the report as a stick. It's simply a case that we can't measure some aspects of behavioural life or, in an instrumentalist way, wrap a ruler around a person's economic worth. I believe neither of us would want that anyway.

There is no plan by either of the major parties to add more people to increase the tax base to support an ageing population. That has been modelled and would not work. It's too late. The push now is to ensure older workers stay in work a little longer and save. Even so, there will be considerable draw downs on the health and pension budgets.

Have you looked at the pending mortality rates of the Boomers from 2030-2050? About six million Australians will die over a 20 year period or so. We will see quite a large drop in productivity with some knock on effects for younger age cohorts.

I would counsel you to be a little circumspect about using government reports in a wholly instrumental way, or rather, 'picking the eyes out of them' for political ends. The reason is that these reports reflect a specific type of methodology and broad brush interpretations are not always wise or accurate.

You would know about the 12/16 rule and that approx 70 per cent of temp migrants and almost all holiday makers exit Australia. It's worth looking at the exits and most especially Australian 'permanent' exits.
Posted by Ivannotsoterrible, Monday, 2 September 2013 11:51:09 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
Hi Ivan,

<Have you looked at the pending mortality rates of the Boomers from 2030-2050? About six million Australians will die over a 20 year period or so. We will see quite a large drop in productivity with some knock on effects for younger age cohorts.>

I dont see much sense in making decisions based on a 40 year horizon. It seems to be totally absurd and more the realm of clairvoyants and sundry charlatans. I agree with Malcolm that there is not enough information for the SPP to justify their claims, but I believe that a better understanding would unquestionably lead to government making better decisions. The best we can hope for is a better present. Leave the future for the speculators.
Posted by Fester, Monday, 2 September 2013 5:46:12 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
ivanthenotsoterrible,

I am beating people with a stick! I post links so that people can tell if I have misrepresented my sources, unlike Malcolm King with his accusations of racism and international conspiracy. Of course there are a lot of confounding factors, but if the economic benefits of mass migration were very large, you would surely be able to demonstrate them. (See also the 2006 Productivity Commission report on immigration (p. 154 and associated graphs).)

You are ignoring the impact on the environment, which can have serious effects on our long-term future. This is not just about ideal koala habitat being ideal developer habitat, but about the environmental damage in producing the exports needed to pay for the imports for a bigger population. The Australian Conservation Foundation has nominated population growth in Australia as a key threatening process under the Environmental Protection Act

http://www.acfonline.org.au/sites/default/files/resources/EPBC_nomination_22-3-10.pdf

So far as climate change is concerned, the worst case outcomes may be unlikely, but we also need to consider the seriousness of the damage they could do if they do happen. That is why we have telescopes looking out for dangerous asteroids. The first duty of a government is to avoid collapse.

There are a lot of quality of life issues related to crowding, congestion, hospital waiting lists, etc., but one of the main ones is the cost of housing, which has nearly tripled in our cities with respect to the median wage since 1973, mostly due to the cost of residential land, even though block sizes are a lot smaller now. Perhaps you could take a look at housing prices in Germany and some other EU countries where population growth has been low

http://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_EN-PROD/PROD0000000000290566.pdf

in contrast to Australia

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2013/02/the-history-of-australian-property-values/

The EU countries would have also had trends toward urbanization, smaller household sizes, etc. If the difference isn't due to our very high rate of population growth, then what is the cause?
Posted by Divergence, Monday, 2 September 2013 5:59:58 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
Well it's been a week now and still no answer.
I guess he can't answer the most *fundamental* question underlying his entire perspective: *Why* is "racism" wrong?.

"Anti-racists" are shallow, deceptive, evasive, ignorant, hypocritical, word-twisting, vicious, game-playing, arrogant jerks.
Which makes me suspect they're the ones that are wrong.

Looking forward to Malcolm's fifth regurgitation of the same material in another 3 weeks (not!)
Posted by Shockadelic, Friday, 6 September 2013 1:24:16 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 Malcolm.
I find your conspiracy theory stuff a bit wierd. I,ve had an interest in the population debate for many years now and come to my own conclusions. I,m very much into the environment thing, got no real zeal for for the racial makeup of australia, no great zeal for the debate about how many kids etc , because i was basically of the opinion, migration aside, we,d be fairly stable ? Therefore i think i could probably asume that, like me, most people involved with the SPP actually do come from an environmental platform, or in my case, an environmental / economic platform i,m sorry mate but i dont fit the bill as as some kind of kkk, nazi, fascist. in disguise. Like many "big OZ" skeptics, my moment of clarity came when i first heard the infamous economic statement delivered to government. " we need more babies to support our ageing population". In fairness it was by means of the tax base rather than direct manual labour etc. But really it was an embarrassment. Having said that if you,re into ponzi schemes to run economic policy, so be it, just accept it and be honest about it. I have met quite a few people who phillosophically dont care about future generations, and funny enough i dont have much problem with that line, though its not my thing. Soon after that moment of clarity came the water rationing period, where well intentioned people rationed water due to drought etc. So were they also unwittingly creating capacity for apartment developers. Of course they were. Were they getting hoodwinked by government and developers ? Of course they were. And from there the flaws and deceptions in the whole "growth" model simply become obvious. Throw in the manipulation of world property growth resulting in the "GFC, and well....
Look forward to comments Malcolm.
Posted by The Cockatoo, Tuesday, 10 September 2013 11:46:20 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
Cockatoo,

It's weird alright but not as weird as the players behind the formation of the SPP. As they polled less than .2 of the vote, it's all over now anyway.

I worked in the DEEWR labour market unit in Canberra and there is no plan to get migrants in to help generate tax revenues. Some pollies might think that but they are wrong.

The ageing pop is a given and its too late to do much about it now. There will be knock on effects from about 2020-2040 which will cause some economic and social problems but its not a population problem.
Posted by Malcolm 'Paddy' King, Tuesday, 10 September 2013 3:47:21 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
hello Malcolm
I.m glad to hear that the DEEWR labour market unit has enough common sense not to fall for the argument of an immigration based ponzi scheme, to support a larger tax base for the ageing population, probably because someone may have actually realized that there is a possibility that migrants, as well as babies, are prone to ageing as well. "in most cases".
How i see it paying for the ageing population is just that . You pay for it. Very expensive? Yeah, quite expensive, but with a stable or sustainable pop growth, you wouldnt need for eg. to spend the $1.5 billion announced last week on the westconnexx roads of the 21st century. which will be clogged anyhow in 15 odd year, nor the bleed of money exiting to banks via inflated mortgages. funny how those banks seem to grow at %7 every year while GDP, CPI. pop growth hovers around %2, or %3. now theres some missing bucks that never visited the economy, and to a degree the tax base. but fair enough with only .2% of the vote, i may as well just get on Tonys' freeways to prosperity.
Posted by The Cockatoo, Monday, 23 September 2013 9:56:33 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
No argument from me.

immigration will drop back over the next ten years as the economy slows. The ageing pop thing has more to do with intergenerational inequity.

MK
Posted by Malcolm 'Paddy' King, Monday, 23 September 2013 11:13:42 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. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. All

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