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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.