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.

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).

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.

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.

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)

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?