You can't save the world if you hate everyone in it,who are the SPP saving the planet for?
The characterisation of such groups is "Far right" is also wrong, they're Leftists through and through, eugenics and centralised population management are Socialist ideals.
Right wingers want open borders,minimal government and an unregulated free market. The problem they have with present immigration usually stems from the way the Left create special categories of people and show favouritism in the marketplace on the basis of race or ethnicity, it's not "Racism" because Australians aren't a race and aren't nationalistic.

Probably the only relevant comment you make is that there are now 7.1 billion people living, existing would be a more appropriate word, on this planet.
Sadly for our future there is no other planet we, at least those of your descendants surviving, can bolt to when we lack clean water to drink, fresh clean air to breathe and a clean, green environment to keep us alive.
You write a biased lot of garbage Paddy.
Do you want to stop at standing room only or perhaps just short of that?
I am a proud supporter of the SPP.

...Malcolm King, this article is a “rant” against common sense. There was no drug problem in Australia before Vietnamese flooded our shores, as the original boat people. Complete suburbs such as Cabramatta in Sydney’s inner west, were effectively turned into a drug “Bazar” by this criminal element: A history nicely whitewashed away under the banner of Multicultural harmony now of course.

...Housing; to proffer the idea that housing will be more affordable (as you do here), with higher populations of Chinese criminals, carrying suitcases of laundered money to sink into Australian real estate as a good thing, defies logic. Reality is, housing was affordable before Asian immigration to Australia in the ‘70’s and 80’s, and homelessness was solely a final state of alcoholism.

...But I’ll leave it for now to allow others to demolish your argument against immigration …Cheers!

Great, now I get to use reductio ad Hitlerum for once!
In his treatise Mein Kampf Herr Hitler (a well known Leftist) goes on at some length about the suffering of the poor and overpopulation in Germany and set in motion a program of territorial conquest and forced population movement.
The practical workings of the Reinhard project are explained in this letter from SS Brigadeführer Odilo Globocnik to Reichsführer Himmler upon his transfer to the Italian theatre of war:

Economic Development of Action Reinhardt
http://www.deathcamps.org/reinhard/arloot.htm

Ateday,since there are only winners and losers in these situations I ask again, who are the SPP saving the planet for?
Who are the groups who will inherit the de-populated earth?

Mud-slinging = the use of unjust insults and accusations with the aim of damaging the reputation of an opponent.

Sadly, mud-slinging is clearly what Mr Malcolm King specialises in. I pity a man who needs to tell a bundle of blatant lies in order to get attention. The SPP has never had any issues re race or ethnic group - it is purely about numbers related and sustainable consumption of finite resources. It is focused on the issue from a global perspective, with the need to act locally and help other nations. In fact the SPP calls for a major increase in foreign aid for female education and voluntary family planning services.

As a member of SPP, I can assure people that this diatribe has no substance. Shouldn't Online Opinion do basic fact-checking before printing such a disgraceful piece of work?

Jay,
Obviously those who are left, if any, after we trash it.

Omigod.
Yet *another* anti-SPP rant from Malcolm King.

Why is OLO allowing this author to regurgitate the same "information" over and over and over and over again!

King never just writes about anti-immigration, sustainability or any particular issue.
It's always SPP, SPP, SPP.

So the infiltrators have been infiltrated, eh?

Does it occur to you that different groups simply have overlapping goals?
Allies in one goal don't necessarily support all of each other's divergent goals or their motivations.

Feminists and puritanical Christians both wanted pornography banned in the 1970s.
That agreed on *that* and little else.

"global beef production has increased"

At what cost?
Salinity, deforestation, extinction of endangered species through loss of habitat?

If larger populations automatically produce economic benefits, why are the most populous countries often the poorest *per capita*?

"not that there are too few trains running"

And there is the whole problem with the eternal growth argument.
You *cannot* just add more trains.

Railway lines, like many other resources, are finite.

There can only be so many trains on so many tracks at any one time.
You can't just add more and more and more.

"not because every single person is driving a car."

Well, every single person driving a car wasn't a problem decades ago.
Again, finite. There can only be so many roads.

Even if every one switched to buses, there are only so many buses that can drive on so many roads at any one time.
You can't just keep adding more and more and more.

And if you can't keep adding more and more and more finite resources, then it follows you can't keep adding more and more and more people who use them.

You are the misanthrope who thinks people are just units, packing in as many as you can squeeze.

What would it matter if we could fit another billion people in Australia, if everyone ends up miserable and stressed out?

Get a new obsession, King.

Straw man arguments, the SPP and the SPA are non-racist organisations.

There are many countries with small populations and low population growth rates that demonstrate better economic performance than Australia, large populations are not necessarily the only path to prosperity.

This article appears to be a propaganda piece on behalf of the vested interests who benefit from high population growth rates and also, as usual, expect the taxpayers to pay the bill while they take the profits.

When logic fails and facts don't support an opinion, play the "race card".

This mischievous writer needs to refer to articles like this one - http://www.ibtimes.com/global-poverty-levels-halved-more-africans-extreme-poverty-1990-un-report-1621680 on the UN Millennium Development Goals; it might enlighten him about the bigger picture, one of carrying capacity at given resource consumption levels. While there are overall planetary improvements in human welfare in per-capita terms, the relentlessly growing population negates those improvements in absolute terms. For an example of the extent of the problem, in the last 20 years the number of people living in extreme poverty in the sub-Saharan region increased to 414 million in 2010 from 290 million in 1990. Or, while the number of undernourished and stunted children below the age of five fell to 25 percent of the world’s population in 2010 from 40 percent in 1990, in sub-Saharan Africa, this number rose to 58 million from 44 million. Or, one in four, or 25 percent, of the world’s children were stunted in 2012 as opposed to 40 percent in 1990 (but the absolute number rises with the overall population increase).
I have seen this author refuted with solidly based arguments time and time again, yet he just keeps rising like a phoenix from the literary cesspits.
This deceptive author apparently derives his income from peddling such rubbish; it’s amazing what people will say when there is commercial gain involved.

Faulco Pete,
So what's the solution? What can "we" do about it, that's the "we" which of course everyone knows means White people.
What can "we" at about 8% of the global population do about any of this?
We behave responsibly while Africans are feckless imbeciles by comparison, across sub Saharan Africa the median IQ is around 65-70 so you're dealing with functionally retarded people, they can't learn and they can't see reason.Africa is actually underpopulated, there's vast areas of habitable land with abundant resources, the problem is that when Africans settle somewhere en masse within a few years there's not a blade of grass left as far as the eye can see, they either eat or burn everything in their path.
How can you rein in the populations without resorting to draconian measures?
See Globocnik was only able to proceed in Poland because he could fund his program with monies and property seized from Jews and land seized from Poles. Africans have nothing to seize and the material resources of the continent are already mostly in the hands of globalist corporations.
This professed concern for the welfare of the huddled masses is fake so what's the real ideology behind the SPP?
I don't think this is some sinister plot, I think the SPP is just full of people who like to hear the sound of their own voices, it's just another "fantasy football" type movement with no goals beyond the personal vanity of it's adherents.

Thanks for the plug for SPP and SPA Malcolm. For anyone else who wishes to understand where SPP and SPA are coming from, feel free to view their websites.

You'll be pleased to know Malcolm, that Dick Smith recently endorsed SPP for the WA re-election. I'd be fascinated what sort of vitriol you might spew at him.

Anyway, SPP: http://www.populationparty.org.au/
SPA: http://www.population.org.au/

Jay in answer to your question, it's really about getting informed. Feel free to ask questions on facebook, there are a lot of very positive things happening, but it takes time and there is a lot of resistance and bizarre tirades from the likes of our dear Mr King.

Jay,
It is called "Education".
If we don`t then nature will.
It won`t be pretty.
I am fortunate, I do not have descendants, you probably do.
It is they who will bear the brunt of a dry and hungry future.

Ateday,
I don't understand why the anti-pop movement exists at all, what's the point of a movement which has no goals?
We on the right normally dismiss people who claim to be able to see the future as charlatans, eliminate the state and open the borders and we'll see what happens, history would argue against any grossly negative outcomes.

Matt Moran,
A Facebook group eh? I rest my case.
E-activism and real world activism are two different things, online activism doesn't work in the real world, social media is a role playing game like Dungeons and Dragons, people choose classes and alignments and play out a fantastic adventure based on a framework devised by the dungeon master.
People also cheat at this role playing game:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/allnews/swedish-feminists-buy-their-facebook-fans/

Ah Matt,

You're Mr Everywhere, Webmaster for both the SPA and SPP. Where do you find the time working your IT?

I noted this morning that one of your minions posted this article on the SPP Facebook page, where you quickly removed it. Why? You're frightened of your dwindling membership reading criticism. Webmaster for group think?

Happy World Population Day! I'll keep publicising your parties psychotic drive to drop Australia's population to 7 million people (quoting you).

Here's a bit more publicity for you.

Here’s the sociobiological roots of your movement:

https://newmatilda.com/2013/06/07/stop-breeding-nations-sake

Here’s the SPP/SPA's anti-green and anti-trade position:

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/fortress-australia-green-washing-the-future-20131021-2vwzy.html

A snapshot of the terrible history of your movement:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/population-alarmists-disregard-human-feelings-20131010-2vb5y.html

And here’s a story on the anti-capitalist roots of the SPA/SPP:

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/opinion/why-the-nogrowth-parties-are-wrong/story-fni6unxq-1226773654109

Jay,
I can`t speak for anyone else but for me I would not want to see ALL life extinguished from this planet.
As I stated I have no descendants but I am sure that many others do and would like their line, to use an expression only, keep going in a sustainable way.
However I make the point that we, Homo Sapiens, are only one of many animal species. As such we do not own this planet. We merely share it with ALL other animal species. We have no right to destroy them as we are ourselves.
Homo Sapiens is neither better nor worse than any other species. We certainly are different and evidence seems to indicate that perhaps we ARE worse because we are the only animal species actively engaged in destroying our only home by trashing our environment, for our own personal gratification.
Personally after I fall off my perch I will not care what happens but, having had a damn good life, it may be nice if a few more animal species, HS included, can do the same.

Jay, it's actually about population freedom. Malcolm King is what you might call a vested interest and/or represents vested interests. If you've looked at his articles on the SPP (and now he's attacking SPA), but contrast this with the information readily available on the respective websites, you will find the articles are factually bankrupt and extremely biased.

Australia has currently double births to deaths and will have births over deaths for decades. We are not in danger of dying out.

In terms of Australia specifically, it really depends on what sort of future you want. Under the current lib/lab/greens policy of rapid population growth, we are on track to double in number by 2050 with an estimated 75% coming from immigration - despite the rhetoric, the boats make up perhaps 5% of our total intake.

But more importantly, where these deliberately high population growth rates are a problem for the people in Australia is that it applies downward pressure to wages, increases living costs and operating costs (falling most heavily on small-businesses - the bread and butter of an economy - and paradoxically, the ones the major parties profess to be trying to help), while at the same time, sending returns to capital (usually, counter-productive investment) up - and the benefactors of this system, send large donations to both parties to keep this going. It is the nature of the ponzi scheme.

At the end of the day, it's up to you, but our state of affairs is buckling under the weight of the Lib/Lab/Greens policy, so we will be in meltdown if we keep this up for much longer.

Interestingly, Rob Burgess, a previously rabidly pro 'big Australia' advocate, is now questioning our rapid population growth, like his boss Alan Kohler in this article - I highly recommend you read it.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/7/8/politics/awkward-time-mention-migration#comment-719366

It took over 200,000 years for the world's population to reach 1 billion and another 123 to reach 2 billion. Today human population stands at 7.2 billion with another billion added every 12-14 years. Does any part of this sound sustainable? Tomorrow on #WorldPopulationDay, consider what you can do in the face of this growing crisis, and visit populationmedia.org to learn more.

Matt Moran

An interesting read in your link.

“we need a couple of hundred thousand migrants every year to stop the out-of-control housing market crashing to earth”

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/7/8/politics/awkward-time-mention-migration#comment-719366

I would think that selling more and more real estate is what immigration is all about.

Nothing else.

The old hoary 'Malcolm King works for big business'. Ha! As if business, large or small gives a fat rats about the SPA/SPP. I spend most of my time getting people jobs.

Collectively, you are not much above a university club. If I can demolish your little tryst in 1000 words, and show that the anti-pop forces are up to their necks in covert campaigns including obtaining grant monies to run god only knows what re women's right to abortion and sexual health, then that's a good days work.

My interest, apart from tearing down your crypto-fascist facade before you get started, is the psychopathology of groups such as the SPP/SPA. On the one hand you are timid to the point of being introverted yet on the other hand, censor all comments from your membership which dares to question the 'official line' - which I have torn to shreds here and on half a dozen other occasions. The SPP's Facebook page is a shocker. I will certainly notify the AG's department about it. You cannot write those things about migrants and expect to get away with it.

I have no doubt that you sincerely believe that it is necessary to drop Australia's population to 7 million by hook or by crook. It's absurd but I will leave that with you.

The 'far right' are the big business people who, in league with unrepresentative government, are artificially engineering Australia's population upwards by constantly increasing mass immigration, as well as conning people into thinking they should have more babies, and suppressing dissent by attacking honest comment as 'racist'. These are the centrally controlling population engineers and they boast they have governments by the tail. See http://candobetter.net/node/2830 . All that small population advocates ask is for democracy to prevail, i.e. for the government to stop engineering overpopulation which is driving up all costs of living, making society more repressive, overruling local government, disorganising local networks, removing our contact with nature and destroying the environment, both established built and natural. Invited permanent economic Immigration has now gone from an average of around 80,000 pa from the 1960s to the late 1990s to 240,000 pa, which is bigger than the population of Hobart and only 40,000 less than the populations of Wollongong or the Sunshine Coast. The floating populations of non-permanent immigrants with work permits is estimated at around 600,000, half the population of Adelaide. In every city there governments are steamrolling citizens with public asset privatisation to fund adverse changes to their habitats with the excuse of accommodating a growing population.

Malcolm King, in my view, is an advocate for that despotic far right. That is, the big business network who have bought up resources like water, agricultural land, land for development and housing and the associated downstream service industries which include mortgage finance and big real-estate marketing, such as realestate.com.au and domain.com.au, owned by Fairfax and Murdoch press and their hangers on (sundry immigration lawyers, realtors and migration agents for universities, hospitals, construction firms and mines) .

The only defense the growth lobby cowards can find to cloak their evil motives is calling people who oppose undemocratic economic mass migration racists. Its a pretty pathetic rag to cover their unbridled greed, but it's the only clothing they have

Both the article and many of the comments disqualify themselves as unworthy of any adult consideration from the moment they try to frame their discussion in the tired old dogwhistle non-categories of “far-right”, “left”, “lefties” (under the second and third of which they even categorise the Nazis!). Truly relevant categories would include “Malthusian” (the belief that there are too many other people in the world), “social engineering” (elites or wannabe elites structuring the lives of the plebs as objects rather than subjects), “theocracy” (rule by “faith” charlatans consigned to history in the Enlightenment and specifically downgraded though not decisively enough in our Constitution), “misanthropy” (a hatred of the human species). Malthusianism, social engineering and misanthropy are categories under which I would question elements of both the depopulation and the big Australia lobbies. The reasons are pretty clear from the meanings of the terms.

Much depends on whether the focus of the depopulation lobby is on Australia or global. If it’s global it is misanthropic as its proponents go coy at requests for specifics of what measures they have in mind which would actually achieve this apocalyptic aim. If it’s related only to Australia it relates especially to what we are importing along with our imported immigrants. Primarily are we bringing a commitment to promote and defend the basic secular-democratic values that make Australia, Europe, Britain and North America worth seeking refuge in rather than refuge from? For those who hate our democratic secular values, or who would abridge the human rights (including freedom from religious coercion) of other citizens including their co-religionists: outsky. For those intending to be mere colonists in ghettos, you can stay but you’re not really welcome till you become part of us.

Social engineers calling for artificial expansion need active education to the effect that Australia is a nation, not a mere market or a source of factory fodder at cheap rates, and about the limits to physical resources

Good post, BiancaDog

Malcolm King has a public relations company and hasn't denied to that it is being paid to rubbish people who want to stabilize the population.

The Australian Conservation Foundation is so concerned about the environmental impacts that it has nominated human 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

According to the Productivity Commission, there is now no evidence for significant per capita economic benefits from mass migration (see their 2006 report on immigration p. 154 and the graphs on p. 155 and p. 147). We are having high population growth rammed down our throats because the distributional effects are siphoning a larger share of our nation's wealth up to the top. Big Business benefits beyond the sectors mentioned by BiancaDog, through bigger domestic markets and a cheap, compliant workforce. All that the rest of us get are unremitting assaults on our environment, security, social cohesion, personal freedom, and quality of life.

If SPA or SPP really are promoting eugenics or coercive family planning (pointless with our fertility rate slightly below replacement level since 1976), or are really racist, it ought to be easy to go to their websites, link to some racist or eugenicist rants, and let them convict themselves out of their own mouths. Malcolm King hasn't done this, because there are no such materials. He has made it all up. Nor can he do it for Numbers USA. No organisation can be held responsible for the comments of lone individuals on their websites unless they ban comments altogether.

Here is some testimony to the US Congress opposing mass migration by T. Willard Fair who was speaking as President and CEO, Urban League of Greater Miami, and as a Center for Immigration Studies Board Member. (Center for Immigration Studies is another organization that Malcolm King attacks as racist.)

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/issues/american-workers/congressional-testimony-how-mass-immigra.html

Why would this Black man, working for the advancement of Black Americans, serve on the board of an organization that is simply a front for White racism?

He isn't alone

https://www.facebook.com/AfricanAmericansAgainstIllegalImmigration

In http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16485#287773 Jay writes what a lot of people think Africa, but he is wrong.

Africa existed for thousands of years without overpopulation. People lived in many different villages and tribes in steady state economies. For instance, in the late 19th century Ethiopia's population was only 4 or 5 million. After Mennilik II's modernisation programs, which included massive land 'reforms', electricity and cities, Ethiopia's population climbed to 10 million. In 1950, as development continued, the population climbed to 18.3 million. In 2010 it is 83 million and climbing rapidly still.

What changed?

In the late 19th century there were massive land 'reforms':

The land 'reforms' coincided with dispossession and 'integration' of tribes with Mennelik II who was influenced by Russian imperialists. Thrown off their land - particularly those on the plains, the people drifted to the cities, which were growing as agriculture was industrialised and roads and electricity were installed. Immigrants in cities have far more fertility opportunities than in stable clan-based societies.

In the 1950s land was irrigated and former grazing ranges were intensively cultivated, which required dispossessing the peoples that had led sustainable lives there for millenia, without overpopulation.

In the 1970s there were more huge land 'reforms'.
In the 1980s there were mass government resettlements.

Immigrants also came from nearby countries where wars, colonisation and siimilar dispossession was happening.

These processes destroyed local self-government and sustainable local economies where there was probably still men's and women's land and fertility opportunities would have been kept low through the Westermarck effect (codified in kinship rules). As happened in the Netherlands 17th capitalist revolution and in 18th Britain, local populations were disorganised and, lacking the land that had once brought them independence, they were obliged to move to cities, with only their labour to sell. With no laws against child labour, their only opportunity for getting more money is having more children. See https://www.academia.edu/2328154/Demography_Territory_and_Law_The_Rules_of_Animal_and_Human_populations for the land-tenure and demographic theory.

Something similar is happening to Australia with our new 'land reforms'.

I can understand some people being nervous about population increase. But it's usually because they have bought the idea that there are only two alternatives: unlimited (and therefore, by definition, unsustainable) growth on the one hand; and enforced population control on the other. Pure scaremongering.

They lack the necessary imagination to see that populations grow to a certain point, then manage themselves naturally. Japan, Germany and a whole slew of Central European countries are already in negative population-growth territory. With a prosperous and well-educated populace, at no time did they see the need for a "Population Control Association".

Nor indeed a "Population Control Party". The reasons are fairly obvious - a political grouping based upon such muddle-headed paranoia can have no cogent, rational policies. A quick glance at the SPP "policies" on sustainability is proof enough.

http://www.populationparty.org.au/attachments/db/pop/68.pdf

Not a single actual, actionable policy is articulated, just a succession of woolly-wafty words about what Australia "should" do.

Total cobblers.

What also hasn't penetrated their thinking is that both steady-state and negative-growth populations have their own brand of economic issues to contend with. Principal among these is the necessity for the entire population to accept a lower standard of living for a period of time, as a result of the inevitable two-to-three generation timeframe required to rebalance the working/non-working population. Think of our own situation; until the baby-boomer generation starts falling off the twig at a substantial rate (which will happen, of course), we will have an ever-smaller workforce supporting an ever-increasing bunch of oldies. Including me.

Japan already recognizes this inevitability; their problem is including it within a workable political platform that the current generation will accept. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has already seen the writing on the wall.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/05/18/national/success-abenomics-hinges-immigration-policy/

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101828016

The idea that all - or even some, or even any - of our economic challenges can be overcome by population control is daft. Simplistic, naive, and... daft.

Malcolm 'Paddy' King "which I have torn to shreds here and on half a dozen other occasions."

So you're done now.
We don't need yet *another* article a month from now.

"I have no doubt that you sincerely believe that it is necessary to drop Australia's population to 7 million by hook or by crook. It's absurd but I will leave that with you."

It's absurd to think it can increase *forever*.

Over a million immigrants every decade and their subsequent descendants.
Additional people who need never have set foot on this continent.

Water is finite.
Land is finite.
Natural habitats for wildlife are finite.
Railway tracks and roads are finite.

We live in a world of finite resources.
We cannot have an ever-growing population in Australia or the world at large.

We have little control over what happens in the world at large.
But the government has *absolute control* over the artificial increase from immigration.

It can stop or reduce that with a signature on paper Monday morning.

Pericles

The excuse that bringing in mass numbers of immigrants will reduce the older population problem is the greatest “kick the can down the road” exercise currently occurring in Australia.

Much of immigration starts with universities bringing in foreign students who then stay.

This is compounded by “family reunion” schemes, where an immigrant can also bring in their parents, brothers and sisters, and even their cousins in some instances.

So many of these people are middle aged or older when they get here, and eventually they want to retire, which only adds to the older population problem.

But by then, Australia has a much, much worse problem, because it is well over-populated

And I have not seen any data to suggest Australia is not already over-populated.

As for countries finding their own population balance, nature finds a balance, and the countries you have mentioned such as Japan and Germany are in ecological overshoot, with a natural resource demand greater than what their natural environments can provide.

Those countries only survive by feeding off the natural environments of other countries.

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/trends/japan/

Pericles,

This graph shows GDP per capita for Japan and a number of other countries from World Bank figures

http://snbchf.com/global-macro/gdp-growth-per-capita/

Japan's GDP per capita is still growing just fine. Evidently, they are compensating for the problems of a large aged cohort despite having a slowly declining population, which will most likely stabilize when people see that they can have more space and cheaper housing along with decent economic opportunity. Countries like Japan and Germany have stabilized their populations quite naturally without any need for organisations like SPA or parties like SPP. Australia would have done likewise. Our fertility rate has been slightly below replacement level since 1976, although we still have a small amount of demographic momentum. The difference between us and the Germans and Japanese is that we have a grasping sociopathic elite that is determined to impose massive population growth through a bipartisan immigration policy. That is why organisations like SPP and SPA can serve a useful purpose. The alternative is to shut up and let our rulers turn Australia into an overpopulated, environmentally degraded, massively unequal, conflict-ridden Third World hellhole.

At http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16485#287805, Pericles writes, of people who are worried about the rapid population growth in Australia that, "They lack the necessary imagination to see that populations grow to a certain point, then manage themselves naturally. Japan, Germany and a whole slew of Central European countries are already in negative population-growth territory. With a prosperous and well-educated populace, at no time did they see the need for a "Population Control Association".

Yes it is true that populations grow to a certain point then manage themselves naturally, but not if you keep stimulating growth with mass immigration under the aegis of the Property Council of Australia et al and its Government minions. That is the point!

The demographic transition ideology is not only a myth favoured by growthist economists, but it never takes into account the huge immigration quotients of the United States, Britain, Australia, Canada. Europe, which is on track to stablise massively reduced immigration after the first oil shock and, apart from difficult to manage family reunion and illegal immigrants, has not resiled from this program. That is why it is on track to reduce its population post baby-boomers. With its high immigration Australia is on track to more than double and redouble quickly.

Your homily about lack of imagination is rooted in a poor grasp of the facts.

The problem in Australia is that the government and big business are seriously interfering in our population numbers, just as Mennilik II did in Ethiopia. That is the reality - and it's scary.

Population control associations formed in France in the 19th and 20th century to combat government pronatalism and populationism in competition with Germany. However the EU governments in 1973 decided not to continue population growth policy, so the problem is no longer pressing - unless the USA gets more control over the EU and changes the land-tenure laws and the Civil Code to make property speculation via high immigration profitable in Europe. Hopefully that won't happen.

Japan ceased a big population policy at the same time as Europe and does not encourage high immigration.

No, Sustainable Population Australia is not a depopulationist group. SPA just wants Australia's population to level out, not to go on growing. You see, the capital cities have outgrown the available natural water supply, and are sucking it up from underground at an unsustainable rate. Underground water ought to be used only during droughts, not sucked up every year all the year round. Many farmers are also using unsustainable amounts of artesian water, and making ridiculously-large exports of food. While this is going on, the Aussies are importing huge amounts of food! The waste of fuel is obvious.
Sensible people know that creatures like elephants, orangotangs, and pandas will be only zoo and museum exhibits in the next 50 or 100 years if people-pressure keeps destroying the jungles and woodlands where they live.
Superstition stopped the proper spread of contraceptives to India and China, let along Europe, the Americas, and Africa. But Western medical and other advances meant that more babies survived to adulthood, so an unnaturally-high birthrate was likely as the generations went on.
The world survive quite well when there was only half a billion people. It will not survive happily with 7, 9 and 10 billion.

It's not an issue of right or left, it's about deep seated beliefs and prejudices held by too many ageing white males and females in the Anglo world.

Rockefeller Foundation started funding eugenics institute in Nazi Germany, and allegedly funded much later Bob Carr's mate Paul Ehrlich of Zero Population Growth ZPG, who in turn was a close collaborator of John Tanton (whose network has received funding from Scaife Foundation/Colcom), according to the Southern Povery Legal Center (SPLC) the 'racist founder of the modern anti immigration movement (not just in the USA but the Anglo world). http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/john-tanton

Tanton's network includes CIS, FAIR, NumbersUSA, Progressives for Immigration Reform (PFIR), The Social Contract Press (TSCP) etc., and in the UK Population Matters and Migration Watch, with direct links being hidden... but underlying philosophy remains consistent, i.e. 'white nativists', non Europeans being on par with germs.

In Australia, claims that the ABC is biased towards the left can be countered by the fact that SPA, Bob Birrell et all have carte blanche access to the ABC, whether it's RN's Late Night Live, Science Show, AM etc.. and recently Population Matter's Prof. Guillebaud who unnoticed managed to quote the infamous Garrett Harding at length on Ockham's Razor. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/Garrett-Hardin

Question, who are the mainstream journalists and poiticians in Australia who prefer quoting the 'research' of Australia's best demographer Dr. Bob Birrell, according to Dick Smith?

Andras Smith posted on Saturday, 12 July 2014 7:23:36 PM a comment that "SPA, Bob Birrell et all have carte blanche access to the ABC, whether it's RN's Late Night Live, Science Show, AM etc."

That's certainly not my perception. Candobetter.net has kept tabs on the ABC's promotion of population engineering upwards here:
http://candobetter.net/?q=taxonomy/term/5364

The ABC toes the government line, which is growth, growth, growth.

Also, I note that Andras and a few others keep going back to the idea of anti population growthers as population controlers and eugenicists etc, although it is quite clear that it is the pro-growth side that is controlling population numbers against the will of most citizens. How about some honest discussion here on on-line opinion? I guess it's not an option because the only people who disagree with SPA et al are growth lobbyists and their propaganda writers are the only one's writing against SPA et al here.

I wonder if anyone has ever found what causes people to become Lefties ?
Is it simply one of those freak cases of evolution going wrong ?
Or is it indoctrination from day 1 ?

It IS possible to keep growing and growing and growing.
Technology can probably keep it all up.
But it comes at a price.

As the author mentioned:
"Greater population concentration forces social changes in the direction of a greater degree of organization"

In other words, more laws, more regulations, more regimentation is required in order to prevent people from stepping on each other's toes.

When we fly economy-class, we are faced with mounting restrictions. The intention is to keep everyone happy and comfortable, but there just isn't enough leg-room, etc. Fortunately it's only for a few hours, but those who serve on submarines face very harsh restrictions for perhaps a month at a time: only one book per person and two sets of clothing, can't bring own food (no space) or have a variety on the menu and there's a strict toilet regime (when serving on a ship, a sailor could possibly urinate overboard, but not so in a submarine).

So do we want to become a submarine?

The division therefore has nothing to do with 'Right' or 'Left', but is between those who wish to become organised and those individuals who wish to be free.

Subsequently, the author writes:
"changes are costly in the short term but in the long run, increase a society's ability to reach its economic and social objectives."

That's well and good for those who share those specific economic and social objectives - at the expense of others.

The author concludes:
"The de-populationists want to return us to a medieval village."

This assumes an "us". Submariners have no choice, a small capsule deep under the ocean, nevertheless, if they volunteered to the task then there's nothing wrong with their choice.

As a whole, however, we did not volunteer to squeeze in with each other, we didn't in general volunteer to accept living under regimentation for the sake of avoiding medieval standards. Let the choice be available to each and every individual: those who are willing to sell their freedom for technological gadgets - and others who rather live freely at medieval or even stone-age standards.

Malcolm King destroys his own credibility by claiming that population control advocates are "far right". That must surprise a lot of Green supporters, who also push the line that this planet is grossly over populated and that population reductions are the way to go. As a matter of fact, the Greens grew out of the old Zero Population Growth Party of the late 70's.

His claim that population growth is good for business and the economy is hardly a left wing priority. Since when have greenies ever worried about business or the economy? Of course, that particular assertion about being good for business is true, but almost everybody except the Catholic church and Malcolm King's peer group can understand that population growth is exponentially climbing. And that unrestricted population growth not sustained by economic resources is the primary reason for endemic poverty, high crime rates and even terrorism.

But the best argument against Malcolm King, is that he has threatened in a later post to shut up his opponents by hinting darkly about how they should be reported to the Attorney General for prosecution. Nice one Malcolm. You are a real Liberal aren't you? Multiculturalism is the official holy writ and anyone who disagrees should expect a midnight knock on the door by the multicultural Inquisitors. Probably to be re educated by being put in an ABC controlled Gulag to watch endless repeats of Four Corners. Who is the "ratbag" here, Malcolm? You have already lost the debate if you advocate that the best way to counter your opponents is through the repression of free speech.

If you claim that only right wing people support ZPG then you have just given us "right wingers" a free kick among your own left wing demographic. Thank you for that. You are enhancing our prestige by making befuddled lefties realise that us right wingers support a position which most left wingers regard as pure common sense.

This article by Malcolm King would have to rate as one of the most ignorant we have ever discussed on OLO.
If this mutt is being paid by our Tax Dollars then I want him off the payroll.
Anyhow, what's a Leftie mutt doing in a Coalition administraitin in the first place. I hope Tony Abbott's not doing a Campbell Newman on us by holding onto all the Labor bureau rats.
I mean talk about ruining everything at great cost for all of us, it's nothing short of idiotic.
Malcolm King is promoting cure rather than prevention. What an ignorant way of thinking ?
Let's get the wrong immigration rate down asap & scale the right immigration rate back to keep pace with demand as Australians become more stupid bring in more intelligent migrants.
We are obviously getting outnumbered by inbreeding Lefties & that's a really, really bad move.

An interesting article here where 108 people per day (about 38,000 per year) are moving to Perth.

This is congesting Perth, that now requires more roads.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-12/congestion-on-perth-roads-and-public-transport/5592000

So WA’s wealth is going towards building roads.

This seems very similar to Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne, and also other rural towns spread along the east coast of Australia.

It does seem that so much of the wealth from the mining boom went offshore (because so many mining companies are foreign owned), or it went into roads and other infrastructure to keep up with the growing population.

It didn’t go towards developing industry that is sustainable, and will provide long term and rewarding jobs for our children.

Just roads, desalination plants, sewage treatment plants and suburban jungles.

Lots of good posts here, apart from Andras Smith, who hasn't denied that he is a migration agent and thus has a financial interest in this debate. Perhaps he should look at the link to T. Willard Fair's testimony to the US Congress in my previous post and explain why a Black man, prominent in the civil rights movement, would serve on the board of an organization founded by the very John Tanton that Andras is trying to demonise as a White supremacist. Maybe because very high immigration really is bad for Black Americans?

Yuyutsu, you are correct that there are people on both the Left and the Right who understand that freedom is one of the main issues here. Perhaps you would like this quote from Isaac Asimov, the chemist who became a famous science fiction and popular science writer:

Isaac Asimov said that democracy cannot survive overpopulation, “It's going to destroy it all. I use what I call my bathroom metaphor. If two people live in an apartment, and there are two bathrooms, then both have what I call freedom of the bathroom, go to the bathroom any time you want, and stay as long as you want to for whatever you need. And this to my way is ideal. And everyone believes in the freedom of the bathroom. It should be right there in the Constitution.

“But if you have 20 people in the apartment and two bathrooms, no matter how much every person believes in freedom of the bathroom, there is no such thing. You have to set up, you have to set up times for each person, you have to bang at the door, aren't you through yet, and so on. And in the same way, democracy cannot survive overpopulation. Human dignity cannot survive it. Convenience and decency cannot survive it. As you put more and more people onto the world, the value of life not only declines, but it disappears. It doesn't matter if someone dies."

Divergence,
How could we possibly make that clear to the Lefties ? Do you think they'll ever understand or will we have to contend with the stupidity forever ?

SPA are predictable, rather than showing empirical evidence for their 'scientific' claims or beliefs, they attack and smear anyone who diasgrees. Not surprisingly this is the same behaviour of religious cults, and John Tanton's network, as investigated by Southern Poverty Legal Center (much expertise re. the KKK) ADL Anti Defamation League (dealing with anti semitism) etc..

The (high) population growth and (runaway) immigration memes and themes are achieved or appear plausible by selective information, rubbery data and seguing definitions.

By ignoring change in population definition in 2006, focusing upon now, spikes in data, and making no distinction beween temporary and permanent residents with the former represented by international students, 2nd year working holiday visa makers, 457 work visas, dependents etc.., not new permanent immigrants. These same temps stay 12/16+ months are counted under the net overseas migration NOM data then described by media as 'immigrants' suggesting they are all permanent...... which they are not, and only a minority go onto permanent under the migration program caps.

This is the media strategy in action, Bob Birrell produces research for his media ciphers which shows 'immigrants' in a negative light then media transmit the negative conclusion, 'dog whistling'.

This is a broad church including Tim Colebatch at Fairfax, Andrew Bolt and John Manasauskas at News Corp, current affairs tv, ABC, Alan Jones, more recently Business Spectator and Leith van Onselen at Macrobusiness (when criticised by readers they stopped quoting Birrell, and reverted to his sometimes collaborator Katherine Betts of Swinburne University) see the last sentence 'dog whistle' on this article http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2013/07/temporary-immigration-increases-some-more/

Australia and much of the world are facing stalling growth in permanent population, but worst is the qualitative aspect, far more older people to be supported by younger generation, whilst the latter's growth has stabilised, internationally too. The temporary residents who contribute to Australia's economy and society could be called 'churnover' who have no access to benefits, pensions, Medicare etc. are a net benefit to Australia, though it's not a popular idea nowadays.

Divergence is one of the worst offenders re spurious claims. Last year approx 1 Sept, Divergence tirelessly trotted out the same old racist stuff on one of my articles and used the Productivity Commission as a source. It must have been a surprise when one of the authors of the PC reported posted this:

“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 have no issue with using a biological model but the tendency is to create instrumentalist policies through reductionism…

"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...

"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 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. We don’t know how much.

"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...

"I would counsel you to be 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.

Malcolm 'Paddy' King,
And how much are you people getting paid from our tax Dollars for such vaguish reporting ?
Most of us here could tell you all that by mere educated guessing for nothing.
Why use illogical tactics at great expense when you can have logic for next to nothing ?
Talk about squandering taxpayers Dollars !

Andras Smith

By bringing in more people, you simply dilute the national wealth, and any tax revenue from such things as the mining boom simply has to be spread amongst more people.

Some people think more people = more wealth.

But if the population becomes too great, any increase in national wealth has minimal benefits for the average person, as the national wealth has to be spread so thinly.

So if we continue to increase the population (by doubling it in 40 years as is projected), and there is another mining boom similar to what we have had, expect to see little or no benefits coming your way.

There are peaks and troughs, but due to the archaic and abysmal thinking of consecutive governments, they brought in more people during the peak from the mining boom, and we now have overpopulation during the trough, (and that trough is destined to be a long one).

Throughout of course, the natural environment takes more and more hits.

Given Paddy is so knowledgeable - why not produce statistics to show that GDP and personal income will rise if our population increases as he suggests ... ?

he's experienced at writing government reports .. he said so

population data and labor market data are linked .. so he should have no great difficulty in accessing data

let's have some facts Paddy .. not just an unintelligent rant

Traveloz,

This is cash earnings on trend including SS.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/6302.0~Nov+2013~Main+Features~Average+Weekly+Cash+Earnings?OpenDocument

one simple graph .... lol

we know "average" earnings are going up .. largely distorted by relatively few people earning huge incomes ... 'median' earnings would be a better measure ...

after all the prices rises, Paddy .. the real question has to be: are we really better off ?

unemployment is rising ... will new immigrants lessen that ?

housing prices are rising at an astronomical rate ... will more immigrants slow the rate of increase ?

our major roads are clogged with cars ... will increased immigration lessen congestion ?

our hospitals are overcrowded and our medical system is stretched ... will larger numbers of people ease these pressures ?

why not research data on government expenditure per capita ... say 20, 15 and 10 years ago .. and compare that to today ?

take out inflation, and I'll betcha its increased dramatically ...

and that's also one reason (among many) why we are paying hugely increased taxes ...

This argument is on the wrong track altogether.
It is all about whether population should increase or not.

That is not the option choice that is available.
Growth WILL NOT happen.
Growth requires increasing energy.
We do not have it and will never have it. (unless we build nuclear Power)

The only options available are how we will stop our population increasing.
Not immediately, but in the future we will face declining energy
availability and increasing cost of that energy.

That is what you need to be arguing about.

Its a fact that Australia's natural population is relatively stable ... ie births less deaths ..

Immigration intake and rates of population increase are POLICY DECISIONS of GOVERNMENT .. and democratically elected governments ought be able to explain the rationale for their policies and decisions

Bazz "The only options available are how we will stop our population increasing."

And the most obvious and immediately actionable is to stop or severely reduce immigration.

But this will not happen because (a) anti-racist indoctrination makes questioning immigration a crime worse than pedophilia, (b) the liberal/libertarian perspective views cross-border movement as some sort of rightful "freedom", but mostly (c) the Tweedles need those ethnic voters and don't want to do anything to alienate them.

So immigration will never stop by government decree.

It will only stop when things get so bad there's a civil war.
Then nobody will want to come here.

But what will be left of "Australia" (as we've known it) then?

What a sad fate we face, all because we can't be "racist" (i.e. act in our own self-interest).

OK Paddy,

It is no secret that there are growthist demographers, but why should we believe your friend instead of Bob Birrell or Katharine Betts? This is from the 2006 Productivity Commission report on immigration (p. 154)

"Most of the economic benefits associated with an increase in skilled migration accrues to the immigrants themselves. For existing residents, capital owners receive additional income, with owners of capital in those sectors experiencing the largest output gains enjoying the largest gains in capital income. On the other hand, the real average annual incomes of existing resident workers grow more slowly than in the base-case, as additional immigrants place downward pressure on real wages.

"The economic impact of skilled migration is small when compared with other drivers of productivity and income per capita. For example, over the same period, growth in income per capita from technological progress and other sources of productivity growth, and long-term demographic changes, could be expected to be about 1.5 per cent per year, or $14 434, by 2024-25 (Commission estimates). The relative significance of an increase in skilled migration to overall per capita income growth is illustrated in figure 8.2. This compares projected per capita income over the next 21 years in the base case with that arising from the increased-migration simulation. It can be seen that the impact of migration is very small compared with other drivers of per capita income growth."

See also the graphs on p. 147 and p. 155

http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/9438/migrationandpopulation.pdf

(cont'd)

(cont'd)

You and Andras make much of the ABS decision to include students and temporary migrants (staying for longer than 12 months). Including them in the ABS statistics will only make a difference in the short term, as they count as emigrants when they go home (if they do). What matters is the difference between immigration and emigration, not immigration on its own.

Please link to a racist post of mine or admit that you lied, just as you lied when you said that I worked for the Australian Conservation Foundation (I never have) and lied when you accused me of not caring about the environment (I have donation receipts to prove the opposite). I note that you still haven't denied that your public relations company is being paid to attack people like us. Saying that you haven't denied it is not a smear, as it is the truth. Likewise with Andras. Saying that he hasn't denied being a migration agent is the truth, not a smear. All that you two have to do is to speak up and say that this is wrong.

Andras still hasn't explained why a Black man would serve on the board of CIS or why that crew of "racists" would allow a Black man on their board. The Southern Poverty Law Center has no credibility at all, even among Leftists who are pro-immigration.

"For the record, I am totally opposed to CIS’s stance on immigration, as I stated at the press conference. I accepted the invitation to speak on the panel because it came from my friend Jerry Kammer, of whom I am a big admirer.

"I also agreed to the invitation because, much like CIS, 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/

traveloz

There is the real probability that we have to bring in immigrants, simply to provide services to other immigrants that were brought in.

This can lead to exponential growth, (or out of control growth).

For example: Australia has about 3 doctors per 1000 people (which is also the OECD average).

If we bring in 200,000 immigrants per year, about 600 of those will have to be doctors to provide medical services to the other immigrants brought in for that year.

But where do these doctors come from?

Many seem to be coming from countries such as India that currently has only 0.7 doctors per 1000 people (well below the OECD average).

I don’t know how our government or pro-immigration supporters can ethically justify that, but they seem to be able to.

only 0.7 doctors per 1000 people
Incomuicardo,
Yes but if they're three times more competent it evens out don't it ?

individual

Foregin doctors may not be competent according to this.

"Half of foreign doctors would not be able to practise in Britain if they were subjected to the same level of scrutiny as British doctors, a study by University College London has found "

"Figures from 2012 showed that of 669 doctors who were struck off or suspended in the previous five years, 420 had trained abroad."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/nhs/10773857/Half-of-foreign-doctors-are-below-British-standards.html

So maybe we should only have doctors trained in the UK as immigrants, (although this may then leave the UK short of doctors).

I sense imigration has no economic justification (other than aiding real estate agents and universities), and also no social justification, and absolutely no environmental justification in any way at all.

"Half of foreign doctors would not be able to practise in Britain if they were subjected to the same level of scrutiny as British doctors, a study by University College London has found "Incomuicardo,
Well, they would say that & so would the Australians as probably would the indians too.
From personal experience I have consulted Doctors from Australia, from Britain, from India & from Indonesia & for my situation it was an Australian Doctor on his first job who proved the most sensible. The older, supposedly more experienced totally missed the point whereas the young feller picked it it up instantly.
The Briton was the most incompetent & he was the medical Super. He was more of bureaucrat than a medico.
Anyhow, going back to the point of the thread, if it is the far Right that snuggles up to the depopulationists then so be it. it certainly makes a thousand times more sense than the Left constantly bleating environment & at the same time promoting population increase. Morons really, the Left !

individual

I have noticed people from the political left are often concerned about the Aboriginal, and how they were victimised by early “colonists”.

But now, they want to flood the country with immigrants, which is yet another form of colonisation.

And I have noticed so many immigrants are 100% urban, with no connection to the Australian countryside at all, and spend much of their time in shopping malls.

Ironically, I would regard spending time in shopping malls as being towards the far right in general attitudes and values.

Incomuicardo,
You're right about the shopping mall brigade. Re colonising Australia I have lost count how many times I have invited indigenous posters on OLO to offer their view about more immigration to their land & as to which group of immigrants is their preference. To-date no-one has taken up my offer, not even any do-gooders.
I have been told by an indigenous that if Australia doesn't give them what they want then they'll aid illegals coming into the country in return for good money.

Individual

In terms of what is the best immigrant, that it is a huge moral question.

Perhaps it is best not to have immigrants with any interest in the natural environment of Australia. The surfing breaks are already overcrowded, the fishing spots are already overcrowded, and the roads are already overcrowded with grey-haired nomads looking for adventure in the bush with their luxury caravans.

I totally disregard the concept that immigration adds to our culture or has social value. At present there are 8 movies being shown at my local cinema complex, and all movies are American.

Most of TV is American crap also, and our so-called multicultural society is just an Americanised society, (or immigration has completely taken away any national identity, leaving a vacuum that is being filled with Americanisation).

So that only leaves the possibility that immigration is of economic benefit to the country.

And if this is the case, the best immigrant is someone who exists to consume, and their most favourite place would be a shopping mall.

But there are moral questions regards existence for consumption only.

So in that sense, bringing in immigrants to increase consumption becomes a major moral question for all of Australia.

Incomuicardo, you touch upon Americanisation.

I think this is intrinsically linked to multiculturalist indoctrination.

America is a nation of varied origins, not only British colonies, but French and Spanish too, unlike Australia which has only one colonial origin.

They also had the Native Americans and the imported African Blacks.

Like the God they think they are, America is trying to recreate Man (i.e. society) in its own image.

They are exporting their social model as the "normal" or "typical" one, when in fact it's a freak historical aberration.

Such a model is inappropriate in most other countries.

But America controls the ideological dialogue.

Shockadelic

Yes, 7 of the top 10 global brands are based in the US, and we are being slowly inundated with American junk food shops, as well as American styles of entertainment, advertising and marketing.

Or perhaps American entertainment depends heavily on advertising and marketing to make people watch the nauseating and violent crap.

The concept that multiculturism has improved our culture is simply not true when Americanisation is now the most predominant facet of our culture.

So mass immigration as a means to improve our natural environment is a total farce, as is mass immigration as a means to improve our culture.

That only leaves mass immigration as a means to improve our economy.

This concept of bringing in more people to improver our economy is a very right wing concept politically speaking.

And, as a side issue, our real GDP per capita seems to be levelling out in time as we bring in more immigrants.

It could be that bringing in more immigrants simply means the wealth inside the country has to be spread amongst a greater number of people, and real GDP per capita levels out, and will eventually go down.

While desperate for mainstream recognition, it's not worth SPP etc. claiming victimisation when various 'elders of the church' are happy to collaborate closely with the 'anti immigration network puppeteer' John Tanton (network), especially via his journal The Social Contract Press described by SPLC as routinely publishing of race-baiting articles by white nationalists'

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/the-social-contract-press

John Tanton is in esteemed company here as SPLC. since its inception to support civil rights in USA, has been locked into ongoing battles (and being attacked) by the KKK and related. Coincidentally Tanton has corresponded with KKK and white supremacist attorney Sam Dickson, amongst others.

http://imagine2050.newcomm.org/2011/09/14/the-company-they-keep-examining-the-tanton-networks-white-nationalist-ties-via-georgia/

Which Australian 'envioronmentalists', demographers and social researchers have contributed to TSCP? Dr. Bob Birrell of CPUR (whose Director is of African descent, but seems to be an anonymous figurehead, where di he get that window dressing tactic from?), his long time collaborator Katherine Betts at Swinburne (whose coup was the interview of Jean Raspail, writer of "The Camp of the Saints' for TSCP described by The Guardian as essential top 10 reading along with David Irving, for neo nazis and skinheads) and of course SPA's own in house poet, Mark O'Connor.

Which politicians are also involved in Tanton's network via seemingly benign fronts? Victorian Labor MP Kelvin Thomson via Progressive for Immigration Reform PFIR (oxymoron?), and SA Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi via ALEC, which is openly neo con.

The modern nativist movements use (academically confected negative perceptions) of political or social phenomena to motivate their potential acolytes, media and politicians, while masking their true beliefs and motivations, like religious and other cults do.

The issue is not population. Never has been in Oz. See Africa.

The problem is the SPA and SPP's allegiance to John Tanton and Roy Beck. See below for a profile from the New York Times on Tanton.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/us/17immig.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

See below SPA and SPP head honcos glad handing with Roy Beck from the SPA newsletter (interview p2-3)

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

Note also Bindi's story on the front page. Beck had just written her essay for her.

The SPA and SPP have been in email communication with Beck for some years. They not only endorse his tactics and philosophy but employ them in Australia. See my previous articles on preference distribution from the SPP at the last Federal election. Very snuggly with the far right. Classic example of direct external influence in Australian domestic politics.

One other small but important point is that the SPA is a registered charity acting as a political lobby group.

Malcolm 'Paddy' King

That seems a reasonable and responsible newsletter you linked to in your post.

It contains articles on people such as Bindi Irwin, makes references to findings by the US National Academy of Science, and contains reviews of book from a number of academics, and published with well known publishers such as Allen and Unwin.

It also contains statistics and data regards our overpopulation, and that comes from the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

So I can’t see anything alarming about the newsletter, and they seem to be doing a good job highlighting the most likely future for Australia.

I can sense the anger, hate and contempt for the newsletter by those very few in the country (maybe 1% or less) who might profit from immigration.

But for the rest, there does not appear to be any gains, economically, socially or environmentally.

The crux of the matter is that anyone who advocates increased anything
just does not understand what is going on.

That statement applies to everything everywhere.
With a situation of fixed or reducing quantities of everything, any
increase in population will mean less for everyone of everything.

This the fundamental that our politicians do not understand.
For evidence, watch the kerfuffle going on in Canberra over the budget.

Exactly, Bazz

Globally, we have 7 billion people going on 10-11 billion (from the UN medium projection) on a planet that can perhaps sustainably support perhaps 1-2 billion in modest comfort. We are only getting by now because so many of us are living in appalling poverty and because we are running down our environmental capital by depleting nonrenewable resources and using up renewable resources faster than they can be replenished. We are suffering from losses or shortages of arable land, fresh water, biodiversity, fish stocks, cheap fossil fuels and minerals that are vital for our agriculture and other technology, and the capacity of the environment to safely absorb wastes. Warnings on all these things are coming from reputable mainstream scientists. See for example this talk on peak mining by a geologist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFyTSiCXWEE

Australia has less capacity to feed people than France. We have 47.7 million hectares of arable land, while France has 18.4 million. In 2912, Australia was able to produce 2.2 tons of grain per hectare, while France could produce 7.5 tons. Multiply out and you can see that France can grow a third again as much grain as Australia, even when we are having a good year. Because of far more reliable rainfall, France can count on this sort of harvest every year, but Australia only got 1.1 tonne to the hectare in 2006, a drought year. Our soils are particularly low in phosphorus, which is getting expensive and in short supply. See the following and the comment by Durwood Dugger:

http://oilprice.com/Metals/Foodstuffs/Doomsday-Will-Peak-Phosphate-Get-us-Before-Global-Warming.html

Without affordable oil and phosphate, and without enough water (a real possibility with some of the nastier climate change predictions), our agricultural productivity will drop like a stone.

NSW alone now has 1000 plant and animal species on the endangered list

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/threatenedspecies/

(cont'd)

(cont'd)

Back in 1994, when the evidence for all these problems was a lot weaker, the Australian Academy of Sciences recommended 23 million as a safe upper limit for our population.

Imagining that this is all about Tanton and Beck, people (whatever their faults) who actually care about the environment and their fellow citizens, or "racism" is delusional. From Black leader T. Willard Fair's testimony to Congress (link in a previous post above):

"The reality is that less-educated black men in America today have a variety of problems -- high rates of crime and drug use, for example, and poor performance at work and school -- that are caused by factors unrelated to level of immigration.

"But if cutting immigration and enforcing the law wouldn't be a cure-all, it sure would make my job easier. Take employment -- immigration isn't the whole reason for the drop in employment of black men; it's not even half the reason. But it is the largest single reason, and it's something we can fix relatively easily.

"Think about it this way: If there's a young black man in Liberty City, where I live, who's good with his hands and wants to become a carpenter, which is more likely to help him achieve that goal -- amnesty and more immigration, or enforcement and less immigration?

"Which is more likely to help an ex-convict or recovering addict get hired at an entry-level job and start the climb back to a decent life -- amnesty and more immigration, or enforcement and less immigration?

"Which is more likely to persuade a teenager in the inner city to reject the lure of gang life and instead stick with honest employment -- amnesty and more immigration, or enforcement and less immigration?

"And it's not just a matter of jobs. Whatever your views on government social programs, everyone can agree that resources are not infinite..."

Paddy's and Andras' motives are not above suspicion.

"Whose bread I eat, his song I sing."

On current trends, the population of Western Europe will also be smaller at the end of the century than it is today. Japan’s population is already going backwards. Even China will reach a peak population in 2025, after which it too will start to shrink. But not Africa. The SPA/SPP never talk about Africa.

It is ludicrous to even posit Australia will run out of food. According to the National Farmers Federation, there are approximately 134,000 farm businesses in Australia. Australian farmers produce about 93 percent of Australia’s daily domestic food supply.

Australia’s farm exports earned the country $32.5 billion in 2010-11, up from $32.1 billion in 2008-09. About 70 per cent of arable land is currently under crops. Of that 70 per cent, farmers keep about 10 per cent fallow for rotation.

Australian live cattle exports totaled 694,429 head in 2011/12 valued at A$629.4 million, according to ABARE (2012). According to Australian livestock export industry statistics review (2011) the nation exported 2,458,448 sheep in 2011, valued at A$328 million.

We import a little under $10 billion in foodstuffs per year – mainly packaged goods - and about one third is due to reciprocal trade agreements with New Zealand and other nations.

I am not greatly concerned about the anti-population movement including Divergence and the ACF. Remember Erik Von Daniken and his alien conspiracy theories in the early 1970s? I am more concerned with the right wing ideology buried within their systems thinking. Ask yourself these questions:

• Is it not odd that a movement that allegedly supports democracy actually wants to reduce the number of democratic participants?
• It is not bizarre that as the speed of Australia’s population growth slows, that the SPA/SPP (same thing) want to drive birth numbers even lower than the 1.7 per female average? (they want a one child pop of 7 million).
• Is it not the height of audacity that a bunch of blokes with science and engineering backgrounds want to meddle in women’s contraceptive rights and sexual health?

Malcolm 'Paddy' King

So it seems that you agree immigration does noting to improve our culture (or whatever improvements have occurred are insignificant compared to the Americanisation of our culture, and the loss of national identity).

Environmentally, it would be farcical to even think that increasing the population is best for our rapidly declining natural environment.
With huge areas now facing salt inundation, one of the worst rates of wild-life extinctions in the world, loss of native bushland near towns and cities due to encroachment by real estate developers etc.

Economically, our real GDP per capita has levelled out by rapidly increasing the population, as well as increased state and federal government debt.

Politically, our governments are just a shambles, and mass immigration has done nothing to improve them, and public confidence in them seems to be rapidly declining.

But you remain optimistic about food?

With a loss of biocapacity of 1% per year, Australia is about to face a future when the natural environment cannot replace what is being taken from it. Our food will become much more expensive in the future as we have to import more fertilizer, to replace the nutrients being pumped out to sea via sewage pipelines.

So adequate production of food is not that reliable.

And certainly not if we attempt to double the population in 40 years, to satisfy the very few (maybe the 1%) who want to bring in more immigrants so as to increase consumption.

One way for people to let the political parties know their feelings about high immigration is a 'write-on'. Simply write Reduce Immigration on each ballot paper. If you do not obscure the numbers the vote is valid.See reduceimmigration.wordpress.com/

Malcolm 'Paddy' King "Remember Erik Von Daniken and his alien conspiracy theories in the early 1970s?"

WTF?
And the award for Best Non-Sequitur in a Political Debate goes to...

"Reducing the number of democratic participants" does not reduce democracy.
It's still one person, one vote (regardless of how many persons).

Not all critics of immigration want to also reduce reproduction.

I personally think a society of only-children would be a nightmare!

Birth order studies show middle and later children are more creative risk-takers than first-borns.

I say stop immigration, but either have no children or *lots* of them.

Good answer, Incomuicardo

King is completely ignoring future risk. Here is what the UN says about global population growth. It clearly isn't all about Africa. King ignores demographic momentum.

http://www.prb.org/Publications/Datasheets/2012/world-population-data-sheet/fact-sheet-world-population.aspx

Malcolm King’s statements can be compared to what SPA’s and SPP’s policies actually are:

http://www.population.org.au/sites/default/files/public/SPA_Population_Policy.pdf

http://www.populationparty.org.au/Population-Party-Policies

<Is it not odd that a movement that allegedly supports democracy actually wants to reduce the number of democratic participants?>

True. No sensible person thinks that population can go on growing forever.

<It is not bizarre that as the speed of Australia’s population growth slows, that the SPA/SPP (same thing) want to drive birth numbers even lower than the 1.7 per female average? (they want a one child pop of 7 million).>

Lies. SPP wants to ultimately stabilise at 23 – 26 million. SPA just calls for stabilising the population. There is nothing at all about 7 million as a goal. Neither organization supports advocates or supports coercive efforts to reduce fertility. Neither advocates a one child policy. Both do call for the withdrawal of government incentives to have 3 or more children, i.e., that it should stop coercively taxing people to boost the population, but note that they also want the government to stop using immigration as a mechanism to boost population growth. The fertility rate would obviously need to ultimately rise above what it is now for a stable population. Personally I am not concerned about large Australian families so long as the overall fertility rate is not above replacement level. It is a half-truth that our population growth is slowing, as it has gone from 1.8% to 1.7%, still very high.

<Is it not the height of audacity that a bunch of blokes with science and engineering backgrounds want to meddle in women’s contraceptive rights and sexual health?>

Lie. SPA and SPP don’t support coercive family planning policies. It is forced pregnancy that is coercive, not making contraceptives available to people who want them. A science or engineering background has the nasty effect of making you numerate and putting you in touch with reality. Try it, Malcolm.

Ah Divergence, the queen of not building houses or apartments for young people in our cities. Why? They eat, consume energy and breathe. I could go Matt Moran or Kanck on the 7M source. I'll go Kanck:

Sandy Kanck, as former Pres of SPA said in The Advertiser on April 22, 2009 that "slashing population by limiting families to one child was the only way to avoid "environmental suicide ... Clearly population stabilisation and then reduction has to be part of a suite of measures that ensure the cuts in emissions that the Government has promised." Mrs Kanck has proposed a national population target of seven million. (end)

Your old mate Roy Beck is in some trouble in the States. You may have seen the NBC expose. Also, re the SPA and SPP's racist diatribe that immigrants take Aussie jobs, being a numerate sort of person, you'd understand the Lump of Labour Fallacy. Beck doesn't understand it and neither does the SPA/SPP (same thing).

This fallacy assumes there is a fixed amount of work in an economy, to be divided up among the pool of workers. It treats the demand for labour as a fixed state, when it is not. In all world economies, the number of hours of labour per day has always been, and always is, subject to Price Variation.

Can you explain why SPA membership monies, which is tax deductible, is being used in political campaigns?

As I wrote when we discussed the issue of high density in existing suburbs, I blame the politicians, not the young people, for creating the problem. People are entitled not to have their lifestyle arbitrarily degraded (in all the ways I discussed) by cramming in too many people too close together, just so more bankers and property developers can go on the BRW Rich List. No one forced the politicians to set immigration so high or to abandon decentralization.

Sandra Kanck is entitled to her own opinions, but it is clear from the organizations' policy statements that neither SPA nor SPP supports a target of 7 million or a one child policy. I certainly don't and haven't encountered anyone else who does. So what you have said is a lie, because you ascribed it to SPP and SPA, not Sandra Kanck.

Roy Beck is standing between some very rich, very evil people and a big pile of money, so of course he will be attacked.

The "no lump of labour" claim is another half-truth. Migrants do create jobs as well as taking them, but we can't assume that the net effect is neutral, especially if the labour market is being flooded with people faster than the economy can absorb them. We have been acquiring 5 new people for every new full-time job.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/skilled-newcomers-flood-fulltime-jobs-market-20130614-2o9vm.html#ixzz2i3tNxUVR

According to Roy Morgan Research, 20.1% of our working age population is now unemployed or underemployed. The 2006 Productivity Commission report that I quoted above says that mass migration depresses wages, and this is consistent with the 2008 House of Lords report on immigration in the UK:

"72. Most of our witnesses agreed that there is some negative effect of immigration on the wages of low-skilled workers."

"93 ...Although the evidence is limited, there is a clear
danger that immigration has some adverse impact on training
opportunities and apprenticeships offered to British workers."

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/82/82.pdf

See also this article by Prof. George Borjas (Economics, Harvard)

http://cis.org/immigration-and-the-american-worker-review-academic-literature

With the John Tanton Network in the background behind a variety of front organisations and alliances, including SPA etc., and CIS, FAIR etc. in the US The Daily Kos describes the 'bi-partisan' bigotry that is encouraged:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/04/1106275/-ALEC-SLLI-Bipartisan-Bigotry

Surprise surprise evidence of bipartisanship, Australia's own Cory Bernardi is involved with Tanton's ALEC, does Bernardi go to SPA meetings? That would really attract the young crowd? :)

King "Can you explain why SPA membership monies, which is tax deductible, is being used in political campaigns?"

noun: ignoramus; plural noun: ignoramuses
an ignorant or stupid person.

*Anyone* can disseminate electoral materials.

The Boy Scouts can.
Greenpeace can.
The Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras can.
The Chinatown Business Chamber can.

Even, Mrs Reddon, retired school principal can.

As long as they register the material with the electoral office.

Regards employment, it seems that employment in the future is going to be very different to the past, and industry will need less workers, and not more.

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21594264-previous-technological-innovation-has-always-delivered-more-long-run-employment-not-less

Even if we turn towards manufacturing, countries such as the UK show that a modern manufacturing industry can significantly increase productivity and output, but actually reduce the number of people employed.

Recent experiences in the EU show that high levels of unemployment and poverty creates instability and tensions, leading to people turning away from the usual political parties.

The gap between the haves and have nots is now very wide, and every time this has occurred in history, it has created war.

Our current government can't even get its first budget passed, and will be totally useless in managing the country in future years with overpopulation.

I sense civil war will occur in Australia in the next decade or so.

Wow, summary execution of the ‘Lump of Labour Fallacy’ by Divergence. The dismissal took the form of ‘yes but…’ There goes 100 years of economic theory. There are no ‘yes buts’ – unless you think the economy is a bucket in which people fall in to.

Last year the right wing of the Republican Party slammed NumbersUSA for using racist dog whistles, which cost them the Chicano vote at the last election. That's why I call the SPA/SPP (same thing) 'Pauline Hanson in a koala suit'. They talk green but underneath, it's Enoch Powell's 'Rivers of Blood' all the way down.

At the last Federal election in Australia, the SPP preferenced One Nation, the Australian Motoring Party, the Shooters and Fishers Party, Palmer's United Party, Family First and Katter's Australian Party AHEAD of the Greens. An environmental party my bum.

If one voted on SPP preference guidelines, you’d support kicking out the Asians, raising tariffs, shooting wildlife in national parks, eschewing contraception, building more mines and raising jingoism to a fine art.

What is more troubling is William Bourke's comment on The Conversation on 29 May 2013, that he had never heard of the Social Contract Press, of John Tanton (a former employer of Becks) or any foreign anti-population/anti-immigration group.

"I have never heard of the USA groups/people you mention, let alone have "links" with them. In fact the ASPP has no links to ANY group anywhere, including in Australia - we are completely independent, at my insistence, from day one," said Bourke.

But he'd only met Beck a few months prior. Why did he deny it? Exactly what is the relationship of the SPP with the anti-immigration movement in America?

In 2011, The New York Times profiled Tanton. He wrote to a large donor and was quoted in the NYT: "One of my prime concerns is about the decline of folks who look like you and me." Tanton warned a friend that, "for European-American society and culture to persist requires a European-American majority, and a clear one at that."

Enter the SPA/SPP.

Yes, quite right Shocka, the SPA is the political mothership of the SPP.

The SPA sometimes say, to conform to tax legislation, that it's just a harmless little ol' charity, dedicated to environmentalism. In fact, not only does it politically support the SPP, it letterboxs the SPP campaign leaflets, meets regularly with its leadership group (same membership), and exists solely to win political support for the SPP.

The SPA's Facebook website is a defacto political website of the SPP. I know it. You know it and Minister Hunt knows it too.

Ignoramus (def): person who thinks he can get away with it.

Isn't it wonderful that we have this brilliant PR man, Malcolm King, who understands more about "lump of labour" than professors of economics at Harvard and Cambridge, let alone our own Productivity Commission? I only quoted from the consensus views in the House of Lords report. Some of the economists who contributed to it were a lot stronger on wage depression, denial of training opportunities, labour exploitation, and unemployment as a result of mass migration. Bob Birrell gives the facts and figures for Australia. Unlike King's effusions, his papers have to pass peer review.

http://artsonline.monash.edu.au/cpur/files/2013/02/Immigration_review__Feb-2013.pdf

Why doesn't King tell us where the major parties put SPP on their how-to-vote cards? These are the very parties responsible for the situation that SPP was formed to fight. They thus deserve to go last on the ballot paper. The Greens are hopeless on population despite a fine sounding policy, apart from the South Australian Branch, which adopted a policy similar to SPP's at the last state election. The Greens had the balance of power in the Federal Parliament, but had no objection when Kevin Rudd concealed his intention to massively increase immigration until after the election. Before the next election, Julia Gillard said that she "didn't believe in hurtling down the track to a Big Australia" and then did the exact opposite after the election. Not a peep from the Greens. Why should SPP encourage them? It should be pointed out that SPA existed long before SPP was even thought of. An individual who is a member of both organisations has every right to hand out how-to-vote cards, etc.

The smear tactics used by Malcolm King and Andras Smith are directly copied from those used against immigration restrictionists in the US, most notably the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). The Center for Immigration Studies explains the smear tactics, the whole business about Tanton, and what it would be like if the immigration restrictionists behaved in the same way as King and the SPLC:

"If FAIR [Federation for American Immigration Reform] chose to adopt the tactics of the SPLC and its allies, it would seek to divert attention from the substantive issues of immigration. It would probe for suspect motivation and association. It would take out full-page ads in Roll Call and Politico, taunting La Raza for controversial moments in its history, such as its selection of the recipient of its 1994 'Hero Award.'66 The honoree, Jose Angel Gutierrez, said this in 1969, at a high point of Chicano radicalism: 'We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him.'67

"In 1994, when he was a political science professor at the University of Texas at Arlington, Gutierrez added this to the discussion of national demographic change: 'We are millions. We just have to survive. We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. It’s a matter of time. The explosion is in our population.'68 The Washington Post reported that Gutierrez 'led a delegation to Cuba in 1975, publicly praised its Communist government, and predicted that many more “little Cubas” would be created in south Texas'.69

"If FAIR adopted the SPLC’s diversionary tactics — probing for sinister motives rather than debating policy concerns — it would steer every conversation and refer every reporter to such statements, and it would demand to know why La Raza continues to cling to a name that derives from the “raza cosmica” concept, which is explicitly based in the racist and eugenicist theories of its author."

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

At least Birrell acknowledges publicly on his profile that he has contributed to Tanton's journal TSCP http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc0702/article_615.shtml but produces peer reviewed research, or merely essays base don personal preferences?

'Betts, Birrell et al are at least consistent, without knowing what objective conclusions their data or research about immigration, population or society could conclude, one is safe in the knowledge that it will be either directly or indirectly negative about non Europeans……'

Birrell's research i.e. methodology etc. has been criticised and dismissed by experts in various fields e.g. Health Workforce:

'“HWA clarifies Dr Bob Birrell’s claims about the Health Workforce 2025 report....."

The report (from Birrell) challenges the view that there is a shortage of GPs in Australia, and includes some criticism of the findings in Health Workforce 2025: Doctors, Nurses and Midwives (HW2025), the first long-term, national projections for the health workforce to 2025.

Health Workforce Australia (HWA) has completed a thorough analysis of the criticisms and has found a number of inaccuracies and issues with Dr Birrell’s report.

In summary Dr Birrell has misinterpreted or misunderstood HWA’s methodology and scenarios at various points, has used incorrect GP data, makes inaccurate claims that HWA has understated the number of immigrant doctors, draws conclusions from government initiatives such as bulk billing that are tenuous at best, prefers simple measures of oversupply/undersupply, states inaccurately that the HW2025 report suggests that the government should not limit the flow of IMGs into the GP workforce. There is absolutely no such claim in the report and also suggests that all domestic and international graduates from Australian Medical Schools should enter the medical workforce, etc.

Birrell's own journal 'People and Place' claimed to be 'peer reviewed':

'Hard data analysed by Birrell and widely reported in the media helped to remake the rules for skilled migration..... The journal was given the lowest possible ranking for the ERA...' http://tinyurl.com/kbrehpo

Further, one of Birrell's colleagues at Monash university, Prof Stephen King has written a critique of Birrell 'Pass me the sushi and damn the immigrants' http://economics.com.au/?p=5320

Regarding issues that Tanton, FAIR, CIS et al have about SPLC Southern Poverty Law Center, they're a little misleading and economical with the facts....

SPLC was formed at the start of the civil rights movement "The Southern Poverty Law Center is dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of our society."

Tanton et al should not be so modest as they are in esteemed company, the SPLC and its resources have been used successfully for decades against the Klu Klux Clan and various related offshoots....

SPLC publishes a 'hate list' http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups which includes FAIR and TSCP, plus many other usual suspects....

Further, subjects of their investigation can often still be cited or referred to by 'academics' and 'researchers' in other countries, whose negative memes are then transmitted by compliant mainstream media e.g. Robyn William's Ockham's Razor on ABC recently featured John Guillebaud patron of Population Matters UK, another part of the Tanton network, whom went on to cite Garrett Hardin http://tinyurl.com/p6wcy7n

Hardin in his own words via SPLC:

"Promoters of more diversity maintain that the more immigrants the better; and the greater the variety the richer America will become. Many of these promoters are ‘Europhobic' — fearful of, or revolted by, European civilization and values. They say we should stop taking in North Europeans, urging us instead to solicit the Filipinos, the Taiwanese and the Salvadorans… . Diversity is the opposite of unity, and unity is a prime requirement for national survival.”
—“How Diversity Should be Nurtured,” The Social Contract, 1991' http://tinyurl.com/knzqa2f

If anyone is serious about environment and climate Ian Angus wrote good article in 'Climate and Capitalism': 'The return of the population bombers. Overpopulation ideology undermined the environmental movement in the 1970s, diverting social protest into harmless channels. To prevent a similar setback today, we must understand populationism’s conservative role, and why it is attractive to a growing number of green activists.' http://tinyurl.com/c6qaco

A reference from some whom also have a negative view of SPLC 'Jewish terrorist gang SPLC attacks John Tanton (FAIR et al)' http://tinyurl.com/lhfc63x from 'Storm Front' for "White Pride World Wide".

Also congratulating Tanton et al for being included in the SPLC 'hate list'.....

Warning, by clicking through the link above you maybe confronted by racially offensive content.

Andras,

You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel with SPLC.

There have been a number of exposes of SPLC with reference to their tactics and dubious financial dealings, starting with one in the Montgomery Advertiser in 1994, which was a finalist for the 1995 Pulitzer Prize. Ken Silverstein was the author of another expose of SPLC in Harpers Magazine in 2000. Note that Silverstein has said that he is not an immigration restrictionist.

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

Here is his original article for Harper's (behind a paywall unfortunately)

http://harpers.org/archive/2000/11/the-church-of-morris-dees/

Here is a more recent expose from the Weekly Standard

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/king-fearmongers_714573.html?nopager=1

"A perhaps more serious objection to the SPLC’s hate list is the loosey-goosey criteria by which the center decides which organizations qualify as hate groups."

The American Institute of Philanthropy's Charity Watch gave SPLC an F rating (poor) from 1999 to 2009.

Labeling your political opponents as "hate groups" or "haters", a standard SPLC tactic, is a good way to discredit them and shut down debate, as Ken Silverstein said.

You rely on insinuations, not links to racist material by the person or organization in question. John Tanton made a racist remark to a friend in 1965 or thereabouts. Bob Birrell or whoever once met Tanton or had an article in a magazine founded by Tanton. Therefore, Birrell is a racist and taking orders from Tanton, even if he hasn't said, written, or done anything racist. Presumably, Tanton has also got at Prof. George Borjas at Harvard and the respected economists who wrote the House of Lords report in the UK. The links between La Raza and SPLC are a lot closer than this sort of thing. OK with "Kill the Gringo", are you, Andras?

The SPA/SPP actually embraces Tanton and Beck’s racist philosophy. I believe the head of the SPA actually had Tanton stay with her some years back. It’s important to remember, that the depopulationists only pay lip service to the notion of democracy.

The genesis of the depopulation movement in its current form started with the publication of William Vogt’s Road to Survival back in ’48. Vogt favoured sterilisation bonuses to be paid to the shiftless. His chief concerns — cheaper contraceptives and linking food aid to population control — was adopted by the SPA/SPP. Voigt showed that even though everyone shared the same “road to survival”, those that survived would be white, male and from the West.

Far from being environmentalists, watermelon lefties or fire twirling tree huggers, they are in fact hard line right wing social engineers – to the right of the American Republicans, which is saying something - and a blight on the Australian political landscape.

I recognize that a political party which has less than .04 per cent of the popular vote is not really front page news. But it’s one of the strengths of Opinion Online, is that it allows arguments to be put direct to the public and to create a historical record, detailing how the SPA/SPP’s regressive and reductive ‘arguments’ were defeated.

If SPA and SPP actually embrace "Tanton's racist philosophy", then why don't they call for a discriminatory immigration program in their policies? After all, both organisations want zero net immigration (about 70,000 a year), not no immigration, so without a discriminatory policy, some of those brown people or Muslims are sure to get in, maybe quite a lot over a number of years. SPP in their policies: "We are opposed to discrimination of immigrants based on race or religion." SPA in their objectives: "•To advocate low immigration rates while rejecting any selection based on race."

While population growth is far from the only cause of environmental problems, Andras' view that population size or growth has nothing to do with them is right up there with holocaust or tobacco denial.

Some of the organizations that disagree with him include

The Sierra Club (foremost US environmental organization)

http://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/program/documents/0720%20Pop%20Program%20FactSheet%2003_low.pdf

The Rand Corporation (leading US think tank)

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB5045.html

The World Bank

http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/english/modules/social/pgr/index03.html

The United Nations Population Fund

http://www.unfpa.org/pds/sustainability.htm

Our own Australian Conservation Foundation has nominated human 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

Amazing that Tanton's reach extends so far.

Have you done one of John Tanton's writer workshops?* :)

Distort, misquote and misunderstand research then make false and subjective claims like 'Australia's best demographer' does (according to Bob Carr)?

One is not arguing unlimited population growth, but understands the evidence that population growth has already stalled or slowed in much of the world, including the developing world (ex sub Saharan Africa).

What's the problem for SPP, if there is not runaway population growth (only if data is presented with headline figures and not explained) but a qualitative issue of ageing population, decreasing tax base etc., which both permanent immigrants and temporaries can ameliorate through 'churnover'?

Of course SPP etc. don't lurch (making dubious links or correlations) from quantitative or headline statistics to perception of -ve qualitative or social issues, nor did Dick Smith preface his population doco based on O'Connor's book with image of large numbers of brown people in Asia while SPP apart from stopping 'immigrants' have no domestic solutions?

Sierra Club is a case in point, Tanton and allies including Sea Shepherd's Paul Watson attempted a takeover in their 'greening of hate' campaign http://grist.org/article/nijhuis-sierra/

From The Nation 'Greenwashing Nativism' and the pushing by John Tanton's FAIR of xenophobia as good eco politics http://www.thenation.com/article/38036/greenwashing-nativism

As Hitler and the Nazi regime knew in their media propaganda re. Jews, Gypsies etc. , it's the putative lie (in cooperation with media), it does not need to be true but repeated often so it is believed and accepted as 'truth'......

* Using links to research or reports without specific references..... SPP used to quote a Curtin University report as evidence that 'population growth' from 'immigration' was impacting 'infrastructure'..... yet there was not a single mention in the report (assumes most people will not download a .pdf file and read it)?

Luckily for SPP most 'educated' Australians seem to lack the most basic critical thinking and analytical skills..... if they did more may question why 'right on' environmentalists use neo con media and communication tactics? Or do Australia's traditional 'progressives' have some deep seated old colonial beliefs too?

What's worse is they have recently watered down all of their policies (such as they were), realising they were anathema to Australians. The SPP dodge and weave. One of the very worst I've encountered. At least with the hard line right, you know what you're getting.

If the SPP were extremist you'd condemn them.
If they "water down" (i.e. are not extremist) that's a problem too.

If you're concerned about sustainability, you're a racist.
If you're openly racist, you're a Nazi mass exterminator.
Everything gets turned up a notch or seven.

Typical Orwellian twisterama from the Loony Left.