(cont'd)

<What you’re seeing with articles promoting eugenics and slashing population is the re-emergence of sociobiology in Australian life. For them, only the strongest, whitest and fittest survive in their post apocalyptic fantasy world.>

There are people out there who really are misanthropic, although I haven't encountered anyone who believes in eugenics or seen articles promoting it. So what? If you look hard enough you will find individuals who believe all sorts of strange things. You need to show that the organisations you attack actually have such policies. You haven't. It is interesting that you pick on Sustainable Population Australia (SPA), rather than, say, Australia First. SPA says absolutely nothing about eugenics or Social Darwinism. It opposes racial discrimination in immigration and believes that coercive population control does far more harm than good. It wants to stabilize our population, not slash it.

You are assuming that people are too stupid to understand that different people can want the same thing for different reasons. Evangelical Christians and feminists are both down on pornography, but wouldn't agree about much else. You are assuming that if you bray enough about racism, people will ignore the evidence on the harm that is being done to our environment and society. I am no fan of racism. It is needlessly hurtful to individuals, wastes talent, and creates animosity between groups of people. While racism makes our society uglier, what the growthists are doing, out of nothing more than shortsighted greed, is setting us up for mass extinctions and Third World misery for the bulk of our people at best and collapse at worst. Comparing a racist to one of your growthist friends is like comparing a child pinching lollies from a shop to a serial killer.

The SPA/SPP embraces Tanton and Roy Beck’s racist philosophy but they sure as hell don’t post that on their website. 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 and capitalism.

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."

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.

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.

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 and is espoused by its head thinker and yam expert, Dr Jane Sullivan. 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.

Malcolm,

You have told so many lies that I refuse to believe you about Jane O'Sullivan unless you post a credible link and I can see what she actually said. I know some of these people, and the idea that they have some sort of secret agenda is just a paranoid fantasy. There is no SPA or Sustainable Population Party (SPP) policy linking food aid to contraceptives, although both want more foreign directed towards providing family planning for people who want it. SPA's foreign aid policy (recommendations to government):

"14. increase Australia's overseas development assistance
(ODA) to the 0.7 per cent of GDP [recommended by the UN], or more;
15. ensure that the family planning component within ODA is
at least 4 per cent, and that greater priority is given to other
measures that reduce the birth rate, particularly primary
health care and the education of women;"

SPP supports "enhanced foreign aid for female education and voluntary family planning."

John Tanton is a very old man who no doubt shared some of the prejudices of his generation, but he is no longer involved in running the organisations he founded. So what? George Washington kept slaves, and Teddy Roosevelt believed that women shouldn't be allowed to vote. Australia's Founding Fathers at Federation would have all been thoroughgoing bigots by our standards. One of the organisations Tanton was involved in founding, the Center for Immigration Studies, has had two black men on its board, hardly likely, if it were simply a front for white supremacy.

(cont'd)

(cont'd)

As you well know, we don't have optional preferential voting at the federal level. You no doubt were forced to give some parties with very strange ideas preference numbers well above the last. In allocating its preferences, SPP had to also consider who might have a chance of winning (i.e. doing more to trash this country and its environment) and to send a message. The LibLab wings of the Property Party are both growthist. The Greens are really a humanist party and have actually discussed changing their name on the basis that it is misleading. They have been completely hopeless on population, despite a nice sounding policy, even when they had the balance of power. Not a peep when Kevin Rudd concealed his intention to boost immigration until after the election or when Julie Gillard said she "didn't believe in hurtling down the track to a big Australia" and did the exact opposite.

The naked self-hatred and radical instrumentalism that shines through their every SPA assertion - that we are "no better than the animals" - is a classic misanthropic position. The anti-pop eugenicists love earth so much they would rid it of humans - the one specie who identifies with its beauty. Their ‘science’ is no more than group think and their guru, Malthuse, failed elementary mathematics.

Divergence and the SPA see the world through the single lens of a specific ideology. The metaphor she uses is the earth as an organism. We are all organisms existing in a defined space - units of consumption rather than self-determining, conscious and intelligent beings, each with a unique character.

This is a bastardised version of 19th century Social Darwinism, which holds up the mirror to human life and states that all we see reflects the laws of nature. In effect, natural law is invoked by the anti-people forces to legitimise the organisation of society on their terms and that includes eugenics.

The SPA and kin want to institute the paternalistic and imperialistic family planning policies that plagued India, South America and China in the 1950s and 60s. Remember the sterilization deaths of the women in India just before Xmas? Think an SPA future.

As CS Lewis said, "those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

PS. Did you want a link to Dr Sullivan’s papers on yams?

Malcolm,

"The naked self-hatred and radical instrumentalism that shines through their every SPA assertion - that we are "no better than the animals" - is a classic misanthropic position. The anti-pop eugenicists love earth so much they would rid it of humans - the one specie who identifies with its beauty."

As a person who is vegetarian, (and I'm assuming you are not - as around 95% of Australians are not) - your view "that 'we' are no better than the animals" (that I assume you don't need, as you are better) is very easily forgotten (unless of course your'e going to eat a human for dinner).

Take the above into consideration when you ate a more recent Christmas ham lunch, have had steak for dinner, bacon for breakfast and a nice weekend 'barbie' with sausages with friends over and a few bottles of beer.

So instead of complaining, how about considering and realising the impacts of humans and the damage they are causing to the natural environment of Australia? It's doesn't breach Australian law - and the only way to limit the impacts of population is by reducing population intake - after all we can't tell people living in Australia, how many children they can or cannot have.