Saturday, October 31, 2009

ECONOMIC SCENE: Is population growth a Ponzi scheme?

The profits go to the few, and everyone else picks up the tab.

Forty-five nations face a population “bust” that has some leaders wringing their hands. They worry about the costs of supporting an aging society and the loss of national and economic power.

When US Vice President Joe Biden spoke of Russia’s “withering” population last month, Russian leaders bristled.

But notions that population growth is a boon for prosperity – or that national political success depends on it – are “Ponzi demography,” says Joseph Chamie, former director of the population division of the United Nations.

The profits of growth go to the few, and everyone else picks up the tab.

Here’s a look at the numbers: By 2050, countries as diverse as Cuba, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Japan, South Korea, and Russia will lose at least 10 percent of their people, UN estimates suggest.
This trend toward fewer births is accelerating.

In the rich, developed nations, the average age is rising at the fastest pace ever, UN demographers note. Today they have 264 million aged 60 or over. By 2050, that number is expected to rise to 416 million.

By that time, the world’s population should stabilize, if UN predictions are correct. The population surge in poor countries in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East would be offset by declines in much of the developed world.

Some nations facing decline are fighting back with incentives for families to have more children. The United States is bucking the trend with its relatively high immigration rate.

Growth, whether through immigration or natural increase, is a plus for some groups. For business, it means a boost in the demand for products. It also means a surge in low- and high-skilled workers, which can keep a lid on wage pressures. Religious and ethnic groups want more immigrants of their own faith and ethnicity to raise their political and social clout. The military regards young immigrants as potential recruits.

But the public pays a cost for a bigger population.

Mr. Chamie speaks of more congestion on highways, more farmland turned into housing developments, more environmental damage, including the output of pollutants associated with climate change.

In the current healthcare debate in the US, one costly question is whether the insurance covers some 11 million illegal immigrants.

Of course, there are also costs for countries with stable or declining populations.

They will need to spend more looking after older citizens and, yes, some industries like housing will shrink. But governments won’t have to spend as much on children. And any labor shortage would fade if increasingly healthy older people worked an extra year or two before retiring to maintain their standard of living.

Raising the average retirement age does far more to increase the working population than increasing immigration levels, says Steven Camarota, research director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington think tank opposed to high immigration. Industrial nations with large service industries have plenty of employment opportunities for seniors, as opposed to poor countries where many jobs – say, planting rice or other crops – are hard work.

The goal should be gradual population stabilization, Chamie says. The costs of an aging but stable population would be more manageable than those of a population boom.

He asks: Does America really need more than its current 309 million people? With immigration at present levels, it will have 439 million by 2050.

A stable or falling population, he says, “is not a disaster. It is a success.”


Overpopulation unsustainable

This a slightly older article but the message here needs to become higher in the consciousness of the Australian population.

Australia is a dry continent and it is only getting dryer, this obvious fact about our natural environment seems to be somehow missing from the recognition of the immigration and baby bonus proponents. - Dave

Australia needs one-child policy: ex-MP

Posted Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:26pm AEST
Updated Wed Apr 22, 2009 5:10pm AEST

A former MP says Australia should consider having a one-child policy and other measures to ensure a sustainable population.

Former Upper House Democrat in South Australia, Sandra Kanck, now heads a group urging that Australia limit its population.

Ms Kanck says she knows the Catholic Church will object to her suggestion that Australia look to promoting one-child families.

She thinks the baby bonus needs to be discontinued or limited to the first child only.

The one-child limit could also be applied to paid maternity leave, she argues.

Ms Kanck says her group, Sustainable Population Australia, is worried about the strain on Australia's resources, such as water.

The man who replaced Ms Kanck on her retirement from the SA Legislative Council, Australian Democrat David Winderlich, has distanced the party from Ms Kanck's views.

"People might think that she's speaking for the Democrats. She's not," he said.

"She's expressing her view as spokesperson for Sustainable Population Australia.

"That view is different from the view of the Democrats, which is we do have a population problem but a draconian one-child approach is not the solution."


Friday, October 30, 2009

One Nation voters can look to Joyce

Civil rights apologists try to bottle up public concern about illegal arrivals, militant Islamism, ethnic gangs, drugs and the murderous danger zones that our CBDs have become, but from time to time the outrage erupts on talkback radio and in the letters to the editor columns. A caller from Bathurst, NSW, recently said the threat of Pacific Islander gangs in western Sydney made him pack up and leave, and he is not alone. A woman who was flying her Australian flag during the Cronulla riots had her house pelted with eggs. Police told her to take down the flag as it was inciting the Muslims.

These are today's forgotten people, Australians of all generations who know their history and are embittered as they see their heritage, values, institutions and way of life devalued. Under Labor, the rapid-fire arrival of boatloads of illegals has, until recently, failed to generate the banner headlines of the past, no doubt heart-warming for those Greens, Laborites and Liberal marshmallows who favour the madness of some sort of open borders policy. Ex-Liberal MP Bruce Baird, now holding a Labor job, told the Ten Network's Meet the Press Labor's policy changes on dealing with people-smugglers had nothing whatsoever to do with the recent surge in arrivals.

As Christmas Island readies to put up the no-vacancy sign, the hitherto silent Libs have broken out, led by Philip Ruddock and Kevin Andrews, and already the polls have spiked substantially in their favour, no doubt creating more grief for Malcolm Turnbull, who is handcuffed to the usual suspects in Wentworth and whose only comment to date has been a limp-wristed call for an independent inquiry.

The chief objective of the illegals and their criminal co-conspirators, the people-smugglers, is to be allowed to come ashore on the mainland and that will surely happen soon.

Still disconnected from the mainstream, there is hardly a mumble from the Liberals as our immigration rates accelerate.

A new Australia is in the making, where our ethnic minorities will become majorities, aided by people running Malcolm Fraser's line that we need a population of 50million plus, no doubt to be fed by the spring of taxpayer-funded multiculturalism.

Full article here..

Multiculturalism Immigration: The Chattering Class and Australian Social Cohesion

Multiculturalism: A Political Artifact

Multiculturalism is the demand that Australians should adapt to rancorous demands by newly arrived or resident ethnic groups. Multiculturalism emerged from the New Left matrix of the 1960s and 1970s and is the crazed orphan of cultural relativism. In the Australian case it was designed to destabilise the affiliations to British-Australian traditions, institutions and values. The operational assumption that Australia was a W.A.S.P. (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) paradise built on racism, genocide and oppression is still assiduously promoted by leftist historians and by ethnic and pro-ethnic media. Hating Australia became a profession.

In asserting the regressive fantasy that all cultures are "equal", cultural relativism ensures that the host country, Australia - a term that multiculturalists are trying to depreciate - was denigrated as the source of authoritative allocation of values and legitimacy. Australian multi-culturalism was never put to the people and was almost covertly promoted by progressive activist networks.

Multiculturalism became a contentious topic decades after the realisation that it was politically and culturally destabilising and the origin of many taxpayer-funded social problems including ethnic crime, narcotics, social and religious separatism and political vote-catching.

As two researchers recently summarised, "Multiculturalism was not well known or popular among ordinary Australians." Subsequent research into popular acceptance of multiculturalism reveals respondents were particularly concerned that "they were never asked to vote on it".

The historian of Australian multiculturalism, Mark Lopez, points out: "Multiculturalism was developed by a small number of academics, social workers and activists, initially located on the fringe of the political arena of immigration, settlement and welfare. The authors responsible for versions of the ideology were also principal actors in the struggle to advance their beliefs and make them government policy".

As Max Teichmann has noted: "The original definers of the multicultural scenario were few in number, so had to move carefully . . . Few Australians, native born or immigrant, really wanted it . . . Most Australians were quite unaware of this process of conversion by stealth of the decision makers and opinion formers."

Multiculturalism as a policy was never discussed internally at Cabinet level or party room within either political party. Members of both parties presumed that the legitimacy of multiculturalism derived from political leaders and elite support. Multiculturalism was public policy by stealth.

Lopez notes that through "core groups and activists' sympathisers and contacts . . . multiculturalism became government policy . . . because the multiculturalists and their supporters were able to influence the ideological content of the Minister's sources of policy . . . Contemporary public opinion polls the general population, a widespread resentment, or a lack of interest, of the kinds of ideas advanced by multiculturalists. ...The original constituency for multiculturalism was small; popular opinion was an obstacle, not an asset, for the multiculturalists."

Finally, "Multiculturalism was not simply picked up and appreciated and implemented by policy makers, government and the major political parties . . . [I]n every episode that resulted in the progress of multiculturalism, the effectiveness of the political lobbyists was a decisive factor. . . . [Multiculturalism was] tirelessly promoted and manoeuvered forward".

Gradually the downside of multiculturalism has become clear. The 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington have provided further insight into this perilous dimension, for as Walter Lacquer has written, the hijackers operated "all under the cover of multiculturalism".

By prescribing through law the status of numerous ethnic identities, Australia entered a new culture of complaint and litigation - against alleged discrimination. The multi-culturalists had a strategic advantage: their opponents were stigmatised as racists. Racism was described by university historians as the lynchpin of Australian nationalism and identity and involved a "cosmopolitan" hatred of Australians. As Lopez summarises: "In addition to being racist, the typical Australian was negatively stereotyped as parochial, boorish, narrow-minded, materialistic, suburban, culturally inferior and in need of improvement."

Multiculturalism became a profession based on the mobilisation of ethnic resentment. Grievance mechanisms required the expertise of the chattering class in the form of lawyers, social workers and, of course, the establishment of commissions and statutory bodies to rewrite "racist" laws and advance the interests of ethnic minorities repressed by the "dominant culture".

No country is naturally multi-cultural - it is always imposed. In 1996, the architect of multi-culturalism Jerzy Zubrycki described multiculturalism as, "a good idea that has gone wrong. Ethnicity has been cynically exploited for electoral and civic advantage. Morality rather than social engineering is now required to make Australia a better place." Multiculturalism poses the key questions of loyalty and allegiance to Australia: to whom do the hundreds of ethnic groups and communities owe allegiance? It may take a crisis to find the answer.


The chattering class quickly attached itself to the immigration / refugee issue and promoted a climate of suspicion to all Howard Government claims. Immigration is a low or no-cost cause of high symbolic value. Demography and distance also shape its stance. The chattering class resides in areas and suburbs in which there are few ethnic minorities and therefore few attendant social problems.

The chattering class view immigration and illegal immigrants - commonly misnamed refugees - as a test of their cosmopolitanism, tolerance and cultural relativism. Support for immigration is a litmus test for moral superiority. They do not feel threatened.

However normals regard high immigration levels and illegal immigrants as threatening personal, community and national security (national security is a concept systematically devalued by the chattering class).

The chattering class accuse the Howard Government of exploiting the latent racism and xenophobia of Australians, thereby expressing their lack of understanding and contempt for one of the most racially tolerant countries in the world. The "illegal immigrants-refugee" issue also offers a media platform for a host of formerly anonymous legal mediocrities who can promenade as "men of principle", defending "refugees" in their favourite media outlets the A.B.C., The Age and S.B.S.

In mid-December 2001, bemused Australians television-watched "asylum seekers" burn down fifteen detention centre buildings, destroying four of them in Woomera, South Australia, as they chanted: "visa, visa, visa". The chattering class commentators justified their arson and sabotage against Commonwealth property by claiming it should be seen "in context" and they "shared their pain".

Living in their twilight zone, the commentators denied the existence of multi-million dollar people-smuggling rackets which placed hundreds of men, women and children at risk of death and massive trauma. They denied the existence of terrorist-sleepers entering Australia in the illegal immigrant streams. Thus the refugee-detention issue provided a unique insight into the moral posturing of the chattering class and their contempt for the key issue: Australian sovereignty.

Consistent with the compulsive attachment to "rights", the controversy over aboriginal rights and apologies is conducted by those who have knowledge by description rather than knowledge by acquaintance. Robert Manne, the chief academic exponent of the stolen generations myth recalls, "I did not encounter a single aboriginal child in my primary or high school years."

The use of the term genocide is particularly misleading and offensive to the many Europeans and genuine refugees from Asian countries who fled communist genocide and mass murder. Not only does it degrade and cheapen the horrific dimensions of genocide, but it also reduces genocide to a propaganda slogan against Australia's past. It is a chilling example of the "Big Lie".

Full article here..

Multiculturalism is anticulture

The push for cultural diversity has potential drawbacks

The words “diversity” and “multiculturalism” are sacrosanct in contemporary American society. They are often spoken of as though the concepts themselves have intrinsic value, as though “diverse” equals “good.” Unfortunately, the path to hell is paved with good intentions as they say. Many well-intentioned people have wholeheartedly accepted this notion at face value without understanding the repercussions.

Minorities once swiftly adapted themselves into American culture within a few generations. Now, they are effectively treated like children and encouraged instead to wallow in notions of cultural fragility and victimhood.

The late social critic Russell Kirk foresaw the danger that multiculturalism poses to what he termed the “transplanted … British culture that most Americans now take for granted.” Fueled by hatred of American culture, multiculturalists decry the “Eurocentrism” and “homogeneity” of American culture and favor a factionalized and indistinct culture instead.

Multiculturalists constantly revisit past injustices, insisting that American culture is inherently racist. Often their history is selective. They embrace the injustice of the internment of Japanese Americans, while simultaneously downplaying the innumerable atrocities committed by Imperial Japan. Western cultures are responsible for the majority of the world’s ills in the eyes of the multiculturalists.

R.J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, has criticized the dangerous trend of overemphasizing the comparatively moderate social disparities of Western nations while virtually ignoring the gross human rights abuses of the rest of the world.

In defense of the United States, he wrote, “compared to other countries, the rise in power, wealth and influence of minorities and women within a comparatively short time has been incredible.” Though it is often promoted as the key to social justice and harmony, multiculturalism is not necessarily conducive to either.

Economist Gerald W. Scully wrote, “cultural diversity (is) a universal source of social conflict and often … a barrier to economic progress as well as personal freedom.” He went on to write, “for all its problems, the West has managed cultural conflict better than the rest of the world.” One would assume that multiculturalists are disenfranchised minorities, but that is only partially the case. By and large, multiculturalism has been conceived and driven by white, liberal academics motivated by a peculiar psychology of guilt and self-loathing.

The liberal social critic Bertrand Russell was disturbed by this propensity of his colleagues on the left to romanticize the plight of minority groups.

In strange, circular logic, multiculturists claim to seek inclusion and equality for minorities while effectively fetishizing them. In their view, the aspects of society derived from minority populations are special and unique, while European-derived elements of American culture are banal and oppressive.

But these academics are limited in number and rely on the miseducation they are able to foist upon their captive audience of college students to further their aims. Kirk wrote that, “bored, indolent students to whom any culture but pop culture is anathema” are among the other primary advocates of multiculturalism.

The result is a generation of young people who do not assert themselves as individual Americans, but instead identify primarily with whatever minority subset to which they happen to belong.

Given its origins, multiculturalism is not surprisingly an almost exclusively Western phenomenon. Generally speaking, outside Western Europe and North America, countries maintain a nationalist outlook and are actively engaged in affirming their own dominant culture. This goes for even those with large ethnic and religious minorities. It seems counterintuitive that any culture that systematically denigrates itself, as the United States now does, can survive in the long term.

Article source..

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Some Good News for a change

Dollar's rise, attacks hit demand

Article from: The Australian

OVERSEAS university student numbers could fall by up to 10 per cent later next year, based on a halving in inquiries from India and a strong Australian dollar, according to one of the country's largest inquiries managers, Hobsons Asia-Pacific.

"If the drop in inquiries during the last quarter continues then the drop in enrolments in semester two 2010 could be double-digit," Hobson's managing director David Harrington told the HES. "Semester one enrolments, which is the largest intake, will be less affected by the recent drop in inquiries due to the 12-month pipeline. This we expect to be flat."


And also, this article..

Alarm over college closures

Article from: The Australian

THE peak body for private colleges has called on the federal government to bolster confidence in the sector by injecting cash into the international student assurance fund as the industry braces for a spate of college failures and closures.

As revealed in The Australian last week, a steep fall in student visa applications and approvals out of the Indian market is threatening the viability of colleges. At the same time a regulatory crackdown on dodgy providers is expected to lead to enforced shutdowns.


If the numbers could fall by 90%, that would be excellent news. - Dave :-)

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Prophet of doom

Here is an awesome resource dealing with the inhuman, unethical and immoral ideology that is Islam


And also check out this website for an excellent 13 part lecture on Mohammed the Koran and Islam


Sunday, October 18, 2009

Islamisation – What to Expect

An article from the British Nationalist, 14th October 2009

Below is some interesting research which links Muslim demographics with the behaviour of Muslims. We do not know the author of this list.

When Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone: United States — Muslim 1.0% / Australia — Muslim 1.5% / Canada — Muslim 1.9% / China — Muslim 1%-2% / Italy — Muslim 1.5% / Norway — Muslim 1.8%

At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs: Denmark — Muslim 2% / Germany — Muslim 3.7% / United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7% / Spain — Muslim 4% / Thailand — Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law: France — Muslims 8% /Philippines — Muslim 5% / Sweden — Muslim 5% / Switzerland — Muslim 4.3% / The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5% / Trinidad & Tobago — Muslim 5.8%

When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris — car-burnings) . Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam — Mohammad cartoons): Guyana — Muslim 10% / India — Muslim 13.4%/ Israel — Muslim 16% / Kenya — Muslim 10% / Russia — Muslim 10-15%

After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning: Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%

At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare: Bosnia — Muslim 40% / Chad — Muslim 53.1% / Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%

From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnocide and genocide, use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels: Albania — Muslim 70% / Malaysia — Muslim 60.4% / Qatar — Muslim 77.5% / Sudan — Muslim 70%

Greater than 80% expect State-backed ethnocide and genocide: Bangladesh — Muslim 83% / Egypt — Muslim 90% / Gaza — Muslim 98.7% /Iran — Muslim 98% / Iraq — Muslim 97% / Jordan — Muslim 92% / Morocco — Muslim 98.7% / Pakistan — Muslim 97% / Palestine — Muslim 99% / Syria — Muslim 90% / Tajikistan — Muslim 90% / Turkey — Muslim 99.8%

100% will usher in the peace of “Dar-es-Salaam” — the Islamic House of Peace — there’s supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim: Afghanistan — Muslim 100% / Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100% / Somalia — Muslim 100% / Muslim 99.9%

This research suggests that Islam is a religion of peace, but only when Islamic supremacy is obtained within the nation. The fully conquered nations then act as a safe base from which Jihadists can further the Islamification of infidel nations, the economic might of the nation can be harnessed to fund this Islamic expansion; Wahhabists are backed financially by Saudi Arabian petro-dollars.

British politicians often act as apologists for home-grown Islamic terrorism because the Muslim community already exercises disproportionate electoral power, and politicians desire the Muslim bloc vote.

‘Not all Muslims are terrorists’ the apologists say, and they’re right, but where – throughout Islam’s long bloodstained history – were these nice peaceful ‘moderate Muslims’? It is a historical folly to expect the moderates to be able, or even willing, to temper the element that is following the Islamic doctrine to the letter.


Thursday, October 1, 2009

Migrants key to replacing baby boomers

THERE is much angst about the projection of the Australian population to 35 million in the recently updated intergenerational report.

But as regular readers of this column will know, the projection figures are not new.

In September last year, the Australian Bureau of Statistics updated its projections for the states and capital cities based on the results of the 2006 census.

These projections showed the national population at 35 million in 2056. The intergenerational report has the population at 35 million by 2049.

The notion of Australia growing to 35 million by mid-century has been around for 12 months. Within weeks of this outlook first being released last year I explained that the implications were profound.

Articles continues.... source..

I noticed that the 6 or so comments that I read after this article, are all in consensus, that the increasing immigration rate into Australia is not only not a viable strategy for the benefit of Australians future, it will lead to a diminished standard of living and a demise in the health of our country and people. - Dave