Skip to main content

Who are the shills for Big Australia?

The shills for Big Australia all have vested business interests which they do not disclose, because that would give the game away.

Propaganda tactics

Just a few of the shill's tactics, there are many more which consist mostly of omission:
  • Aging population. This myth is their 'big gun', but is also the most easily shot down: migrants age too. Many countries, especially East Asian already have lower birth rates than Australia, and even when people with higher birth rates come here, their birth rate lowers. More people just means more people aging.
  • Skills shortage: this is complete bullshit. More skilled graduates than ever can't find jobs and the underutilisation rate is persistently high. Even if there was a skills shortage for any period of time, this would indicate a need for more focus on education and training, not migration.
  • Only talk about aggregate/headline GDP, rather than GDP per capita
  • Talk fatalistically about the inevitability of 'Big Australia'. This is a gaslighting tactic that denies the Australian public any prerogative over its destiny.
  • Talk about benefit of increased demand of consumer goods as a positive thing in isolation, but then deny that there is even a demand side to the housing affordability issue
  • Completely omit any mention of the population's impact on the environment
  • Draw false similarities with the limited immigration of mostly European immigrants that occurred post-World War II. In contrast to the mass immigration today, the limited post-war immigration had public confidence consent, benefits and open, honest discourse.
  • "We just need more planning" - such a bad argument given that this mantra has been repeated for decades and failed. Past behaviour is a predictor of future behaviour. What did Einstein say about doing the same thing over and over?
  • When all else fails, "that's racist" - this line is most popular amongst the Greens

The shills

  • ABC - several shows, including The Drum, 4 Corners and Q&A have promoted 'Big Australia'. In one case they had 3 shills with not a single one questioning immigration: ABC shows 'Big Australia' bias - just listen to this fuckwit echo chamber: a 'lively discussion' of unquestioning cheerleaders, politically-correct buzzwords and fatalism. Peter Martin is particularly disgraceful - as if we can't control immigration, which is 2/3 of population increase, what a fucking dickhead. The other two randoms are just cheerleading morons. This is the epitome of what you get from the ABC, although it is usually less shrill, and they sometimes give, say, 20% of airtime to an opposing view.
  • Liz Allen - curator of fake opinions polls and distributor of nonsensical verbal diarrhoea. Criticism: Liz Allen Wants to Eat Your Future
  • Adam Creighton - uses self-serving propaganda from the Growth lobby, including fake polls published by Scanlon. Uses personal anecdotes like "I like big cities" - that's really nice, Adam, now tell us about your skin products. Adam is inconsistent: he acknowledges that per capita GDP is more important than headline GDP, but can't bring himself to identify the demand side of the demand/supply equation.
  • Scanlon Foundation - property developer, publishes a self-serving poll
  • Jessica Irvine, some random Fairfax idiot.
  • Michael Pascoe, another Domainfax piece of shit
  • Peter Martin - complete fuckwit with the honesty of a used car salesman - economics editor from The Age, a rag not well regarded for its economic insights
  • Greg Sheridan - should know better, but delusional on this topic
  • Grattan Institute - funded by the ALP, which believes in 'Big Australia.' Has suggested a small cut to immigration in the past, but was piss weak about it
  • Older Ross Gittins Ross has seen the light recently and given up cheerleading for the property development industry. New Ross is calling for immigration cuts. Will the rest of the Fairfax gang at SMH follow suit?
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Multiculturalism is responsible for every war in history (almost)

people informally segregate all the time. You will find various ethnic enclaves in Melbourne and Sydney. Ethnocentric in-group preference is also seen in choice of friends and communication levels among work colleagues of different ethnic backgrounds. While there may be enough tolerance to allow semi-deracinated individuals to participate in capitalism and consumerism, the reality is that in-group preference is innate and Multiculturalism/diversity should be avoided a much as possible, because it breaks down social cohesion and trust. Diversity is our greatest weakness - an observable, scientific reality (footnote: Robert Putnam). Remember that forced integration has lead to many conflicts in the 20th and 21st century. WWI and Hitler would not have happened if various ethnic groups had sovereignty rather than being under the thumb of oppressive empires. Iraq and Israel/Palestine are two current examples of Multicultural conflicts. There is widespread revolt against forced integrati...
Post a Comment
Read more

How Liberalism enslaves

Aristotle, the Stoics and other ancient Greco-Roman moralists posit a very different idea of 'freedom' that involves combating the tendencies that divert us from human flourishing and contributing to our community as social animals. It is naturalistic, albeit pre-Darwinist, but it is not dogmatic like Liberalism, Leftism, etc. This ancient teach us what freedom really is, and Stoic practices in particular can inculcate an honest sense of autonomy. Liberalism claims to grant people autonomy but it only gives them a false sense of it. It effectively enslaves people to denial of their biology, hedonistic consumerism, keeping up with the Jones', seeking celebrity, lower quality social and family relations, workplace and other forms of alienation, pursuit of happiness in all the wrong places: career, travel, shiny things, sleeping around, taking drugs, etc. Liberalism won't necessarily lead to all these things, but it makes people vulnerable to their marketing, and being h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Equality, Liberalism and the Big State

Shelley makes Liberalism sounds as idealistic and Utopian as any religion. I even see some parallels with the Sermon on the Mount. What is the relation between 'equality' and the 'individual'. (I don't think we are equal and my reification of the 'individual' has become weaker lately). Must one have a strong view of equality to have a strong view of the individual and their 'rights'? I think so, although those regimes pushing equality the strongest - the Communists - have ended up being the most hierarchical and totalitarian of all, with the State on top and the plebs below. Equality ends ups sacrificing individual 'rights' for the sake of whatever new set of individual 'rights' are trendy at the time. e.g. we need to pretend that homosexual relationships are equal to heterosexual ones therefore our 'free speech' right is sacrificed so as to protect the new 'freedom from hurt feelings' right of another. New indiv...
Post a Comment
Read more