Video & analysis of "How migration destroyed Australians"

This film appears at first to comfort truth, but it is really a growth-lobby production, advocating the same 'solutions' as the global-realtors of the MSN and the Australian and state governments. Here's my analysis.

The US-made video makes no mention of Australia's acute biophysical limits - a salinated desert land with little permanent water,  nor of its once cherished native animals driven onto the roads as housing estates take over every bit of grassland.  

It trots out familiar assertions like, "immigration is necessary for economic growth,' 'the solution is to build more houses, more energy infrastructure.' Firstly, economic growth was supposed to service the growing population, but it really only serves those in control of resources, who benefit from demand-caused inflation. We don't need 'economic growth,' we need to stabilise demand. It is perfectly okay to live in a stable economy without 'growth.'

The next outrageous claim is the idea that building more houses will solve the problems of mass immigration. This is used to justify more unjustifyable mass immigration, as in, we can keep on with this overwhelming population growth if we just overwhelm the place with more infrastructure. Who benefits? The infrastructure and housing lobby - developers, financiers, who are actually well organised via the mass media, which relies on global land-and resource sales in Australia's houses and holes economy.

This process is destroying democracy, via the use of outsourced town-'planning', where a host of dimwitted parasites who cannot afford to lose their jobs now write the legislation for parliament and install 'planning' as a weaponised corporate bureaocracy that has removed most property rights, uses population growth (entirely via immigration) to justify the forced imposition of high-rise so-called 'activity centres', excised from normal local government and residents' rights, to be built by foreign transnational groups like BlackRock.

Without mass immigration, Australia would have no housing crisis, and profit margins for ordinary businesses would not be eroded by rents, mortgages, and the associated costs. We would not need desal plants, toll-roads, or alternative energy infrastructures. We could wind down gently over a couple of generations to fit the growing costs (both in pollution and price) of fossil fuels, and implement without panic, complimentary alternative power sources, without overestimating their capacity.

Australians have been very urbanised now for several generations and they have lost touch with the trees and animals they once identified as important to the country's identity, and which underpinned a nativist movement that flourished from the Great Depression to the Oil Crisis of the 1970s.  It also appears that schools are no longer teaching anything much about biodiversity or how Australia famously assisted evolutionary theory through its unique biodiversity.  We are dangerously cage-reared, even the new 'environmentalists' who seem unaware that by focusing on global countdowns of carbon gases, they are allowing everything green, wet, and alive to be concreted over for the profit of a few.  It is tragic that the planning mafia that forces activity centres on us all, in the name of housing overpopulation 'sustainably' actually intends to massively increase carbon gas production so that the growth lobby can profit from the mass immigration problem - which is has lobbied for successfully for years, via the mass media that it owns.

NOTES

I personally see a massive missed opportunity to scientifically and politically enfranchise Australian minds with a useful system to understand their land in the bizarre forgetting of Tim Flannery's, The Future Eaters, (1993).  For a few years Flannery's thesis was celebrated and many Australians read his book. Then, after a hard to understand scandal in a South Australian institution, it seemed to me, Flannery appeared to changed tack, and became a climate change mitigation advocate, which somehow blotted out the great achievement of his first book.  The Future Eaters based some of its argument on Jarad Diamond et al's then popular theory that Easter Islanders (Rapanuians) chopped down all their trees because they overpopulated their island.  I think this theory had massive holes in it, but Australia is a real example of an island where the trees are being chopped down and the island is overpopulating - due to an invited invasion organised by the builders of huge monuments to their own greed, known as high-rises.

"In a fascinating critique [Sheila Newman] points out that there is no evidence that the Easter Islanders ever achieved population levels of 10,000 or even 5,000, and that demographic decline is poorly documented. Further, these people lasted 900 years before the collapse, which suspiciously enough occurred just before the arrival of Europeans. She notes that European trade wars over South American and other colonies had been occurring for more than a century, so it is implausible to suppose that Easter Island was in splendid isolation up to 1722. It is a more parsimonious explanation to posit that European contact led to Easter Island’s destruction, and there are in fact documents indicating that Europeans enslaved the people of Easter Island (see Benny Peiser, Energy and Environment, vol. 16, 2005, pp. 513-539). The population of Easter Island may never have exceeded 2,000 – 3,000 people."  See, "Two Reviews of S. M. Newman, Demography, Territory and Law: Rules of Animal and Human Populations, (Countershock Press, 2013)," (https://candobetter.net/admin/blog/4217/two-reviews-s-m-newman-demography-territory-and-law-rules-animal-and-human)