This will be my final post for the foreseeable future.

TheRealists started as an idea back in 2002 when I was living in the UK.  I had gone from living in a relatively calm and peaceful Australia, to living in a country that was experiencing race riots and where the issue of race always seemed to be simmering away under the surface waiting to explode.

Since leaving the UK there has been more race riots, the 7 July bombings in London and now the British National Party is gaining parliamentary seats.

I didn’t want Australia to follow the same path as the UK, so when I returned from the UK in 2003 I created TheRealists.  I had grand visions of replicating in Australia what www.migrationwatchuk.com had done in the UK.  Above all else I wanted to warn Australian’s of the dangers of blindly following the same path that the UK had followed.

For the first few years the information on TheRealists was static, and only contained basic statistics.  About 18 months ago I was motivated to start blog posting by someone who believed in me and my cause.

Alas, I have found that I don’t have either the resources or the motivation to emulate what migrationwatchuk.com has done, at least not on my own.

I truly believe that Australia needs more focus on what I have tried to focus on with this website.  Having said that I am heartened that some of the issues raised on this site, in particular our high levels of immigration, have recently been more widely discussed in mainstream media.

If anyone or any group would like to see TheRealists or some such incarnation live on, feel free to contact me at info-at-therealists.com.au.

It’s sad to be writing this final post.  Perhaps I will be back, in one form or another.  Thank you for all your comments and words of encouragement.

TheRealists

I’m always confused when discussing immigration when someone says “Well, the Aboriginals were here first”.

My first reaction to this statement is to think ‘What does the fact that Aboriginals came here 40,000 years ago got to do with a debate about modern day immigration?  Should I retort back that we were here 2nd?’

Facile statements such “the Aboriginals were here first” are often used to shut down legitimate debate, but what planet are the people living on that say these kind of things?  The argument just doesn’t make sense.

Do these people presume that the opinion of people whose ancestral ties to this country date back generations should count more than the opinion of people who have settled here more recently?

Well, I have a little story for you.  People’s opinions in Australia aren’t given more weight because they might have longer ties to Australia than another person.  The Minister for Climate Change and Water, Penny Wong, wasn’t born in Australia; yet her opponents don’t run around saying ‘we were here first’.  Why the hell then say “Well, the Aboriginals were here first”?

Secondly, are these people arrogant enough to presume that Aboriginals naturally support continued mass immigration?  Do they presume that Aboriginals naturally support ever increasing numbers of people coming to this country?  The person making the statement will often say that we ‘invaded’ Australia.  Think about that for a second.

If we invaded Australia then I say STOP THE INVASION ALREADY!

How the hell is it in the Aboriginal people’s interest to continue this ‘invasion’ that began 200 years ago with ever increasing numbers of people?

Saying that the Aboriginals were here first is one of my pet least-liked statements.  It’s usually said by someone who purports to have aboriginal causes close to their heart.  They should get real and think about what they’re saying.

Professor Tim Flannery, 2007 Australian of the year and one of Australia’s best known scientists, has spoken out against both high immigration and the need for multiculturalism.  Whilst Flannery’s views on Australia’s population are well known, it’s refreshing to hear a person that is held in such esteem also tackle the sensitive topic of multiculturalism. Professor Flannery made the comments whilst participating in a debate with the topic of Is Our Rate of Immigration Too High?

Flannery opened the debate for the affirmative, and was quick to pull out arguments that regular readers will be familiar with.

After some opening words he told the audience that business, government and the bureaucracy will all favour high immigration for differing reasons.  He stated that just because these interest groups support high immigration, doesn’t mean it’s in the interest of ordinary Australians to pursue high population growth.

Later in the debate he said that Australians were the heaviest carbon users in the world, meaning that people that come to this country from almost anywhere in the world will result in an increase in global carbon emissions.  He stated that our population growth made it much more difficult to fulfil our international obligations on greenhouse emissions. Flannery went on to say that we were engaged in high immigration “without a single consideration for these environmental issues”.  In emphasising that point he noted how Ross Garnaut when reporting on Australia’s emissions trading scheme “just took our rate of population growth for granted, it wasn’t even questioned that we might vary it, and yet it’s clearly within our gift to vary it.”

Towards the end of his allotted time Flannery anticipated that his opponents would argue that high immigration “has been good for this country because its fostered multiculturalism and therefore a tolerance for human beings of many different kinds from around the planet.”  Flannery rejected this argument, saying “That is truly an argument from the 80s or earlier.”

Expanding on this thought, Flannery said that “There was a time when travel was so limited, when trade and people’s experience of others overseas was so limited and where there was no Internet that we actually needed a program like that to foster mutual tolerance.  Those days are well and truly gone.”  He later said that “The argument that we need a massive immigration program to promote tolerance between people just has no, has no legs”

Flannery also talked about the ageing of the population, and noted that during the baby boom of the 50s people weren’t concerned about how we were going to care for all these helpless babies.  Our society grew wealthier as time went by and we managed, just like we could with the ageing of the population.  Referring to the idea that immigration is a solution to this population ageing, he expressed his concerns, saying “It doesn’t seem to have a natural end.  Should we seek to grow our population forever to avoid the inevitable situation of an ageing population?”

Tim Flannery is a sometimes controversial figure.  His outspoken persona has led him to make predictions regarding the environment that have not always eventuated.  He’s also no stranger to controversy, and has even been quoted as saying that he supports sustainable whaling.

While there isn’t any senior politician willing to stand up and argue that our rate of immigration should be drastically cut it’s good to have people like Tim Flannery arguing the good cause, regardless of how unpopular or non PC it is.

The past week has seen a lot of reporting on Australia’s high levels of immigration and population growth.  The reports were sparked by the release of the latest Intergenerational Report.

Headlines such as Australia ’sleepwalking’ into population disaster have questioned the perceived wisdom that an ever-increasing population is a good thing.  It’s heartening to see a federal politician express his concern that the current high immigration levels will result in “Declining housing affordability, traffic congestion, over-crowded concrete jungles.”

The treasurer, however, seems oblivious to any of these concerns, as well as the concerns raised by TheRealists.  Instead of listening to the concerns of Australian citizens, the treasurer has opened a new front on the population debate, arguing that high levels of immigration are required to reduce the ageing of the population.

When the latest Intergenerational Report predicted that Australia’s population will rise to 35 million in 40 years’ time the treasurer, when referring to the economic consequences said “It is arguably one of two of our greatest economic challenges along with climate change.”

This statement shows the enormity of the task people have when arguing that immigration is too high.  The treasurer didn’t say that ‘Obviously immigration is too high and is already causing overcrowding in our cities and forcing up house prices’.  He didn’t say ‘Obviously our population is ageing so we must boost productivity so that we can support our ageing population into the future’.  You won’t hear words like that coming from the treasurer.

Instead, the treasurer just accepted that the only solution to an ageing population is to maintain record levels of immigration.  By referring to it in the same breath as climate change the treasurer hopes to gain consensus that this is a challenge that must be faced, that we must cater for more and more people arriving in this great country every year.

But does the evidence stack up?  Is immigration the best way to counter population ageing?

The short answer is, no, not really.  Immigration is indeed part of the solution, but not at the record high levels we have currently.

The problem with using immigration to reduce population ageing is that migrants age too.  You end up bringing more and more people, in the many hundreds of thousands of people each year into the country indefinitely.

There have been previous studies carried out into this very question.  The conclusions of The Impact of Immigration on the Ageing of Australia’s Population produced in 1999 were as follows (emphasis added):

“This level [80,000] of annual net migration also makes a worthwhile and efficient contribution to the retardation of population ageing. Levels of annual net migration above 80,000 become increasingly ineffective and inefficient in the retardation of ageing.  Those who wish to argue for a higher level of immigration must base their argument on the benefits of a larger population, not upon the illusory ‘younging power’ of high immigration.

The effects upon ageing of a younger immigrant intake or higher migrant fertility are very small. Furthermore, implementation of either measure would be problematic. They are not realistic options.”

The paper says ‘They are not realistic options’…that was 1999.  Now it’s 2009 and the ‘not realistic options’ are reality with Net Overseas Migration over 200,000 per year.

In an embarrassment for the treasurer, the treasury website also states that immigration cannot stop the ageing of the population.  The Treasury website states the following in the Australia’s Demographic Challenges section (emphasis added):

“But increased migration cannot prevent our population from ageing. This is because migrants who come to Australia will age along with the rest of the population. To maintain Australia’s existing age structure through immigration would require increases in immigration every year — and the increases would need to become progressively larger and larger to take account of the ageing of the migrants themselves. While there are undoubted benefits in maintaining net overseas migration, migration cannot stop the ageing of our population.”

Perhaps by increasing the font size as well the treasure may pay attention.

Fortunately, as opposed to politicians, there are some sensible people in the community who make it their business to know a lot about population and demographics.

Professor Bob Birrell of the Monash University Centre for Population and Urban Research has been quoted in The Australian as saying (emphasis added):

“”The government seems to have bought the argument that business in Australia needs a high amount of labour force growth to keep it going in the future. The rest of us are going to have to bear the consequences of that.  The government doesn’t seem prepared to explore how we need to make social adjustments; rather, they are relying on the prop of bringing in more people of younger ages to essentially put all the older people to bed.”

The government should listen to the advice of specialists in this area as well as the advice that it has published on its own websites.  Population ageing is a challenge, but the solution is not to bring ever-increasing numbers of people to Australia.

The answer lies in things that are occurring already.  Already people are working longer and delaying retirement, meaning they place less of a burden upon society.  In the same way, the minimum age for the aged pension is being increased.  Compulsory superannuation has been in effect since 1993 and will reduce the burden of an ageing population in the medium to long term.

Our wealth as a nation continues to grow, and will grow into the future, meaning we will have enough resources to support the increased number of elderly people.  And to top it all off the fertility rate has been increasing recently, from 1.79 to 1.93 in the past two years.

The treasurer this week launched the Australian Institute for Population Ageing Research.  It is supposed to “examine the impacts of the ageing population on the economy, society and environment.”

I’ll give him some advice for free.  Maintain and implement policies that will build wealth.  Reduce the levels of immigration.  With these policies Australia will cope just fine over the next 50 years, and will be a much better society for it.

A colleague leaves work because the previous night he drank a bottle of spirits by himself.  A friend tells me that on some weekends she doesn’t talk to a single person.  I occasionally wander around the city at night, the bright lights and bustle of the city all around me, feeling isolated amongst the humanity.

This theme of isolation and loneliness is expressed in How my neighbourhood was lost to the multiculture.  In the article the author talks about the area where he grew up in the sixties, and how he sees that same area now:

“I’m struck by the sense that this place no longer provides my identifiable roots, that now I am simply one of many who happen to live here, with no greater claim to it sentimentally or historically than the next man.”

I see similar sentiments (or the result of such sentiments) everywhere I look in modern society.  I see people searching for more out or life, people wanting a greater sense of connection and involvement.  I see people wandering through life in a malaise, not knowing where they belong or what their purpose in this world is.

Overseas trips are taken; restaurants are visited; the latest fad is taken up with enthusiasm.  They provide short relief from the desire for more meaning and a sense of belonging.

In our modern multicultural society, diversity and a constant need to celebrate differences adds to the isolation that many people feel.  Diversity is given precedence ahead of a sense of community and a sense of belonging.  It replaces a common culture that would otherwise act as a glue that binds us together.

Research carried out by Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam and published in his book Bowling Alone shows that in non-ethnically diverse areas 70-80% of people trust their neighbours a lot.  The figure is 30% in ethnically diverse areas.

It’s hard to see how one can feel part of a community where most people don’t have a lot of trust in each other.

His studies also show that in ethnically diverse areas people give less to charity, they volunteer less, have fewer close friends, and are less happy.

A recent University of Tasmania Study shows that loneliness is increasing in Australia, with one third of Australians in prime of life experiencing loneliness as a serious problem at times.  Our politicians are also aware of the increasing levels of loneliness in our society.  Lindsay Tanner described it by saying ‘There is a loneliness crisis out there.’

What is telling is that out of the 2,500 words that Lindsay Tanner gave on ‘The Loneliness Crisis’, not one of them mentioned diversity or multiculturalism as a factor in loneliness. Yet it seems difficult to see how the crisis of loneliness can be overcome when we are constantly told to take more of the medicine that is making us sick.

Better education and a greater understanding of the of the myriad problems that multiculturalism causes in communities is needed if politicians are going to start seeing multiculturalism as a policy that has cons as well as pros.

I do believe loneliness is a challenge that our society must face.  It’s often hidden and not talked about.  But it’s out there and it’s real.  And we should be looking at all the factors that are contributing to its increase.

I have a timer in the shower; it helps me get to work on time, and I vaguely feel better for not harming the environment so much.  But every week thousands of people are coming to Australia.

One week passes.

It’s only a few thousand more people.

Another week passes.  Another few thousand people.

Over a decade.

We have millions more people.

Why am I being a smuck and trying to reduce my time in the shower if the government is going ignore my efforts and treat me like a smuck?

It’s not only water; it’s congestion on the roads, it’s the cost of housing, it’s the overcrowded health and education sectors, it’s suburbs degraded by intensive redevelopment and it’s greenhouse gasses that continue increasing, among other things.

Overloading Australia: How Governments and Media Dither and Deny on Population is a book by Mark O’Conner and William J. Lines.  It explores the current debate (or lack thereof) on population policy that is currently being held in Australia.

The book comes up with some unique solutions to break through the lack of any serious debate on the issues.  I recommend the book to anyone that takes an interest in Australia’s population.  It can be purchased online for less than $20 from Booktopia, Abbeys or Readings.

The SMH reports today that the government is preparing a 50-year migration plan that could contribute to Australia’s long term economic, demographic and environmental goals.

A 50-year plan that involves good planning and rational decisions may sound commendable when it comes to immigration, however if the plan fails to take important matters into consideration then you might as well ask Mickey Mouse to write the plan.

If I were preparing a 50-year plan for immigration I would begin by asking myself what kind of country would I want Australia to be in 50-years time, and how that would be affected by immigration.

I, like most Australians, would say that we want a socially cohesive society where people are tolerant of each other – where people feel part of the community – where we don’t suffer from the problems of overcrowding that affect so many other countries, and where we’re able to preserve our unique and delicate environment.

Unfortunately the government in their wisdom ignores most of the points above, and has put economics and big business at the forefront of their 50 year plan.  “We want to ensure our skilled migration programs are responding to longer-term skill needs” sums up the governments approach to immigration.  It’s about the economy, and meeting the demands of big business.  It echoes what the minister said in a speech in May last year when he only mentioned skills when referring to a longer term perspective on immigration.

The elephant in the room with regards to the 50-year plan is social cohesion and overcrowding.  When will we hear the minister say that he wants an immigration program that contributes to or at least doesn’t worsen social cohesion?  When will the minister say that he wants an immigration program that doesn’t contribute so much to the overcrowding that’s occurring in our major cities?

When will the minister stop listening to industry associations that are apparently banging on his door about labour programs – and instead start planning in the best interest of ordinary Australians that actually live here?

In what is believed to be a world first, a white South African has been granted asylum in Canada due to the persecution he received from black people in his own country.  The black racists that had attacked him on different occasions had called him a ‘white dog’ and a ’settler’.

He might consider himself lucky to be alive, having lived in a country where there are 50 murders a day, 150 rapes of women, 350 violent robberies, 40 car-jackings and 220 car thefts.

The United Nations 1951 Refugee Convention defines a refugee as someone that is unwilling to return to their own country due to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.  This being the case, there may be many more white South Africans heading off to the Canadian ski fields this northern Winter in order to claim asylum.

Some Australians might also like to claim asylum after a hard day on the slopes at Alberta, but their chances of being accepted are considerably less.

Australia obviously doesn’t have the same level of racism as South Africa, where the government has been accused of showing an indifference and inability or unwillingness to protect white South Africans from black South Africans.

Arguably the worst cases of racism in our recent history were the Sydney gang rapes of 2000, where white girls were targeted because of the colour of their skin.   One of these girls was called a ‘white slut’ and an ‘Aussie pig’ by her attackers in an echo of the racist ‘white dog’ and a ’settler’ remarks made in South Africa.

This case is an eye-opener that shows that racism can cut both ways; that white people can be the victims of racism and not just the people dishing it out as many people like to believe.

TheRealists deplore all forms of racism, and all Australians should feel lucky that we don’t yet have the same level racial problems that afflict many other countries.  Thankfully the ski gear can stay in the cupboard for a while yet.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics occasionally publishes projections of Australia’s population based on various growth scenarios.

Currently Australia has a population of 21 million.  To put that a little into perspective in 1955 it was 10 million and in 1983 our population was 15 million.

In other words, it took 28 years to grow our population from 10 million to 15 million people, and 21 years to grow from 15 million to 20 million people.  Based on ABS data it will take just 15 years to go from 20 million to 25 million  people.

Population growth can be a little like the snowball effect, starting off slowly but gaining momentum as time goes by.

Below is a graph of Australia’s population over the last 2000 years.  Estimates vary but an estimate of 750,000 was used for Australia’s population before European settlement.  A graph based on Australian Bureau of Statistics data was used for the years from 1788.

As can be seen, there has been a marked increase in Australia’s population in the 200 years since European settlement:

Now let’s use a graph based on Australian Bureau of Statistics data to see what Australia’s population is projected to be under one scenario in the year 2101.  Our population of about 20m now seems quite small compared to what it is projected to be at the turn of the century:

One has to question whether Australian’s really want the population to rise to 62 million, as is projected by the ABS.

Unfortunately for people who are concerned about the growth in Australia’s population, neither major party has a population policy.

What is making things worse is that immigration, even in the face of a global economic crisis, remains at record levels (recent government announcements of immigrant reductions for 2009 still leaves us with more immigrants that the previous record year of 2008).

Australia has one of the highest overseas born populations in the world, and one of the highest per-capita immigration programs in the world.

Are we sleepwalking towards a future, determined by our politicians, that is seldom reported in the media and the general population is scarcely aware of?

There are many opinions about the benefits or otherwise of multiculturalism.  Some people feel one way and will quote one study, others will feel a different way and quote another study, and the cycle goes on ad-nauseam.

But what if there was just one all encompassing indicator that measured the impact of multiculturalism?  What if there was an indicator that reflected all the findings of all the studies that have ever been carried out, that also included factors not previously measured?

I believe there is such an indicator; but before I explain further let me give a brief background on technical analysis - how it applies to shares and how I feel it can also be applied to multiculturalism.

Can technical analysis be applied to multiculturaliam? Photo by psd.

Technical analysis – when applied to shares – says that anything that can possibly affect the price of a share – fundamentally, politically, psychologically, or otherwise, is reflected in the price of the share.

By studying the price, and believing that prices move in trends and that history repeats itself, technical analysts attempt to predict future prices, and thus make money with this knowledge.  Their overriding belief, however, is that profits, balance sheets, management experience etc. is irrelevant because the share price has all this information factored into it by an informed market.

How can this be applied to multiculturalism?

I believe that just as the share price is said to contain all the information known about a company; so there is also an indicator that contains all the information that is known about the benefits or otherwise of multiculturalism.  This indicator cuts through all the debates and arguments and goes to the heart of whether or not multiculturalism benefits communities.

I believe that measuring whether people are moving out of their homes in ethnically diverse areas and choosing to live in areas that are less ethnically diverse can be used as an indicator of whether or not multiculturalism is beneficial.

And of course, this is exactly what is occuring in Australia.

The people that have already fled immigrant suburbs have gathered all the information that affects them, weighed up all the pros and cons and come to the conclusion that the ‘joys of multiculturalism’ are not for them.

The fact that some studies may say that multiculturalism is beneficial becomes just as irrelevant as a having a good management team in a company whose share price keeps falling.  In both situations people have decide to sell and get out.

No amount of announcements by the company stating how good the management team is quite makes up for the fact that the share price keeps falling; just as no amount of studies showing how wonderful multiculturalism is quite makes up for the fact that people are voting with their feet and leaving multicultural areas.

‘White flight’ is occurring in Australia just as it occurs in the Unites States and other developed countries.  People are voting with their feet and leaving ethnically diverse areas for more stable areas.

If this relocation of people was caused by any other factor, such as an airport being built in a built-up area, there would be a public outcry and government action to prevent it.  Unfortunately, the government decides to do nothing.  And everyone loses as our communities become more divided.

So the next time someone asks you whether you think multiculturalism is a good thing, tell them you’ve been studying the technical charts, people have voted with their feet, and if you think the global economic crisis is bad, wait until you see how the Australian community has to pay for multiculturalism.