Why does @AusConservation support Big Australia in defiance of its own #ReduceImmigration policy?

Why does the Australian Conservation Foundation defy the principles of conservation and instead, implicitly, support Big Australia?

The magazine The Independent Australian has today exposed the ACF’s failure to adhere to its own policy statement: ‘ACF urges the Commonwealth to reduce net migration to a level that is consistent with a goal of environmental sustainability.’

In a persuasive article, ‘The Australian Conservation Foundation Council votes to implicitly support ‘Big Australia’, Peter Wilkinson says:

The ACF is noted for challenging government policies, so by refusing to criticise the bipartisan Big Australia policy, the ACF implicitly supports it. The ACF thereby is comfortable with 200,000 net immigrants per annum pouring into Australia, putting pressure on the environment, causing cities to spread over farmland, crushing biodiversity, creating traffic congestion, depleting our water supplies.

Dr Wilkinson’s research reveals that the ACF has neglected or rejected many opportunities to translate its policies on population growth – and the need to reduce immigration – into meaningful action and advocacy.

The article concludes by urging readers to do their own research and take useful action:

  • ACF members can express an opinion on the ACF blogsite.
  • Members of other environmental organisations should examine their own position. If the organisation is silent on population/immigration, you must face up to the fact that you support Big Australia by default. Take it up with your organisation.
  • Email everybody you know with an interest in the environment or population matters about this post. Express your opinion openly. Write to the papers. You may care to join a non-political organisation …

Dr Wilkinson has been a member of the ACF for over 40 years. He is a scientist by training who moved into corporate planning. He has consistently supported lower immigration as part of conservation policy. He founded The Independent Australian and is the author of The Howard Legacy (2007).


#AustraliaDay – a time to reflect on ‘benign cultural genocide’

In September last year, journalist Greg Sheridan observed: ‘In 40 years the racial and ethnic identity of Australia has been completely transformed’. His article, ‘Constitutional change will divide not unite the nation’ included the following shocking statements:

From the late 70s, less than 40 years ago, Australia began accepting large numbers of Asian immigrants.

Almost from the first words I wrote for public consumption I have strongly supported this policy. It has resulted, incidentally, in a kind of benign cultural genocide. The old race of ‘Austral-Britons’ is gone forever. It was not a bad race and it produced a good culture. Don’t think this was not a real identity. National leaders as recent as John Curtin and Robert Menzies called Australia a British ­nation, or even more explicitly, ‘a nation of Britishers’. We are certainly not that now. The old Austral-Britons have been supplanted by a much more diverse range of ethnic and cultural backgrounds. I don’t feel at all unhappy about that because race and ethnicity are the least interesting or important things about a person. It is the content of their character that counts.

Can ‘cultural genocide’ ever be ‘benign’? We don’t think so, and feel sure that most Australians, including many immigrants, would be horrified at the concept.

But ‘cultural genocide’ correctly describes the outrageous effect of immigration on traditional Australia over the last 40 years. How has this occurred? Research by Denis McCormack reveals that there has long been a ‘Grand Plan’ to bring about such dramatic and unwanted change to our society. For your reading over the Australia Day weekend, we present his grim reflections and inconvenient truths about the history and impacts of Australia’s immigration policy: Asianizing Australia – An Elite’s Long-Term Project (2015).

This catastrophe is not unique to Australia. Readers seeking an international perspective should consult Professor Kevin MacDonald’s book, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (1998). It includes an important chapter on Jewish involvement in shaping U.S. immigration policy.

McCormack’s essay concludes by quoting his own words, published in the Washington Post and The Guardian Weekly in 1993: ‘It is not a position of cultural or racial superiority to wish to preserve your own culture … Our complete racial and socio-cultural milieu is being changed through undemocratic policies. This is grounds for revolution.’

For a powerful suggestion about getting the political revolution rolling – using democratic means – please revisit our 2014 Australia Day message!

Open-ended #immigration – dream or #ParisShooting nightmare?

In the wake of the terrorists’ murder of ten Charlie Hebdo staff and two police officers, London-based commentator Paul Joseph Watson asked on Twitter, ‘To what extent has mass uncontrolled immigration contributed to incidents like the #ParisShooting?’ Watson answers his own question in ‘Paris Shooting: What they’re not telling you’ (Infowars.com, 7 January 2015), talking about the failure of the media to report, and governments to notice, the tragic connections between Islamic extremism and a number of attacks by immigrants (and their children) on people in the nations that have accepted them as residents and citizens.

In March 2014 we asked on this blog ‘Is immigration good for Britain?’ We answered then, ‘No, but it’s worse for Australia’. At the same time, English author David Goodhart published The British Dream: Successes and Failures of Post-War Immigration. He previewed his book in The Guardian under the title ‘Why the left is wrong about immigration’.

Predictably, Goodhart’s work has attracted defensive negative reviews from ‘the left’ – see for example David Edgar in The Guardian. (*)  A more favourable review of The British Dream was published by David Sexton in the London Evening Standard.

We can now share with our readers an Australian review that is highly critical of the book, badging it as ‘genocidal’. The reviewer acknowledges Goodhart’s worthwhile criticism of the multiculturalism associated with high levels of immigration from non-traditional source countries, but strongly condemns Goodhart’s commitment to open-ended, mass-immigration-induced multi-racialism.

The shift from dream to nightmare is already a reality for victims of the crimes perpetrated by immigrants in the countries that have given them refuge. Britons are waking up to how fast their society is changing and are quitting London in droves. Last month, the Sydney siege showed ‘how the screen door of citizenship has been left open to criminal elements‘. Sweden is facing ‘suicide by immigration’, while Norway’s crime rate dropped significantly when failed asylum-seekers were deported. The massacre in Paris is the latest recurrence of France’s ongoing nightmare.

Immigration policies must be changed to recognise the folly of accepting individuals from groups that cannot accept the values and standards of the community they seek to join. 

We’re with Mark Steyn who has blogged: ‘I’d rather die laughing than live in the cowed, craven serf state the malign alliance of totalitarian Islam and a cowardly western leadership is building for us.’

If you agree with our views, please use every opportunity to share them with decision-makers in government. In Australia, voters in the forthcoming Queensland and New South Wales state elections can take further action by annotating their ballot papers with the REDUCE IMMIGRATION message.


*   Readers might like to reflect on earlier views once held by ‘the left’ on immigration. The founders of the Fabian Society expressed the need for an immigration policy to ensure that Britain excluded ‘human rubbish’ [their words, not ours!] so as to maintain its social equilibrium: see Fabian Essays in Socialism, 5th edition, 1931, page 129.

Mass #immigration – unintended consequences – some lowlights from 2014

Here are some articles we noticed in the Australian media in the second half of 2014. Put together, they paint a stark picture of some of the consequences of our current immigration policy. Let us know of anything else you’ve noticed of importance and that we should record here.

This year, voters in New South Wales and Queensland will have the opportunity to send the REDUCE IMMIGRATION message to all candidates in their forthcoming state elections. NSW goes to the polls on 28 March 2015, and Queensland no later than 20 June 2015 (*). See how to participate in the REDUCE IMMIGRATION write-on campaign, and check our FAQ page for further information.

Happy new year!


(*)  Footnote added 8 January: The Queensland state election has now been called for Saturday 31 January 2015.