It seems that at least 50% of people living homeless have mental health issues which render them incapable of sharing accommodation with others or being responsible enough to properly manage accommodation or to hold down a job whose income would allow them to rent accommodation. The movement which started in the 1970s (I think) to close down 'mental asylums' and put people from these institutions back into the community seems to have caused a major rise in the number of people living homeless.
So addressing the issue of people living in poverty in a rich country like Australia requires some very complex causal issues to be understood prior to them being resolved.

" … there'll be some people who'll argue that it's their money, and what they do with it is their business". True. And if it puts them into penury, that's also their business, not ours.

socialist/marxist need poverty and homelessness in order to control the people. The breakdown or should I say destruction of the normal family has led to more abuse of women, more homelessness and more need of bureaucrats to fix the problems their sick ideologies have created. What on earth would portfolios like women's affairs and homelessness do if we simply focussed on whever possible children having their natural dads and mums bringing them up. Horror horror that would be sexist blah blah.

Poverty is best described by those who know or have known it. Rather than some self-satisfied and demonstrably indifferent academic, who wouldn't have a clue? I'd imagine he'd be a tad more sympathetic if he were among the impoverished homeless!

That said, take your point, Don, about folk who cry poor but seem to have enough money to splurge on fags/booze. Is anybody at all actually served by poverty, real not imagined! The answer, of course, is no, not the individual, nor the economy! Totally counterproductive every which way!

So, what can be done to actually ameliorate poverty in all its forms and guises? Without putting more economic lead in the saddlebags of the taxpayer!

First cab off of the rank is real tax reform, rolled out as a single, stand-alone, unavoidable flat tax of 15% Because there is no reconciliation required given the tax paid voluntarily, Doubled retrospectively, for a first offence, if a routine audit finds avoidance or cooked books?

Trebled retrospectively, with property seizure, complete forfeiture of all cash and assets if there's a second, and Jail time for the offending directors/tax accountants!

Next, given the massive increase in real revenue this reform would confer, we could fund and facilitate employee-owned co-ops, that produced anything at all, including power or desalinated water!

This last paradigm taken to the nth degree would kill both poverty the union movement and any unproductive element! Quite massively turbocharge the domestic economy by keeping our money in our economy until exhausted, where one dollar does the work of seven or more, as normal economic flow-on factors kick in!

Co-ops and small niche manufacturers are able to use the NBN to access global markets

Co-ops include credit unions, housing co-ops and cottage industries. Could include metals smelting and vehicle manufacture or any energy dependent high tech manufacture.

There are just too many options to list and every one of them can be made to attack and remove poverty via self-help options! All while turbocharging the local economy!

A win-win every which way!
Alan B.

Somewhat before Jesus.

Deuteronomy 15:11
For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.

David

David. The book also says, Cast ye not your pearls before swine.

Afraid that's what you are doing mate. These so-called Christians just don't give a rats? Cause if they actually did there'd be no poverty and considerably fewer billionaires!

Talk's cheap!

And that seems the one thing they have in unusual abundance and all too willing to share along with the usual verbal vomit/hate speech

Just read any of the runner's contributions, I believe, to see that displayed in every word?
Alan B.

Poverty in Australia is created by the crisis in housing.
Rents are beyond the reach of people on fixed incomes.
A stark choice between homelessness or hunger.

I was talking on the subject of housing with an acquaintance recently who had done his sums with the capital gains of one of his numerous properties. One house in particular has increased in value from $26k in the late seventies when he bought it, to a staggering $1.7m current value.

Out came the calculator to compare wage increases needed in order to maintain a relative chance to purchase the same property today: For wages to increase at the same giddying rate, a justifiable $280 per hour should be expected, based on wage levels at the time of the original purchase.

Over on another page, an acquaintance who has worked as a tradesman for thirty years, gave up his trade in disgust, as his hourly rate of pay had remained unchanged since the late eighties.

These two examples are a stark reminder of the inequality created by the manipulated housing market, and stagnation of wages over many years.
Both of them lead to increases in poverty and homelessness.

Dan.

Yes, runner. The break up of families has contributed to poverty - and just about all of the other problems caused by the neo-Marxists who attack the family, which is the basis of society.

Alan B. I was going to use that quote in a previous thread.
Coincidentally, I believe that some of the poorest countries are either those whose inhabitants worship God as revealed by the Catholic church or Mohamed.
David.

Why do so-called first world Nations have poverty in the first place ?
In Australia for example, many homeless could benefit from participating in a National Service which would house & feed them & provide them with a foot in the door to not be homeless.
Many don't want the discipline so, they remain homeless. May who have homes & jobs simply don't care about others or they don't have sufficient means to care because of Govt regulations.
Many choose drugs in preference to finding work whilst many others choose to spend their Australian-earned Dollars overseas. Why it was only recently on this forum that it was revealed that that the chair of a big Australian welfare agency was on $316,000/year. Why so much ?
Govt themselves are too irresponsible with their economic/social guidelines which cause homelessness. Poverty is a 50/50 scenario orchestrated by indiscipline & greed !

Now steady on.
You all speak as though you know the reason and have the solution 'On poverty'.
Well I don't want to be the one to burst your collective bubbles but, the reality is that the poverty and homelessness issues are but two of many.
I must agree and forward your attention to the first comment on this topic by Bernie Masters.
Things really began back in the 70's when the bastard govt of the day shut down asylums and literally ousted all the 'patients' onto the street, and that's where most of em stayed, till they died.
Now this current lot are to a certain degree made up of the same kind of 'socially challenged' people.
There is no 'quick fix', unless the govt is prepared to re-open or establish institutions like asylums again, we can forget about it.
The best we can do for the moment is the charity groups, local govt's and other entities who help support, feed and assist these people.
I know many believe these people are bludgers and simply refuse to get up and improve their own life, but it's not that simple.
There are too many different categories of homeless people so it is not something that can be resolved easily, unless we throw a LOT of money at this problem, we have to accept that like un-employment, it will never reach or get anywhere near zero.
Poverty in itself is not something that money can fix.
Again there are too many factors at play.
Even a simple yet egregious act of convicting someone for driving drunk or on drugs, then cancelling their drivers license for, say, twelve months.
Now before you all start flapping on about the dangers of 'driving under the influence', let's just examine this as an example.
Firstly, drinking or drugs are the norm.
Secondly, this guy's one of the many tradies, or self employed.
Even if he drove for a company, he's finished, and with a young family.
Renting or mortgage, it makes no difference, he's got no income.
They have to move in with his parents.

continued............

He gets a part time job but it's just enough for the basics.
Time starts to put a strain on the marriage and of course as it usually happens, the wife leaves with the kids and goes to stay with her family.
Eventually followed by divorce.
This then puts further strain on them both.
The kids grow up delinquents, the wife makes unreasonable demands on her EX, and so it goes on and bloody on.
All because the bastards in the legal system, all the way up to the govt, make these stupid draconian, BS, 'one size fits all' laws, without a care in the world about the consequences.
These same people become a burden on the welfare system and/or end up on the street.
All because a ignorantly run flawed system, lacks the people with the intellect and imagination to find other ways of dealing with drink/drug driving.

The simple solution to your last problem is to go home to your wife and family after you knock off work instead of going to the pub and getting a skin full with the very obvious consequences which often also include instances of family violence. And I am only just starting.
David

VK3AUU, well there you have it, problem solved.
David the solution is never as simple as you suggest.
If it was, there would not be a problem and the need for these types of discussions.
As I pointed out, there is no 'one size fits all' solution to these things.
The current scheme of legal management has always been designed to make it easier for the law enforcement arm to go about it's bastard business of collecting revenue and not give a damn about the public and any consequences that may come as a result of a judges decision.
In a more intelligent and aware system, the govt can still get their 'blood money', and not destroy people's lives.
After all, people are doing that all by themselves, they don't need the law to help make things worse.
In a more intelligent and aware system, the punishment would not be the cause of the destruction of a family and it's provider.
It is possible to fine someone for a mis-demeenor and not destroy their lives.
Firstly, you leave their driving license alone, to do otherwise would be impossible to manage.
By all means raise the fine, after all that's what the bastards are after in the first place.
In so doing he still has a license to enable him to continue to work and earn money to pay the fine and his and his family's lives have not been turned upside down to the point of destruction.
Regarding your concerns about family violence.
Apart from being a totally different matter, it is not relevant to this point, because if he gets drunk or not and slaps his wife around or not, is a social issue.
If you can stop Aussies from drinking and attacking their wives, go ahead by all means, but at least the family unit is together and with counselling it may be salvaged, but the current legal thinking actually heightens the risk of the destruction of the family unit.
And this current situation is the direct fault of the legal system.

A few years ago, I sat in the magistrates court at a local town and watched the proceedings. Several years later I was having a conversation with the Chief Magistrate from that same court at a private function and I opined that if it wasn't for drugs and alcohol, he would be out of a job. Would you be surprised that he agreed with me.
David

VK3AUU, NO! I am certainly not be surprised.
I have believed this from a young age.
But more to the point David.
What does this say about Australians?

find other ways of dealing with drink/drug driving.
ALTRAV,
One very effective way is a Community Service-National Service!

"In 1965, 3 % of the working age population was on welfare benefits of one sort or another. Now 16 % of adults rely on welfare. That means that in 1965 there were 22 taxpayers for every one person on welfare; now the number is 5, and this in a society which is considerably richer.

Conclusion 1. A very large number of people have their fingers in the till.

Conclusion 2. Extrapolate forward and welfare growth in Australia is unsustainable and it will eventually ruin our economy.

Conclusion 3. The "rich" keep paying and paying, but the "poor" keep increasing and increasing.

Fact.1 Since the abolition of the White Australia Policy, Australian immigration officials seem determined to import into this country unassimilatable groups of people from third world countries who have very high rates of welfare dependency and serious criminal behaviour. So, while no nation or culture can eliminate poverty, it can sure do a lot to reduce it by facing inconvenient truths.

One of these, is that race, crime, intelligence, and poverty are linked. If that is racism, consider this. In the USA, according to the FBI statistics, a white man is 60 times more likely to be assaulted by an African American, than an African American is likely to be assaulted by a white man. White women are 200 times more likely to be sexually assaulted by an African American, than a black woman is to be sexually assaulted by a white man. On the basis of those statistics, which race is the more racist? 50% of black US males 18 to 45 are either in jail or on parole.

In Australia, the Australian Bureaux of Statistics has been ordered not to compile any statists on ethnic crime. So we can all be sure that statistics relating to ethnic welfare dependency would also be suppressed, because socialist ideologues with utopian dreams always need to suppress the truth. But despite the fake news, we know that certain notorious ethnic ghettoes have very high rates of welfare dependency.

One fantastic way to stop "poverty" growth is to stop importing it

Alan B., if your phrase: 'some self-satisfied and demonstrably indifferent academic, who wouldn't have a clue? is intended to apply to me, then you miss the purpose of my essays. I am not there in print either to show sympathy or to attack. I am there to pose questions, do my best to analyse, ad generally to encourage others to think.

On the face fit, my purpose has failed your case.

Hi LEGO,

Are you conflating immigrants (permanent and/or on temporary visas), visitors, students, refugees and/or illegal immigrants (i.e. 'boat-people') ?

Immigrants usually have necessary skills and find work relatively easily. Refugees may have far more difficulties adjusting to Australian society and work environments - most would much rather stay in their home-countries, after all, if only if it was possible. Illegals have the option of going back to their last safe place, or going to Christmas Island. Not too many are currently taking up the offer.

Australia's annual refugee quota is something under twenty thousand. Presumably, with sixty eight million refugees and displaced persons around the world, many of whom would have filled out the proper forms and waited (and waited; and waited), that quota is filled each year. But it's not a hell of a lot of people, even though they need many services, with language, skills, housing, welfare, etc. specific to each language group.

Are you suggesting that this disparate 'group' has higher crime stats than average ?

Cheers,

Joe

LEGO, WOW! I'm truly shocked at those last stats on the blacks in the US.
I did not know that the Australian Bureau of Stats withheld ANY info.
Do they not realise that by doing that, they are bringing attention to that stat and the fact that it must be bad, for them not to release it?
I'm not sure who gains by allowing so many people, (of any race or creed) into a country which cannot sustain on-going population growth, without the growth of, mainly, water supply or stocks.
Once the water problem is resolved then we can cater to the rest, such as food supply.
The two things that MUST happen before we can all start to benefit financially and return to the living standards of old.
They are, firstly STOP immigration until the services, such as water and jobs, catch up again.
And secondly, freeze wages thereby allowing the economy to adjust and our exports to become viable again.
Actually the preferred option for all this to work, is a wage reduction.
Aussies have been living like spoilt brats for far too long.
As I've told my children, just because some snake oil salesman is promoting some new toy, does not mean you have to instantly go and buy it.
How many out there have known or known of people who had all the bells and whistles, new car, boat, SUV, jet ski, motor bike, and the list goes on, only to find some time later, it's all, or most of it's gone.
Those same people are not suddenly on the dole or out on the street, they simply have been forced back to reality and now are having to live within their means.
To those irrational social terrorists who get all worked up when anyone speaks of halting immigration, any and all kinds, I say to them SHUT UP, just because you are emotionally impaired does not give you the right to force further hardships on an already struggling population.
I would like these do-gooders to take the foreigners in and be 'totally' responsible for them.

Loudmouth, I give you an example which is 'real and 'current', as we speak.
When it comes to self preservation and one of life's lessons, which apply to us every day and our on-going well being, there can be no better example than the following;
As I fly/have flown a lot, I refer to the pre-flight safety messages given before every flight.
This small exhibition carries a very large life lesson, even though it goes unnoticed.
The part relevant to my point is, to quote; 'If the oxygen masks should drop, place it on "yourself first", then attend to the children or others in your care'.
Now to the emotionally challenged this would be condemned as being selfish and putting your well being before that of a child.
I can say this because I have had the odd moron scoff at this instruction.
Now I would like all you emotionally challenged types out there to see if you can work out why the airlines promote that procedure and why it is relevant to us in this particular country.
Not some other country, THIS, particular country.
When you have figured it out you will have realised why we can't keep taking in so many people at the rate the do-gooders demand.
No we need to keep a lid on immigration or the rest of us will suffer.
There are those who are already suffering as a direct result of the current un-sustainable immigration.
Remember, it is beyond foolish to promote the well being of a stranger over that of, or at the expense of, your family.
And as for your question; 'Are you suggesting that this desperate 'group' has higher crime stats than others'?
You ask the wrong question.
Obviously we cannot answer, but equally yet more relevant is the question to you, to counter, and that is; 'Are you suggesting that this desperate 'group', DOES NOT, have higher crime stats than others?
I rest my case.
I have no further questions, at this time, your honour.

ALTRAV,

Are you confusing immigrants with refugees ? Apart from family reunion immigrants, most immigrants have high levels of sought-after skills. Refugees tend not to have relevant skills, although of course there are many who do have skills that we need people for.

Immigrants tend to get employed - as such, they may not figure high on crime statistics. Their family reunions tend to involve parents of working immigrants, who also may not figure much in crime statistics.

Since the War, immigrants have built Australia, done all the hard and dirty work in factories, and certainly pulled their weight.

So do you mean refugees ?

Joe

Loudmouth, (Joe), I too am from migrant stock, (parents came from Italy in 1949) so I know of what you speak.
Joe, unfortunately to make this work, we must be strong.
I might suggest a 'lifeboat' scenario.
Imagine if you will, we are in a lifeboat that is taking water.
All around are people desperate to get aboard.
The priority is to keep the boat afloat, if only for the sake of those within.
As the water is bailed out, so we can take another person, but one at a time, so as to keep in check the water leaving the boat and the person alighting the boat.
Let the person in the boat too soon, you will run the risk of sinking the boat, thereby possibly drowning all those already on board.
Do it slowly and measured in tune with the water being bailed out and you will rescue enough people which will sustain and keep the boat afloat.
And so it is with immigration.
I don't much differentiate between the different types of immigrants.
I might suggest that any immigrant right now, in this economic climate, is suicide for the local job seekers.
It may seem cruel to you and many others but, I for one, must put my family/country first.
If that means there are no jobs for me or my fellow Australians, then, as sad as it is, we must not allow any more people in before we have made 'space' for them.
Just bringing them in to give them money and resources which are by any standard the rights of any and all Aussies, before any foreigners, yes even if they are 'alleged' refugees.
You are suggesting swapping one set of homeless and needy people with another.
Well I'm sorry Joe, as cruel as it sounds, so be it.
We MUST take care of our own first!

To Loudmouth.

I am "conflating" that within all western countries, certain notorious ethnic and cultural/ religious groups have significantly higher rates of criminal behaviour, social problems, and welfare dependency, than others. If you haven't figured that out yet, you better get your head out of the sports pages and have a look around.

To ALTRAV

An article was once posted right here in OLO from a journalist who stated that in 1993, the sundry ethic lobby groups successfully lobbied the Federal Government to stop the ABS from compiling statistics related to ethnic crime. Truth must be suppressed. However, some idea of the extent of ethnic crime can be gleaned from the ABS's publication "Prisoners in Australia by Country of Birth." This publication clearly displayed that half a dozen ethnicities are very disproportionately represented in serious criminal behaviour. The NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics reported that in 2000, 55% of the handgun shootings in the entire state of NSW occurred within two notorious ethnic ghettoes.

But you won't find Don Aitken, the author of this article, telling you that. Oh no. What we get is Don's version of fake news which implies that somehow, Australia and it's population is at fault for not caring and sharing "equally" the wealth of this country with poor people. It is absolute rot.

In California, the Democrats became the State government and they encouraged the permissive society, porous borders, an assault on marriage, gender confusion, and they also encouraged welfare dependent and crime prone Hispanics to flood California. Because Hispanics and other welfare dependent minorities were guaranteed to vote the Democrats into power forever. The Dems increased taxes so much to buy the welfare dependent minorities vote that the productive people who payed all the taxes, started fleeing to Nevada and Texas at the rate of a million a year. Now California is in serious financial trouble, just like Detroit and Chicago, because leftists love unproductive and counter productive, welfare dependent minorities, and they hate productive white people, whom they squeeze until they flee. (White flight)

Crime, welfare, IQ, and ethnicity, are all linked.

Lego,

If that's what you thought I said, you're quite wrong. Sharing out the wealth of the richest is no cure for poverty. How did you get me supporting such rubbish?

Don Aitkin, after reading the last few entries on this topic I found myself out on a limb in understanding the discussion there-in, so I decided to go back to your 'header'.
I found some anomaly.
'poverty is seen as somehow wrong, in principal'.
Not sure of the point you are attempting to make, other than it's, 'wrong in principal'?
What 'principal' are you referencing?
No one is arguing that poverty is not wrong, either in fact, or in principal.
'and my political party, or yours, will end it, or at least reduce it'.
I applaud your candor and belief, but you don't supply any reasoning or explanation as to how this might be accomplished or achieved.
You may want to touch a little on 'how', 'they' will 'end or reduce it'.
As you can see, to some, it is possibly a very open ended statement.
Maybe there-in lies the problem to your submission and why you believe people like LEGO, 'may' have got it wrong

The Australian Friday, October 14, 2016, page 5. "I Have Never Seen Crime So Bad Says Ex-Cop."

Ian Riddles, secretary of the Victorian Police Union, has warned that the streets of Melbourne are experiencing the worst criminal offending in 40 years. "We have regular car jacking, we have regular home invasions, assaults are up on our members, and then you have the threat of terrorism." "With the youth crime and the Apex gang and all that, it is a total lack of respect, but it also becomes a competition to see who can break into more houses, or steal the most cars."

Assault in Victoria is up 11.1% this year. Robberies have increased 14.2%. Dangerous acts endangering persons increased 23.1%, Burglary up 12.6%. Crime in Dandenong and Latrobe up by 16% and 8.6% respectively. Small business owner Joe Risoli (burgled six times) blamed politicians "focusing on political correctness over law and order."

Translating from fake news Newspeak, what this means is that black African crime in Melbourne is now out of control in Melbourne, exactly as predicted by LEGO and other racists. Of course, we can't say that because reality is racism. And racism is the "crime" that must be condemned and punished, not reality.

Writers like Don Atkin should be ashamed of themselves. They are selling out their own people and their own culture, a culture which just happens to be the best one ever invented. Pretending that their own culture or it's people are at fault for the existence of ever growing numbers of "poor" people is complete rubbish. There are reasons for poverty, and it has little to do with the culture of western free market people who believe in democracy and free speech. Unless you factor in the existence of people within that culture who hate it, wish to destroy it, or who have a compulsive need to virtue signal and pretend that they are better than everyone else in society because they are the true champions of the "poor" who are the victims of the "rich."

Stop importing "poverty" and crime.

Don Aitkin has been an academic and vice-chancellor.
LEGO,
I found this explanation from Aitkens' own heading. He is at least honest about his mentality !

I am getting more and more puzzled. What is 'Aitkin's own header' you refer to? The title simply says 'On Poverty'. I've used that style on a number of essays, such as 'On Inequality'. It doesn't carry any implications about the content or my views, other than if you read it you'll be reading about the concept called 'poverty'.

On the issue of 'principle' (not 'principal'). Perhaps I should have elaborated. As I see it, there is a view within the community (I don't share it) that in a country as wealthy as ours there should be no poverty at all, even if there is poverty in really poor countries like Somalia. That is the 'principle' I was referring to. My position, as set out in the essay, is that there will always be poverty of one kind or another, partly because it is a relative term (I am poorer than you etc), and that the devices I have seen proposed to end it, do not seem to me to be implementable in practice.

I thought what I had written was quite clear. Plainly, I erred. I hope this explanation helps.

Don, some peoples comprehension of the written word is poor. They can't help it, that is just the way it is. No amount of logical explanation works, particularly when they have preconceived ideas as to your motives.
David

I & those whom I showed academic articles to occasionally, believe Uni indoctrinated people are so academianised for want of a better word, that they fail to see reality & therefore fail to appreciate what's of importance to ordinary people.
It's fine every now & then to be all idealistic & utterly literal but reality still wins ! Growing up in the Uni circles really robs many intelligent people of common/practical sense.
Everyday living challenges mean a lot more to everyday people than idealism from people who are shielded from the challenges of "normal" life.

Individual, I've read your comment, and am still puzzled. I don't know what message you want to convey either to me or to other readers. Do you think I have no idea how other people live? Why do you think so?

In my essays I try to analyse, not try to persuade people that they should follow my views, whatever they are. Of course, I think my views are sound, but I've learned over the years to try to make my position as clear as I can. Some will disagree, and that's their absolute right.

I think I'll write another piece 'On Sympathy', and see if I can make these distinctions clearer. Of course, it will have to be good enough to be picked up here!

Don Aitkin, sorry I could not answer sooner, I had run out of reply time, so had to wait for the time to clear.
If you are referring to my comments re; 'Aitkins own header'.
I was referring to the paragraph and the words within at the top of the page beginning with, 'In our country'.....
I had trouble understanding the messages and their connection and continuity, that's all.
The fault is of course mine, as I am not a journo nor linguist, and so it is that I have to ask for clarification and explanation more than most people.
It is not an act of intimidation, bullying or petulance or any other sinister motive on my part.
Quite the contrary, it displays a lacking on MY part.
So I do appologise if I have in any way given you cause for discomfort or worse.
It was not my intention.

'On Sympathy',
Don Aitken,
There is none left so why not write why there is so much incompetence & greed within the Public Service & discuss how that could be curbed ? Or are our politicians really worth so much in pay & cost ? Or why are so many people against a national Service without conscription when we have so much indiscipline & malpractice all around us ? Or why don't we introduce a Govt run lottery where unemployed & low paid people can win an income & free up jobs ?
That's what the average Joe Blow can relate to.

Don, can you please advise me as to what I wrote on another current post, entitled 'the song sucks'.
I cannot find any example or explanation justifying it being 'deleted for abusive language'.
I don't know of any changes to OLO's policies that I have or would have contravened.
I have been commenting the same for as long as I have been contributing to OLO.
The comment was posted on Monday the 17th of June 2019 at 3:22:35 PM.
If you cannot send it as a response on OLO, you have my email address, I would appreciate your assistance, as I feel I have been unfairly judged and therefore would like the right to scrutinise my comments for an opportunity to gauge for myself, what it is I am alleged to have said that is any different from previous comments.
Your assistance would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you in advance.

Well, I can see that Don Aitkin isn't going to respond to my posts, which attacked his position effectively. I wonder why?

Could it be that Don holds racists like myself in such contempt that he considers it beneath his dignity to respond?

Or could it be something else? Like maybe Don knows that I am right but he is too scared to come right out and say it?

Don knows what would happen to him if he did that. The Red Guards in his university would go on the rampage and picket his office, disrupt his classes, and hound him out of the university just like that Victorian historian. Or, the university would sack him just like that University of NSW professor who correctly predicted an African crime wave if we imported black Africans as migrants or "refugees." News flash. Today's news informed the public that the State of Victoria is offering a $100,000 dollar reward for "The Laneway Rapist" who's published image clearly shows a black African.

This is how civilizations fail and fall. The people who are supposed to be the champions of free speech become intimidated by the ideological zealots who's bankrupt ideology, like racial equality, depends upon lies and outright intimidation for it's propagation.

Many of us are old enough to remember a time when Asia was just as poor as Africa, South America, and the Middle East today. But the Asians are now either rich, or are becoming richer. Why? Because as a race, Asians are collectively a bit smarter than white Europeans. Being smart, generally speaking, Asians make much better, more productive, and more law abiding immigrants to western countries than people from the Middle East, Africa, or South America. That is the Mammoth in the room. Talking about poverty or crime without considering race or culture is just useless semantics.

Even if it is illegal to say so. In Australia today, it is illegal to tell the truth. Any civilization which thinks that way is doomed to fail when matched against civilizations who are not afraid to face unpleasant truths.

LEGO, heartening to find someone still standing up for 'correct' and not 'politically correct'.
I too have been at odds with many here, not only the commentors but the moderators as well.
I currently have a comment 'pulled' for, as they put it, 'deleted for abusive language'.
I have no idea what they are on about, my language has, if anything, toned down slightly over time as the need to make strong delivery of a point seems to no longer be necessary as the topics are becoming more boring or less interesting.
I've asked Don if he can send me a copy of my, so called, abusive language, so I may be better informed as to what has changed in OLO's policy.
I have always preached that if one cannot say 'exactly' what they feel then the conversation is moot.
So if I have to watch my P's and Q's because of some pansy and their sensitivities, then I am not being honest, either with myself or everyone else, and I certainly won't be getting my point across.
I've always maintained, say what you mean and mean what you say.
To do otherwise is dishonest.
LEGO, we must NEVER allow this PC disease to 'spread', because it is a disease, you can be sure of that.
If enough people reject this PC push, truth will prevail.
I'm confused about one thing.
If uni's are a place of learning, and the children attending uni are still learning and won't be in a position to be taken seriously until they have been in their respective 'careers' for some years, then why in hell are we taking cue's or even listening to what these 'children' have to say, as if they know what they're talking about.
Age aside, being at uni implies intelligence, not maturity, which is so lacking these days.
What it does not afford them is 'experience'.
Until they have experienced or lived in the 'real' three dimensional world and not the two dimensional one of books, they are missing a dimension or one of the final building blocks of life.

for Altrav, I sympathise, but OLO is not my site (which is donaitkin.com), so I can't directly help you at all, though I will send a note to the Editor pointing out your problem and asking whether he can help you.

PC is the Leftists' only weapon & for anyone who refuses to see the outcome of PC, I recommend watching the movie "The Island" !

Lego, I did reply to your first criticism. After that, you wrote:'Writers like Don Atkin should be ashamed of themselves. They are selling out their own people and their own culture, a culture which just happens to be the best one ever invented. Pretending that their own culture or it's people are at fault for the existence of ever growing numbers of "poor" people is complete rubbish. There are reasons for poverty, and it has little to do with the culture of western free market people who believe in democracy and free speech. Unless you factor in the existence of people within that culture who hate it, wish to destroy it, or who have a compulsive need to virtue signal and pretend that they are better than everyone else in society because they are the true champions of the "poor" who are the victims of the "rich."'

Again, you miss the point. I do not share the views you impute to me. I said there were people who thought that way, and I offered alternatives.To some degree I share your position. Read it all again.

Don, I appreciate it.
Thanks.

To Professor Don Atkin from an electrician.

What you wrote was a rambling, philosophical "essay" which asked 11 questions in 1200 words, and did not answer any of them. It was an amorphous article full of unanswered questions and implications, which may impress academics, but which is sort of crap which absolutely infuriates working class people such as myself. Even your reply to me was a cop out. You said that you agreed with some of the things I said, but naturally, you did not want to say what they were.

Now as an academic, I know you have to watch your step lest you fall foul of the commissars in Committee of Public Safety (whoops, I mean the Human Rights mob). After all, you don't want to end up like James Watson, sacked from the Human Genome Project which he headed, because he had the temerity to tell the truth about race and intelligence. After all, if the Red Guards at your university can scream down Bettina Arndt for having the temerity to claim that there is no rape culture at universities, imagine what they would do to you if you did a Watson and spoke plainly?

So the plain truth has to be spoken by electricians like me, because socially elevated academics like yourself are too frightened to put their careers and their privileged positions in society in front of the truth.

Any person with an objective mind can see connections within poverty that are at odds with the socialist worldview. The biggest factor in poverty (and crime) is intelligence. Smart people are upwardly mobile and dumb people are either downwardly mobile or at least stagnant in their "disadvantaged" social position. Dumb people commit serious crimes and get caught. Dumb people routinely smoke and drink and take drugs and get preggers when they are 14. Dump people live on the dole forever and don't take care of their health or their teeth.

Even a dumb electrician like me can see that there is a clear causal link between IQ, ethnicity, culture and poverty

Again, you miss the point.
Don Aitkin,
No he doesn't. One can't miss a point in a pointless argument ! I say pointless because bringing up the subject of poverty without offering ideas for a possible solution is well, pointless.
Were there more people in the welfare industry who actually cared about their work, poverty would reduce by 50% just from that alone. The other 50% would escape poverty if our politicians & bureaucrats had an ounce of economic management to change the present unworkable legislations causing much of poverty.
All it really needs is people in Authority who care & force the rest to care also !

Lego, I don't trade in insults. I am nearly 82, and well and truly retired. No more from me.

Unfortunately Lego and Don highlight the fact that the average person has lost all faith in the integrity in all institutions. Whether it be the Catholic church, the gw cult backed by all uni's (except for brave individuals like Ridley). Just about all unis are now into gender engineering studies and anyone with an interest in true biology might as well stay home. Schools continue to make kids dumber even know record amounts of money is spent on education. Independent thinking is labelled hate speech, ignorant, uniformed while group think gets the funding, promotions and status.

Runner, all you say is true.
As individuals I find it frustrating that we can do nothing to correct these very serious situations which are the foundations of our very ruination.
Singular people such as us who continually voice these dangers at every opportunity, such as forums like this or public gatherings, are somewhat restricted and frustrated, as I often feel, because I see no viable way of 'spreading the word'.
By this I mean 'spreading the word' about how vial and divisive Political Correctness is.
PC must be stopped, at all costs, before it costs us our very well being.
Another major negative influence on us is 'giving credibility to children'.
How the hell did this happen?
When did we start taking advice from children?
In case certain people have forgotten, uni students ARE CHILDREN!
Now let's just stop, take a deep breath and take stock of the facts/situation, but most importantly, let's take back CONTROL of the situation.
Firstly let's stop asking children for their opinions.
Secondly, let's stop listening to them if they persist (rally) in giving or forcing their opinions.
Remember, they are CHILDREN!
This has come about because of social failures of the adults, (parents) who have become lazy and want to be 'friends' with their children.
The insane and moronic push by women to imagine they can be man's equal, by lying to their daughters in giving them false hopes that 'they can be whatever they want'.
The reason we are in this state of social turmoil is largely due to the fact we started listening to children because of virtue signalling or virtue shaming.
Not wanting to speak the truth because it will generate hate and ill feelings that will compromise your position or standing, both socially and/or professionally.
All because you dare question or hold a view other than the what the children do.
Runner you know you are right.
To deny you is to give in.
To give in is not an option.
I for one must keep pushing these 'facts' so at least 'I' know I'm doing the right thing.