Australia - third world country?

Just fuck off you retarded dickwad.

This is an Australian school

[link to imgur.com (secure)]

Looks like muttistaned 3rd worlders

There we go 3rd world manners

Who you talking to 4rd world boy?_

Dude that was Queensland, even most other Aussies don't like Queensland.

Anyway here's a big old Aussie "fuck off were full" for you.

ANYWAY throw another shrimp on the BBQ? I thought that Qld was more Aussie than the other provinces, which resemble China and India. Maybe this means you hate yourself?

ANYWAY Still sounds like a giant shithole and the video looks like a dump.

Please enjoy paying 60 K for a car that cost me 15 K. Oh wait you don't make any cars. So thank you for spending 60 K on cars made overseas.

He's right they do look like dumps.

Prestigious Gracevill

This is palces of video in OP

[link to www.brisbanetimes.com.au (secure)]

"No one in the ALP wants to admit that the labour movement was a big supporter of the White Australia Policy as a way to protect a working class standard of living. Guilt drives people like Sally at the ACTU who don’t want to face history; that Australia avoided a slave class similar to the model of the USA by largely keeping Australia free of slave/cheap labour in the 19th/20th century using a racist selection criteria that was no different from other developed Asian nations (i.e. Japan) operated. The Left disallows a proper conversation in case horrible facts emerged – i.e. that Australia owes its success to British institutions and cultural unity where the cost of labour was kept high – until this point. The world in the 21st century has changed dramatically from the 19th and 20th where the same reasons no longer exist. If immigration is based upon cultural compatibility and skills, skin colour and race matters not as it does not reflect generalised notions about culture and skills as was the case in the 18th, 19th and first half of the 20th century. The lie being progressed by the far Left is that culture does not matter and that the selection of a the largely Greek/Italian immigrants based upon cultural compatibility post WW2 was racist. We are expected to believe that an immigration programme that instead took in people from e.g. the Horn of Africa, would have had the same outcome. It’s a lie. It does not mean that the human rights of people from the Horn of Africa should be any different to our own. But serving human rights and cultural needs and security are two different things.

It would be far better NOT to have to discuss these issues – they are divisive. The best way to avoid such discussions is to not force people to accept lies and invented history to suit ideologically based views that require mistruth and blindness. The far Left is thus creating the ideological opposition that it fights."

Oh look the Kween of Engerland

Or maybe the Kween of Horsteeth Jacinda?

"Stewie GriffinMEMBER
May 25, 2020 at 10:02 am
I think it is wonderful that Dan is taking MultiCult to its logical conclusion by embracing other cultures – why shouldn’t we accept that we live in a Multipolar world now?

Obviously these tensions are merely a result of minor cultural differences – Dan should invite the Chinese and Americans to sit down to some Chai Tea and cricket and mealy worm biscuits and after a smoke welcoming ceremony I’m sure all their differences will be sorted out.

I don’t know why MB is so against the diversity that China offers, I mean why pick on the Chinese? The Sudanese have been wonderful additions to our nation as well, so many doctors, lawyers and engineers. How about the Indians and Pakistanis – they’ve certainly taught us a thing or two about how to peacefully resolve domestic arguments, no longer will white Australian males resort to a jerry cans of kero to sort out arguments over appropriate size of dowry’s.

Just why should we pause to consider just how many Chinese we have welcomed into Australia over the past decade? China have only been sending us those with the very highest social credit scores, their best and brightest, most patriotic Chinese citizens who will be both the best ambassadors for both China and the CCP. These are the best Chinese that the CCP have to offer – and yet there are so many nasty things being written about them.

They are all Australian now – even the ones who’ve just stepped off the plane with their freshly printed Australian passports – if they want closer bonds to their mother land, what right do do we have to say “No”? That would be rac!st.

Their cultural distinctiveness has now been added to our own, this is who we are now – isn’t it wonderful.
😐"

"Kriss Hades
May 25, 2020 at 12:39 pm

The worst part is the average Anglo being intimidated into not talking about it. I find that it’s been a very deliberate and protracted campaign of gaslighting for 40 years, capitalising on the guilt and shame aspect of western societies that are overwhelmingly founded on Christian heritage. Guilt, shame and appeasement are the easiest way to go about getting people to destroy themselves – no blood on your hands physically."

[link to 4rchive.md (secure)]

"Sounds like you need to become “culturally competent”. Have you considered one of the great new courses to help you meet your compulsory staff indoctrination targets like the one below? In that way you could identify that opposition to such Stasi-like re-education is a micro aggression and part of a racist agenda that opposes the moral crusade of universities that only happen to have a business model predicated upon overseas students written into the KPIs and performance bonuses of exec staff. If you do one the university will give you a piece of paper and a qualification – because that’s what universities do these days…give out pieces of paper to those towing the ideological line. To others (including students) you get suspended or otherwise gagged.

Re-education has always been a big part of the agenda for the CCP. Millions go to camps, but you can go on campus or complete modules on-line! Hows that for progressive! Because breaking rocks and being starved to death behind barbed wire is sooo 20th century.

[link to www.griffith.edu.au (secure)]

Oh, another complete coincidence is the presence of the Confucius Institute on campus. If that causes you concern it is a sign that you are a proto-racist in need of help.

[link to www.griffith.edu.au (secure)]

Australian universities are clearly run by people concerned with free speech and challenging dogmas – so long as you do that off campus."

[link to www.macrobusiness.com.au (secure)]

"UQ management “tip of the iceberg of a totally corrupted system”
By Guest in International Studentsat 11:20 am on June 4, 2020 | 17 comments
By Paul Frijters, cross-posted from Club Troppo

The management of the University of Queensland, and in particular Peter Hoj and Peter Varghese, stand condemned today by the international media, by both Labor and Liberal politicians, by both left-wing and right-wing Australians, by its own students, and by the powerful pro-American lobby. That management unleashed a shit-storm on itself today by its decision (via a kangaroo court) to suspend Drew Pavlou for 2 years and thus oust him as student representative on the UQ Senate, as well as make it impossible for him to finish his studies.

I have talked about the intricacies and wider politics of this case before, and in a recent comment I analysed the particulars of the shit-storm and how UQ management has effectively already admitted defeat. They’ll back-track on Drew.

Here I want to talk about how the University of Queensland, where I worked for more than 6 years and where I still have friends and colleagues, can truly recover from its current shame. Let’s first scope the full extent of the scandal and then the two paths the university can now take: a cosmetic make-over that will leave the corrupted structures in place and will hence just mean another scandal in 5 to 10 years time, or a radical clean-up that would restore UQ as a place of learning and debate. Obviously the cosmetic make-over is the far more likely course of action, but the radical clean-up is the better course of action in the longer run, so I want to sketch that one too.

Let’s first think about the scope of the scandal. Being condemned by the whole of the Western world, exposed as a place that has totally lost its values and its way, is no small matter.

The current condemnation is much bigger than the one around the corruption scandal with the previous vice-chancellor, Greenfield, who secured his daughter an undeserved place in the medical school. That scandal opened the way for Peter Hoj who promised to clean the place up but, instead, joined in with all the shenanigans. He set up an internal police to subdue any dissident academic and student voices, a police force that wrote the 186 page report on Drew. He looked after Greenfield in retirement via helping him with lucrative commissions and board positions. He set up even more management layers than UQ already had, and, as many now realise, sold out completely to the Chinese Consulate.

Within a few weeks or so, I think the following picture of UQ management will be shared by Australians in general, including the citizens of Brisbane:

The management of Queensland’s premier university sold out to a foreign power (China) for money, a foreign power that has just enacted a controversial new law regarding the suppression of civil liberties in Hong Kong.
UQ management allowed that foreign power to violently suppress peaceful demonstrations on campus that supported the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong.
It allowed that foreign power to dictate the content of courses related to China, to vet the academics teaching it, and to control Chinese students on campus.
UQ management hence abandoned Chinese students critical of the Party, Australian students, human rights principles, any usual academic standards, any notion of free speech, and any form of independence.
In order to be able to make such a Faustian bargain, UQ management needed absolute control. It had achieved this by systematically suppressing academic independence and student free speech for many years, such that the academics and students felt intimidated enough to just go along with anything management wanted. If you need proof of this, just ask yourself the question where you can read the voices of UQ academics critical of Hoj’s handling of the case. Till very recently, there were almost none because they are far too afraid, having seen what happens to dissenters many times in the last 10 years. Also, there is no more obvious token of the conversion of a once real university into a subdued craven fiefdom than the fact that Peter Hoj arrived as merely a vice-chancellor and is now the President of UQ. It will be King of UQ next, then Emperor.
I think all this will be publicly known soon and accepted as the lay of the land, seen widely as a problem that should be fixed. There are much deeper problems though for the University of Queensland, extending far beyond the current management group, which will not be so visible and hence will not be part of the thing that is asked to be fixed. Those much worse and deeper problems are listed later on.

Now, the cosmetic solution to these five visible problems is to scape-goat Peter Hoj, get rid of any overly visible Chinese Communist Party influence on the UQ campus, and otherwise continue to pretend UQ management is not bullying its academics and students into continued submission.

That cosmetic makeover would minimally mean taking away the honorary academic title given to the Chinese Consul-General, a man with a background as a police officer, not an academic. It would mean promising to get rid of the Confucius Institute on campus as soon as is legally possible, while reducing its power over UQ academics and students immediately. This would entail not letting that Institute decide on the content of course material, getting some outside academic group to judge the content of China-related courses, and actively outlawing violent pro-Party activities on campus.

Otherwise, not much would change except for small adjustments in personnel and rhetoric. Hoj and Varghese out, replaced by a “fresh team” of people who can be trusted to keep happy all the current interest groups who have their claws in the place. The new team would come in with lots of promises and noise, announcing to do lots more “human rights initiatives” (like those “Paris principles” UQ just signed up to), meanwhile doing the exact opposite, just like Peter Hoj himself when he arrived there about 8 years ago.

Behind the scenes in this scenario, UQ management, and particularly its next vice-chancellor would try and patch up relations with the Chinese consulate as much as possible to still attract new Chinese students, though of course also trying to diversify the foreign student portfolio. So they wouldn’t say anything negative about the Consulate but simply talk of “taking away any possible impression that…”, “representing various views on campus….”, “fully respecting free speech of course…” and all the other blabla that comes with saving face.

An on-campus police would continue to exist to terrify the UQ academics, who have been understandably silent during the whole Drew Pavlou affair, totally cowed and intimidated as they have been for years. There would certainly be no return of free speech for academics, though students would be allowed a bit more leeway.

This has got to be the front-runner in terms of what happens next at UQ: an embarrassed Brisbane elite organising a cosmetic make-over for UQ, meanwhile ensuring little really changes. It is politically the route of least resistance.

What would a complete overhaul mean? To see what it would take, one needs to realise some of the deeper problems that now exist at UQ:

UQ owns a lot of property throughout Queensland and has set up side-firms and organisations to manage that property, which means it has become entangled in the property mafia that is very connected and powerful in Queensland, something I wrote about with Cameron Murray in “Game of Mates”. This property has spawned a group of ex-UQ administrators who administrate and get rents out of all that property and who are invested in the question of who will run UQ next.
The UQ campus has made property deals with developers and business people who run the student dormitories on that campus. This is big business worth hundreds of millions, of which the university gets a slice. It means there is a whole set of legal obligations and business networks around UQ management that would drag many a well-meaning administration into the mud, let alone a management that is more than happy to start in the mud from the get-go.
UQ has made deals with foreign universities (like in China) to send it students on which a lot of money is made. Similarly, it has made deals with language-provision companies, insurance companies, legal firms, and lots of other commercial entities in Brisbane who make money from servicing foreign students and doing other business with the university. This too provides a very corrupting force on any UQ administration because it gives so many opportunities for getting bribes, lucrative positions, cosy commissions, board jobs for retired UQ administrators, etc. It also means those outside companies, including top legal firms in Brisbane, have an interest in continued business with the university, which gives them an interest in resisting any true attempt at a clean-up.
UQ has made implicit deals with Brisbane politicians not to rock the boat on whatever those politicians do. That is what my own case of 5 years ago so clearly revealed, when the University did the bidding of the council in suppressing research into racism on council buses, but by now its a worked-out system. So UQ academics are prevented via all these bogus “ethics committees” from looking at serious corruption of Queensland politicians and civil servants: essentially the “ethics rule” that is now enforced is that the corrupt have to agree to be researched. Some ethics! This system gives Brisbane politicians a strong incentive to want another corrupt management team to take over from any previous set at UQ: the Brisbane politicians fear a truly independent academia in the middle of the city. They might just do what a crime-and-corruption commission should do in Queensland but has been prevented from doing for over a decade. Corrupt local politicians need a corrupt and docile local university.
There are many skeletons in the cupboard, including lots of UQ academics who took UQ to court for bullying. One cannot run a local dictatorship without forcibly shutting up the strange and the brave. UQ management has a whole list of people it has bullied over the years, and then had to fend off in the courts or compensate them to keep quiet. This is now oddly enough a protective layer for UQ management: if UQ truly cleans up, those skeletons will come back to haunt them. Openly acknowledging the bullying of the past would be a costly legal liability for any new management and would suck up a lot of time and effort, easily portrayed in the media as the failure of a new management. All the little torturers who are still working for the university and who facilitated the bullying and profited in their own little way would be compromised and hence would resist opening up about the past. Not openly acknowledging the past means letting the little torturers continue and thus perpetuate the system of the past.
In short, UQ management is but the tip of the ice-berg of a totally corrupted system that encircles and constricts the University of Queensland. The corrupt network encircling it includes top-politicians, property developers, former UQ-managers, interested professional bodies (lawyers and medics in particular), and others. This is exactly the group that would normally decide how to actually “clean up” the University of Queensland in the Drew Pavlou affair.

I hope you can thus see why it is so unlikely that the present scandal will lead to a true clean up of the problems with the university and why hence a cosmetic make-over is so much more likely: most of the big movers and shakers in Brisbane have a lot to lose from a real clean-up. They might make room for the pro-American anti-CCP lobby that wants CCP influences gone from the UQ campus, but that’s not the same as letting go of their investments entirely. And the anti-CCP lobby has no real stake in cleaning up local corruption. Their interest is not the university community in Queensland. Not their fight.

Let’s dream a little though and think of some of the moves needed to truly clean up UQ.

Obviously, it would need a whole team to come in, breaking down a lot of the previous control apparatus and working its way through new institutions and habits on campus. It would need unprecedented powers to sever previous contracts, including labour contracts (think of those police enforcers!), and to re-arrange the campus physically (those dorms!) and intellectually (those ethics rules!).

Frankly, such a thing could not be contemplated without real backing from the very top of Queensland and Brisbane politics. They would have to enact laws specifically designed to make the clean-up possible, such as breaking up many of the property deals and other legal obligations that would keep UQ in the mud. These politicians would have to own the new narratives and be ok with the new scrutiny that they themselves would fall under if a real university would once more arise in Brisbane.

This is basically unimaginable at present. Though I desperately want it, I can’t see it as a remotely realistic option. There is no appetite for it that I can see in the Brisbane elites, as one can gather from the quickest of glances at how the Brisbane Times is reporting the Drew Pavlou case.

The underlying problem, which is that of a totally corrupted layer running UQ and having many unseemly relations with big interest groups in Queensland, will thus probably persist and will ensure new scandals in the future as the next group of leaders becomes just as arrogant and dictatorial as the current mob. That machismo will inevitably over-reach itself, as it has done the last two administrations, leading to the next scandal. It is in the nature of local dictators to push the boundaries of their fiefdom, convinced of their own greatness and invincibility, till they run out of luck.

The previous vice-Chancellor Greenfield came up against the medical profession that resented the dilution of their educational reputation by having entry into the medical courses corrupted. Peter Hoj came up against an energetic innovative campaigner serious about human rights, who to his own surprise was backed up by powerful interests. So in both cases, an insular UQ management mob came up against the reality of outside forces they underestimated because they had gotten away with so much previously.

The next mob will surely be just the same, so it will be a cosmetic makeover followed by repression and corruption as usual for the next few years. It will remain painful for any real academic to be at UQ. But at least I now do think they will get the pleasure of more robust student protests on campus. Maybe those students will start to do the research and investigating that the academics are prevented from doing? Now, there’s a thought….

And what will happen to Drew Pavlou? They’ll reinstate him, hope he finishes his studies soon, suffer his antics whilst grinding their teeth, count the days till he leaves UQ, and then build him a statue once he is gone and can no longer actually bother them."

"UQ management “tip of the iceberg of a totally corrupted system”
By Guest in International Studentsat 11:20 am on June 4, 2020 | 17 comments
By Paul Frijters, cross-posted from Club Troppo

The management of the University of Queensland, and in particular Peter Hoj and Peter Varghese, stand condemned today by the international media, by both Labor and Liberal politicians, by both left-wing and right-wing Australians, by its own students, and by the powerful pro-American lobby. That management unleashed a shit-storm on itself today by its decision (via a kangaroo court) to suspend Drew Pavlou for 2 years and thus oust him as student representative on the UQ Senate, as well as make it impossible for him to finish his studies.

I have talked about the intricacies and wider politics of this case before, and in a recent comment I analysed the particulars of the shit-storm and how UQ management has effectively already admitted defeat. They’ll back-track on Drew.

Here I want to talk about how the University of Queensland, where I worked for more than 6 years and where I still have friends and colleagues, can truly recover from its current shame. Let’s first scope the full extent of the scandal and then the two paths the university can now take: a cosmetic make-over that will leave the corrupted structures in place and will hence just mean another scandal in 5 to 10 years time, or a radical clean-up that would restore UQ as a place of learning and debate. Obviously the cosmetic make-over is the far more likely course of action, but the radical clean-up is the better course of action in the longer run, so I want to sketch that one too.

Let’s first think about the scope of the scandal. Being condemned by the whole of the Western world, exposed as a place that has totally lost its values and its way, is no small matter.

The current condemnation is much bigger than the one around the corruption scandal with the previous vice-chancellor, Greenfield, who secured his daughter an undeserved place in the medical school. That scandal opened the way for Peter Hoj who promised to clean the place up but, instead, joined in with all the shenanigans. He set up an internal police to subdue any dissident academic and student voices, a police force that wrote the 186 page report on Drew. He looked after Greenfield in retirement via helping him with lucrative commissions and board positions. He set up even more management layers than UQ already had, and, as many now realise, sold out completely to the Chinese Consulate.

Within a few weeks or so, I think the following picture of UQ management will be shared by Australians in general, including the citizens of Brisbane:

The management of Queensland’s premier university sold out to a foreign power (China) for money, a foreign power that has just enacted a controversial new law regarding the suppression of civil liberties in Hong Kong.
UQ management allowed that foreign power to violently suppress peaceful demonstrations on campus that supported the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong.
It allowed that foreign power to dictate the content of courses related to China, to vet the academics teaching it, and to control Chinese students on campus.
UQ management hence abandoned Chinese students critical of the Party, Australian students, human rights principles, any usual academic standards, any notion of free speech, and any form of independence.
In order to be able to make such a Faustian bargain, UQ management needed absolute control. It had achieved this by systematically suppressing academic independence and student free speech for many years, such that the academics and students felt intimidated enough to just go along with anything management wanted. If you need proof of this, just ask yourself the question where you can read the voices of UQ academics critical of Hoj’s handling of the case. Till very recently, there were almost none because they are far too afraid, having seen what happens to dissenters many times in the last 10 years. Also, there is no more obvious token of the conversion of a once real university into a subdued craven fiefdom than the fact that Peter Hoj arrived as merely a vice-chancellor and is now the President of UQ. It will be King of UQ next, then Emperor.
I think all this will be publicly known soon and accepted as the lay of the land, seen widely as a problem that should be fixed. There are much deeper problems though for the University of Queensland, extending far beyond the current management group, which will not be so visible and hence will not be part of the thing that is asked to be fixed. Those much worse and deeper problems are listed later on.

Now, the cosmetic solution to these five visible problems is to scape-goat Peter Hoj, get rid of any overly visible Chinese Communist Party influence on the UQ campus, and otherwise continue to pretend UQ management is not bullying its academics and students into continued submission.

That cosmetic makeover would minimally mean taking away the honorary academic title given to the Chinese Consul-General, a man with a background as a police officer, not an academic. It would mean promising to get rid of the Confucius Institute on campus as soon as is legally possible, while reducing its power over UQ academics and students immediately. This would entail not letting that Institute decide on the content of course material, getting some outside academic group to judge the content of China-related courses, and actively outlawing violent pro-Party activities on campus.

Otherwise, not much would change except for small adjustments in personnel and rhetoric. Hoj and Varghese out, replaced by a “fresh team” of people who can be trusted to keep happy all the current interest groups who have their claws in the place. The new team would come in with lots of promises and noise, announcing to do lots more “human rights initiatives” (like those “Paris principles” UQ just signed up to), meanwhile doing the exact opposite, just like Peter Hoj himself when he arrived there about 8 years ago.

Behind the scenes in this scenario, UQ management, and particularly its next vice-chancellor would try and patch up relations with the Chinese consulate as much as possible to still attract new Chinese students, though of course also trying to diversify the foreign student portfolio. So they wouldn’t say anything negative about the Consulate but simply talk of “taking away any possible impression that…”, “representing various views on campus….”, “fully respecting free speech of course…” and all the other blabla that comes with saving face.

An on-campus police would continue to exist to terrify the UQ academics, who have been understandably silent during the whole Drew Pavlou affair, totally cowed and intimidated as they have been for years. There would certainly be no return of free speech for academics, though students would be allowed a bit more leeway.

This has got to be the front-runner in terms of what happens next at UQ: an embarrassed Brisbane elite organising a cosmetic make-over for UQ, meanwhile ensuring little really changes. It is politically the route of least resistance.

What would a complete overhaul mean? To see what it would take, one needs to realise some of the deeper problems that now exist at UQ:

UQ owns a lot of property throughout Queensland and has set up side-firms and organisations to manage that property, which means it has become entangled in the property mafia that is very connected and powerful in Queensland, something I wrote about with Cameron Murray in “Game of Mates”. This property has spawned a group of ex-UQ administrators who administrate and get rents out of all that property and who are invested in the question of who will run UQ next.
The UQ campus has made property deals with developers and business people who run the student dormitories on that campus. This is big business worth hundreds of millions, of which the university gets a slice. It means there is a whole set of legal obligations and business networks around UQ management that would drag many a well-meaning administration into the mud, let alone a management that is more than happy to start in the mud from the get-go.
UQ has made deals with foreign universities (like in China) to send it students on which a lot of money is made. Similarly, it has made deals with language-provision companies, insurance companies, legal firms, and lots of other commercial entities in Brisbane who make money from servicing foreign students and doing other business with the university. This too provides a very corrupting force on any UQ administration because it gives so many opportunities for getting bribes, lucrative positions, cosy commissions, board jobs for retired UQ administrators, etc. It also means those outside companies, including top legal firms in Brisbane, have an interest in continued business with the university, which gives them an interest in resisting any true attempt at a clean-up.
UQ has made implicit deals with Brisbane politicians not to rock the boat on whatever those politicians do. That is what my own case of 5 years ago so clearly revealed, when the University did the bidding of the council in suppressing research into racism on council buses, but by now its a worked-out system. So UQ academics are prevented via all these bogus “ethics committees” from looking at serious corruption of Queensland politicians and civil servants: essentially the “ethics rule” that is now enforced is that the corrupt have to agree to be researched. Some ethics! This system gives Brisbane politicians a strong incentive to want another corrupt management team to take over from any previous set at UQ: the Brisbane politicians fear a truly independent academia in the middle of the city. They might just do what a crime-and-corruption commission should do in Queensland but has been prevented from doing for over a decade. Corrupt local politicians need a corrupt and docile local university.
There are many skeletons in the cupboard, including lots of UQ academics who took UQ to court for bullying. One cannot run a local dictatorship without forcibly shutting up the strange and the brave. UQ management has a whole list of people it has bullied over the years, and then had to fend off in the courts or compensate them to keep quiet. This is now oddly enough a protective layer for UQ management: if UQ truly cleans up, those skeletons will come back to haunt them. Openly acknowledging the bullying of the past would be a costly legal liability for any new management and would suck up a lot of time and effort, easily portrayed in the media as the failure of a new management. All the little torturers who are still working for the university and who facilitated the bullying and profited in their own little way would be compromised and hence would resist opening up about the past. Not openly acknowledging the past means letting the little torturers continue and thus perpetuate the system of the past.
In short, UQ management is but the tip of the ice-berg of a totally corrupted system that encircles and constricts the University of Queensland. The corrupt network encircling it includes top-politicians, property developers, former UQ-managers, interested professional bodies (lawyers and medics in particular), and others. This is exactly the group that would normally decide how to actually “clean up” the University of Queensland in the Drew Pavlou affair.

I hope you can thus see why it is so unlikely that the present scandal will lead to a true clean up of the problems with the university and why hence a cosmetic make-over is so much more likely: most of the big movers and shakers in Brisbane have a lot to lose from a real clean-up. They might make room for the pro-American anti-CCP lobby that wants CCP influences gone from the UQ campus, but that’s not the same as letting go of their investments entirely. And the anti-CCP lobby has no real stake in cleaning up local corruption. Their interest is not the university community in Queensland. Not their fight.

Let’s dream a little though and think of some of the moves needed to truly clean up UQ.

Obviously, it would need a whole team to come in, breaking down a lot of the previous control apparatus and working its way through new institutions and habits on campus. It would need unprecedented powers to sever previous contracts, including labour contracts (think of those police enforcers!), and to re-arrange the campus physically (those dorms!) and intellectually (those ethics rules!).

Frankly, such a thing could not be contemplated without real backing from the very top of Queensland and Brisbane politics. They would have to enact laws specifically designed to make the clean-up possible, such as breaking up many of the property deals and other legal obligations that would keep UQ in the mud. These politicians would have to own the new narratives and be ok with the new scrutiny that they themselves would fall under if a real university would once more arise in Brisbane.

This is basically unimaginable at present. Though I desperately want it, I can’t see it as a remotely realistic option. There is no appetite for it that I can see in the Brisbane elites, as one can gather from the quickest of glances at how the Brisbane Times is reporting the Drew Pavlou case.

The underlying problem, which is that of a totally corrupted layer running UQ and having many unseemly relations with big interest groups in Queensland, will thus probably persist and will ensure new scandals in the future as the next group of leaders becomes just as arrogant and dictatorial as the current mob. That machismo will inevitably over-reach itself, as it has done the last two administrations, leading to the next scandal. It is in the nature of local dictators to push the boundaries of their fiefdom, convinced of their own greatness and invincibility, till they run out of luck.

The previous vice-Chancellor Greenfield came up against the medical profession that resented the dilution of their educational reputation by having entry into the medical courses corrupted. Peter Hoj came up against an energetic innovative campaigner serious about human rights, who to his own surprise was backed up by powerful interests. So in both cases, an insular UQ management mob came up against the reality of outside forces they underestimated because they had gotten away with so much previously.

The next mob will surely be just the same, so it will be a cosmetic makeover followed by repression and corruption as usual for the next few years. It will remain painful for any real academic to be at UQ. But at least I now do think they will get the pleasure of more robust student protests on campus. Maybe those students will start to do the research and investigating that the academics are prevented from doing? Now, there’s a thought….

And what will happen to Drew Pavlou? They’ll reinstate him, hope he finishes his studies soon, suffer his antics whilst grinding their teeth, count the days till he leaves UQ, and then build him a statue once he is gone and can no longer actually bother them."

You guys are totally the smartest in the room

Nice effort in your rebbuts Misters

"mike mb
June 4, 2020 at 7:35 pm
I think the Australian Sydney & Melbourne ‘low end established housing bubble’ in Sydney & Melbourne will continue.

Nothing has changed.

And contrary to what the media report, the vast bulk of foreign dirty money is not flowing into new developments/ off the plan, or the ‘trophy houses’ by say mega rich Chinese.

Nope.
It is Chinese, North and South Asian & Indian or other foreign criminal syndicate money pouring in to acquire our very low end old established Sydney or Melbourne housing:

Over $80 billion of foreign dirty money has been washed into Australia via the ‘PR proxy model’ in the last 8 years alone and almost all is into very low end established Australian residential housing in Sydney or Melbourne.

To expel the Australian tenants and convert it into migrant only cash in hand bunkshare.

Real world example:
The grimy little 2 bed unit in Burwood in an 40 year old apartment block – worth say $400,000.
The tenants a young Australian couple paying $300 a week rent.
Rental return of $15,600 a year or 4%.

Bought by a Chinese criminal syndicate via a local Chinese PR for $400,000.
Leased by a Chinese real estate agent to some no name transient.
Then sublet to 8 Chinese migrant foreign students guestworkers in bunks, each paying $150 a week.
Now the PR owner collects $1,200 a week or $62,000 a year or 15.5% rental return.

4 x times as much.

$250 a week rent declared, the PR gets a $100 cut & $850 a week or $44,000 cash goes back to the Chinese criminal syndicate.
And the PR claims taxpayer funded negative gearing as a kicker…

Any issues?
PR owner blames the letting agent.
The Letting agent blames the transient lease holder (long gone).
Why any attempted prosecutions fail.
Then wait a little while.
Do it all over again.

Repeat that now by over 750,000 low end modest dwellings in just Sydney or Melbourne alone.

👉🏻There is your Sydney and Melbourne housing bubble.
👉🏻That’s why our house prices and rents for Australians are unaffordable.
👉🏻That’s why we have 116,000 Australian permanent homeless and another 340,000 without affordable housing.

And it’s a ‘dirty money made legitimate’ and its ‘cash flow’, not a capital gain model.
🔹Still no foreign repatriation treaty.
🔹Still no proceeds of crime treaty.
🔹Australia & NZ the new target for dirty criminal money as the US, UK or Canada put in controls.
🔹No FIRB or other checks & controls on a PR purchase of an Australian established dwelling.
🔹No checks on actual occupancy, rental income or illegal housing usage.
🔹We still have 2.5 million migrant TR onshore.
2.25 million or 90% in Sydney or Melbourne & 98% still ‘rent in private shared accommodation’, (ABS code for bunk share) 🔹We still have another 1.9 million migrant PR, 87% are in Sydney & Melbourne and over 80% or 1.4 million who rent in ‘private shared accommodation’.

So that’s 4.5 million non citizen foreign nationals onshore who rent in Sydney or Melbourne with an average occupancy of 6 per dwelling, or over twice the Australian average. 750,000 dwellings.
(Where do people think they all live?)

Nothing has changed for the foreign criminal syndicate to easily buy a low end established dwelling via a onshore proxy PR with zero checks or controls.

Nothing has changed to have a highly lucrative cash return of +11%. in migrant guestworkers sublet cash in hand bunkshare.

-/-

The Australian recession is now just the opportunity for the foreign criminal syndicates to continue and expand their money laundering into Australian established residential property.

Both as a safe haven for their dirty money and a goldmine of cash tax free income return for the offshore foreign criminals.

The underlying nutrient remains.

The importation by Australia of millions of third world migrant guestworkers with no funds, assets or skills.

An introduced migrant low socioeconomic tenant base who need housing, and who will live in filth and congestion to provide that 11%+ cash flow return for the foreign criminal syndicates dirty money.

Talk to any Australian homeless.
Most lost their jobs to the influx of migrant guestworker TR being paid cash, labor rings, squeezed out by foreign ethnic hiring of a non Australians.
And then their housing was stolen from them because of this.

-/-

So that is why I think the whole Sydney & Melbourne ‘house price bubble’, overpriced rents, the congestion, and the conversion of whole Australian suburbs into third world migrant guestworker slums will continue.

Our Australia border force and DHA will continue to stand idle and not enforce even basic visa or COe conditions.
The State and local councils are all on the take or are migrant controlled.

You do wonder why the Australian citizens, particularly our youth who are most disadvantaged in renting impact or their ability to acquire housing…..

… Why aren’t they out on the street demanding these millions of parasitic migrants (many in blatant visa & COe breach in working and living illegally) are rounded up & deported?

Why isn’t this their public issue #1?"

[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]

You dumb ass's were colonized by the British, they sent the same people to America as they did Australia..... We just didn't have a war to kick them out.

[link to www.smh.com.au (secure)]

You mean you don't even have NORMAL retailerys?

[link to www.smh.com.au (secure)]

You mean you don't even have NORMAL retailerys?

Foreigners get 20 000 from taxpayers in Australia for building a home

clownish world

[link to www.macrobusiness.com.au (secure)]

THROW NOTHER SHRRRRIIIIIIMMM ON THE BRBEEE

[link to www.macrobusiness.com.au (secure)]

[link to www.macrobusiness.com.au (secure)]

Really? Then why is Japan a much better experience than the shithole of Pozstralia?

"mike mb
June 19, 2020 at 12:02 am
Article: “With about 2.7 people per household, the forecast drop equates to about 80,000 fewer houses needing to be built”..

That’s wrong.
And it is not about new housing. It seriously wouldn’t matter if we built twice as much, or no new housing.

The migrant influx and the associated foreign dirty money in housing them – is to acquire low level ‘established’ Australian housing and convert it to cash in hand sublet migrant only bunk share.

Fact check.
The average national household occupancy is 2.7 people per dwelling.

In Sydney & Melbourne in normal Australian household (house) occupancy however it is over 2.9 – say 3. In units it is 3.2 people. Source: ABS

Now that’s all based on ABS ‘census data’.

But the migrants, especially the 2.5 million TR and a lot of the PR migrants didnt fill out that census data, and the reason why is explained below.

Over 1.2 million people – mostly migrants never completed any census form.

That’s easily validated in matching ethnic background, country of origin, arrival in Australia actual data (DHA/ABF) v the census data.

Another 2.5 million in the census provided lies or garbage or major omissions, and again that’s fairly typical of third world migrants wary of any ‘government’ or authority data collection.

The actual 2016 Census ‘accurate cross matched quality response’ was only 84%.

And the huge 16% or 3.8 million person gap in actual data was mostly in Sydney and Melbourne, and mostly with the migrants.

The migrants living in cash in hand sublet bunkshare housing certainly didn’t complete that data.

In Sydney this is a vast swathe stretching out from the CBD to the south and way out west in vast fetid migrant only clusters of ex Australian housing now converted to migrant only cash in hand bunk share.

Their foreign landlords also aren’t going to expose the level of migrant occupancy crowding in what is a massive foreign criminal run cash in hand subletting industry – because they are in breach of every building and council residency usage code & because they fear the ATO will mine that census data in what should be the rent declared by the ‘occupants’.
(Meriton World Tower, the Regis and all the other migrant slum tower blocks building managers even banned any census data form drop off or collection).

And the migrants themselves, on pretext visas, working & living illegally, most with multiple false identities also studiously ignored any government attempt to track and identify who they are, where they live and what they are doing. ‘No english’

So a complete fail by the ABS & census to expose the massive impact by the foreign national PR and TR migrants on our established Australian housing.

-/-

However there are a couple of ways or working out the non Australian migrant impact on Australian housing.

An ABS seperate ‘migrant housing’ survey.

98% of the 2.5 million TR / non Nz SCV born & 73% of the migrant PR rent in what is the ABS code called ‘adult single private shared accommodation’. This is predominantly the bulk of the 2.5 million TR / non NZ SCV third world migrants trafficked in to steal Australian jobs to repay foreign agent procurers & send back remittances.

The ABS also know 2.3 million or 92% of the 2.5 million migrant TR & non Nz born SCV non Australians, and 1.63 million or 86% of the 1.9 million PR non Australians are in Sydney and Melbourne. Published in MB.

So that was 3.9 million (2016) or now with 4 years subsequent growth, over 4.5 million or 42% of the 10.5 million population of Sydney and Melbourne population a non Australian foreign national migrant.

4 out of 10 people in Sydney or Melbourne are foreign nationals on a PR or TR.
Amazing. An OECD record.

They ABS also knew a composite 89% or 4 million of these 4.5 million non Australian migrants ‘rent’.

With an average occupancy of at least 6 per dwelling or twice the Australian average.
(Migrant extended families & visa pretext single adults in the ABS code of ‘Private shared accommodation’ or bunk share.

So that is at least 660,000 mostly ex Australian modest units and modest established dwellings in just Sydney or Melbourne alone – now converted to migrant only cash in hand bunk share.

17% of established Sydney & Melbourne housing (24% if PR who own live in are included)….

Housing 45% or nearly half the Sydney & Melbourne population non Australian foreign nationals third world poor, unskilled useless asset poor and mostly renters….
,,. squeezed into a quarter of the housing.

Go figure. Double or more the rent for the foreign PR proxy landlord & the foreign criminal syndicates that actually bought the little 2 bed unit in Wiley Park with 8 Bangladeshi ‘students’ or the old fibro 2 bed shanty in Granville with 11 Nepalese.

And what do you see?

A low end modest old unit or little humpy out west price bubble.

Out with the Australian normal tenants & bogan families who paid say $400 a week rent – they get dumped out onto the street or join the white flight to the regional towns to live on welfare.

And in with the 8 Chinese or the 10 Nepalese TR paying $150 a week each for bunk share.

The new foreign landlord now pulling in $1,200 a week cash, maybe declares nothing, or say $300 and claims negative gearing as a kicker.

-/-

Where do people think these 3.6 million non Australian foreign national migrants all live?

It’s in ex Australian established housing.
Converted to migrant only slum share.

Has anyone in this MB forum actually ever been out western Sydney and seen the whole suburbs of ex Australian old modest established housing now converted into vast fetid congested migrant only slums?

That is where the tens of billions of foreign dirty money is being washed.

And so talk of a ‘reduction in new building supply’ is pure nonsense.

The large scale foreign criminal syndicates don’t put their billions into ‘off the plan apartments’ or ‘trophy mansions’.

That’s just a tiny fraction, and for the foreign elite.

The huge dirty money flow (over $80 billion in the last 5 years) is foreign criminal syndicates using a migrant PR as a proxy to purchase a very low level Australian old established dwelling, kick out the Australians and replace them with migrant guestworkers in the cash in hand bunk share.

It’s a safe haven & cash flow model, immune to interest rates, capital gain or loss, and as housing prices fall, the foreign criminal syndicate acquisition of modest Australian established housing will accelerate.

Old run down apartment block by block, street by street.
Suburb by suburb.
Massive fetid ‘migrant only slums’ that now cover over 800 sq kilometres of the Sydney basin. Melbourne is much the same.

Open your eyes – what do you see?
🔹116,000 Australian permanent homeless & on the streets.
🔹370,000 Australians now seeking affordable housing.
Where did they use to live.
Who lives there now?

👉🏻Over 2 million Australian jobs stolen by the TR & PR foreign national migrants.
And their housing.

The TR and the PR are the nutrient that destroys affordability. In what is illegal housing use.
By TR who are on pretext visas and most in visa breach anyway.

The real answer to all this?

Remove the 2.5 million TR migrants in visa breach.
That alone would restore 2 million Australian jobs and 400,000 modest low end dwellings (once disinfected) back to Australians.

👉🏻No need to build anything new."

[link to www.macrobusiness.com.au (secure)]

You lost the power because you squandered it. You wasted it for personal gain. So since you sin against the word and God. You will forever be forsaken.

lol really? i know where i'd much rather go and it sure is fuck isnt round up the dolphins and slaughter them all for "food" nippon you yank cunts really have zero idea about the world huh :D fuckin amateurs, oh sorry, i guess you must have a thing for schoolgirl panty vending machines huh