>remove the need for ethnic ghettos<

What need is that?

Where was that need when nations from around the world built the Snowy Mountains scheme?

What happened to the philosophy of requiring new migrants to settle where they were told,; and thus be forced to learn the language, and send their kids to a local school; rather than an ethnically/religiously pure one, replete with a hostile anti western/anti American bias/agenda?

And if it was better back there, then those are the very people we need to reject/ask them to go back to where you came from!
But particularly antisocial groups, unable to leave their social problems behind!

i.e., the Irish (Protestant and Catholic) left Northern Ireland and settled here, to leave the troubles behind them, not to bring them here!

So also must it be for people of (Arab Jew) Middle eastern decent; otherwise, why bother to come here and infect the local culture.

Were we to toughen our stand in this very area, far fewer Man Minos's would be able to come here and sow the seeds of discontent or disharmony, (murder kill) already tough enough to manage in a truly multicultural/cosmopolitan society!

By all means throw the door open, but only for people who genuinely want to become fair dinkum Australians first; and only add their ethnic, curious or quaint culture after that!
And I'd want to thoroughly test the veracity of their claims with space age lie detection equipment first!

Had this been common practice in the States, those Middle Eastern miscreants, who high-jacked and flew airliners into the trade centre (9/11) and elsewhere, wouldn't have gotten past the front door, let alone into a vulnerable airliner!
[Only extremely over inflated egos (we know best) coupled to human error, made that act of extreme terrorism possible!]

Moreover, we only have one marriage partner (particularly where the state may be required to provide basic support) at a time, and female genital mutilation is a crime, not a tolerated custom!

This is Australia, and the new chums need to adapt to our ways, not visa versa!
Rhrosty.

Only a lefty academic could have written this bit of bumph.

You do seem to be good at picking up taxpayer dollars Sev. Nice academic job, commissioner for this, commissioner for that, & a nice chairmanship now.

I can only wonder just how much you have cost real Ozzies, compared to paper cut-outs that is, with your ratbaggery.

Great stuff!
Remember that Sev was appointed as the chairman of the Multicultural body by Kevin Andrews who is hardly a bleeding-heart leftie.

Perhaps it could be said that such a multi-cultural body reflects the 21st century human situation as described in this essay:
http://www.dabase.org/p3family.htm

Thank You Sev Ozdowski for an intelligent and
well reasoned article. I also believe that
Australia is a happier land than most because
of the programs that our consecutive governments have
had the wisdom to install - to help migrants find
their footing in a new land.

Others have observed that Monis' actions really were an attack on multiculturalism and that the leftist narrative had to be dropped for a couple of days in the interests of public safety.
By the Tuesday afternoon two identitarian blocs had formed in order to present a united front for the media, "Australians" and "Muslims" united to keep the peace.
It's not gone past the notice of a few racists like myself that the CBD of Sydney is actually an Asian city, as is the city of Melbourne, they're more like Shanghai and Singapore in the 1930's than anything of European descent.
The lefties overplayed and badly mismanaged the "backlash" narrative and that's what's spoiled it for a lot of people but it's pretty hard for a White racist to get worked up about an attack on a foreign owned cafe staffed almost entirely by Asians in a city dominated by Chinese and Indian migrants or expats.
The threat posed to multiculturalism was mitigated by proactive (if ad hoc) practical multiculturalism, good for you Sev, slow clap...but it's had no effect upon real Australians.
We'll see how strong the social fabric is when Muslims attack a primary school or a Synagogue or a citizen is beheaded in the street.

All different nationalities should be made to become Australian citizens after five years, if not return to the country you came from, many females marry Australian men but do not want to renounce the country they came from, it is a far better lifestyle here, (they admit that) than what they left behind, but mention the word Australian citizen, definately not.

If "multiculturalism" was a success it wouldn't have to be defended all the time.

And if this is a multicultural society that tolerates different cultures why is it I'm constantly being told I have to change my ways? Why is my outdoor rural culture not tolerated?

And why do the "multiculturalists" always bang on about "racism"?
What's ethnicity got to do with it?
Or is "ethnicity" what it's really about?
If it's really about changing the ethnic makeup of a country then it's more a form of ethnic cleansing than anything else.

Sev Ozdowski gets his income by being part of the multicultural industry. So when a Muslim "refugee" on the dole does exactly what his prophet orders him to do and declares Jihad on the infidels, then starts shooting Aussies in Martin Place, Sev has to get creative to put a positive spin on it.

This is very hard to do, what with multiculturalism increasingly on the nose in western Europe, primarily because of Muslim terrorism, high Muslim crime rates, and high levels of ethnic welfare dependency. It is getting so bad in Europe, that several prominent western leaders have now publically declared that multiculturalism is dead in their own particular countries. Then, to make matters more difficult for Sev, we have the spectacle of thousands of "western" Muslim jihadis taking off to join ISIL so that they can declare a jihad on the entire western world, and indulge in a little crucifying, beheading, slavery, massacres, and ethnic cleansing. Australians may feel relieved that these creeps no longer live in our country.

So Sev came up with the novel idea that a Muslim "refugee" shooting Aussies in Martin Place is a good thing, because has brought Australians together. He notes that the Muslim leadership in Australia has publically condemned Man Haron Monis. even though these self same Muslim leaders were only two weeks ago condemning Abbot's new terrorism laws because they claimed it unfairly targeted Muslims.

Sev tries on the spin, that both Labor and Liberal governments support multiculturalism. He ignores the fact that immigration of non English speaking people has become so overwhelming, that both sides of parliament feel the need to suck up to the ethnic lobby, and do nothing to offend any of them.

The fact that freedom of speech is now defunct in Australia because of the ethnic lobby's insistence on keeping18C, is something that Sev forgot to mention when he rather surprisingly claimed that multiculturalism supported freedom of speech. He even made the idea of prosecuting Australians who had the effrontery to criticise the behaviour of their new fellow citizens sound like a wonderful idea.

Being the dumb bum that I am, I've had a good look at this multiculturalism model. From the empirical evidence that I've seen, and had in my possession, post the civil wars in The Lebanon. I've deduced that multiculturalism has been a great success. That was of course before many of the Muslims started arriving !

After many of these people left their countries (most were from 'The Lebanon') to resettle here in Australia, our country inexorably started changing ? Those who'd chosen to leave their homelands, because of the various wars, political unrest and the spontaneous sectarian disputation, and other areas of 'explosive' civil violence ? They've come over here, albeit we've extended the hand of welcome and friendship. That really doesn't matter, because since their arrival, they've caused so much trouble, created much of the violence in those areas they decided to settle, contributed to complex religious division(s), annexed peaceful suburb, after peaceful suburb, many of them, now appear much like foreign ghettos, suitable only for some Islamic aspiration and occupation ?

Certainly much too risky, and uninhabitable for any reasonable Australian families. Now suitable only for some nefarious Islamic purposes ? This sadly Doctor Sev OZDOWSKI, is the failed dimension of your erroneous academic model, of Multiculturalism.

O Sung
There are millions of Lebanese and Lebanese descended people in Brazil, Ecuador and Argentina, most of them are Christians but some of the most powerful drug gangs are run by Lebanese. There was a case in 2007 where a Lebanese syndicate was busted moving several tonnes of cocaine from South America into Europe and a money laundering business headed by Lebanese was taken down in Sao Paolo, they'd washed something like $5 billion U.S in drug money.
Organised crime is not so much a Muslim thing as a Lebanese thing, it's alleged that Hezbollah was running guns into Brazil through Christian Lebanese middle men in order to gain hard currency.

Lebanese gangs also control the drug trade in many German cities such as Bremen and Berlin:
http://www.insightcrime.org/news-briefs/money-laundering-bust-highlights-brazil-as-a-hub-of-financial-crime
http://www.mrctv.org/videos/lebanese-crime-family-intimidates-and-threatens-court-reporters
Arab gangs in Detroit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Xkh04CNHik

Ojnab, what advantage would there be in making them become Australian citizens? Surely it would be better if they retained the choice?

jamo, multiculturalism has to be defended from the people who think it's something it isn't.

Aidan I do not mind so much them retaining their country of origin, but do not expect me to bow down to your way of life you left behind, I am an Australian, no longer of my original Scottish ancestors, if I no longer expect you to don a kilt then do not expect me to become part of your original country traditions or religion, I have a right if not more than you to do as I see the Australian way of life, not your way
When in other countries I respect their way of life , traditions and religion, do nothing to upset that country, I expect the same from you, unfortunately the reverse is happening regardless of what country they come from, stay where you are if you do not want to change and do not expect me to change for you.

Aren't you ashamed, Dr. Ozdowski, to live off money stolen by government from ordinary working Australians?

If Australians wanted your advice as to how to manage their cultural relationships between them, then they would have gladly and willingly paid you directly for your services.

Would you care to tell us how much remuneration and other pecuniary benefits you receive that was forcibly taken from our pockets?

The problems are that being different is the crime.
Not being more or less righteous, moral, lawful or hopeful; just being different.
Many of you posters suffer the xenophic hatred which has plagued mankind since it first learned to grunt its displeasure at the presence of another tribe when civilisation" began. It's been that way ever since.

Societies have relished conformity of appearance, thought, language, religion, even dress.
The "mob" mentality tries to prevail here in Australia, a country founded on the results of the unforgiving class structures of England.
Our convict settlers reacted with a deeply growing sense of the equality of all men, the need to share tangible as well as mental assets.

Fortunately there still seem to be enough reasonable, compassionate individuals among us who extend true willingness to newcomers to the country to share our lifestyle without abandoning their intrinsic makeup.
I draw great pride from my Scots ancestry, but an even greater one at having been born here in a country whose traditions have flowed effortlessly to me.
I'm even prouder of my friends and acquaintances who, like me, have married across national differences, and adopted the wonderful outcomes and learning of another culture.
My Chinese wife suffered similar racial hatred when she arrived in this country twenty years ago. She shares my bewilderment at the rationale for racial hatred, currently the trendy fashionable one of Islamophobia.
Who among us is so perfect as to be above any kind of criticism?

My attitude to multiculturalism is a bit like that old joke: ‘I used to be indecisive. Now I’m not so sure.’

Over time, I’ve come to suspect that multiculturalism is not as noble, humane and progressive as it claims to be. It’s really part of a global system of social engineering. As more and more countries are destabilised by wars, coups, economic sanctions, glaring inequality, avoidable poverty and sectarian tensions, increasing tides of refugees and migrants are created – ripping people away from their ancestral lands and cultural heritage.

Then pressure mounts on the non-affected countries to ‘absorb’ all these refugees and migrants, who are suffering the full range of grief and misery at being uprooted from all they feel close to.

However, the human territorial instinct in the ‘absorbing’ country’s population poses a huge barrier to all this refugee and migrant ‘absorption’. Inevitably, primeval tribal/territorial instincts simmer and gradually boil over.

The aim of multiculturalism is to shame and blame these tribal/territorial instincts in order to inhibit any resistance to this flow of refugees and migrants away from their ancestral lands and into foreign countries that are obliged to absorb them.

Ironically, those who most oppose the influx of migrants and refugees into their countries are the least able to comprehend the forces that are creating them. Many of the countries that these refugees and migrants are coming from have no history of mass migration until recently; indeed, they have lived in their ancestral lands for thousands of years.

The only real answer to the problem of multiculturalism is to start questioning why all these wars and destabilisations, that create mass migrations and refugees, are happening.

Frankly, I don’t think we really want to know the answer, because much of it lies with Western foreign policy, which is dedicated to overthrowing (otherwise fully functioning) regimes it doesn’t like and creating vassal puppet states amenable to Western interests but toxic to indigenous populations.

Dear Ponder,

I applaud diversity.

What I do not applaud is a policy dictated from above which tells us that "you must be diverse".

The author's main point is: "There is always more to be done to ensure Australia's social cohesion remains sustainable", which can be translated as: "My salary should always remain safe, come what may".

What the hell is it their business whether or not there is social cohesion? Why not just let things fall naturally where they may, cohesive or otherwise?
Ah, how could we forget that this thieving class of politicians and "public servants", parasites who never produced a useful thing in their life, are heavily invested in sustainable social cohesion because it ensures their continued rule and the steady flow of our hard-earned money into their pockets.

Cute words, these, but detached from the real world. Any look at the results of mass immigration show problems overlooked in this simplistic, biased article. There is never any indication that mass immigration may cause serious trouble or any questions as to what conditions may have caused turmoil in the foreign country, or if bringing certain people will also introduce that turmoil into Australia. For the author, it is all rosy, positive and wonderful with no downside.

The fact is that you cannot have social cohesion by emphasizing diversity. By definition, diversity is divisive.

Managing diversity, as the author puts it, requires taking sides, and the sad truth is that this means that the customs and actions of any non-western culture are given precedence. The emphasis is always on respecting those cultures, not the tradition values of Australia. If diversity were natural, it would not require managing, would it?

The idea that “Cultural and religious leaders” will help handle the occasional social conflicts is ludicrous. Leaders will stand with their communities and in the case of some communities, it is the leaders that will support conflict and instigate religious hatred.

Multiculturalism is not a two-way street. It offers little for the average person except the possibility of conflict because of the diversity of opinions, beliefs, values and actions. It is a doctrine pushed by the leaders (government, media, clerics, academia, etc...) only because it gives them a sense of moral superiority and additional power to “manage” (that word again) peoples’ lives.. The wishes of the common people are unimportant. Witness the maneuvers in Sweden this month by the government to avoid an election in witch the main issue would be immigration. Witness the hate and viol thrown by the powers that be at any party that advocates reduced immigration.

The Australian Multicultural Council should, in the interests of truth, be renamed Australian Balkanization Council.

Oh, by the way, perhaps Mr OZdowski could write an article on the benefits of multiculturalism for the parents of girls in Rotherham, UK. If nothing else, it shows how officials manage diversity

Hi Ponder,

I'm all for diversity as long as everybody lives by the same rules of law, and recognition of the equality of the sexes.

I totally oppose any diversion from those principles, including witch-burning, genital mutilation, child marriages and under-age sexual relations (i.e., in law, rape), honour killings, reactionary beliefs that women inherit only half only half of a man's share, domestic violence, and the beheading of children.

If it's Islamophobic to oppose those crimes, then that says something more about Islam than many people would like to confront. Of course, it would be nice if we all got along, on the basis of the rule of law for all and recognition of the equality of men and women.

But who is out of step in that scenario ? Those who favour male superiority and differential power, and the imposition of religious beliefs on others.

Multiculturalism should not include 'diversity' of rights. All Australians have, and should have, equal rights in law. No group, or sub-set of a group, should have more rights than others. There should never be the slightest concession to any diversion from that principle.

Don't you agree ?

Joe

G'day, Loudmouth.
Yes, I do agree that multiculturalism should not include 'diversity' of rights.
This is because it is logical that when someone wishes to enter a new coutry, they should be aware of that country's mores; the observance of the old, but sensible, advice that "when in Rome, do as the Romans do".
Therefore multiculturalism ought be a blending process, not a separative one. It revolves around the question of why a person of another ethnic background wishes to live in our society.
Sure, the goalposts are moving regularly, but the game is still the same one.

Joe I agree, Yuyutsu I also agree, well said and understood

There's that flag again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z49QfhD7zXY

Good video, Jay

Im not against immigration or people of other races/countries. I have been married for 40+ years to a woman that is not exactly white. She and all my children were born abroad.

What I stand against are beliefs that teach hate and violence, as evidenced by an ideology’s own writings, not to mention the actions of its followers everywhere.

None of us would have a problem going into Chinese, Vietnamese or other immigrant neighborhoods – with one exception. There is a group that resists integration and acceptance of common values. This same group is know for establishing no-go areas where they live and in which non-members are not only not welcome but attacked. This happens in many countries so it isn’t an abnormality. Perhaps the fact that this group accepts that non-members are “lower than animals” and they are “not to be friends” with them may explain this. The hate promoted by Monis had thousands of “likes” on Facebook. Obviously his feelings are shared by many.

Do multiculturalists like Mr. Ozdowski ever think about this? No, never; they call for more tolerance and condemn the victims for not being understanding.

In case I haven’t been clear, any country that accepts Islamic immigrants is asking for trouble. Muslims are not a race, ethnicity, nationality or gender. They are people that follow the mores of Allah and Mohammad, embracing beliefs contrary to the ideals of secular law, equality, freedom of speech and religion (in case anyone hasn’t noticed the obvious), Muslims (ie, “the best of peoples”) come to the West and they bring their hate and violence with them and all the multicultural management in the world will not change this.

Now a relevant article:
http://www.salon.com/2014/03/25/robert_reich_tribalism_is_tearing_america_apart_partner/

Substitute tribalism for multiculturalism and Australia for America, and nothing changes. The only significant difference is that immigration is imported tribalism, rather than homegrown.

The fact is there are tribes and there are tribes; there are cultures and there are cultures. Some are easily integrated and accepting and some resist all manner of cooperation because they are based on a supremacist, violent dogma

Hi Kactuz,

I'm all for tolerance - within the bounds of the rule of law, the same rules of law for all. Any actions which flout those common rules, and most certainly those which call for the overthrow of democracy, etc., or tolerance of terrorism, are thereby beyond those bounds.

So the sensible, multicultural response to intolerance is intolerance: not to be tolerant of any bigoted opinion or action which goes beyond the rule of law, or anti-women or terrorist actions, no matter who the perpetrator, or how crazy he, might be.

So, IF a Muslim woman is spat at or has her hijab pulled or is insulted, then that must be opposed with the full force of the law. If any Muslim girl is taken off to be mutilated, or to be married off at 12 or 14 to someone she has never seen, then those are actions which must be opposed with the full force of the law.

No woman should be beaten, even if the bruises don't show - what is it with some people, if someone can't see the bruises, it's okay ? What primitive and backward sense of morality does that stem from ?

Racial or ethnic slurs should not be tolerated, from 'either' side. Any actions which incite gullible people to attempt murder, or to terrorise innocent people, or to encourage the beheading of non-believers in the horrible cause of one's own religious beliefs, should not be tolerated.

If any Christian beheads someone, it should not be 'tolerated'. If Buddhists attack and murders others on the basis of their different ethnicity or religion, they should be condemned, they most certainly should not be tolerated, and those being attacked - say, Rohingas - should be given urgent priority as refugees, even if they can't afford the ten thousand dollars which might get them on a boat, and a photo with SHY.

Question: are there any parts of Australia where Muslims dare not go, for fear of being assaulted ? If so, they should be identified and condemned. And vice versa.

Joe

Joe,
You'd understand the tribal concepts of payback and blood feud, Lebanese,Afghans, Pakistanis and some Indians are tribal people, they don't have a culture or communities nor do they obey the law of the land, it's not even a case of putting family first, it's family and nothing else.
Kactuz,
The results of surveys in Islamic countries couldn't be more emphatic, support for fundamentalist groups like Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood etc and acceptance of military Jihad and asymmetrical guerrilla warfare as "politics by other means" are universal. The figure of 70% disapproval of 9-11 is usually seized upon by Islamophiles and traitors but that figure results from a question about whether it was right to kill innocent civilians in the prosecution of Jihad, the Koran clearly state that it is not, so religious Muslims will answer no, otherwise they support Islamist politics and violent Jihad as long as the "guilty" are targeted and the innocent spared

Rhosty,

"....i.e., the Irish (Protestant and Catholic) left Northern Ireland and settled here, to leave the troubles behind them, not to bring them here!"

Where did you get that quaint idea?

Loud and Joe,

Thank you both for speaking out, for saying what needs to be said. For caring in an uncaring, insipid world.

Yes, a person may not like Islam, but personal abuse of Muslims is unacceptable. It is criminal. Doing it puts one on the same level as so many Muslims.

Moral standards are absolute. What is wrong for you is wrong for me and for everybody. Unlike so many here, I don't have to make excuses for my beliefs and standards. I don't pretend that attacking villages is bad when done by crusaders, Aussies or Americans but wonderful (or unimportant) when done by Mohammad.

Also, voicing one's opinion about an ideology that is brutal, oppressive and stupid is nor only a right but a duty.

Got to go.

This guy is in la-la land.

In 2011 House of Representatives Committee launched an 'Inquiry into Multiculturalism in Australia' .

It wasn't very widely publicised and as a consequence there were only 513 submissions.

The findings were released in March 2013 and basically hushed up, as the majority were found to be very negative.

During a panel discussion German Chancellor Angela Merkel agreed with Prime Minister David Cameron when he said

“Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged Muslims and other immigrant groups to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream. We have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong.

Multiculturalism, was undertaken for the highest of motives. It was intended to create a more tolerant society, one in which everyone, regardless of colour, creed or culture, felt at home. Its effect has been precisely the opposite

Multiculturalism, entered into for the noblest of reasons, has suffered from the law of unintended consequences. By dissolving national identity it makes it impossible for groups to integrate because there is nothing to integrate into, and by failing to offer people pride in being British, it forces them to find sources of pride elsewhere."

This has been echoed by French President Nicolas Sarkozy

To Mr Ponder.

Human being have always formed self protecting communities of like minded people, usually among kinship groups with whom they feel safe. That is a cultural universal. It is part of our human DNA These communities have a general conception of what constitutes correct behaviour within their communities. The degree to which a united group will accept deviance from a cultural norm, or will accept the arrival of new citizens with differing concepts of behaviour, varies greatly from group to group.

My own group is the North European Protestant people, and our societies are probably the most tolerant that have ever existed in the entire history of the world. But no society is so tolerant that it welcomes it's own social extinction or the sublimation of it culture by incoming groups, who display total commitment to their own cultural or religious values, and total commitment to their own ethnicity. You are criticising my people for being extremely tolerant and not being absolutely tolerant. Even though we are beginning to understand that our unique and successful culture is going to be swamped unless we disregard our normal inclination to be tolerant and become intolerant. Many of us now have reason to fear our own racial and cultural extinction in our own counties, by high immigration numbers and high ethnic birth rates.

You say that your wife is Chinese and she does not understand racial hatred. China is one of the most racist countries in the world who's government refuses to concede that Chinese people evolved from Africans. Chinese law in China forbids Chinese women from having relationships with black men.
If millions of beer swilling, thong and singlet wearing, white Aussies were arriving as immigrants to China every year, and it those Aussies forms "Aussietowns" that looked more like Bondi Beach than a Chinese town, and if the platform at Shanghai Railway Station looked like a scene from Wynyard Station, and if the Aussies kept our national identities and refused to assimilate into Chinese values, do you think your wife might understand Chinese racism towards Australian immigrants in China?

LEGO

As with so many commenters here, you are arguing over the symptoms and not the cause. Until the Iranian Revolution (that overthrew a Western-appointed brutal dictator) and the 1980s war in Lebanon (caused mainly by the displacement of 100s of thousands of Palestinians refugees from Israel), Middle Eastern Muslim people barely registered in the refugee and migrant intakes of the Western countries. Most refugees and migrants to the West came from Europe, China, India and then later Malaya/Vietnam - all fleeing some kind of Western initiated war, totalitarian ideology or persecution.

No matter how many tribal and sectarian tensions existed in the Middle East, it rarely ever led to the decimated, destroyed, economically crippled failed states that pervade the area today. ME Muslim people mostly stayed in their homelands, amongst their tribal clans and ancient cultures. There was no reason for them to flee their countries, until the US-led Nato alliance started to target them for regime change, economic sanctions, destabilisation, proxy civil wars ('Arab springs') and 'intervention' (bombings and invasions).

You can't have your proverbial cake and eat it. If you are seriously alarmed at the tensions being created by Muslim infiltration of the West through refugee and migrant intake, then start learning a bit more about the self-appointed US mandate and Western proxy wars that are giving rise to so many Muslim refugees and migrants to the West.

Hi Killarney,

So you are suggesting that the US caused the increase in refugee numbers from Iran after the 1979 Islamist Reaction (let's not call it a 'Revolution') ? i.e. after an anti-US reactionary takeover ?

You're right about the Shah being a brutal dictator, like Assad I and II, Saddam, Mubarak, Gaddafi, etc. The Islamist alternative, over the past 36 years, has not been any better. Democracy doesn't get much of a look-in across the Middle East: as Bernard Lewis noted many times, the political alternatives in that vast region are a matter of either/or/or - secular dictatorship/or Islamist dictatorship/or [a very poor third] democracy.

So just to clarify: are you suggesting that the US caused all the brutality and tragedy across that vast region, the displacement of refugees from Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, etc. ?

Like most people on the Left, in all its multitudinous variations, I also have a belief in the superhuman abilities of the US, its power to control all manner of forces in regions where it has limited overt influence. Deviously clever b@stards !

But is it just possible that there are other dynamics at play, within each of those countries, and across the region ? In other words, could it be that some of the problems are home-grown ? For example, that the vicious struggle between dictatorships and Islamists have little to do with the US ? Is that possible ?

Of course, it's far easier to blame outside forces for one's own problems. Look at that Hitler film-clip where he is beating his breast and weeping over the evil British and French who robbed Germany of its Empire. Real tears ! An unedited version show him just afterwards, smirking at his performance. A lesson there for any genuine Left who will take notice.

Yes, the US probably causes many problems, in its own interests, like other 'powers'. That's called geopolitics. But nations and regions may also have enough of their own issues and feuds and rivalries to keep them busy.

Joe

Dear Killarney, I can only shake my head in pitying wonder at your implication that the USA causes all of the trouble in the world, and all of the refugees.

In 1979, the three main political rivals in Iran were the Shah, the Communists, and mullahs. All were brutal, but at least the Shah tried to modernise Iran and turn it into a secular, European style state. Which is why the USA supported the Shah. The reason why the USA supports some dictators is because the alternative is usually a lot worse. After the mullahs won, who were a lot worse, the firing squads were busy shooting everybody who opposed the mullahs. Iran went backwards into the future. With Iran a mullah controlled basket case, Iraq took the opportunity invaded Iran and hundreds of thousands died. How you figure it is the USA's fault is beyond me.

Islam is a dangerous and violent religion. All Islamic countries are violent, intolerant and dysfunctional. The more Islamic they are, the more violent, intolerant and dysfunctional they are. The reason why the USA can make no headway in the Islamic world is because the yanks think like you do. They think that Muslims want the same things that we do. They think that the Muslims all want to live in peace and harmony with their neighbours, and to advance their societies into modern prosperous states, then enjoy their lives. As Kennedy once said "we all breath he same air, we all want what is best for our children."

But Muslims have a different take on what is good for their children than Kennedy. Muslims think that allowing one of their many sons to die for Islam, which then allows the whole family of the Jihadi to go to heaven and get everlasting life, beats mortal life every time. But if they can go to an infidel country and get the infidels to keep them while they colonise the infidel country for Islam, so much the better.

50% of Muslims in Europe are on the dole.

Multiculturism is a dismal failure.
The Moslems have been preaching against it for 1400 years.
They simply do not want it, they just want a monoculture just so long as it is Islamic !

Lego said;
50% of Muslims in Europe are on the dole.

Moslem men that would be, mostly their wives are not let out.
Many would be unemployable except in the drug trade.
Being the sons of cousins a large percentage would not be able to hold
down a demanding job.
That probably explains why the Middle East is such a mess.
Likewise Lakemba.

Ponder –
You ask “who among us is so perfect so as to be above any kind of racism?”
Yet from your post it seems that you believe at least your Chinese wife is ‘so perfect’, among perhaps many others of ethnic descent.

I only say this because you make a point to mention how your “Chinese wife suffered racial hatred . . . when she arrived here . . . twenty years ago”, as if to imply by default that her “Chinese family/parents” had no such imperfections of racial hesitation when their daughter told them she would be marrying and even inter-breeding with a non-Chinese man, namely a white man.
However in my experience it is usually the non-western family side which has the most trouble accepting the inter-mixing of races, not the Anglo side. For example my uncle married a women born in Australia from a Chinese father and white Australian mother and still her father despises him for being first “white” even though white was good enough for him, and second a regular man [i.e. not wealthy or in business oriented world]. In the same half Asian-half white family the brother married a Greek women recently and this time the Greek family of the women had racist issues to overcome but on religious/cultural issues for the wedding they would not budge and their wedding was Greek Orthodox totally ignoring the man’s heritage and beliefs.

Take the stats from above article-
“According to the 2006 Australian Census, a majority of Indigenous Australians partnered with non-indigenous Australians, and a majority of third generation Australians of non-English-speaking background had partnered with persons of a different ethnic origin (the majority partnered with persons of Australian or Anglo-Celtic background)”

[What does this statistic clearly indicate? Obviously it shows that the ethnic group most flexible and willing to marry and breed with races/cultures outside their own tribe, is the white Anglo Australians” almost entirely in their own class of willingness to intermix beyond any other ethnic group by light-years]

What is here told of racism and its likely prevalence in different ethnic groups.