Does this sound familier?

[a_majoor]

As reported in "Chaos Manor", sounds a great deal like another country we might know......

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/mail405.html

Now for a developing thread of possible interest:

http://www.practicalmachinist.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/
ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000553;p=0&r=nfx&s=noprofile

Springboard for this was a speech by former governor of Colorado, Dick Lamm, at an immigration overpopulation conference held in Washington DC.

"...[Mr.] Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America. The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States."

"First, to destroy America, turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country."

"Second, to destroy America, "Invent 'multiculturalism' and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture."

"Third...celebrate diversity rather than unity."

"Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated."

Fifth "...get big foundations and business to give these [diversity] efforts lots of money."

Sixth "...include dual citizenship, and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other - that is, when they are not killing each other."

Seventh "...place all subjects off limits; make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity.' I would find a word similar to 'heretic' in the 16th century - that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like 'racist' or xenophobe' halt discussion and debate."

Eighth "...censor Victor Hanson Davis's book Mexifornia. His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don't read that book."

 

[Bart Nikodem]

Do you mean Switzerland? Because I think Switzerland applies to points 1,2,3,4,6 and possibly 7 ( though I'm not well versed enough on Swiss culture to comment accurately on 7.)
I could see this being true, since Switzerland has survived for only 700 years so far and as far as I can tell they seem to be teetering on the brink of destruction right now.
All the best,
Bart

 

[a_majoor]

Nice, but here we go:

Point one: Switzerland is a multi lingual country, with each Canton being predominantly French or German speaking; but:

Point two: Switzerland has many languages, but only ONE culture, which is reinforced by national institutions, including universal conscription. Immigration to Switzerland is not encouraged anywhere near the levels we see in Canada or the United States.

Point three: The Swiss celebrate their culture and identity as the Swiss

Point four: Switzerland encourages education for all Swiss citizens

Point five: Unknown, but based on the internal evidence in the other points, not too likely

Point six: Reinforces points two, three and four; One nation, One culture

Point seven: Unknown, although it might be illuminating to see if any Swiss media organizations have printed the "Mohamed"  cartoons.

Yes indeed, one nation with a shared history and culture, citizen directed legislative initiatives through referenda, armed forces sufficient in manpower and equipment to defend the nation; we could learn a great deal from Switzerland

 

[Brad Sallows]

Switzerland is a federation of monocultures (the cantons) with one broad national identity by concensus, not a multicultural nation.  There's a huge difference.

 

[Wizard of OZ]

In theroy it could apply to any nation who is built on the backs of its immagrant population.  But i think you are speaking directly of Brazil.  ;D

On a serious note. 

It is sad that we know the symptoms but ignore the diagnoses.

 

[Bart Nikodem]

I don't understand. If there are multiple cultures (the cantons) wouldn't that by definition make it a"multicultural" nation-state? I think it just might be semantics, whether we look at it as a nation or nation-state, so maybe that is where the disconnect occurs for me.

My original point in using Switzerland as an example is that the article seems to be advocating one national monoculture that everyone assimilates into, lest the entity be destroyed, whereas Switzerland seems to be doing fine without a single monoculture. I agree that Switzerland has some of the most stringent naturalisation regulations  in the world, so the immigration thing doesn't really apply.
All the best,
Bart

 

[Patrolman]

I think he is saying it sounds a lot like Canada, read the post again and you will see the similarities.

 

[Brad Sallows]

As with all things political and ideological, it is easy to arrive at conflicting understandings of "multicultural" based on literal interpretations.  There is a difference between a nation of monocultural regions and a nation of multicultural regions (ie. each region not being monocultural).  One can argue that Canada has monocultural regions based on old conceptions (eg. BC, Prairies, "The West", northern Ontario, Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Quebec, Maritimes, Newfoundland, "The North"), but most people live in cities of which the largest are hardly monocultural.

 

[Nemo888]

This all sounds great , till you have to listen to your Germanic Swiss friends CONSTANTLY complaining about the French,...

 

[Bart Nikodem]

Mr. Sallows,
That makes sense, it definitely clears it up for me. I suppose Switzerland wasn't the ideal example. It's the best I could do on short notice.
All the best,
Bart

 

[a_majoor]

In theroy it could apply to any nation who is built on the backs of its immagrant population.  But i think you are speaking directly of Brazil.  ;D

If the immigrants are being assimilated to become non-hyphenated members of the new country, then much of what was said in the initial post would be moot. This was the historical model of America, one of the few nations in history which managed to institute "Civic Nationalism" as opposed to any sort of "Blood" or "Ethnic" nationalism. Micheal Sharra has perhaps the best quote I ever read on the topic in the book "The Killer Angels"

The Frenchman may fight for France, but the American fights for mankind, for freedom; for the people, not the land.

 

[Wizard of OZ]

If the immigrants are being assimilated to become non-hyphenated members of the new country, then much of what was said in the initial post would be moot. This was the historical model of America, one of the few nations in history which managed to institute "Civic Nationalism" as opposed to any sort of "Blood" or "Ethnic" nationalism. Micheal Sharra has perhaps the best quote I ever read on the topic in the book "The Killer Angels"

I agree, America fought for its freedom to be its own nation and control its own destiny.  It has never forgotten that, and continues to remind the rest of the world that it has done just that.  Maybe they just have better PR people and the people that move there want to adopt the ideolgies of the land and and the dream, rather then uphold the ones they have left.

I have lived directly across from the USA for 26 0f my 31 yrs of life and there are no other people in world who imbrace the national athem and pledge quite like they do.  This people directly believe they are responsible from the freedoms that are seen in the world today.  Rightly or Wrongly, this is what a good majority of them believe. I don't know if people are assimilated in the US as they still have very strong ties to their former nations but they seem to adopt the dreams, momentum and spirit of the new nation.

MOO

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

One of the most urgent things Canada needs to do is immediate electoral reform to block ethnic and religious groups from funding political campains.  Secondly, a prohibition from being a card carrying and voting member of two different parties at the same level (provincial/federal) For leadership conventions in each party, I see the Sikh and Hindu (not to single out any one group, but these are what we have locally) mass signing up every member of the household/business/temple, in some cases living or dead, to create vote blocks to secure their own candidates for the riding, or for the leadership.  This is repeated for every party in the election.  Thus a small portion of the community assures that when the election comes, your choices have all been decided by a small minority before the ballots are even drawn.  It creates an environment in which politicians of all stripes pander to one ethnocentric group or another to assure funding and support, while ignoring the needs of the rest of the community.  It is so much easier to barter support of a whole group from the few leaders of the ethnic communities, than it is to appeal to the more diverse elements of the ridings.  It creates racial tension, corruption, and I do worry about where it is leading.

 

[a_majoor]

While what you say is true on one level, it would be almost impossible to enforce. All these people who support your bid for candidacy were thrilled by your inspiring posts on Army.ca, and it is just coincidence that Army.ca members showed up en bloc to nominate you.....

The situation you describe is very similar to the practices of some unions when holding "elections", and the best way to ensure transparency would be to:

a. require party members to be fully paid up members of good standing for at least one year prior to being eligible to vote for anything, and;

b. enforce term limits for elected officials, to ensure a constant turnover. Comfortable party hacks might be able to rely on mass turn outs, but newcomers will have to sell themselves (after all, the voting "block" isn't truly homogeneous, people might not like what they see).

This is a very off the cuff solution and certainly not perfect, but it is a start.

 

[Bart Nikodem]

People voting in blocks is becoming less of an issue over time, not more. As an example: I did a quick perusal of all the MPs in Parliament and there are 7 with Sikh/Hindu names. That's out of 308 MPs, making it just over 2%. Since Sikhs and Hindus are 3.1% of the Canadian population (2001 census) They are under represented in Parliament.
By contrast, in the first election in 1967 out of the 179 MPs I counted at least 35 Scottish names, making them 19.5% of MPs (including the PM) while constituting only 16% of the population(Stats Canada). Scottish people were over represented in the first Parliament, most likely due to block voting that was organized at churches and Caledonia clubs. I would also venture to guess this still occurs within the Scottish community based on them having elected a Scottish PM again.
All the best,
Bart

 

[Reccesoldier]

People voting in blocks is becoming less of an issue over time, not more. As an example: I did a quick perusal of all the MPs in Parliament and there are 7 with Sikh/Hindu names. That's out of 308 MPs, making it just over 2%. Since Sikhs and Hindus are 3.1% of the Canadian population (2001 census) They are under represented in Parliament.

I love statistics, you can prove anything with them.

The above only makes sense if all 3.1% of Sikhs and Hindus in Canada live in those three ridings. Otherwise you would logically expect Sikhs and Hindus to account for 3.1% of votes in any riding which would amount to nothing, no seats, barely a whimper of a political voice.

The thing is that these people have decided that they want to elect their guy, and that's their right.

It all boils down to pluralism. Some will be involved, some will not. If the Sikhs and Hindus are the major political players in some ridings then you have to ask yourself why are the rest of the constituents so apathetic?  Having a voice and making yourself heard is what democracy is all about. You can't have democracy without political involvement, from unions, business leaders and interest groups right down to the grandma stuffing your mailbox with fliers for her chosen candidate.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the system is designed to be responsive to the will of the people. If you don't like the outcome of the game when you are watching from the sidelines then you'd better get out there and make some plays yourself.  Hate to say it but the old axiom applies... put up or shut up.