Recently in the US, at an “Over-population Conference” in Washington DC, a former Governor of Colorado Richard D Lamm spoke on the startling subject, how to destroy America. Before he spoke an eminent college professor Victor Hansen Davis talked about his latest book, 'Mexifornia,' explaining how immigration - both legal and illegal was destroying the entire state of California.
Richard D Lamm followed describing eight methods for the destruction of the United States.
His first one riveted the audience. 'First, to destroy America, turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country. -- History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual.”
Lamm continued “The histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy. Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, and Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy , if not independence. -- France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, Corsicans and Muslims.”
Lamm further explained the steps towards destruction of America:-
- Invent 'multiculturalism' and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture.
- Celebrate diversity rather than unity.
- Make the fastest growing demographic group the least educated.
- Get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money.
- Establish the cult of “Victimology.” In other words get all minorities to think that their lack of success was the fault of the majority.
- Start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority.
- Make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity.'
Discussion would be stopped and thinking paralysed by counter accusations of 'racist' or 'xenophobe' he added.
Richard Lamm’s address received no applause - only a stunned silence.
“ Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Discussion is being suppressed,” said a report.
In New Zealand is discussion suppressed by accusations of “racist” and “xenophobia”? After all, immigration is a hot topic. NZ First leader Winston Peters has been strongly opposed to uncontrolled immigration. In a recent speech Peters said “having near 72,000 plus net immigrants settling here permanently every year is way too much for our small society.”
Immediately the cries of 'racist' or 'xenophobe' - just as Richard Lamm described - followed. But name calling suffocates and stifles sensible debate.
Immigration is an important debate but so is the bigger picture around New Zealand’s lack of a population policy relative to not only composition but size also.
Richard Lamm’s reference to the “grievance industry” and “victimology” raises issues around the Treaty of Waitangi. Surely the Treaty of Waitangi’s fundamental intent was to create “one society” and avoid a divided one? Besides that would have been synonymous with the egalitarian society, which early Europeans deliberately set up, on the basis of opportunity for all - regardless of wealth and/or ethnicity.
Our European forebears wished to rid themselves of a feudal system that gave privilege to the wealthy upper class. In an egalitarian society, there are no privileges. Everyone is equal with equal opportunity. It was written into laws such as around trout fishing and duck shooting where fish and game, unlike the UK, are public resources available to all.
Besides, all New Zealanders are now of mixed ancestry.
Undeniably some unscrupulous early European settlers did by deceit and deception, acquire land. Yet before European settlement Maori chiefs conquered tribes by war-like force and seized land and treasures. What is the difference, except one was by trickery and the other by aggressive assault?
But sadly we are increasingly divided and even bilingually too. Several years ago I attended a Marlborough fisheries meeting where “Maori” speakers spoke for 30 minutes in Maori, then left without translation of their oratory, leaving the remaining attendance to converse in English and wondering what the previous speakers had said.
Today a number of my friends have Maori ancestry but all firmly believe the Treaty’s aim was “one people”. Yet I sense a reluctance from those friends to publicly speak up for fear of being branded “racist”.
In the 1960s, I played in Hawke's Bay senior rugby in a team broadly comprising a mix of New Zealanders with European and Maori ancestry. We all got on fine and such was the team spirit, we became labelled as the “giant killers” of the competition taking down teams boasting All Blacks.
Oh for that teamwork today as a nation.
The writer, Tony Orman, is a Marlborough-based journalist, author and conservationist.
First published on the New Zealand Centre for Political research website under Breaking Views on June 20, 2017.
Do you like this post?