Archive for 2006
Note: Originally published Thursday May 25, 2006 on an old defunct project.
This was one of the most interesting things I read last night, and I thought it might provide something to discuss. To be honest, I wish I had made this speech. Read what he ‘said’ (I’m pretty sure its not all original) and tell me if you could agree with Lamm’s take on the situation, or if his comments are far too appalling to consider.
The following is taken directly from the article “Bilingual Bicultural Speech From Gov. Lamm”:
We know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context his thoughts are particularly poignant. Last week there was an immigration overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, filled to capacity by many of American’s finest minds and leaders. A brilliant college professor by the name of Victor Hansen Davis talked about his latest book, Mexifornia,” explaining how immigration – both legal and illegal” was destroying the entire state of California. He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream.
Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. 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. He said, “If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let’s destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that ‘[an] autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.’”
“Here is how they do it:”
“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. The historical scholar, Seymour Lipset, put it this way: “The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural 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. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans.”
Lamm went on: Second, to destroy America, “Invent ‘multiculturalism’ and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no cultural differences. I would make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due solely to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.”
Third, “[we] could make the United States an ‘Hispanic Quebec’ without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently, ‘The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentricity and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.’”
Lamm said, “I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America enforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities.”
“Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high. school.”
“My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of ‘Victimology.’ I would get all minorities to think that their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population.”
“My sixth plan for America’s downfall would 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. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they posse ssed a common language and literature; and they worshipped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic games. A common enemy, Persia, threatened their liberty Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. “E. Pluribus Unum” — From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis o! n the ‘pluribus’. Instead of the ‘Unum,’ we will balkanize America as surely as Kosovo.”
“Next to last, I would 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. Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established multi-culturism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of ‘Victimology,’ I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them.”
In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound silence followed. Finally he said,. “Lastly, I would 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.”
There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. 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…American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in America – take note of California and other states – to date, [approximately] ten million illegal aliens [have entered the country] and [the rate is] growing fast. It is reminiscent of George Orwell’s book “1984.” In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building: “War is peace,” “Freedom is slavery,” and “Ignorance is strength.”
Source:
Bilingual Bicultural Speech From Gov. Lamm. Bluffon Today; 24 May 2006.
http://www.blufftontoday.com/node/5646
Note: Originally published Friday April 28, 2006 on an old defunct project.
“Democrats are God’s gift to mankind,” Johnny claimed. I couldn’t agree less—nor could I agree more. In a sense, the Democratic and Republican parties are a tiny gift to humanity, each seeking a means to an end. Ultimately, the way in which they achieve that end demonstrates the similarities that exist in each party’s disservice to the people and groups they represent. Sure, the methods they employ to attain their political goals are certainly different, but what they seek is always the same. Johnny went on, “all the values that humanity should have, and will have, are represented solely by the Democratic leadership; I mean take a look at ol’ Teddy Kennedy.” I had to chuckle. Seeing that we were talking about ol’ Teddy, as my friend labeled him, I vividly remembered a bumper sticker that I spotted the other day: “Ted Kennedy’s car has killed more people than my gun.” I chuckled a little bit harder—but not too much.
“You see, Democrats, they love the environment…and they would never harm a creature.” Johnny continued on, “actually, I’m not really too sure about that, but it definitely seems that way.” And Johnny was partially right. Democrats do have a tremendous track record when it comes to environmental issues; they are champions of curbing the effect of greenhouse gases, and are calling for the development of cleaner burning fuels. More often than not, they push for environmentally friendly legislation, which ultimately bans the drilling of oil in specific regions, and leads to the creation of national parks and wildlife reserves. The effect of all of this positive action is a beautiful, clean environment that our children’s children will enjoy a great deal more than we can possibly appreciate—at least I’m assuming they will. The downside to all of this is that the emphasis Democrats have placed on environmentally friendly legislation has put a great strain on the relationship between the Democratic leadership and big business.
“Republicans would see the world destroyed, just to earn a profit,” Johnny claimed. I would have to agree—to a point. Unlike their political counterparts, Republicans are often seeking ways in which to enhance capitalism and to boost the world’s largest economy this side of the European Union, but if it happens to be at the expense of Joe Squirrel, so be it; he and his other woodland buddies happen to be a tremendous obstacle in the path of the capitalistic machine that is the Republican Party. For instance, they have repeatedly attempted to enact legislation that would allow for the drilling of oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve, and only a few things have prevented this from happening: the Democratic love of the moose, the squirrel, and the tree. In an effort to maintain profits, Republicans have repeatedly attempted to curb any effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, id est. the un-ratified Kyoto Treaty. What is truly unfortunate about the lack of effort in the fight to curb emissions on the part of Republicans is that it is incredibly likely that profits would remain just as high, and it is liable to produce an entirely new industry in order to develop ways of lowering emissions; alas, the economy rolls on, emissions are up, and corporate profits are high.
“If Democrats were allowed to control business properly, we would never have another problem with unemployment—ever,” Johnny proclaimed. And perhaps this is true; they would certainly regulate business practices in an effort to increase worker compensation. While this ultimately seems good for the worker, in the long run it can be the most detrimental thing to happen to the workforce. Why, one might ask? Well, to put it bluntly, the Democratic emphasis on globalization in business, and their inherent need to increase pay for unskilled labor, has forced many corporations to move once lucrative manufacturing jobs overseas where the workforce is much cheaper. In the end, the Democratic claim that their policies have the effect of creating social equality are dead wrong—the policies create a much wider gap between the rich and the poor and it stretches the middle class to the point of extinction. When it comes to the Republican Party, they are not nearly as innocent as they would claim in economic circles. While they have placed little emphasis on the regulation of business, and would probably prefer none, they have assisted the situation that globalization has created by giving tremendous tax breaks to companies who have moved factories out of the country. “Look at all the evils of the Republican Party,” Johnny stated without any sense of why. I had to agree with Johnny, but I implored him to remember what the lack of regulation and globalization has done for the nation. It has created a situation of inflated profits, not only for the oil industry, but also for most energy consortiums, and has moved the American economy beyond manufacturing and into the realm of service. Johnny asked, “So, now you understand?” Sure Johnny, I understand.
“The two parties are so different in every way, I just don’t understand how they can both exist in this country together at the same time,” Johnny wondered aloud in such a way as to force one to question his intelligence. The answer is pretty darn simple: the two parties are exactly the same. Regrettably, most of the population fails to recognize the simplicity of the party system. In essence, what you have are two groups competing for power in order to enact a particular agenda. What is that agenda? To maintain power for the group that has obtained it. Both sides are equally guilty of using the same tactics; they campaign and fundraise, albeit illegally at times, sling the mud of politics, and issue fallacious promises. Despite the claims that either side makes in order to acquire power, neither will follow through with the “ideals” they represent. Once power is obtained, both parties will typically do the same things in order to maintain it: subvert the constitution, lie to the people, usurp power for the federal government, create a tyranny of the executive branch, and go home smiling about the great job they’ve done extending democracy and freedom around the globe. This is most effective in times of crisis, as both parties gather up more power and limit many civil liberties in order to protect constituencies from the evils of the world. What an incredibly heroic deed. “No, Democrats would never do anything sub…subversive,” Johnny poorly exclaimed. Perhaps not, but the similarities that exist between the methods of the two major parties is incredibly ironic, to say the least.
Perhaps the real solution would be to eliminate the existing power structure; that is to say that it would be most beneficial to Americans to bring a third or fourth party to power in order to undercut the muscle that one party might flex over another. “Why, that would be terrible. Leave the governing to the Democrats if you want to see positive change,” Johnny interjected. Maybe Johnny is right, a third or fourth party would only introduce a third or fourth contender for the usurpation of power. In any case, the Democrats and Republicans are stuck where they are, and in the end, a Republican replaced by a Democrat, or vice versa, is still a politician.
Note: Originally published Thursday February 02, 2006 on an old defunct project. My views have changed dramatically since then, however, it was and is a legitimate point despite the hyperbole.
I’m not taking a shot at you Brian. I respect you and what you have to say, plus I couldn’t pass up the chance at alliteration(ha), but lets talk about bellering for a second. George W. Bush II, self proclaimed King and leader of the movement to start a tyranny of the executive branch of government, has decided to seek the approval of congress to spend more than $120 Billion on the war in Iraq. When we take a look at our current situation in Iraq none of us can say that we’re actually fighting a war in the traditional sense (Well, many people say it everyday, but if they weren’t politicking, or bellering, it might be different). Instead, what we are doing is occupying a nation much like our imperialist brothers in Great Britain did to, oh just for the sake of argument I’ll say, India.
Now, I may be a bit old school, but I like to think about the great empires of the past and how they annexed territory and conquered peoples. It kind of makes you proud of your Western European roots-that is if you ignore the countless evils committed and you actually are of Western European descent. But, right now, what we’re doing is pointless, even in an imperialistic sense. We’re occupying a sovereign nation to introduce them to demos kratos (very loosely, “authority from the people”) and to free them from their former way of life under a despotic leader. We’re real heros. But once we’re done, if that ever happens, we’re supposed to just hand it all back; we’re only half-ass imperialists. If taking the country isn’t our goal, then what is? Why should we be there any longer?
We freed them from ‘tyranny’ only to allow more and more of it at home in an effort to prevent communists…or terrorists…from striking at our homeland; we’ve given them the wonderful gift of rule by the mob and they’ve elected their leaders, who happen to be calling for a withdrawal of our occupying forces, and some of Iraq’s citizens are unhappy with their representatives. Sounds a lot like the United States.
I no longer see the larger picture in this situation. A year and a half ago, I suported our occupation, but that was before their democratically elected leaders asked us to leave. Now we still have ‘goals’ in Iraq? Somebody explain the situation to me, what haven’t we accomplished that we initally set out to do…other than the WMD thing, that was a major blunder on our part, eh?
Now Bush is petitioning congress for $120 BILLION for the ‘war’. Why, would he do that? The total cost would be pushed towards an astounding half a trillion dollars if congress were to approve. A half a trillion dollars is far too much to spend on a foreign occupation that is no longer needed or warranted.
If it is about stabilization, then we’ve already lost. The British couldn’t stabilize that region, how can we? The only empire to do it with some success was the Ottoman empire; give it back to them. Let the region be; after all, they will either stabilize themselves or destroy themselves (which will ultimately stabilze the region) so nothing we can do will make matters any better, but we certainly are making things worse.
Perhaps I sound a little liberal, but I’m not. I just won’t blindly accept the direction that the Republican party wants to take our country in; they’re moving for an increased centralization of power in the federal government, and I’m not talking about taking power from the states, although I’m sure thats in there, I mean an increase in the duties and powers of the executive branch. I guess they all skipped Government 101, since they were bred for politics, and forgot all about why the founding fathers set our government up with checks and balances. They wanted to get away from the TYRANNY of rule by one, or by the central government. And so did my party. They used to stand for smaller government, but that certainly isn’t evident today with the vast amounts of spending going on.
The leadership and politics in this country are rotten. We need change or else our dominance in world affairs will continue to dwindle, and we’ll be headed down a road that we won’t be able to leave for quite a while.