Eight Ways to Destroy America?
By BDM Posted in User Blogs — Comments (56) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Note to readers: The following came to me from an email sent by a friend. I would advise all to read, think, reflect, and discuss this in as open a forum as possible
We know Dick Lamm as the former Democratic 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 i s 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," Lamm said:
"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 exi stence 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 eff ort . 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 t he 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 possessed 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 on 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. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness. Even barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate 'diversity.' American j obs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in America - take note of California and other states - to date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast.
Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy is deeply in trouble and worsening fast. If we don't get this immigration monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path, especially The American Dream.
----------------------------------------------
"Fact of the Matter"
Like I said before, the above came to me from a friend in an email. In reflecting on this, I cannot help but note there are a few problems with the Governor's argument. First, all of this assumes the government remains complacent and does not want to do anything about this. As we can see, the issue of immigration is something that has been on the minds of many people. As such, a lot of people are thinking about it. Tomorrow, President Bush plans on giving a speech to the nation. On the whole, he plans on talking about how he wants to place the National Guard along the border with Mexico. This is a good plan. The border with Mexico must be secured. Yes, there are people who want to come here, but I cannot help but stress the point that it must be done LEGALLY.
Another problem is that of making it taboo to talk about this. Lets face it, blogs have crushed the stranglehold conventional media once had on the disperssment of information in this country. We also have 24 hour news services which makes sure no one can try to hide some news from the people. Concerned citizens would make sure the information of schools only teaching in a single language that was not English would become public knowledge.
Third, the history of the United States has always had multi-culturalism atmosphere to it. This isn't the first time this nation has had to deal with immigrant influences in the national identity. The only real credible threat we have is that schools are not making sure the student learn to speak English all the time. By making sure the students have English as their primary language, it makes a complete difference.
Finally, while there will be critics who claim that people are racist only because we don't want immigrants to come in, there is nothing wrong with a person wanting to control the number of people coming into the country. Part of the reason we must do it is because we must think about our own national security. If the nation does not know who is coming in, what is to prevent one of those people being a terrorist? To claim that some people are racist on the basis of that proves a much stronger point, the accuser is ignorant while also being single minded.
In his understanding of the word "diversity" but sadly he missed the other, countervailing impulse: "community." That word is even more meaningless but everyone from College Provosts to the man on the street is using it now to describe what they're actually doing. If it's in the interest of the "community" it's virtually unquestionable.
But the rest of his points are well-taken. Diversity is divisive: that's the point. And the larger point is that the Diversity Mavens get to be the mediators between the different, diverse groups, and apportion money and power between them. It's really a recapitulated and very postmodern form of centralized control.
Sit in a deans office at a university for a while and you'll know what I mean precisely.
In order to do it you must do one other thing:
You have to turn the existing ruling class into the marginal and disaffected members of society. You can do that by killing them outright, or you can do it slowly, through a gradual process of miseducation and accretion, by constantly emphasizing to people that they're in fact the ones who are the victimizers, the bad ones who need to be overthrown and challenged.
The first way you do this is to establish the unassailable truth of institutionalized racism. The Princeton Report on Duke's response to the recent scandal there is informative in that regard. But more generally, the pattern is to establish white males -- especially those who aspire or those who have money to begin with -- as dangerous oppressors. It's a form of preconviction -- you're guilty until proven innocent. And it's worked very well, in fact. I've been found guilty and had to prove myself innocent in the last job I worked at. And every white male in America is gradually finding out that because they're guilty for history, they're guilty also in the present. You can toe the line or you can get convicted or you can drop out of the system, but if you are an unconflicted white male, you're a member of a very rare species right now, especially in academics.
You can devalue the notion of the conventional, nuclear family. Whether you believe (or perhaps, especially if you believe) that the nuclear family of the stereotypical 1950's was an aberration, the quickest way to screw up a society is to loosen the ties between mothers, fathers and their children, and then to get the state to subsidize alternative family structures. If you listen to the most current thinking coming from avant-garde intellectuals, that deconstruction of the family is second nature. You can hear some of those people talking on NPR, and you you can also listen to them in Olympia, Washington.
But the family, based on male-female pair bonding and raising children and contributing to society, come what may, is absolutely the core of this culture. Once alternative family structures are legitimized and subsizidized, and conventional nuclear families are just "one choice among many" there will be very little basis for people to have a shared experience in raising a family, much less watching the Brady Bunch (which, after all, was Television's first shot at making divorce work out well.)
by making it the job of society to care for the aged.
The law of unintended consequences is nowhere more aptly demonstrated than in the generational ponzi scheme we're currently watching bankrupt us.
Since elderly parents have an income of their own from the government, their natural desire not to be a burden rings true; once they do become a burden, it is easier for their middle-aged children to see them institutionalized. But they visit almost every month.
The wisdom of the wisest is discarded, leaving us prey to the lesser opinion of the merely educated.
Let me preface by saying that I am not for destroying the extended family. I am moving next month to live 1/2 mile from my mom, instead of the current 60 miles. But as a nurse, and as someone whose father and grandmother died of Alzheimer's, I can tell you that it is not realistic to keep each and every elderly person at home until their death.
Often all of the adult members of a family have jobs outside of the home, and need to have those jobs in order to live in high COLA, to send their kids to college, or even just to survive. It is irresponsible and dangerous to leave the ill or demented home alone. As a nurse I have seen the consequences of the elderly or the severely disabled receiving care that is the best that the family can do, but is not good enough. People can and do die from bedsores, not being properly moved, etc. Mobility is lost without proper physical therapy etc.
I am not commenting on the role of the government in paying for the care of the elderly, but I think that it sounds like you have some emotional issues with nursing homes from the way you ended your post, and to imply that those who put their loved ones in a nursing home are shirking on their duties shows a lack of understanding of many of the diseases and conditions of the elderly.
Yes, there are some awful nursing homes, but a good nursing home, with skilled care, can greatly improve the quality and quantity of life of some of the sickest elderly.
Sorry my post was so difficult to understand. I have no problem with nursing homes as such. My wife works in one. And I applaud you for moving closer to your parents; I did the same when cancer struck.
But saying I "have some emotional issues" is an unworthy attack statement. Surely you can do better; why not just say I'm a typical Dickens romantic, wanting to put the elderly in work houses or the mines?
Ask yourself: why do families need two incomes? Would the 15% taken to pay inadequately for the Social Security programs not better be shared with family members in need?
And again: why is there only one child around, no niece or nephew? No church? It's because they aren't needed: the gummint will care for us.
Independence for the aged is a luxury they, and we, were better off without.
what America is and what defines her, without the need to discuss it at length. It's called "common knowledge", and is an important part of the "American culture" that people such as yourself take such pains in denying. Yet, the fact that we don't have to discuss it flies in the face of your arguments. The fact that you do have to discuss it is telling as well.
So while you dither over the meaning of America, the rest of us will go on to discuss and debate the issues we all know are hurting our nation to one degree or another.
of the same package and used insidiously by the same social constructionists.
Interesting that the puveyors of these ideologies have become "the man" and those of us who are at cross purposes to their goals are painted as the new "counter culture". Quite a switch from the 60's from whence they come, when they were the "counter culture". And yet, probably the inevitable conclusion as well.
But it is just as insulting to toss off "they visit once a month" as if everyone just leaves their relatives like old trash. That was an incredibly value laden comment, which I must confess I took personally, as my father spent 2 weeks in a nursing home before he died. My mother was 49 when he was diagnosed with AD, and no extra 15% was going to change the fact that she had to work to keep the house and my father. She had to sell the house in order to take a year off to be with him, but there was no way we could have made it work financially with three kids in college and a mortgage.
The extra money from social security comment also misses my point that many family members do not have the resources or skills to care for the very infirm or the demented. If your wife works in a nursing home, she is surely aware of the patients who enter the nursing home system because of bedsores and other problems from family members that couldn't care for the adequately.
And with the extra 15% if social security disappeared (and the employer actually kicked their contribution to the employee) who exactly is giving up their job? I am not assuming just one child, or no nieces and nephews. Or no church. In fact, my family has all of those things, and if necessary I will certainly take family leave to care for my mother, but I have the skills to do so adequately.
I think that a case can be made that we are a too mobile population that is losing communities, be they extended family, church, neighborhood etc. People spend too much time on their cell phones, and not enough time building community where they are, with the people living around them. I have a long soapbox speech I bore everyone with about the loss of community, but I do not think it follows to link that with putting the severely impaired into a nursing home.
that we are very close to agreeing on this, believe it or not. My major point is not that nursing homes are bad, or anything like that. My main point is simply that one of the factors driving the disintegration of the extended family, and the loss of community you describe, is Social Security. Be it good, bad, or simply a change, the fact that the elderly have a means of support apart from their children means that the children can move away.
As for the skill of people caring for parents, you will surely admit that almost all of the care they need is at the CNA level, right? Help with potty and hygiene, meals, and administering medicine, that kind of thing. That's not advanced work, but is something anyone could learn. While I think it takes a special person to be a CNA for other people's parents, I also think almost any of us would be willing and able to do it for our own. We've decided we don't want to, and that, I say, is step "-1" in our downfall.
Hopefully, I'm wrong.
That I can't adequately assess the eight ways to destroy America without a referrant...that is, a clear definition of what it is that is likely to be destroyed these eight ways. Once you get beyond words on paper or a big piece of real estate, America is an idea, and everyone has a different idea of what America is.
For me, there's no point in starting this conversation without first clarifying what the author's idea of America is...unless he is talking about the words on paper (possible)or the big piece of real estate (seems unlikely)...as most likely it is his idea of America that defines what is most likely to destroy her.
Now that is definitely a myth, along with common sense.
I haven't made any arguments yet, except that it would be helpful to define what America is before starting to discuss ways she might be destroyed.
When and where did I deny "American culture"? And what kind of person am I, and based on what evidence?
he is speaking of the general trend of the nation, which obviously will not apply to each individual, but will apply to many. My family has been through the same situations yours has, both with dementia and AD, and I can more than sympathize with you.
But what is true of you, and I, and Socrates, is not true of everyone. That too, I have witnessed first hand, and statistics bear it out. My daughter has worked in nursing homes, and as you, we have had numerous family and friends in nursing homes. I have seen many lonely and semi-abandoned people there, because the family unit isn't as close today (due to many factors). When families can transfer responsibility to someone else, many elderly are ignored. You can walk in to just about any nursing home in the nation, and they will coroborate that fact.
That being said, it is obvious that not all instances are the same, and some elderly need the kind of specialized nursing and medical care that a nursing home can provide when a family cannot. I don't believe Socrates' premise denied that either. In fact (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) I think he was saying that we do what we now do as a society because of the system we work under.
It's important to under stand that these are national problems we are discussing. We need to take them in that context and automatically understand they don't translate to every person or situation.
America is an idea, and everyone has a different idea of what America is.
That theory has numerous names like "cultural fluidity" and "the diversity of the cultural model", to name a couple. What those theories promote is the same thing that "multiculturalism" and "diversity" promote. It's the idea that there is no commonality in our understanding of who we are and where we came from, nor does there need to be, by your own words;
Common Knowledge. Now that is definitely a myth, along with common sense.
It also implies that each idea of America is equally valid, and is no more a threat to our nation as any other.
At least you should have the sense to realize what forum this is, and that , as I said, most Redstaters would start the discussion from a common premise.
the question simply makes Dick Lamm's point.
"It's the idea that there is no commonality in our understanding"
So you believe that all Americans have the same idea of who we are?
I certainly never said nor implied that there does not need to be such a commonality. I didn't address this point at all.
"It also implies that each idea of America is equally valid"
I don't think it implies anything of the sort.
"most Redstaters would start the discussion from a common premise"
So far, I've discovered quite a diversity of opinions, perspectives, and approaches to discussion here.
This particular speech by Lamm was written about on RightWingThinking http://rightwingthinking.blogspot.com/2006/05/useful-idiot-lurks-around-eve
ry-corner.html
It parallels some commenta made by ex-Russian general Kaluga to CNN, awhile back: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/experience/spies/interviews/kalugin/
Tinfoil and torquoise are very fetching this year, as long as you're pretty sure it's tinfoil.
He's not interested in dictionaries.
Ants have communities. So do packs of wolves. So do geese, and so do homosexuals, and so do people who study the nonlinear switching characteristics of power transistors. It's a word that to the people who identify themselves by a set of certain characteristics mean that they're on "the inside." But that's nothing semantically different than a "group" or a "set" or a "gang" actually.
The only benefit that I've seen for the word "community" is that it's the flipside of the "diversity" coin.
Here, take a look. This is where I went to elementary school, but notice the resemblance to any number of PR brochures and institutional descriptions you've read recently. When I was a kid, our "community" was just as "diverse" as it is today, but nobody used those words so reflexively in combination to describe it -- we just lived together, but we didn't "celebrate diversity" any more than we celebrated Halloween or Arbor Day. Those two words are essentially marketing terms now, and they've become absolutely inseparable and indispensible to anyone involved with ... well, anything involving more than one person. It's also shorthand for: "We're all members of the Teacher's Union."
I wish the Directors would change <TITLE> tags on the home page of this site. I'd prefer something else. Anything. Like maybe: "Conservative And Republican Politics Writ Long" or "How About Us Conservatives/Republicans?" or "Not The Donks, That's For Sure."
So you believe that all Americans have the same idea of who we are?
"...commonality in our understanding..." I know it's subtle, poopy, but try to comprehend the distinction.
So far, I've discovered quite a diversity of opinions, perspectives, and approaches to discussion here.
A "diversity of opinions, perspectives, and approaches" can only be discussed when there is an understood common premise to discuss them from. We seem to have that, considering we are discussing them, while you are not. Remember, you're the one who is having the problem with this concept.
Until you have unambiguously defined what it is you are talking about, you aren't in any position to lay out rational arguments for why certain actions are likely to destroy it.
We are the ones going on with the discussion while you're still back in the starting blocks, scratching your head and thinking "Wait, come back here! Do we really have enough common understanding of this race to run? Shouldn't we first discuss the true meaning of the starting shot? And do we all agree on what constitutes a lane, and do we have the same understanding of the meaning of a white line in its current context? What right do you have to determine where we start from? And what constitutes a finish line...
Never mind, poopy, everyone else has already crossed the finish line.
It's a word that to the people who identify themselves by a set of certain characteristics mean that they're on "the inside."
Exactly my point, and well stated. Like inside code words that identify "us" versus "the troglodytes". Such elitism from those who decried elitism in their youth.
I have a very good story about this, but I am saving it for my new blog. Which will be online soon. And it's a really good story, which also has the benefit of being true. You'll just have to wait. :P
And I can't post it here right now. And it's not really salacious, it's just embarrassingly reflective of the modern uses of the word.
But I want to save it because it's one of the few stories about myself that I haven't told here on RedState (all of which have been true in almost all senses of the word, although I have taken some pains to spare people I like from any kind of complicity, and on a couple of occasions I've had to exaggerate details because of the limitations of this format.)
But believe me, Rightlogic, I'm as much of a kid as you and the only reason I'm holding onto it is so that we can trade. :) As it happens, it's a good story for both children and adults to read, albeit perhaps on different levels.
"you're still back in the starting blocks, scratching your head"
That's why I asked the question in the first place.
But I go there when I want definitions; here when I want opinions and insights.
About community and inside/outside. And not just inside/outside, but inside based on a set of common characteirs. And "community" being the flip side of "diversity."
So then what do you do with those who talk about a "diverse community?
as the opposite of community here. In the context of how the left uses it, its part of the same argument.
This post (and I recieved the e-mail too), actually reminds me of the 45 goals of the Communist Party in the US as entered into the Congressional Record in 1963. I looked, but the original isn't available online there are plenty of reproductions available online.
you really can't comprehend the discussions here and, consequently, your posts make little sense.
"The only benefit that I've seen for the word "community" is that it's the flipside of the "diversity" coin."
This is not to say that they are opposites, or even alternatives, but that the left tends to (I hate the term, but...) "frame" them in reference to each other? Don't know if I've got that quite right, but I tend to agree. The left talks a lot about embracing and/or celebrating diversity and also a lot about community, but they want a community that isn't all that diverse. Or maybe diverse in certain ways, but not others?
That for the left, community and being inside is about identity somehow.
New environment, still trying to get my bearings.
I thought you were relying on common knowledge, not dictionaries, for your definitions in this discussion.
Merriam-Webster defines "America" as a big piece of real estate:
1 either continent (N. America or S. America) of the western hemisphere
2 or the Amer·i·cas -k&z the lands of the western hemisphere including N., Central, & S. America & the W. Indies
3 country N. America bordering on Atlantic, Pacific, & Arctic oceans; a federal republic capital Washington area 3,619,969 square miles (9,375,720 square kilometers), population 249,632,692
But I don't think the diarist intended to say that these were eight ways to destroy the real estate.
Ask a Venezuelan, when they feel free to answer.
Try living for awhile with East Germans, who were still, years after the fall of the Wall, afraid to discuss things openly.
Ask a Cuban, who after working for castro's 'revolution' found himself living in a 3'X 5'X 5' box, from which they were taken out for regular beatings for several years. And after release, was strafed by cuban aircraft as they swam for the lights at Gtmo.
You might not be able to define freedom well, but trust me: when you lose it you will know it.
the commonality of those parts of the American culture that we share together and operate under. In other words, our shared understanding of who we are, what America means as a home, and where our heritage comes from. The dictionary refers to a technical/legal concept.
At least, those are the assumptions most of us share here.
Beyond help. I suggest moving to a nation whose national identity is easier for you to understand...
In the meantime, those of us who already know what America is will continue to defend her. And if we fail, those of us who survive will go somewhere else and see to her rebirth...
You are not entirely beyond hope, after all.
I recommend a heavy reading of history As Written by the Participants. Ignore the historians, read the diaries and the letters and the articles and books that were written by the participants.
Perhaps someone can help you from there.
I wonder how long it took Lamb to realize that his status as a Democrat would not offer much protection against charges of xenophobia and nativism?
to e-mail his editor, probably before Lamm reached his seat.
America is NOT an Idea
Its a Nation. pure and simple, a single nation with a single recognizable culture, and one predominate language.
It is true our culture is a hodge-podge of other cultures, but it is a unique one just the same.
It is true that English is not the universal language of America but it is the most important, by far.
It is true that not all citizens or residents feel like they are part of a single nation, but that only brings us back the the ways to destroy a nation that was set out by the author.
Town it down, please. Especially in the subject line.
Thanks.
You have to turn the existing ruling class into the marginal and disaffected members of society.
What is this "ruling class" you are talking about?
The stereotype of the ruling class, at least where I last worked, consisted of all white males who spoke proper English and who had family ties to corporations, even obliquely.
It's a really terrible stereotype that can backfire horribly when people use it as a tool of revenge. And I've seen that firsthand. As far as I know, I don't rule anything but nevertheless the Diversity Mavens made sure that I knew I was a member of it.
It's a game, and as the great James Carville has said on live television, in order for someone to succeed, someone else must fail.
Any talk about what might destroy America seems pretty empty without first defining what America is. Until you have unambiguously defined what it is you are talking about, you aren't in any position to lay out rational arguments for why certain actions are likely to destroy it.
Is America, like a corporation, an entity that exists as a bunch of words on paper? A big piece of real estate? To me, other definitions tend to cast America as a myth.