March 27, 2014

Former liberal Democrat Governor Richard Lamm’s speech on How to Destroy America

Lamm gave the speech in conjunction with Victor Davis Hanson’s release of Mexifornia — and his tongue-in-cheek “playbook,” the audio for which has just now been released (it’s a must listen), has ironically become precisely the playbook the left and some on the right are using to complete “fundamental tranformation” and turn the US into a Big Government welfare state.

Lamm, when pressed (likely to recant), refused, and in fact released a revised version.

So. Not only does the left believe Orwell’s 1984 is an instructional manual, but it turns out that when they hear a plan to destroy a America — even one intended as satire — they prick up their ears, take notice, and move to put it into action.

The lying, conniving, self-loathing, elitist pricks.

(h/t Mark Levin)

Posted by Jeff G. @ 11:37am

Comments (67)

  1. A sort of expanded transcript is here.

    Obama’s European remarks seem to be right in line with Lamm’s ideas, of course.

  2. A hastily compiled (not hasty enough, I see, heh) as-spoken transcript:

    I would like to share with you my plan to destroy America.

    If you think — and some do — that America is too smug, too rich, too self-satisfied, not diverse enough, too whitebread, I have this plan. Toynbee you know said that all great nations rise and they all fall, he said that the autopsy of history is that all great nations commit suicide.

    So here’s my plan: eight parts.

    Number one I’d make it a bi-lingual, bi-cultural country. History shows us that no bi-lingual bi-cultural country lives at peace with itself. There is not one, I believe, that doesn’t exist with an incredible amount of tension and conflict if not civil war.

    My second part of my plan would be to invent something called multiculturalism. This would be two parts: number one I would say that all cultures are created equal. It would make no difference and would make it impossible to talk about such things as culture. And the second one would be that I would really try very hard to make people continue their cultural identity: I would replace the melting pot with the salad bowl.

    My third part of my plan would be to make the fastest growing demographic group in that country the least educated. I would add a second underclass to the first underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, antagonistic, and then I’d have 50% of them drop out of school — not graduate from high school.

    The fourth part of my plan would be to get the big foundations and big business to fund these efforts with lots of money. I would invest in ethnic-identity and victimology. I would get them to think about their lack of success was only the fault of the majority: I would start a grievance industry.

    The fifth part of my plan is I would develop dual citizenship. I would promise people actually divided loyalites, I would allow them to vote for both Vincente Fox and George Bush.

    The sixth part — and this is important — I would place all of these subjects off-limits. I would make it taboo to talk about actually or criticize this whole thing. I would come up with a word like “heretic” used to be two-hundred years ago — let’s say we call it “racist”, and I would try to accuse anybody of this that would object to my ideas.

    My seventh part then: I would make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra. Let’s call it this, that because immigration has been good in the past for America it will continue to be good in the future.

    My eighth and last part, and it’s important, is I would censor this book [Holds up and indicates VDH’s Mexifornia]. This man is dangerous, he’s on to my plan. Don’t read this book.

  3. The audio link is no longer good on Levin’s site.

  4. Not so JohnPaulAdams, it still works for me.

  5. We need to institute a custom that combines the political act of ostracism with the disciplinary act of decimation, and have the politicians carry it out on themselves according the script provided to us by Shirley Jackson.

  6. Odd I get a file not found when I click on audio link. Let me try firefox.

  7. Well hell it works on Firefox

  8. invent something called multiculturalism

    Speaking of heresy, I’d just like to interject a bit of that here: first one has to invent a meaningless thing called culture — then and only then can a new meaningless thing called multiculturalism come to be. But let’s don’t look at that, unless we desire to be thrown into the volcano in sacrifice to the progressive god.

  9. sdferr

    I don’t believe “culture” is any more a meaningless word than “ideology”

    It’s just that the word has been so corrupted that when two people use it, they may be trying to communicate two entirely different things.

  10. How can it be anything but meaningless when it is made to stand for anything and everything in general, and never a thing in particular? Seems to me it more or less falls into the category of what Harry G. Frankfurt defined as Bullshit. That isn’t to say the thing isn’t useful though. Just look where it has taken the society that mouths it for any and every purpose!

  11. Culture and values are words that are so elastic that they can mean everything and nothing.

    Thus, bullshit would be accurate.

  12. The fact that enough Newspeak has debased their meaning does not mean that the concepts represented by the pre-Newspeak definitions are not valid.

  13. Values we can ground of by way of virtues. Culture, it seems to me, is harder to ground.

  14. Or what Charles said.

  15. Words will mean what we say they will mean.

  16. . . . does not mean that the concepts represented by the pre-Newspeak definitions are not valid.

    This may be so and it may not. Here’s the trouble though: any such claim to validity can only reasonably be made if we go to the origin of the concept to see, and once there, press against it for the truth. What, however, is the commonplace to the contrary in our society, or in our discourse? To assume that the concept is valid enough for our purposes, and to never inquire into that origin: what was the thing? what was it’s purpose? what questions did it purport to answer? do those questions have an answer, or are they elided merely in the creation of the name? And this series of problems can be continued, I think: this is not an exhaustive exposition of the thing.

    As to value (which I hadn’t though to include in this particular heretical interjection, since why two kettles of stinking fish when one will do?), seems to me it substitutes for good, while at the same time denying good can be delimited as a real, substantial (being) or other than mere whim.

  17. I tend toward the idea that the intent of an author in using a word matters a wee bit more than the intent of the word’s coiner.

    Unless the word is “decimate.”

  18. But in seriousness, we use language to trade ideas. The author is obliged to express his ideas so as to be understood. The use of poorly understood words hobbles his intent and he’d be better off using more precise language for more complex ideas.

    Trying to convey complex meaning with fuzzy verbiage is simply foolish.

  19. How to deal with phlogiston — to take an extreme case — then? I think we hardly do well not to ask: is this something?

  20. For most instances where “culture” might seem the easiest word, perhaps “ethos” would be better chosen.

  21. What’s the question?

  22. Oh, I see. Well, there are always exceptions. It is English, after all.

  23. The question may be — and I’m not certain this is correct — whether culture operates in the same manner as Molière’s (hilarious) invention “virtus dormativa” in Le Malade imaginaire, a species of circular non-entity?

  24. I’m not an anthropologist, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn last night, but culture would seem to me to be predominantly the set of values within a closed, or near closed, clearly delineated group of people, and more specifically how those values are expressed, communicated, taught, and enforced within the group. Before mass communication, it was not hard at all to look at two distinct cultures and clearly see the differences without delving far into the values, etc. etc. etc., in the same sense that Justice Stewart could identify pornography when he saw it without an a priori ironclad definition. With the rise of radio, television and the Internet, the lines have become much less clear with the line blurring frequently aided and abetted by those infected with self loathing about their own culture, past and present.

    Is that better?

  25. Nope.

  26. >sdferr says March 27, 2014 at 3:31 pm

    such clarity and succinctness. could you expand on it?

  27. This has been a topic before. A number of times.

  28. Charles, what you described in trying to define “culture” is an ethos.

  29. How can it be anything but meaningless when it is made to stand for anything and everything in general, and never a thing in particular?

    But culture IS a word dealing in generalities. Do you hold that no generality is valid?

    I cannot point to an meadow and say “Oh look at that wonderful field of wild, blooming mustard!” rather than have someone go “oh you can’t say that… look at the lupin, sage, non-blooming mustard, California poppies scattered in places and don’t forget all the weeds and insects you cannot see!”

    If I walk into a Greek restaurant I would expect to find spanakopita on the menu, not sushi.

  30. Culture is a term we use in the laboratory.

    Or in making yogurt.

  31. Why yes, it does seem to reach toward a universalist grasp, a claim to a scientific knowledge of the human whole, and so seems to be general.

    But funny thing, the human whole is always and everywhere particular, not general.

    Still, the subject remains with me (on account of my ignorance) very unclear. geoffb helpfully links back to the only account of the origin of the concept I’ve run into (and I’m happy to acknowledge that this example in Bloom is not the last word on the question, but can merely count for me as a good first go at the question “where did this concept culture arise, and to what need or in answer to what question?”). Science, it seems to me, was the aim — to make of the study of human things a scientific basis on which to proceed.

    Culture only seems to obscure the matter, though. Or what else would we call the current ubiquitous use of the term, ready at hand to attach to any and every quirk of human behavior or interaction?

  32. Ok, so you want to toss the word “culture”

    Give me a word to use to describe the generally shared & distinctive traditions, practices, principles, language & idioms of a specific group of people.

  33. I’m not suggesting that we toss the word culture, though maybe put a pause button on our profligate use of it. On the other hand, I might be suggesting that people take in interest in the study of Immanuel Kant, just for the giggles.

  34. habit? habituation? (this is a translation from the Greek of McG’s suggestion ethos)

  35. sdferr

    I’m not saying the word “culture” hasn’t be abused – certainly to look at one specific item and then extrapolate it the overriding *thing* that ties disparate individuals together (e.g. “gun culture”) is less silly as it is again, abusing language for ideological purposes.

    However, a Hasidim is going to share a vast majority of characteristics with another Hasidim rather than with an Inuit.

  36. Yep, pottery and dance, we’re told, are right there at the heart of it. That’s so helpful in making out the answer to the human problem Kant wanted to uncover. Forgive my cynicism, I’m feeling inordinately cranky today.

  37. >Yep, pottery and dance, we’re told, are right there at the heart of it.<

    peeps that do the knock out game exhibit a certain culture no?

  38. O/T

    It’s being reported by a local talk show that Kevin McCarthy and Eric Cantor are scheduled to speak at a Soros funded anti-tea party event in CA.

    If I heard correctly, Mark Levin is the one who initially reported on the event and scheduled speakers. Evidently, Boehner was supposed to speak, but pulled out.

  39. “Culture” as used is, for what humans do, like climate change is for weather, it can be/is proclaimed as the reason behind everything and thus is the explanation for everything and nothing at all.

  40. . . . anti-tea party event in CA.

    I’m not sure I heard right, but I think Levin spoke last night of some confab at Amelia Island, Fl and this may be the same event. But then again, I could be wrong about that.

  41. [P]eeps that do the knock out game exhibit a certain culture no?


  42. Heh, geoffb — “Culture is Uniquely Human”, followed by “Tool Use Cultures in Great Apes”.

  43. Darleen
    Perhaps the word heritage would scratch your itch.

  44. Sdferr, everything and nothing, as used nowadays.

  45. >it can be/is proclaimed as the reason behind everything and thus is the explanation for everything and nothing at all.<

    i find proggtardia a well defined 'culture'. same with the folks at world wide hip hop. seems like 'culture' is another way of grouping individuals.

  46. sdferr, CA, FL, either way, Cantor and McCarthy are still traitorous bastards.

  47. >1cul·ture noun \?k?l-ch?r\
    : the beliefs, customs, arts, etc., of a particular society, group, place, or time

    : a particular society that has its own beliefs, ways of life, art, etc.

    : a way of thinking, behaving, or working that exists in a place or organization (such as a business)<

  48. no the “knock out” game peeps have a culture with certain rituals and language. see world wide hip hop.

  49. >Culture is a term we use in the laboratory.<

    true. that 'culture' does what it does. culture is what happens when central control is absent.

  50. Culture is a term invented by Franz Boaz and is used in anthropology. It’s been with us for a bit over an hundred years.

    Other than that, I got nothin’.

  51. Ho Lee Fuk!:

    Do you support racist and transmisogynist humor?

  52. Culcha, bitches! You done unnastan.

  53. wiki

    >Culture (Latin: cultura, lit. “cultivation”[1]) is a modern concept based on a term first used in classical antiquity by the Roman orator Cicero: “cultura animi” (cultivation of the soul). This non-agricultural use of the term “culture” re-appeared in modern Europe in the 17th century referring to the betterment or refinement of individuals, especially through education. During the 18th and 19th century it came to refer more frequently to the common reference points of whole peoples, and discussion of the term was often connected to national aspirations or ideals. Some scientists such as Edward Tylor used the term “culture” to refer to a universal human capacity.
    In the 20th century, “culture” emerged as a central concept in anthropology, encompassing the range of human phenomena that cannot be directly attributed to genetic inheritance. Specifically, the term “culture” in American anthropology had two meanings:
    the evolved human capacity to classify and represent experiences with symbols, and to act imaginatively and creatively; and
    the distinct ways that people, who live differently, classified and represented their experiences, and acted creatively.[2]
    Hoebel describes culture as an integrated system of learned behavior patterns which are characteristic of the members of a society and which are not a result of biological inheritance.[3]
    Distinctions are currently made between the physical artifacts created by a society, its so-called material culture, and everything else,[4] the intangibles such as language, customs, etc. that are the main referent of the term “culture”.<

  54. Et voila.

  55. Danger

    I like “heritage” though it tends to be “past” oriented.


    be onery but one of the reasons, as Lamm points out, is that we are no longer insisting that immigrants assimilate into our American Culture.

    Please give me a better word for it. Otherwise …

    Western Civ is a culture far removed from Islamic culture.

    Just think of culture as the soil that nurtures (or not) a crop. Ether a country/society flourishes or it falls to barbarity.

  56. “. . . we are no longer insisting that immigrants assimilate into our American Culture.”

    Oh but we have, and do. I know this won’t be entirely fair, but, given a claim to crankiness, just go with the explanation that I don’t much give a shit about being fair.

    So: if we look at the mess that is America today, it’s no damn wonder illegal immigrants waltz right in with an attitude of ownership. Our own “cultural” incoherence taught them how! And lookee, if that isn’t assimilation, I don’t know what the hell would be.

  57. using leigh’s laboratory meme: culture is what happens on a gelatin slide.
    for about 220 years we more or less had some semblance of ‘rule of law’ now we are into ‘make stuff up’ law. black youts rioting is a permeation of this condition.

  58. baracky’s 36 ‘changes’ to ppaca is another.

  59. Oh but we have, and do.

    I beg to differ. We don’t. Indeed, to insist on assimilation is to be labeled “racist” or “imperialist”.

    We do not teach American citizenship in grade school anymore. Havent for close to 20 years.

    To be “patriotic” is to be an old white knuckle dragging dude full of anger at brown/black people who have been oppressed by American hegemony.

  60. sdferr

    The American “culture” of “no American culture” is the stuff of urban/coastal Leftists.

    No wonder they marginalize fly-over country where traditional American culture still exists.

  61. >Our own “cultural” incoherence taught them how!<

    nah proggtards did that along with the "ruining class" bushes/roves. eff proggtardia in all its shades.

  62. We do not teach American citizenship in grade school anymore. Havent for close to 20 years.

    10-4 Eleanor, I’d say that’s a q.e.d. to my contention. Is as what it is. Poor ol’ illegals can’t know from what it used to be or what it was once meant to be. They gets what they gots.

  63. >taught them how!<


  64. Welcome to the definition of culture war.

  65. “The American “culture” of “no American culture” is the stuff of urban/coastal Leftists.”

    Who live in places where ethnic enclaves SURVIVED to the present day instead of having melted like the ones in racist central Texas did starting in WW1 and for the most part finished by the mid 90’s.

  66. And when I say “finished” I mean completely dissolved such that if you don’t know that the neighborhoods were once town names and go look at the old graveyards and city halls, you’d never even know those enclaves were ever there to begin with.