By Mike
A formerly wiser man once warned of “an almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard” as a force which unites all statists. I wanted to wrap my mind around that particular statement because I’ve grown up in an era entirely dominated by fiat money, easy credit, booms and busts, and a great deal of inflation; and because I wanted to know why it would be beneficial to a statist, or someone interested in affecting a “positive” change in the economy, to seek to abolish the gold standard, I had to explore popular thinking on the matter.
What would a gold standard accomplish in terms of wealth and debt, and what would a system based entirely on fiat, or paper, secure without the backing of a commodity as a store of actual wealth?
In 1966, Alan Greenspan wrote that, “in order to understand the source of their [statist's] antagonism, it is necessary first to understand the specific role of gold in a free society.” 1 We must first assume that money, as a commodity, is the means by which economic transactions take place, whether it be for goods or services, in a given society, “and can, therefore, be used as a standard of market value and as a store of value, i.e., as a means of saving.” 1 Without it we cannot build wealth, discharge debts, exchange goods and services, or plan for the long term in any meaningful fashion. Exchange of any asset would become quite difficult. 1
In the development of international economic systems, precious metals, particularly gold, became the means by which goods and services could be exchanged; gold became a preferred choice because by “having both artistic and functional uses and being relatively scarce, [it had] significant advantages over all other media of exchange.” 1 Gold is a limiting resource in this fashion simply because of its scarcity; if all transactions were paid in gold, it would become difficult to handle larger payments and economic development would be sharply limited. “Thus a logical extension of the creation of a medium of exchange is the development of a banking system and credit instruments (bank notes and deposits) which act as a substitute for, but are convertible into, gold.” 1
Greenspan dives into what this development means in terms of free banking:
A free banking system based on gold is able to extend credit and thus to create bank notes (currency) and deposits, according to the production requirements of the economy. Individual owners of gold are induced, by payments of interest, to deposit their gold in a bank (against which they can draw checks). But since it is rarely the case that all depositors want to withdraw all their gold at the same time, the banker need keep only a fraction of his total deposits in gold as reserves. This enables the banker to loan out more than the amount of his gold deposits (which means that he holds claims to gold rather than gold as security of his deposits). But the amount of loans which he can afford to make is not arbitrary: he has to gauge it in relation to his reserves and to the status of his investments.
Unbalanced expansions of business activity (the booms we often see in modern times) are held in check because credit cannot be extended too far beyond limited gold reserves; however, in some cases banks would extend credit too far, and “as a result of [this] overly rapid credit expansion, banks became loaned up to the limit of their gold reserves, interest rates rose sharply, new credit was cut off, and the economy went into a sharp, but short-lived recession.” 1 Most often these recessions were seen as mild in comparison to more modern experiences.
In order to solve this economic puzzle, it was determined that if shortages were what caused declines in business activity it would be best to ensure that no shortages ever existed.
If banks can continue to loan money indefinitely-it was claimed-there need never be any slumps in business. And so the Federal Reserve System was organized in 1913. It consisted of twelve regional Federal Reserve banks nominally owned by private bankers, but in fact government sponsored, controlled, and supported. Credit extended by these banks is in practice (though not legally) backed by the taxing power of the federal government. Technically, we remained on the gold standard; individuals were still free to own gold, and gold continued to be used as bank reserves. But now, in addition to gold, credit extended by the Federal Reserve banks (paper reserves) could serve as legal tender to pay depositors. 1
In 1927, business in the United States experienced a mild contraction, and in order to shore up the possibility of a shortage, the Federal reserve printed more paper reserves; more disastrously, “however, was the Federal Reserve’s attempt to assist Great Britain who had been losing gold to us because the Bank of England refused to allow interest rates to rise when market forces dictated (it was politically unpalatable).” 1
The basic idea was to pump excessive paper reserves into the US system in order to create interest rates that would be comparable to England’s, thus stopping the outflow of gold. Unfortunately the success of this plan in stopping the outflow of gold added additional credit to the market that created a speculative boom in the markets. To stop this boom, Reserve officials decided to destroy the excess paper reserves; unfortunately it was too late because “by 1929 the speculative imbalances had become so overwhelming that the attempt precipitated a sharp retrenching and a consequent demoralizing of business confidence.” 1
The American economy collapsed. “Great Britain fared even worse, and rather than absorb the full consequences of her previous folly, she abandoned the gold standard completely in 1931, tearing asunder what remained of the fabric of confidence and inducing a world-wide series of bank failures. World economies plunged into the Great Depression of the 1930’s.” 1 In short, the machinations of central banking created a mess that was largely blamed on the gold standard, because, it was reasoned, “if the gold standard had not existed…Britain’s abandonment of gold payments in 1931 would not have caused the failure of banks all over the world.” 1 Irony in this case is not lost on Greenspan, as he notes that we had not in fact been on a de facto gold standard since 1913, but instead a sort of mixed system.
Under a gold standard, the amount of credit that an economy can support is determined by the economy’s tangible assets, since every credit instrument is ultimately a claim on some tangible asset. But government bonds are not backed by tangible wealth, only by the government’s promise to pay out of future tax revenues, and cannot easily be absorbed by the financial markets. A large volume of new government bonds can be sold to the public only at progressively higher interest rates. Thus, government deficit spending under a gold standard is severely limited. 1
Abandoning this standard made it possible for welfare statists to expand credit in an unlimited fashion; paper reserves are treated as a commodity, as assets, as if they were a gold deposit. “The holder of a government bond or of a bank deposit created by paper reserves believes that he has a valid claim on a real asset. But the fact is that there are now more claims outstanding than real assets.” 1 Thus because as the supply of money increases relative to assets, prices are forced to rise in order to balance the books. Money is devalued, thus any savings–and relative wealth in terms of money–is diminished in value. “When the economy’s books are finally balanced, one finds that this loss in value represents the goods purchased by the government for welfare or other purposes with the money proceeds of the government bonds financed by bank credit expansion.” 1
In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.
Thus, one could conclude a government that is dedicated to welfare state policies, dedicated to spending on a deficit, and dedicated to the confiscation of wealth in order to suit their plans and maintenance of power, will make a return to the gold standard increasingly less likely as time passes–if not impossible.
I can also conclude that a gold standard is the only real way to maintain wealth. In our current arrangement we are forced to invest for the future in order to outpace inflation, but no market can guarantee a secure investment and it is often subject to booms and busts as a result of the Federal Reserve’s management of the ‘money’ supply; but in order for the government to continue to operate it’s entitlement programs, as well as finance itself, we are forced to maintain this system not of wealth but of constant debt. And we do this by borrowing our own tax payments; ironically those payments are pretty worthless if you consider that we’re simply returning what was originally borrowed, at interest, in order to discharge the debt of the government. We are in perpetual debt to a perpetual debtor.
In light of this, how could one advocate for a system based entirely on paper reserves and tax obligations?
Tags: Gold Greenspan
Jul 08, 2009 • OP-ED, Politics
• • • MS • • •
By Mike
Among the ruling elite, the party of “I won”, there is a consensus that something drastic must be done in order to mitigate the effects of human induced global climate change. They say we must do something to reduce greenhouse gases; we must do something to reduce carbon “pollution”; we must do something!
My first response to this is, “Why?” Why must we take action in this particular case? What is it about carbon dioxide that requires our attention more than any other form of pollution? Are you stumped? I would have to say that I am as well.
There exists a supposed consensus of scientists, despite the large number in opposition that are ridiculed and belittled without the evidence they present being taken seriously, that are convinced humanity is on a course that will alter this planet in a way that will do more harm than good unless we change our behavior.
The solution proposed by the current ruling classes in this country is the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which is essentially a cap and trade program, drafted in a paltry 1,200 pages, drafted explicitly for the reduction of carbon pollution.
According to the Heritage Foundation’s report on the economic impact of this act it amounts to “nothing more than an energy tax in disguise. After all, when you sweep aside all the complexities of how cap and trade operates–and make no mistake, this is the most convoluted attempt at economic central planning this nation has ever attempted–the bottom line is that cap and trade works by raising the cost of energy high enough so that individuals and businesses are forced to use less of it.”1
That particular statement in the report is a bit alarming to say the least–and in a number of ways that should at least worry a lot of people.
What will this do?
An act, billed as a solution to climate change, designed to ultimately reduce economic activity, output, efficiency, and productivity cannot in any way help us on any course towards newer greener forms of energy production. Again, this is about “inflicting economic pain…that is how the ever-tightening emissions targets will be met.”1 This is an attempt to force a behavioral pattern on the market, when the market is not ready for it, in a way that will hinder more than just the energy sector.
This will hinder economic development across the nation, across just about every sector; as operating costs rise, jobs will be lost, economic output will diminish, and our high standard of living will likely not be maintained. This would come at a particularly bad time as the government is also moving to takeover healthcare and create a single-payer system. As a result of the reduction in capital, tax revenues would decrease creating an even greater shortfall in the federal government’s budget; then, healthcare spending would have to decrease, alongside many other entitlements–that is unless the government goes bust first. One can see where this is going pretty quickly.
Particularly troubling, though, is why we will be affected by legislation that is designed to regulate an industry many of us have no direct part of:
The only entities directly regulated by Waxman-Markey would be the electric utilities, oil refiners, natural gas producers, and some manufacturers that produce energy on site. So, the good news for the rest of us–homeowners, car owners, small-business owners, farmers–is that we won’t be directly regulated under this bill. The bad news is that nearly all the costs will get passed on to us anyway.
What are those costs? According to the analysis we conducted at The Heritage Foundation, which is attached to my written statement, the higher energy costs kick in as soon as the bill’s provisions take effect in 2012. For a household of four, energy costs go up $436 that year, and they eventually reach $1,241 in 2035 and average $829 annually over that span. Electricity costs go up 90 percent by 2035, gasoline by 58 percent, and natural gas by 55 percent by 2035. The cumulative higher energy costs for a family of four by then will be nearly $20,000.1
Simply put, because costs go up for energy producers, our costs will increase as well creating a regressive tax affecting the poor more harshly than the rich; energy is not a luxury good, but will be a luxury only available easily to the rich, elite, ruling classes if this is allowed to become law (one of the problems with this socialist vision is that it is less about the working classes then it is about maintaining power). Granted the consequences might not be seen immediately, but rest assured, they will be seen and they will be terrible for the future economic prosperity of this nation. The chart above, while not reflecting the current cap and trade legislation, shows the possible economic effects of curbing carbon emissions.3
I’m taken aback by this strange agenda, and I hope that at some point we can reverse it’s effects; there is perhaps another Regan waiting in the wings ready to rid us of this Jimmy Carter.2
Tags: Cap and Trade
Jul 01, 2009 • OP-ED
• • • MS • • •
By Mike
Editor,
This in response to Jim Vopat’s letter to the editor (Right-wing letter writers need to get a clue) published March 1st.
While I am not going to criticize the political views of the writer, I want to point out something important about one’s right to voice any views they wish, no matter how ridiculous or divisive it may seem—short of inciting harm to others, of course.
Mr. Vopat states, “Did these [right-wing] letter writers miss the news? Republicans lost the election and are a dwindling minority…the majority of your neighbors do not share your views. The right-wing letters The Herald-Palladium prints in such abundance are manipulative lies and meant to deceive.”
The founders, in particular James Madison, were keenly aware of the dangers of this attitude; he wrote of a tyranny of “a majority… united by a common interest or a passion [that] cannot be constrained from oppressing the minority.”
We can see oppressive rhetoric on either side of the philosophical debate concerning the government’s role in society and private life, but keep in mind that debate or ideas should not be stifled because they are a minority view or might simply be impracticable—if not outright offensive—to the sensibilities of a vast majority of people.
Our nation is great for many reasons; the most important of which is the freedom afforded to us by the first amendment to the constitution.
One is entitled to their opinion regarding even the opinion of others, but to actively seek to diminish another’s ability to express it simply because it is the opinion of “a dwindling minority” does little to progress political and social discourse.
Mike Mattner
Benton Harbor
This response has been sent but is yet to be published.
Update: This was published in the Letters to the Editor section of the Herald Palladium on March 4, 2009.
Tags: Letter to the Editor
Mar 02, 2009 • OP-ED, Politics
• • • MS • • •
By Mike
Editor,
This is in response to Glen Edquist’s letter to the editor on Monday (“Voters should send Upton packing in 2010″).
Congressman Upton’s no vote, while seeming to signal his nonsupport of the working middle class, might in fact be for a legitimate reason: the bill, as presented, was full of spending that would likely not serve to immediately stimulate the economy–which is the purpose of the bill. Much of what is in the bill amounts to projects that need to go through the normal appropriations process, rather than be pushed through in a giant omnibus bill. This is not nonsupport of labor; it is nonsupport of uncontrolled spending.
What might make more sense in our current situation is the alternative bill presented by freshmen Rep. Walt Minnick, D-ID, called the [Strategic Targeted American Recovery and Transition Act (START). According to this plan, $174 billion would be all that is necessary, with $100 billion in targeted tax cuts, $20 billion for school modernization, $4 billion for job training and work-force reinvestment, and $50 billion for highway, bridge and road projects.
Additionally, START would require that all funds not spent by 2010 be sent back to the Treasury, and halts stimulus spending when the GDP increases in two of the previous three quarters. This plan is designed to target job creation and stimulate spending.
START is just one alternative. Perhaps another plan with similar intentions would work better, but the problem with the stimulus package passed by the House and Senate isn’t that money is being spent. The problem is the shear magnitude of spending earmarked for something other than stimulus, and this is what I feel Congressman Upton’s position was in voting no on the stimulus package as presented to the House.
Mike Mattner
Benton Harbor
Note: This was my letter to the editor published in our local rag on Saturday February 14th, 2009.
Tags: Letter to the Editor
Feb 24, 2009 • OP-ED, Politics
• • • MS • • •
By Jared
Dear Generation:
What is that you have been doing the past six years? You, know, since the buildings fell and what not. I heard you were fighting your father’s war over in the Middle East, the Holy Land that harbors the unholiness. Being shot at, that scene is not for me; I guess it is not for you either but no choice, right? Or at least that is what you like to say, to make you feel less lazy and what not. You say, “one vote won’t change a thing, it does not matter.” What matters is that you practice using your voice, that is how you truly learn how to speak.
And then you say, “Why waste my vote and cast it for a guy who won’t do any better?” But I ask you, my generation, how the hell do you know? You are unhappy with the present, this is something you know, a fact, but how good or bad the other guy might have been is simply unknown. Honestly, assuming you know something that you can have absolutely no possible way of knowing is simple ignorance. He might have done worse, he might have done better, but now you will never know. All you know now is that you are even more unhappy than you were three years ago.
Come to think of it, Generation, you are not ignorant at all, you are brighter than any before you and that and that alone is your true flaw. You are arrogant. You never stop casting stones upon those who differ from the mold you have built in your minds. Tongue and cheek conservatives not willing to see the other side of the issue; open minded liberals persecute those with religious beliefs but not homosexuals or murderers. They all throw the same stones that are thrown at them. Like a constant, like a circle, when does the throwing end?
Will there ever be a day when you wake up and tell your reflection: you are not that important; you are not better than your friend; you are not a genius; you do not have a clue; college does not teach you everything; life is not your possession; people are not your playgrounds; time is not on your side; you are alone; you are just like everyone else but different; your book does not make you intelligent; your flaws are just as bad as your neighbor’s flaws; you do not stand out without action; you do not deserve anything; your life is no more important than an African’s, Arab’s, or Jew’s; you are simply simple, an average idiot-intellectual with nothing more than your breath and your brain; do no think you know more than you do; do not think you are better simply because you are you.
So step up and make the future what you want it to be. Stop being so apathetic before the opportunity to be so has eluded you. If you wait for the world to change itself, the world you envisioned for yourself will no longer be yours to wait for. This is my advice to you, Generation. May you use it to the best of your ability.
Good luck,
JRK
Jan 16, 2007 • OP-ED
• • • MS • • •
By Nykamp
Last night I took advantage of the opportunity to attend the Body Image presentation given by Amaya Brecher and Veronica Portillo, formerly of the Real World and Road Rules (respectively) fame. While the premise of the presentation was good-hearted, the content fell remarkably short of any sort of expectations which I possessed upon entering the Dome Room (of the Rankin Center, on the FSU campus).
Amaya and Veronica, as mentioned before, spent some time on a couple of cable TV “reality” shows on an over-watched channel directed towards adolescents. I got the impression during the presentation that after they over-stayed their welcome on cable TV, they longed for some more publicity; perhaps feeling as though they only got 14 and a half minutes of fame, when in all actuality, they pushed the 20 minute mark.
The actual “presentation” was laughable at best, and Amaya and Veronica consistently treated the crowd like middle school students. All of the facts and information they presented on PowerPoint were weak and looked as though it was put together just moments before the show. Endless slides throughout the presentation were of rail-thin celebrities, and how they must have an eating disorder. Neither of the two were doctors, yet they could diagnose anorexia from a single exposed rib.
Don’t let my tone give the impression that their message wasn’t worth the price of admission (free). They discussed a very serious topic amongst our culture, eating disorders. The most valuable information they conveyed the whole night were some compelling real life tales of the horror caused by eating disorders. Amaya hunched over the toilet, sobbing uncontrollably as she pictured sickening visions to aid her vomiting. Veronica surviving an entire summer eating only a single piece of chocolate cake each day from the restaurant where she worked. The horrifying happenings which occurred inside of California sorority houses in regards to total food intake. Remarkable and astonishing.
What I didn’t appreciate whatsoever was the tone they conveyed through the presentation. It appears as though that these two young women had eating disorders because society drove them to it. Due to Barbie’s phenomenal dimensions, print ad’s, commercials, TV and movies, these two women were forced to ruin their lives. No personal choices or decisions involved here, just the relentless pressure faced by living in America.
While the idea that our society pressures people to look a certain way is far from being a falsehood, the idea that these two women had no opportunity to live a regular life, eating disorder free, is far more extreme. For whatever reason, they failed to mention what their family lives were like when young, just how much self-confidence they lacked, and how susceptible they were to outside forces. Did they have a choice? Maybe?
This does not mean I wouldn’t recommend going to see this presentation if the opportunity presents itself. What it does mean is that you should take value out of what is given; gruesome personal accounts of growing up with a serious health issue. The rest of the time you should play tic-tac-toe with your neighbor.
Nov 09, 2006 • OP-ED
• • • MS • • •
By Jared
Before you put those pictures of you and your partner engaged in sexual deviancy, you may want to think hard about sharing your hard-on with the Web.
A study done by Harris Interactive revealed that one in four hiring managers use the Internet to search for job candidates before hiring them. So, that picture of you drunk and passed out in the gutter outside Red Roof Inn that seemed so innocently placed on MySpace may come back to bite you in the behind.
One in three hiring managers said they found, by doing a simple Google search, applicants had lied about their qualifications on their resume. Another quarter said that their prospective employees had posted pictures that linked them to illegal activity. Unfortunately, only about 10% found provocative pictures of candidates.
Furthermore, and mildly depressing, was the finding that 64% of hiring managers who used social networking sites to screen employees decided not to hire those who they found on Facebook or MySpace. In addition, half of the managers did not offer employment to those who they found through traditional searches.
A Facebook representative claims that the social networking site protects its members and allows members to protect themselves even to the point that only their friends could find them if authorized to see each other’s profiles.
I know one thing, I definitely won’t be posting this picture on Facebook. That would just be silly of me.
Nov 06, 2006 • OP-ED
• • • MS • • •
By Jared
Does it seem like everyone on campus is talking on, pretending to be talking on, texting, blogging, or creating alternate atmospheres on their cell phone? Well, that is because they are. Just from my own estimation and far from a scientific study, I concluded, while walking in the Union toward Woodward, that 7 out of ten people were in some way using their cell phones.
I know, I know, so what, right? Wrong. The fact is cell phones are the new cigarettes, the status quo for looking not so isolated or unimportant. Walk out of class with nothing to do? Grab your cell phone and check the time. Just park your car? Send a quick text to your friend about the super cool thing that happened last night in front of Moe’s. Standing alone in between classes? Call an old friend and have a ten-minute-power-chat. And the thing is, no one finds it odd, not even a little bit. In fact, reading this article probably seems stranger than 70 percent of students walking on campus while caressing cell phones.
But remember the 20th Century. That old Y2K thing and the Apocalypse sure seem like so long ago now that we have $600 game consoles, PDA’s that fold out into keyboards, and voice activated dialing systems. However, I remember my first cell phone. It was fresh, cool and it made me somebody, even though I carried it around in a bag. It seems like forever ago, the days of Mike Jordan and the Backstreet Boys, before things were ‘tight’ and ‘true.’
What concerns me most is the fact that I cannot even function without my cell phone. For example, I had a meeting the other night and was dropped off by my girlfriend due to the fact that Pontiac makes poor vehicles, and unbeknownst to me I had left my ‘celly’ under the pillow at my ‘crib.’ So after the meeting I reached for my empty pocket to discover that indeed, no mobile, as the Brits call it. Yet to panic, I calmly strolled toward the payphone, swiped my Visa Checkcard and began to dial. But then it hit me, like a jump kick from Tony Jaa, I realized my memory had been replaced by a SimCard and millions of digits.
My mind was blank.
I felt abandoned and alone. My heart raced with a sense of desperation that I could only imagine those Survivor folks feel. I tried desperately to remember anyone’s number but nothing came. So I did what any red-blooded American man would do, I walked home. A shameful stride of self-deprecation and foolhardy pride while I tried to keep my head up and my eyes dry.
When I got home I sat down at my laptop and connected to my Comcast high-speed Internet. Without a landline or a kind neighbor willing to lend me their phone without a snide remark to the tune of, “What, you don’t have a cell phone?” I was forced to log on to the pervasive peer gathering called Facebook. From there I found an old friend online whom I had not spoken with since leaving Michigan some two years ago.
After snatching his AIM screename, I sent him a message asking him to call my girlfriend and tell her to come pick me up from my house. And then, of course, I asked him how he was doing and told him to say hello to his mother for me. I finished up with, “I’ll call you when I get my cell back, take care.”
The world is so connected these days it is frightening. Cell phones truly are the must have accessory for the 21st Century like cigarettes were in the early 1900’s. Our culture and our economy depend on this level of connection every day. Cell numbers are forgotten because they are never learned, but stored in a microchip covered in plastic. Entire nation’s economies collapse because of the information overload and the easiness in which capital can move throughout the globe.
The things that make life easier are sometimes the things that we take for granted and when they are gone, we are simply forced to walk home.
Oct 12, 2006 • OP-ED
• • • MS • • •
By Jared
And thank you for always being there for us. By us I mean the US of A and Bush Co. 2001.
Is there a computer big enough to hold the number of times the administration has used the word mandate because of 9/11? The murders of 3,000 people in a terror attack does not give a mandate to spend trillions of dollars and thousands more lives occupying a sovereign nation.
In five years, those little intelligence agencies such as the CIA have not been able to find any link between Iraq and the attacks on America. But by God, the Iraqi people must pay for allowing the ‘Saddamizing’ to take place. And pay they have, with their innocent lives; 40,000 of them.
In a recent poll conducted by the New York Times, numbers showed that only 15% of Americans outside of New York City, thought about 9/11 more than twice a week. Yet for every question asked about the war on terror, the administration gives some vague, alluding answer about the attacks. And why is it that every time Bush gets in trouble, a new terror threat comes out?
Remember 2004 and the week before the Election? Remember the poll numbers and then the killing of al-Zarqawi? Remember today, on the five-year anniversary a new terror tape is released? I am just not buying it anymore. But it does not matter because that seems to be all the Government is selling.
Five years after Pearl Harbor, a real act of war, we dropped two freakin’ A-bombs on Japan. What have we done now besides kill 40,000 people, in turn, giving all their relatives a reason to hate Americans? Well, we removed Saddam from power, although he is more popular in the Middle East now than ever before.
I remember the day after 9/11/2001, or maybe it was the night of, GW Bush got on top of the smoldering ash of the two towers. He got on top of the charred bodies of husbands, wives, sons, daughters, nieces, nephews. He stood up and told us what he was going to do. Everything. He laid it all out for all of us to see. But the damn Patriotism blinded us; we could not see through the horror and pain of the moment. Past all the heroic talk and empty promises. We could not see what was truly ahead of us even though it was told from atop the mountain of destruction and death, told right to our faces. Now we have two more years to regret not standing up and taking the risk of being called unpatriotic.
Here I am, five years later, and this is the first rant I have ever let out. And for all of you who read this, wave the bloody towel at me and tell me that you have heard all of this before from crazy Liberals, well check our President. He has been saying the same thing for five years. It is time to wave the towel at him.
Sep 11, 2006 • OP-ED, Politics
• • • MS • • •
By Mike
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
May 25, 2006 • OP-ED, Politics
• • • MS • • •