Walter Kirn's "Rescue The Republic" Speech (With Transcript)
Why don't the people have a hammer? Maybe we do, and maybe we should use it. Walter Kirn's terrific finale speech at the "Rescue the Republic" event.
So this is where you all end up, when you do your own research!
My name is Walter Kirn. I’m a novelist. That’s the reason you don’t know who I am, and I’ve come here to tell you a little bedtime story.
When I was a kid in rural Minnesota, the land of the deplorables in the late sixties and early seventies, my mother had a little record player. The problem was, she only had five records, and all were protest music. Pete Seeger, the Weavers, Joan Baez, Peter, Paul, and Mary. I used to listen to the records, and I had a favorite song. Maybe you know it: “If I had a Hammer.”
It was very strange that my mother had these records, because she was a young Republican. Anyway, I was eight years old, and I had no idea what this song meant. It seemed to have something to do with being powerless, and dreaming or fantasizing that you had power. If I had a hammer, I’d hammer out justice. I’d hammer out freedom all over this land. I’d hammer out love between the brothers and the sisters…
That was my favorite line, because it was so puzzling. Isn’t love between brothers and sisters incest? As I said, I found this song confusing, and the thing that confused me most about the song was: Why didn’t the singer have a hammer? What had happened? Who’d taken it away?
This morning, I was reading Twitter and I was reminded of this song in the most unlikely way. I saw a clip of a discussion at one of those big international conferences that you and I are never invited to, and on this video was John Kerry, former Secretary of State, former Skull and Bonesman, that secret society at Yale — the same secret society that George W. Bush belonged to. The guy who ran against John Kerry for president in 2004: Skull and Bones versus Skull and Bones. Talk about the illusion of choice.
Anyway, what Kerry was talking about was the First Amendment, and how it was a problem. A big, big problem. He had a peculiar complaint about it.
The First Amendment stopped people like him, he said, from trying to “build consensus.” Now, that’s how these people think about themselves, as builders of consensus. What does that make you and me? We’re construction materials!
John Kerry, master builder, had a complaint. The First Amendment, he said, was a “major block” for people like him from stopping what he now calls disinformation. It kept him from, he said, “hammering it out of existence.”
Now, I’m pretty sure that in 1949 when Pete Seeger wrote, “The Hammer Song,” or “If I Had a Hammer,” he didn’t mean if John Kerry had a hammer. He didn’t mean if they had a hammer:
If they had a hammer,
They’d hammer out disinformation.
They’d hammer out vaccine hesitancy,
All over this land.
They’d hammer out Kennedy.
They’d hammer Matt Taibbi….
That is not the song, and John Kerry has it wrong. The hammer does not belong to him.
That hammer belongs to us. It’s ours. But why don’t we have it? That’s the mystery.
That’s the question I’ve spent a lifetime trying to figure out. Look at this gray hair. It’s been a lifetime. Why doesn’t the singer have a hammer? Why? Why do we have to dream to fantasize? Why do we have to wish we had one?
Well, I think I’ve finally answered it. We have it right in front of us. The question is, will we pick it up? The question is, will we use it? So, I have a request for you. When you go home tonight, when you get home, pick up your hammer. Pick up your hammer and use it. It’s time to build.
My mother had one other record. It was by Simon and Garfunkel. It also had a song I loved called El Condor Pasa. I think you remember its greatest line: “I’d rather be a hammer than a nail.”
Don’t be a nail. Pick up your hammers. Go home. Let’s build a New America.
Walter, it is a shame so many people had left (well it was a long day) as you delivered an outstanding speech for the conclusion of an inspiring day. Hats off to you.
"For over 100 years, the U.S. government ‘tolerated’ freedom of speech because they virtually controlled the information that Americans received.
Whether it be from the government-controlled schools, or from watching one of the handful of ‘licensed’ TV stations, all Americans consumed the same pre-packaged “narratives.”
There was no threat to the government from Americans speaking freely, as long as the “narratives” were controlled.
But that monopoly has been shattered with the Internet.
We all choose our sources of information, who to follow and who to block, or just ignore.
While lies will always exist (both in and out of government) the American people actually have fighting chance to hear the truth!
It's now possible to hear/see/read the truth, and it can come from anywhere in the world, at any time.
Under these new circumstances, the government is finding freedom of speech intolerable, because their control over information is gone." - Ron Paul