One thinks of a vicious circle, where an apparently forced or required response to one problem or set of circumstances triggers a new problem or set of circumstances, where the forced or seemingly required response will rekindle the original problem or a like problem or set of circumstances ad nauseam. Ofttimes, what is involved, of course, lacks the inevitability implied. What we really have is another example of confused premises, as described in our April, 2006 Feature on "Social Reform: Confusion or "Unintended Consequences." It is by failing to put the sundry factors involved in any phenomenon in as full a context as possible, that we fall into "vicious circles," with seemingly little chance for easy extrication.
Left leaning faculty members on American College and University campuses often try to intimidate students, who seek to challenge prevailing dogma or apparent fallacies, with accusations of "over-simplification." In point of fact, the most egregious examples of "over-simplification" will generally be found among those on the Left most active in pursuing policies of "reform." The examples are legion, especially when we critically examine prevailing initiatives intended to fight poverty, racial discrimination, or educational disparity. But there are also examples that may be obtained from the antics of those not popularly understood to be on the Left, such as the new Pseudo-Right (reflected in the "Neo-Con" phenomenon, addressed in our February, 2005 feature).
The best example in this latter category may be seen in a misdirection offered in dealing with the threat from would-be Terrorists. We discussed a rational approach to the "War On Terror" in the fall of 2001, outlining the surest path to victory, and pointing out potential pitfalls in other possible approaches. It was, and is, a given that we need to seek out and destroy those striving to wreak havoc in our midst. There can be no rational dispute on that. But some of those who have surrounded the President have embraced the Leftist fantasy that you can change the very nature of a people by changing their cultural environment; a notion maintainable only if one deliberately ignores many of the known facts relating to human interaction. Thus we have the President's campaign to change the whole culture of the Near and Middle Easts! As this is insulting, in the extreme, to those targeted for reprogramming--indeed seeming to confirm one of the nastiest accusations made by those seeking to cause us mischief--the net effect is largely to help recruit those who would war against us.
The thrust comes full circle when anyone who seeks to point this out, whether an American or an overseas friend, is denounced as an "appeaser" by "Neo-Con" enthusiasts, all too ready to treat the appearance of new enemies--responding to previous insult--as reason to continuously upgrade their avowed intent to meddle. Some of the promoters of this escalating confrontation have actually had the gall to denounce Americans who want to return to the traditional Washington/Jefferson foreign policy, advocated at this web site, as being cowards or "left-wingers."
You certainly understand the point. But a yet more vicious circle in contemporary American thought becomes apparent in some of the more popular arguments offered to justify contemporary Immigration policies:
Virtually everyone in Congress, today, gives at least 'lip service' to one or more of the economic arguments frequently adduced to justify a continued flow of unskilled and semi-skilled labor into the United States. At the same time, the prevalent and pathological racial denial makes the Third World sources for almost all such immigration a virtually taboo subject. Thus, while some may protest that they want to do something about illegal immigration--unscreened or undocumented immigration--many of these slightly more Conservative members will still agree with a claimed need for immigrants "to perform the jobs Americans don't want to do"; or that sending all illegals home would be too expensive and would disrupt the economy. Most members would argue that immigration, in general, promotes beneficial growth, and that immigration of younger workers is needed to keep Social Security viable. While there may be a modicum of truth in some of these arguments, they are sustainable only by keeping one's focus on but a single facet of the relevant dynamics.
We have seen earlier examples of similar errors. Slavery was justified, in large measure, to provide workers for those jobs that successful settlers did not want to perform for themselves. America has paid a heavy price for some of the original side issues, and their later consequences, which grew out of that historic example of short-sightedness.
After World War II, business groups in many Western nations sought to lure educated, middle-class, women into jobs outside the home, as a way of holding down the cost of skilled labor as well as a perceived means to expand potential markets for consumer goods. The side issues there, too, received very little attention; and, all too often, the new two income family dissolved in divorce, or became mired in a frantic 'keep-up' pace, where instead of greater affluence, burgeoning debt kept the American woman on a virtual tread-mill, where the birth-rate tumbled even faster than the quality of home cooking and social entertainment; a pace exceeded only by the declining respect for the traditional roles of both sexes.
Those business managers who promote excessive and generally undifferentiated immigration, whether to lower labor costs, create an additional market for their products, or for some other, less obvious, reason, have seldom demonstrated any unique insights beyond the most visible immediate needs of their respective businesses. With the relative explosion of compensation for upper managements over the last decade or so, often linked to immediate or very short-term improvement in "bottom-line" results, there has been a further perceptible narrowing of focus. Among those in Corporate management in American communities, there has been less and less attention to any long term patriotic purpose--or even to the real economic interests of the shareholders, they are supposed to serve--yet an ever tightening of attention on those more immediate and readily apparent aspects of "profit." (The less apparent aspects, even if almost as immediate--such as the part of reported "profit," which may not actually be true profit at all, but a reflection of monetary inflation--are often conveniently ignored.)
We suspect that were one, attending the annual meeting of a major American Corporation, to suggest that within a generation, new "Latino" immigrants might provide the margin to elect a totalitarian Socialist Government in America, he would be greeted with supercilious disdain--not unlike the technique by which Leftist College faculty members shake the confidence of matriculating small town conservative students. And yet the "sophisticated" dysrons, whether on College faculty or Corporate Board, might do well to study the systematic undermining of American Negro values and society by Leftist agitations since 1909, to understand the likely use to be made of the new migrants by those who would destroy the last remnants of traditional America. The price of cheap labor, today, if understood, might be a price that even most social "liberals" would decline to pay.
Another economic argument for a "generous" immigration policy, which has very serious and drastic long-term aspects, is that which sets up the potential "crisis" in funding Social Security entitlements, as a result of the combination of an aging population and a declining birth-rate. The near-term economic problem is real enough. However the "solution," here, is perhaps the ultimate example of "throwing out the baby with the bath water." Instead of trying to encourage more children in rooted American families, the suggestion is to replace the unborn Americans with foreign substitutes. Grandpa will get his social security payments, but the American people with whom he identified all of his life, will gradually be outnumbered by replacements with a far higher birthrate. Yet notice how totally the circle comes round:
While, historically, civilized peoples have aspired to pass on an ascending life-style to their progeny; the benefit of having more children in the family, from the standpoint of a safer and more comfortable old age, has not been lost in most ethnic cultures. Now, because of a problem derived in large measure because we are not having families large enough to even maintain the existing population of ethnic Americans, it is urged to take away one of the inducements to larger families. If this is not a recipe for ethnic suicide, just what is it?
But there is a yet more ominous aspect to contemporary justifications for "liberal" immigration policies, which may initiate an even more rapid, as well as more clearly self-perpetuating, circle of destruction. Problems with funding Social Security, or providing for the low-cost short-term employment appetites of American business, cannot, certainly, justify replacing ethnic American populations with incongruous peoples. Yet the tragedy is not well understood, nor even seen as a betrayal of the American heritage, because of a mass promotion of the fantasy that all peoples are somehow interchangeable; that simply by bringing people to America you will somehow change them; that is, that the immigrants and not America will change. (That such a notion is actually terribly insulting to the new arrivals is completely lost in the politically correct sea of delusion; as is the fact that what has always taken place is that large scale immigrations dramatically change American communities.) However, all of the fantasies in the world will not long obscure what we would characterize as
The perceived needs of business for types of employees, willing to work cheaply in jobs often seen as undesirable, as the needs of the Social Security system, are only fragments of far broader phenomena. As a population increases, business in general grows. There is thus a perception in the business community that even apart from the immediate "problems," discussed, it is beneficial to have an expanding population--regardless of how that expansion is obtained. And in efforts to humor this perception, the destructive cycle becomes virtually endless.
Economics are in many respects analogous to water. Just as the latter always seeks its own level, so the factors of production seek optimum utilization. So long as we allow mass immigration from poorer nations, it will flood in until that point where a declining standard of living for those in America reaches an approximate level with those with equivalent skills in the Third World. But immediate wage levels are only a precipitant of movement. They do not create new raw materials, more space. On the other hand, having more "consumers," even in the lower income ranges, will enhance that "bottom line," as it will increase demand for a whole spectrum of consumer products--as well as for a wide spectrum of other products and services made necessary by an increasingly incongruous social presence in communities, schools and public facilities of every sort.
And so, the process feeds upon itself, just as the higher standard of living for those in various occupations continues to provide an incentive--even independent of the circle of an expanding economy--for more and more foreign workers to seek entrance into that expanding economy; with each wave, in turn, providing an increasing justification for the pursuit of still more cheap labor. At some point, this must become intolerable even to many Leftists. They may not care if the ethnic American drowns in a sea of "diversity"; but few people enjoy "gridlocked" traffic patterns, a polluted ecology, or a rise in medical epidemics resulting from overcrowding and an accelerating exposure to more and more potential carriers of unusual and extremely dangerous pathogens.
In the days of the Founding Fathers, Americans sought increased settlement in the hope of populating the frontier. One of the inducements offered was the less harried life-style, away from the excessive hustle and bustle of Old World cities. Only two generations ago, we recognized that the ideal population for the continental United States was around 130 to 135,000,000--perhaps a tad higher than we reached in 1940, when we stood at 131,000,000.
There are now approximately 300,000,000, markedly less homogeneous human types, living within the same area. We do not seek to disparage any of those types; but we have far less social cohesion in America than we had in 1940. We have also less oil, less copper, less iron, even less coal--although that supply, at least, remains adequate for the time being. More importantly, we have far more people per square mile, far more congestion.
If one is not unhappy at 300,000,000, is one willing to accept 500,000,000, with the vast majority of that extra 200,000,000 having neither common roots, common culture, nor common personality traits with our earlier settlers? What about 750,000,000? To be sure, there are still vast open spaces--although many are unsuitable for family residences. But does the rooted American really want to accept an ever more congested life-style; at first only similar, but rapidly becoming far worse than those from which many of our pioneers risked everything to escape? Do we really want to be systematically replaced in our own land, for the perceived advantage of fatuous, self-centered, individuals, who have not even a clue as to the historic concept of what constitutes a nation?
With increased technology, we can do more with fewer workers. The very notion of any form of dependence upon an influx of lower end foreign labor is absurd. Yet so long as our standard of living remains high enough to draw those willing to work for low enough wages, as to make new labor saving devices seem less economical to short visioned business interests, there will be those who will seek to justify that influx. But have you ever even seen an analysis of the long-term effects of this migration, and the birthrate of the migrants, on the availability of space and resources for your children and their heirs through the generations to come? Will no one in business management, in Government or Academia, speak for the rooted American family?
There are studies, which suggest that you can drive sentient beings crazy by overcrowding. The history of the earth is peppered with human ethnic wars over space and resources. Yet, somehow, these aspects of a living reality go virtually undiscussed in contemporary America. And, yet, how can any rational person consider an immigration policy without fully exploring such issues? How can any rational person acquiesce in a policy, which effectively replaces his or her nation, in their own land? When did self-inflicted genocide become the "Liberal" ideal?
What Washington has embraced, in a whole circle of interactive, but each clearly myopic, perceptions in the consideration of immigration issues, is akin to a giant corkscrew turning ever deeper into the heart of America. In focusing on perceived needs of the moment for an economy, as projected by corporate managers with a fixation on a "bottom line" only slightly beyond the next three to twelve months, the President & Congress have effectively adopted a policy of bipartisan neglect, which has deliberately looked the other way to allow a continuing flood of cheap labor. Accepting, with little comprehension of the dynamics or mechanisms believed to be involved, the popular academic fantasy that social environment not only influences but controls individual development, they have treated as a matter of no concern that that same flood of cheap labor promises to irreversibly alter the demographics of America; to change our culture beyond recognition.
This is not enlightenment, but moral, spiritual & intellectual blindness. Through cupidity or stupidity, our political leaders are effectively selling the birthright of America for a bowl of rapidly spoiling porridge. We must face the crisis of such failed leadership--and we must face it now--or we might as well say farewell to the America we expected to leave to our children & our children's children. It will have passed forever into that vast universe of those things which "might have been."
Our Novel: The hero, a young Conservative who thinks like Donald Trump; the principal antagonist, The New York Times!>>
Return Of The Gods
Conservative Debate Handbook--All Chapters
Conservative Intelligence Center
Absurdity At Google
Tactics For Victory
What Drives The Trump Haters
"Who We Are?" (Trump Supporters)
Trump: The Issue
Trump--Metaphor For American Conservatism
Reality Is Not A Grievance
"Gift" That Keeps On Taking
How You Define A Problem May Define You
Answers To Anti-American Lies
Prosperity & Peace Depend On Mutual Respect
Crimea's Return To Russia
Another Variation On Demonic Theme
Variations On Demonic Theme
Perspective Governs Values
Corporate Managers & "Immigration Reform"
Compassion Or Compulsion?
Compulsion For Uniformity
Jason Richwine & The Assault On America's Future
Agenda Serving Bullies?
Implied Powers? Clear Limitations!
Missing Link To An Armed Citizenry
Missing Link To Reality
Whither American Conservatism?
Obama Or America--Irreconcilable Differences
Losing America's Multi-Generational Purpose
Social Reform & "Unintended Consequences?"
Cloud Dancing--A Spreading Contagion
Blame & Envy--Demagogues' Path To Power
"Diversity": Reality vs. Leftist Fantasy
World Government? Surrender By Subterfuge!
Conflicting Core Premises
Pseudo Pragmatism--Political Folly
"Occupy Wall Street": Fruits Of Corrupt Education
Debt Default In America
Egalitarian Collectivism Sabotages Human Potential
Pursuit Of "Diversity," Return To Babel?
Freedom Of Choice? Gulliver Discovers America!
Greatest Mischief Ever Wrought
Time--Neglected Dimension In Social Analysis
A Place For America?
Cloud Dancing--Social Medium For Scoundrels, Neurotics
America, Built On Experience & Reason
Keynesian Harvest, 2008 & Beyond
Gold & Money In America
Gaming The Question--Staple of Demagogues
"Liberal" Or "Mipip?"
"Social Justice"--Not Social & Not Just
Keynes & The Keynesian Appeal
Addiction: An Economy Dependent Upon Easy Credit
Function Of Money--A Medium Of Exchange
Congress & The Regulation Of Commerce
Price Of Egalitarianism
The Accidental American
Leftwing Chickens Coming Home (Obama)
Race & Ethnic Politics--America, 2008
Liberty: The Basics
Reason Or Compulsion?
Pure Hate--SPLC In Action
Death Of Community
Answer To President Bush On Immigration
George Washington vs George Bush On Foreign Policy
Dancing Judas Goats
Reconstruction & Creating Hate In America Today
Great Negro Educator Fought NAACP Effort To Stir Racial Confrontation>>
Booker T. Washington Address
Destroying Cultural Continuity--Leftist War on Social Cohesion
A Literary Corner
How The Welfare State Works
Declaration Of Independence--With Study Guide
Conservative Resource Menu--200+ Items