I read somewhere about a study done where different groups
were shown images of joy, contentment, emotionally neutral images, images of
fear and images of anger. Being subject
to positive pictures of joy and contentment led the viewers to express more
potential responses to those kinds of situations. Groups that were exposed to fearful or angry
situations had far fewer responses to what might be done in circumstances ruled
by a threat of violence or terror.
If we think about it from an evolutionary point of view,
this makes sense. When my ancient ancestors
encountered a lion or a bear on the hunt, there were basically only two options
– fight or flight. Nine times of ten,
fight meant the bear had lunch. We are
descendants of those who reacted quickly and correctly to dangerous,
life-threatening conditions because those are the ones who lived to reproduce.
If we are surrounded by plenty and live in safety, there is
not so much pressure. Pleasant
conditions thus leave us time to contemplate and consider our options. It is the way we are wired as creatures that
have succeeded in the game of life.
Unfortunately, we are not final winners, for the game goes on. The nature of the threats change from stampeding bison herds and wind-driven prairie
fires to man-made dangers, violence from those who would take our property or
enslave us. Yet there are those who
would prefer to ignore the reality of man’s potential for deception, destruction
and mayhem, to dismiss the willingness of some to take advantage of the
weaknesses of others. A world of plenty
and relative security has led a large segment of society to rail against negative
speaking and thinking, to call it racist, bigoted, xenophobic, etc.
I don’t need to see my best friend eaten by a grizzly to
know that it is a grizzly’s nature to kill a weaker creature. I don’t need to get bitten by a copperhead to
know that they are poisonous.
I don’t like snakes, but I don’t kill every snake I see, not
even every copperhead. I kill the ones
that come up close to where I live. I
don’t think any copperhead has it in for me or that a snake will seek me out to
harm me. A two-foot long snake doesn’t
see a human as food. I do, however, know
that a snake does not reason; it reacts.
If I am outside at night and step on a copperhead that I didn’t see on
my path, with no evil in its heart, that snake will react and inject venom into
my flesh. So, I keep the area around my
house clear of venomous serpents. It’s
better for me and better for the reptiles.
I don’t want to compare my fellow humans of any ilk to
vipers. That’s unfair to the vipers. They are, after all, creatures of instinct
rather than will. Only humans can be
truly malevolent, acting contrary to the best interests of self and of humanity
in general for the sake of having their own way.
Still, there is a principle that arises from my snake
story. We live, whether we realize it or
not, in a world of limited resources at any given time. Most of us who have grown up in America in
the time since WWII know almost nothing of lack or scarcity. We have been led to believe in a variation of
Moore’s Law that goes beyond computing power.
We think everything must get better, cheaper and more abundant
forever. It can’t, and it won’t. In fact, it isn’t that way now in many parts
of the world.
The “Arab Spring” began in Tunisia and Egypt because of a
decrease in food supplies. A richer
China with its billion-plus was indulging its appetites and putting a squeeze
on the available grain going to nations in the Middle East that cannot feed themselves. Prices rose as supply fell, and hungry people
have little to lose. Hungry people make
their way into the West, Europe and the U.S. every day as “refugees” and “illegal
immigrants”. So far, we have been able
to feed the invaders and keep the peace, giving them welfare, which further enriches
and empowers the governments. Governments stand to gain even more power over their productive, native citizens by the
threat of crime and terrorism the invaders bring.
I have nothing against Muslims or Mexicans or anyone
else. I don’t think most Muslims mean
harm any more than a bolt of lightning means to start a forest fire. Arson and lightning differ in intent, but if
your house is in the path, either will destroy it.
There is a clear threat to our civilization, our future, and
our way of life from unchecked immigration.
Positive thinking is not going to make that go away. We cannot assimilate the number of people
who want into our countries, especially when they do not wish to
assimilate. I am not suggesting we can’t
welcome immigrants, on a restricted, carefully controlled basis. What we can’t do is welcome the invasion of
the West by third-worlders.
And remember, as the pressure increases and the threat become more evident, the
number of options goes down.
Well said. I think we have enough citizens, thank you. How about a 60 year moratorium on immigration to allow those who are here to assimilate rather than cluster? I know, ain't gonna happen.
ReplyDelete