A paradigm shift occurs when there is a radical change in thinking from an accepted point of view to a new one.  Changes in social consciousness are not easy.  Institutions defend orthodoxy with all their assorted powers, while new ideas receive support only from iconoclasts who are often dismissed as kooks or disparaged as domestic enemies.

The Politically Incorr... DiLorenzo, Thomas J. Best Price: $7.51 Buy New $12.96 (as of 07:01 UTC - Details) Prevailing opinion is like a heavy boulder sitting in the valley between several steep hills.  For a novel idea to succeed, its proponents must push that boulder up the slope until it reaches the top of a neighboring peak.  Two observations follow from this analogy: (1) when moving the heavy boulder of conventional wisdom in a new direction, the gravity of traditional consensus works to roll it right back into the valley where it originally rested, and (2) once the boulder is finally pushed up a hill with the force of sufficient evidence and popular support, it will quickly roll down the other side and rest in a new valley of conventional wisdom.  Changing human minds, in other words, is a punishing exercise until you reach a tipping point, when social change occurs rapidly.

We are right now in the midst of one of these phenomenal paradigm shifts.  Americans are “awakening” to the idea that the federal government does not have their best interests at heart.  They are pushing back against mass illegal immigration.  They are resisting government surveillance and censorship.  They are questioning economic regulations that have weakened private property rights while giving a small number of corporations and financial elites almost total control over commerce, the food supply, and the monetary system.

During the half-century Cold War, Americans often turned a blind eye toward questionable military strategies, Intelligence Community actions, and economic policies because a pervasive “us vs. them” attitude kept the country united against common communist enemies.  After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the reunification of Germany, and the expansion of Western business interests into communist China, this us/them dynamic began to fade away.  As companies in the United States replaced domestic workers with foreign workers — and eventually Chinese slave labor — Americans realized that the distinctions between so-called “authoritarian” States and so-called “democratic” States were not as stark as they had once seemed.

The offshoring of good manufacturing and industrial jobs in the United States to countries that had been considered competitors, adversaries, or even enemies softened the ground for the paradigm shift we see today.  In the ’92 presidential contest, independent candidate Ross Perot warned that the North American Free Trade Agreement would move jobs and money to Mexico and leave Americans worse off.  George Bush and Bill Clinton disagreed, and Republicans and Democrats argued that NAFTA would both discourage illegal immigration (by providing jobs south of the American border) and increase household wealth (by decreasing the cost of consumer goods).

Prescription for Natur... Stengler N.M.D., Mark Best Price: $10.89 Buy New $26.00 (as of 06:00 UTC - Details) Prices for many products did go down, because that’s what happens when the cost of labor goes from $13/hour (when made in America) to $1/hour (when made in Mexico or Central America).  However beneficial such price decreases in essential household items might have been, there was a tremendous cost — the destruction of blue-collar towns across the United States.  Ross Perot’s entirely rational prediction came true, and the “giant sucking sound” of jobs and money going south ultimately made Americans poorer.  As a cherry on top of the toxic NAFTA sundae, rampant illegal immigration continued unabated largely because the U.S. welfare system remains an attractive nuisance that draws foreign nationals who prefer America’s generous handouts to the blue-collar jobs in their own countries.

This hollowing out of the American middle class continued every time Republicans and Democrats inked another “free trade deal” that made it easier for American companies to invest in slave labor overseas.  As the cost of such deals became more widely apparent, the “ruling class” in D.C. became more inventive with its justifications.  Bill Clinton opened up trade with communist China not because American companies could make a bundle from a workforce willing to work for subsistence wages, but rather because the introduction of Western commerce to China would be the camel’s nose under the communist tent.

Read the Whole Article