The Nature of Unintended Consequences

I am a rock/I am an island/I’ve built walls,

A fortress deep and mighty/That none may penetrate.

I have no need of friendship; friendship causes pain.

It’s laughter and it’s loving I disdain.

I am a rock/I am an island.

Simon & Garfunkel

“I Am A Rock”

 



Of course no one is a rock nor an island

We all live in an interconnected web of life. Each of our actions affect those around us. While sometimes those closest to us are most affected by our actions other times those we don’t know nor are every likely to met are most affected by us. The effect of our actions generally follows our intentions. If we act with the intention to positively affect someone usually it will be a positive effect we produce; however, this is tempered according to our knowledge and understanding of those we affect. If we act to help someone without full appreciation of their situation, condition and causes of their situation and condition then it is likely we will at best affect minor benefit to them, and at worse, produce a devastating effect. Moreover, we must be careful in the assignment of those intentions as we normally have multiple intentions. Those multiple intentions often conflict with each other. It is most likely that our underlying or unconscious intentions are those that will predominate in how our actions affect ourselves and others.

Naturally our actions have effects on those whom we are around all the time. This is, I think, pretty easy to recognize and understand. How a parent or a teacher affects a child in their care, how siblings affect each other, or how fiends affect one another. But what is most interesting to me is how our seemingly disinterested actions affect those we have never nor will ever meet.

Perhaps the best illustration of this is the present election cycle. Like it or not the US of A will elect one of the two choices made for us by the two wings of The National Corporate Party. Whichever wing of this Demopublican/Republicrat Duopolistic party gets elected the working class of not only the US of A but the underclasses of the world will be affected in negative ways.

Starting with the settled element

Donald Trump claims (among many conflicting claims) that he will withdraw the US from international involvement (remember “Dubya’s” promise to do the same before he started wars that are still ongoing some 16 years later), but if Mr. Trump does happen to decide to keep his promise the manner of Mr. Trump’s presupposed withdrawal from world engagement would be detrimental to the world economy. To evict eleven million people from the US of A would virtually bankrupt the US treasury and the aftereffects of that lose to the work force would likely complete that bankruptcy.

Even a damaged US economy would likely start a tailspin dive in the economies of Europe, China and large segments of the remaining world. This could easily start an undeniable and virtually unending depression of worldwide proportions which of course would include the US of A. Remembering the devastating effects of the Great Depression of the 1930s which reverberated all the way into the Second World War produces most unappealing images. And this is considering just one of The National Corporate Party’s Republicrat wing’s standard barer’s horrific, confused and conflicting ideas.

Before we give a pass to the Other Party

Before we give a pass to the likely nominee of the Democratic wing of the National Corporate Party let’s consider some of her history. Hillary Clinton is married (literally and figuratively) to the policies of her husband which, while he was President, not only opened the world borders to the free exchange and movement of money across national borders (otherwise known by the misnomer of Free Trade.)

Then through the passage of a decidedly Republican, read Corporate, idea the Clintons did another favor for the National Corporate Party by the repealing the Glass-Steagell Act. Which act had for some 60 plus years prevented Investment Banks from playing the stock market (making risky investments) with the meager savings of the working class and much of the savings of the middle class. When the wealthy through their corporations risky investments tanked the world economy in 2007 and 2008 they benefited from a massive transfer of wealth affected by the “bailout of Wall Street” where tax dollars (paid by the working and middle classes) were moved from the public sector to the wealthy elite. This wealthy elite is a decreasing percentage of the population but the percentage and absolute amount of wealth they control is steadily increasing which provides them an ever increasing influence over the economy and over the halls of power by which they affect the world in both intentional and unintentional ways.

Unintended Consequences

One of the unintended consequences of the implementation of NAFTA was the devastation of the subsistence style of farming done in much of Mexico and Central America. This devastation to the way of life lived by the peasants of Central America for generation after generation is largely the cause of the illegal immigration into the US of A which Mr. Trump is using so effectively to his political advantage. More so-called Free Trade Agreements (which Ms. Clinton has promoted and is sure to continue to promote if she is coronated President) will produce more of the same results.

Support for Imperialistic Wars

Another piece of Ms. Clinton’s history is her solid support of imperialistic wars. She enthusiastically supported the Bush (Dubya) Wars when she was a mere senator, then as Secretary of State for Mr. Obama she oversaw the escalation in the Afghan Theater of Bush’s, by then Obama’s, war. An escalation which has produced nothing but a set of increasingly negative effects. Negative effects for us in the US of A, the people of Europe, the people of the Middle East and the people of most of Central Asia.

Then Ms. Clinton oversaw the infiltration of Libya by Wahabbists and Salafists primarily from Saudi Arabia and Iraq (where they had been known as al Qaeda in Iraq) into the previously stable nation of Libya. (Whether one liked or disliked Gaddafi Libya was a stable nation under his Tutelage.) Wahabbists and Salafists are probably the most extremist branches of Islam. Once these highly “radicalized” Islamist forces were established in Benghazi, Libya they were declared, rather unimaginatively by US and European elites, to be Freedom Fighters. [Freedom Fighters was a term coined by Mr. Reagan in the early 1980s to describe for those who later morphed into the Taliban and al Qaeda.] With the advent of Operation Unified Protector began the total destruction of Libyan society. However, according to Gareth Evans (of the Australian wing of the coalition),

“[t]he international military intervention (SMH) in Libya is not about bombing for democracy or Muammar Gaddafi’s head. Legally, morally, politically, and militarily it has only one justification: protecting the country’s people.”

[In retrospect it seems that the protection of the Libyan people might have not been foremost in the minds of decision makers.]

Destruction of Societies

Once the destruction of Libyan society was accomplished by those so-called Freedom Fighters (who were continually aided by NATO planes, bombs and missles) those Freedom Fighters started moving into Syria which was then a relatively new theater of the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama/Clinton War. Remembering that this war actually started under Bush the Elder on January 16, 1991 when Operation Desert Storm began. This war was continued by Mr. Clinton during his entire term in office with intermittent bombings and the denial of food and medical supplies to the people of Iraq after which Dubya sent the war into overdrive. Mr. Obama tried to “hit the pause button” but to no avail. The Freedom Fighters of Syria or more specifically The Free Syrian Army have been rather effective in destabilizing not only Syria but Iraq as well as a large contingent of them became what is commonly known as ISIS.

Follow the Money

As is often said: if you wish to understand how things came to be what they are you should follow the money. So, who is profiting from these continuous, never ending and expanding wars. In Dubya’s era this was fairly easy to see. The largest single profiteer was Richard Bruce Cheney’s former company, Halliburton. [Halliburton continued against the law to pay Mr. Cheney while he served as Vice-President of the United States of America. However, this pay was put into a trust fund Mr. Cheney couldn’t access until he was no longer Vice President and no longer able to steer “no bit” contracts to the said Halliburton corporation.] But there were others who profited hugely from these never ending wars. Precisely, the War Industries (who produce weapons systems, weapons platforms and the ammunition and warheads delivered by those systems) profited and continue to profit from the neo-colonialist wars being conducted by the ruling elite of the US of A. Wars they pursue in the name of the American people supposedly to bring “democracy to the world.” An elite which will be served regardless of which Duopolistic candidate is “elected”.

What of the Other Guy

Of course there is yet some chance Senator Bernie Sanders could secure the nomination of the Democratic wing of the National Corporate Party. While he is the most palpable of the possible nominees of the two wings of the Demopublican/Republicrat party he is not a socialist as he and others claim. Even thought he and the entire establishment wishes us to view him as such. He holds no socialist ideology of the transfer of the ownership of the means of production to the workers. He is simply a Keynesian. That is to say he is basically an old line New Dealer of the FDR line of Democrats. He is however, the best the US of A and the world at large can hope for at this stage. A Sander’s Presidency would offer a political environment somewhat more conducive to the development of Cooperatives where the workers in an enterprise actually own, control and manage the production and the proceeds of that production. This is the best he could offer as a Keynesian/New Deal Democrat. He would also offer some hope of a mild, yet partial, recovery of the working class and the middle class. However, as long as the means of production is left in the hands of the few they will always find a way to undo any gains for the working class a Keynesian/New Dealer could ever affect for the masses of workers in a society.

Roger W Mills, II

Please leave your questions, thoughts and comments below.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “The Nature of Unintended Consequences

  1. I hope my email isn’t visible for all to see.
    No, Bernie is NOT a Socialist but it just goes to show how far to the right this country has gone, that a true FDR republican would be labeled a “socialist”

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s