Cui bono: Who benefits from razing our great country to the ground?
Turmoil seems to be the daily goal of certain persons in the political class and much of the media. We have for a while been jolted from one alleged existential crisis to the next. Apparently on purpose, we are triggered by partial explanations and depictions to feel something as an emotion they have predetermined on our behalf, not provided information for thoughtful consideration of complicated issues. Cui bono? Who benefits from triggering pre-selected emotional and not rational thought?
On a now daily basis, all manner of people pour over our southern border and are then exported throughout the country. There are people understandably seeking to improve their life experience, children and women being smuggled for exploitation, a flood of unaccompanied minors, illegal drugs, and all manner of illegal and illicit activities transferred into the country daily. Who benefits from this border chaos?
What becomes of the point-of-origin countries' social order when it is hollowed out through mass migration? Who teaches, and who learns? Who provides goods and services, and for whom? Who grows the food, stocks the shelves, cares for the indigent and elderly, pays and collects taxes, operates the sewage treatment and fresh water supply plants, ad infinitum? Who benefits from draining these migrant origin countries?
Human-smugglers, coyotes, facilitate the movement of people across the border for profit, paid by the traveler or his family, or by those desiring to transfer their human commodity for exploitation. The desert landscape through many of the coyote corridors of travel are littered with the remains of certain unfortunate of their clientele. The cross-border flood of opioids, fentanyl, and the like produce drug-addled or dead throughout the country from Butte, Montana to Huntington, West Virginia. Who benefits from his fellow man's suffering and the destruction of the human spirit?
Certain politicians, educators, media elite, business leaders, and their enablers in the communication industry daily inform the citizenry and the rest of the world of the racist beginning, middle, and now end of the United States — illogically, at the very time all manner of minorities flock to our southern border to gain access to our alleged racist country. Every color, creed, religion, sex, and race are present throughout the social order of our communities. Nobody would allege a perfect society, but it's arguably a good one. As a general rule, everyone can drive on the roadways, fly on an airplane, shop at any grocery store, drink from any drinking fountain, vote, mail a letter, send his children to public school, live in any community he can afford. Who benefits from the allegation of an irredeemably racist country of daily group conflict?
A policeman interacts with a criminal whose cardio-respiratory health is already severely impaired and who had topped off his diminished health conditions by ingesting a life-threatening level of illegal drugs. The Reader's Digest version of the end of this interaction is unsettling to anybody who viewed this snippet of video, but this small slice of the entire episode does not depict the entire situation. "I can't breathe" started long before being removed from the police car and placed on the ground at his own request to await an ambulance. Regardless of the outcome, the full situation needed to be thoughtfully considered; it was factually not simply black and white. The emotional trigger of racism cannot be pulled as a part of the trial facts. Racism has been and will only be alleged to trigger a desired emotional response outside the legal proceedings. Who benefits from pulling the race trigger and creating social chaos from this complicated interaction?
Perhaps the real question in these situations is not cui bono, but instead, why, as decent people, do we choose inaction or tolerance for those who do benefit?
