Cui/Qui Bono: First in a series.

[compared2what?]

This thread is the first of several, in which I'd like to present what look to me like meaningful patterns, as posters often do here. Although this series doesn't involve finding said patterns in major motion pictures, and they don't have any reely kewl mystical connotations. So in that sense it's a little different.

Sadly, it probably will, like others of its kind, serve as a distraction that prevents people from focusing on real problems in enough depth to comprehend or maybe even solve them. I'm sorry about that. Also, contra tradition, I'm not going to start out by suggesting that I'm cryptically withholding the final piece of the puzzle until I've made the members of my claque jump through a bunch of hoops to prove themselves worthy. Or whatever the fuck.

But since I am using real data, real math, and real factors to identify the pattern, it's going to take a few rounds, even just for this installment. Plus, after the introductory posts, I'm very much hoping that it will be an interactive exercise. However, if it is -- and I do so hope that it will be -- I obviously have no way of knowing what impact it might have on pace and outcome. So. That's about it. Here we go.

The OP topic is based on the following three posts, all from the TBL thread:

Do I have to point out that every war comes with it's own propaganda art, and ask who makes it? Evil elves? To suggest that it's unfair to art or artists to point out such propaganda in an effort to understand it is dis-empowering and contrary to the nature of all good art. Art is the exploration of the human condition, and artists are the captains of the ship on which we sail in our quest for understanding. It's not at all unfair to ask where we are going, and why, and who pays the captain's salary. It is certainly not unfair to ask, "Qui bono?"

So if TBL is a psyop like you suggest, it begs the question "Qui bono?

That being the second time on this thread you've made that error, please forgive me for gently remarking that it's "Cui bono?" and not "Qui bono?"

Now then. An all-terms search for posts with the words "Qui bono?" found 46 matches.

46 - 1 (myself) = 45

45 - 2 (who actually used "cui"*) = 43

43 - 15 (who were just quoting someone else saying "Qui bono?") = 28

28 - 13** (one-time users)** = 15

15 - 1 (crosspost to two threads by Hugh) = 14
______________________

* StarmanSkye and profpan: You have excellent spelling! Congratulations!

** Who are getting a bye on this run-through. Because (a) It's a pretty common error; and (b) the "qui" thing is just the first criterion for full pattern inclusion. It's gonna get more empirical as we go. So:

Dear NeonLX, epi, psynapz, Uncle$cam. nathan28, IanEye, the_last_name_left (banned), Seventhsonjr, proldic, toscaveritas, greencrow0, thoughtographer and brownzeroed --

If you're still here and you match future criteria, see ya soon! Best wishes and apologies to the rest of you. Thanks very much for playing.
Now let's meet the four posters who are jointly responsible for the 14 "Qui bonos" that made the quarterfinals.

Then I'll put up a short analysis, though probably not until tomorrow. In any event, I really do want to leave a window open for comments and feedback. So hey:

Comments and feedback are more than welcome. Someone might very well see a factor that I don't, for instance.

Either way, after the short analysis, I'll continue to try to identify the meaningful elements of the pattern. During which process I may be losing some of the present contestants and gaining a number still yet TBD. I believe that I will, in fact. But I need to do some extra-thorough math-checking first. That always being a need for me. I'm slow with numbers.

Neverthless. Fourteen "quis" coming right up. Stay tuned.

[compared2what?]

In a tie for the lead, with five uses (not counting one repetition for emphasis):

slow_dazzle

Money lenders are parasites. Of course, the question we should all be asking ourselves is "qui bono at the very highest levels of the leech pile?" Unfortunately, the debate going on in the MSM is focused, quite understandably, on the effects of the sub-prime debacle. Given that it was made/allowed (I can see us dividing into opposing LIHOP vs MIHOP camps...he) to happen we really need to start looking for the main perps.

Difficult to say for those of us who don't understand the ins and outs of international finance. But if there is evidence of deliberate manipulation that will have the effect of engineering a major financial collapse we should be thinking how that might be in the interest of the deep parapolitical networks.

As always, qui bono?

In analysing something like a suicide bombing in a public place the question we need to ask ourselves is qui bono? What is the purpose, the practical political and/or military advantage? How does it further the aims of those supposedly behind the attacks? Or does it suit the interests of the "other" side by turning people against the alleged perps?

As always, qui bono? In fact, what purpose would it serve to assassinate her apart from causing disruption and instability?

You are right: we will have to wait and see how this plays out. Until then, we can only guess.

We really need to know WHAT could be the aim of allowing a financial collapse. IOW, qui bono? (And not just financially)

I understand why Hugh keeps pointing out the anomalies in the collapses. He is right to point out that the collapses are inconsistent with how buildings of this construction type should behave when they become unstable. But focussing on it won't lead anywhere for reasons others have already stated unless there is a parallel debate on why it happened in the first place. Just as the lone gunman theory has diverted attention away from the causis belli for murdering JFK, a focus on CD diverts attention away from how 9/11 fits into something that almost certainly links back to 1963 and probably earlier than that.

I occasionally visit a big forum that has a 9/11 section. One of the regular posters there consistently challenges any attempt to prove CD. His or her comments are often provocative and the debate sometimes get heated (there might be a really obscure pun in there). Interestingly, this same poster seems to avoid getting caught up in debates that start to move into issues that relate to the reasons for 9/11 or matters that raise awkward questions.

For example, the forum in question has two recent threads that discuss the exact time of Cheney's arrival in the bunker on 9/11 and Zelikow's article of 1999 in which he predicts the likely consequences of a catastrophic attack on the US. The poster in question has not added any comment to either thread despite his prolific posts on the 9/11 section of the forum.

What this suggests to me is the poster who feels sufficiently confident to consistently challenge anyone who discusses CD is afraid or unwilling to get into debates that move beyond "did/did not - did/did not". Why? Maybe it is because focussing on motive and wider issues takes the debate out of a simplistic arena that generates circular arguments and into areas that intelligent people just might take heed of. This is almost certainly the reason for blatant disinfo such "In Plane Sight", a polished documentary that doesn't even touch on the reasons for 9/11 but which has the potential to turn many intelligent people completely off the notion of official involvement in 9/11. In effect, the proverbial poison in the well.

We need to ask again and again qui bono, qui bono?

[compared2what?]

Also with five uses (plus one uncounted double-up via crosspost and two uncounted quoted uses of the phrase by the_last_name_left):

Hugh Manatee Wins

Why? Qui bono?<br><br>Because it has implications for energy policy which we now know is treated as a national security issue by the PNAC neocons.

(I've been accused at DU of being a psy-ops agent by trying to educate people on that very topic. This is the problem of revealing the science of manipulation-the alarmed will lash out at the messenger either sincerely or as a cover for their own psy-ops efforts. But it must be done to better arm ourselves against psy-ops tactics which are everywhere in many disguises.)

[SNIP]

So when trying to figure out whether a message is from a friend or foe, just remember, qui bono?Who benefits? The Pentagon and its Council on Foreign Relations corporate owners? Then it is probably psy-ops from a fascist.

Post subject: Re:Prof Pan -"just thinking outloud. Qui bono?"

*

]Now they have a link back to this site with my quote in their fanmail saying:

(Hugh Manatee Wins, 1:16 a.m.. Mar 5, 2006, Re: Dolphins fleeing tropics) "...This, my friends, is the CIA/Pentagon war against the truth and The People now being waged on the internet just as it is in every other institution and venue by sowing confusion and tripping up well-meaning people who unknowingly spread it like a communicable disease...." (view thread)

Pro: More will understand 'means, motive, opportunity' and qui bono from disinfo who might have only seen a gag.

Con: More pranksters or hostiles will be arriving here by bus any minute.

Edited by: Hugh Manatee Wins at: 3/5/06 3:13 pm

Seems the journalists and humanitarians who have the contacts and evidence contrary to the White House's spin get taken hostage.

"Qui bono?"

_______________________

* professorpan, in the post Hugh was replying to, wrote, "Just thinking out loud. Cui bono?

** Subject line on this one reads: "Post subject: Re: Chumming. Well, I didn't bring it here, I debunked it."

[compared2what?]

And filling out the field, with two uses (plus one uncounted quoted use by slow_dazzle)

8bitagent

Is there really a difference between the minstrel-mammy-sambo era
of "collectibles", art, cartoons, and Americana...

And the 50 Cent Bling Blang Ghetto Gangsta culture?

The only difference is that with the minstrel stuff, it was by whites for whites denegrating blacks to a subhuman level.

With the Bling Blang ignorant culture(I live in California, and I'd wager it has a literal stranglehold on a wide majority young black men)

it's white corporations pushing this stuff for black folks to buy, to self denegrate themselves into 21st century minstrel show charactitures(as Spike Lee has said)

Oh sure, Jay Z and P Diddy might own their own company, but they are usually not the parent company.

So qui bono? Who benefits from thug culture strangulating and infesting such a wide swath of the young black identity?

The SAME people who benefit from feeding many Latinos with ATZLAN reconquista propaganda yet feeding xenophobic near or full on racist fears on the right to whites.

It's about divide and conquer.

This is why noone is able to grasp the reality of 9/11, Islamic terrorism, backroom nuclear secret sales, etc. They think in terms of "state sponsor/state qui bono"

Also with two uses,

slimmouse:

Quote:Right again, Pan. The mysterious ritual seems to consist of smashing all evidence of ancient civilisation so they can make up more bs and so forth.

Thats me in the spotlight, losing my religion....

Small wonder huh ?

Try to make us stop making sense of this mortal coil.

No real surprise there, in a world based on bullshit news, and bullshit values.

Qui Bono ?

Answers on a dollar bill.

Let us begin .

firstly the descendants of Shem, from which we derive the term "Anti-semitic" ;

[SNIP]

The fact that they had never previously been near the said "promised land" ever since they had a hole in their asses is neither here nor there in the history books.

I dont need to remind one of the parallels with native Americans , or the Aborigines, or the Native Africans, or blablabla, prior to the KKK bigots arriving on their shores.

Same modus operandi basically.

Dont know about you DE, but Im fucking sick of it.

"Qui Bono" I wonder ?

And, as we already know, with two uses:

Shortthickdickleford

Whom I already quoted, in the OP.

[wintler2]

Points for effort, good rigor, but your intro begs the question of what is a "meaningful pattern": meaningful how?

[daba64]

A g00gle search for "qui bono" results in 49,100 hits, while a search for the correct "cui bono" returns 501,000.

As you say, it's a pretty common error.

[compared2what?]

Points for effort, good rigor, but your intro begs the question of what is a "meaningful pattern": meaningful how?

I'm working my way toward it. I believe that the data will speak for itself. As I said, I'm not trying to hold out on anyone. It just takes me time to do math correctly.

A g00gle search for "qui bono" results in 49,100 hits, while a search for the correct "cui bono" returns 501,000.

As you say, it's a pretty common error.

Yes, I know. That's why I also say that it's not my only criterion. It's just a point of entry. I agree with you that in itself it might be worth questioning quietly, but it would not be worth starting a thread over. I don't hang my hat on that one factor, in short. Or on any one factor. I'm identifying a pattern in real data. Slowly. If I could do it more quickly and still do it accurately, I would.

[wintler2]

I'm working my way toward it. I believe that the data will speak for itself. As I said, I'm not trying to hold out on anyone. It just takes me time to do math correctly.

Fair enough. Its an interesting angle you're taking, i've tried extracting post timestamps to understand some .. stuff, to no avail.

[IanEye]

[§ê¢rꆧ]

[ § ]

Well this ought to be interesting. You know I realized you don't start many threads, c2w - I mean, considering your post count uberness and eloquent ubiquity.

I'm looking forward to the unveiling of your pattern-finding.

And I totally don't get the 'oui' cover, like, at all. Am I missing something really obvious?

[Perelandra]

A g00gle search for "qui bono" results in 49,100 hits, while a search for the correct "cui bono" returns 501,000.

As you say, it's a pretty common error.

Yes, I know. That's why I also say that it's not my only criterion. It's just a point of entry. I agree with you that in itself it might be worth questioning quietly, but it would not be worth starting a thread over. I don't hang my hat on that one factor, in short. Or on any one factor. I'm identifying a pattern in real data. Slowly. If I could do it more quickly and still do it accurately, I would.

This will be interesting.

(Just for the record, I felt strongly the necessity of correcting this and maybe other errors in the TBL thread, but am sadly lacking in the necessary personal time.)

Carry on.

[IanEye]

[ § ]
And I totally don't get the 'oui' cover, like, at all. Am I missing something really obvious?

sorry, I just hadn't had my coffee, and I didn't have my glasses on when I went to RI this morning.

I thought the thread was titled: 'Cui/Oui Bono: First in a series.'
I had been making this lame visual pun with BPH's 'OuiJa' thread before and couldn't resist.


Airplane>II

keep on keepin' on...

[chiggerbit]

Being one of them who murders the English language, I can't wait to see where your going with this, c2w, knowing that your not the sort to simply call out people for their spelling or grammer. I can't wait to see which tact your going to take. I have an idea, but i'm not going to spill the beens.

Qui bono (literally "who with good") is a common nonsensical Dog Latin misrendering.

[chiggerbit]

Good grief, who knew there was so much intrigue involved in such a simple phrase? Shoot, my mouse won't let me copy the wiki link. Hah, but it let's me copy the entire page. I suppose this mouse is giving out already. I don't have very good luck with mice.

Cui bono ("To whose benefit?", literally "as a benefit to whom?", a double dative construction) is a Latin adage that is used either to suggest a hidden motive or to indicate that the party responsible for something may not be who it appears at first to be.

Commonly the phrase is used to suggest that the person or people guilty of committing a crime may be found among those who have something to gain, chiefly with an eye toward financial gain. The party that benefits may not always be obvious or may have successfully diverted attention to a scapegoat, for example.

The Roman orator and statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero, in his speech Pro Roscio Amerino, section 84, attributed the expression Cui bono? to the Roman consul and censor Lucius Cassius Longinus Ravilla:“ L. Cassius ille quem populus Romanus verissimum et sapientissimum iudicem putabat identidem in causis quaerere solebat 'cui bono' fuisset.

The famous Lucius Cassius, whom the Roman people used to regard as a very honest and wise judge, was in the habit of asking, time and again, 'To whose benefit?' ”


Another example of Cicero using "cui bono" is in his defence of Milo, in the Pro Milone. He even makes a reference to Cassianus: "let that maxim of Cassius apply". (Cicero, Pro Milone 32.3).Contents [hide]
1 Example
2 Use in politics
2.1 Issues with analysis
3 Use in popular culture
4 References
5 See also

[edit]
Example

Cui bono is still a standard rule applied in criminal investigations. Effective use of cui bono depends on various factors, which are illustrated here using the hypothetical case of a wealthy man named "Mr. Jones", who was found dead beside a road.

Cui bono can be applied only in cases where some act was planned with the intention of obtaining a benefit. If Mr. Jones died as the result of a random accident (e.g. a heavy object fell off a passing truck and hit him) or without a premeditated act (e.g. struck by a careless drunk driver), cui bono will not be relevant.

Cui bono requires a good understanding of all possible motives. Because Mr. Jones was wealthy, the police will certainly concentrate on his heirs, but others may also have benefited from his death. Perhaps Mr. Jones was killed by his wife because he had a mistress, or Mr. Jones was killed by his mistress because he wanted to end the relationship. It is possible that Mr. Jones had a drug habit and was killed by his dealer in an argument over payment. Jones may have been involved in other illegal activities and his business partners killed Jones to silence him. Finally, Jones may have been the innocent victim of a mugging.

The understanding of motives requires that even motives existing only in the mind of the killer must be taken into account. Mr. Jones could have been killed by somebody who wrongly believed that he would inherit his fortune, or by a murderously jealous wife, who mistakenly believed that he had been unfaithful. The motives of supposedly insane criminals ("He was an invader from Mars! I saved Earth!") may fall into this category as well.

It is possible that several people will benefit from the murder, or that the actual murderer would not be the one with the most to gain. Mr. Jones may have been the victim of a violent mugger who wanted the cash in his wallet and knew nothing about his fortune. This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2007)

[edit]
Use in politics

The cui bono principle is often applied to explain acts of political significance, but may not always be reliable or useful.

Whereas the motives for crime are typically rather simple (greed, jealousy, hatred and fear), politics is far more complex. Ideology, religion, customs, and historical developments (such as long-standing feuds, bigotry, and racism) have to be taken into account.

Political movements typically have more than one actor and motives can vary widely: The king wants the war to gain lands and destroy a political rival, the priesthood wants the war to destroy the enemy heretics, the nobles want the war because they wish to avenge old wrongs, and the warriors want the war because they want the war booty.

Political acts are often designed to have an effect that is very different from what actually happens. The assassination of a much-hated king can be an attempt to bring down a royal house and start a revolution, but can have exactly the opposite effect: The old tyrant dies as planned, but his successor turns out to be a good ruler who manages to stabilize the monarchy. On the other hand, some act that is meant to satisfy only a minor goal can have far-reaching consequences: A petty feud between chieftains on opposite sides of a border can turn into full-scale war, repeated raids can provoke military retaliation that leads to the conquest of an entire country, a brutal act by a minor official triggers a revolution, etc.

If a conflict lasts for some time, the countries that started it may well exhaust their resources and the winners are other states who enter the conflict later. World War II started as a conflict of European powers and in the end, the USA and the Soviet Union emerged as the new superpowers.

Even more than with crime, it is very important to judge what really is a benefit. Parties that appear victorious may find themselves in a very difficult position, while others who may not appear to be on the winning side can have every reason to feel satisfied. For example, imagine this scenario: two kingdoms are at war and kingdom A conquers B. According to the history books, A wins. In reality, A has an empty treasury, too many dead knights, and a huge, unruly country it cannot control. B is technically defeated, but the king of A needs the nobles of B to rule the land. So, the barons of B enjoy more privileges under the conqueror than under the old king of B, and prosper.

Sometimes, those who carry out a political act have a radical world view which makes them pursue some goal that appears nonsensical to other people. It can be very easy to overlook or misunderstand the benefit desired by such a group.

In politics, many actors may benefit from a certain event. A skilled politician who is able to advance his agenda by using (or abusing) a particular event, or a company that quickly steps in to offer a remedy to some real or perceived problem can benefit greatly from an act they did not cause. Cui bono may fail completely if the persons who intended to benefit from a certain act gain nothing or only a tiny benefit and other players obtain a huge advantage. For example, consider a mugging committed in front of a video camera. The mugger gets just $50 and is quickly caught. His benefit is tiny. A political faction that wants to roll out surveillance cameras all over the city uses the incident skillfully to gain widespread acceptance for their plan. Their benefit is huge. However, they may be faced with a conspiracy theory accusing them of setting up the entire incident.
[edit]
Issues with analysis

The application of cui bono in politics or other large-scale events is even more risky because many other factors have to be considered.

In retrospect, the actual outcome can appear far more logical and straightforward than at the time. Refer to the article on historian's fallacy for more information.

It is especially difficult to judge the motives of people of different ages and cultures. A common mistake is to overlook motives which do not fit the mindset of the observer ("I would not start a war over issue X, so this war cannot have been about X" or "X is a non-issue in my age and country, so X must have been a non-issue in medieval Hungary").

Actors may themselves distort the truth about events to gloss over their own failings. A general who loses a battle has cause to present himself as the victim of a cunning enemy plan. A general who wins a battle through sheer luck (the enemy makes a really stupid mistake, the weather changes during a naval battle, the enemy commander is killed by a stray bullet) may present a distorted story to give the impression that he was in control all the time.

Historians may themselves report only a distorted version of an event.

History books can overplay the importance of famous people and fail to mention the effects many less famous people have on history. This may distort the perception of great historical figures because the actions and motives of many lesser players affect history as well. Did Napoleon lose the battle of Waterloo? He did, but mostly because one of his generals, Emmanuel, marquis de Grouchy, failed to neutralize the Prussian army.
[edit]
Use in popular culture
Cui Bono is the Latin motto of the Crime Syndicate of Amerika, the evil supervillain counterpart of the Justice League of America in the DC comics universe. A version of the Crime Syndicate of Amerika appears in Grant Morrison's JLA: Earth-2, where, in their alternate universe, it is the villains who benefit from their power, rather than the humans that their hero counterparts would protect.
Cui bono is also a major theme in the DC Comics limited series Identity Crisis, in which a recurring character is killed to the benefit of an unusual suspect.
Cui bono was also a common theme in the Scooby-Doo TV cartoon where a person would pretend a given place was haunted with ghosts for some purpose to their benefit.
Qui bono (literally "who with good") is a common nonsensical Dog Latin misrendering.
Said by Alec Baldwin's character in The Departed, to which Matt Damon's character replies: "Cui gives a shit. It's got a freakin' bow on it."
Cui bono is referenced in The Big Lebowski, when Jeffrey Lebowskiy, discussing the "kidnapping" of Bunny Lebowski, explains his theory with "you look for the guy who benefits...".

[barracuda]

Cui Bono is the Latin motto of the Crime Syndicate of Amerika, the evil supervillain counterpart of the Justice League of America in the DC comics universe.

I think you're pretty well onto where she's going with this.