Cui Bono: “To whom is it a benefit?” or “Who benefits?

This quote references to Lucius Cassius; a Roman consul known for his legal and political contributions during the late Roman Republic. His work often involved discerning motives in legal cases, which laid the groundwork for later legal and philosophical inquiries into human behavior.

Who has the motive and who gains from perpetual war and financial crisis?

• The first rule is to follow the money.
• The second is to identify who is immune to criticism; those you cannot challenge without facing dire consequences.

For example, a government is pushing for a controversial and expensive new policy (e.g., a major war, a sweeping surveillance act, a large corporate bailout etc.).

1. The primary contractor is a defense company whose stock price soared after the bill was announced. During the 2003 Iraq war, defense contractors (Halliburton, etc.) secured billions in reconstruction contracts. Dissent was framed as "unpatriotic" and not supporting the troops. Also, intelligence agencies and their "slam-dunk" case for WMDs were presented as unquestionable. during the 2008 Financial Crisis, the banks that largely caused the crisis through risky practices received a massive taxpayer-funded bailout. And during the Public Health Crisis in 2009 and 2020, pharmaceutical companies generated historic profits from vaccines and treatments.

2. Key politicians who voted for the bill received significant campaign donations from that company's PAC. The "upgrade" creates a system that a specific tech giant will be paid to maintain for a decade.

3. The same "infrastructure upgrade" is officially justified as a necessary measure for "national security" and "protecting democracy."

By applying these two rules together, you move past the surface-level political debate and start to see the underlying power structures and incentives. The "immune" class or idea is often the one that provides the moral or existential justification for the flow of money.

Similarly, the traditional left versus right political spectrum oversimplifies complex social dynamics. It posits that this binary view serves to divide and conquer to mask a more intricate reality involving multiple parties and interests.

An historical parallel to the modern concept of political duality can be found in the Byzantine Empire. The demes, particularly the Blues and Greens, were originally local political and social groups in ancient Athens, but they evolved into significant factions in the East Roman Empire, particularly during the 6th century.

The Blues and Greens were the two most prominent factions, initially associated with chariot racing but later becoming powerful political entities.

Similar to the left vs. right political spectrum simplifies complex issues into two opposing sides, the Blues and Greens created a binary opposition that divided the populace. The Byzantine emperors often manipulated these factions to maintain control, using them to divert attention from political failures or social unrest.

This mirrors how modern political narratives can be used to distract from systemic issues. Leaders could rally support from one faction against the other, reinforcing their power while keeping the populace divided.

In the context of the Byzantine demes, one could argue that there were three groups:

• The Suffering Party: The general populace caught in the crossfire of factional violence and political maneuvering.
• The Inflicting Party: The factions themselves, which often engaged in violent confrontations and political machinations.
• The Observers/Beneficiaries: The ruling elite and emperors who benefited from the chaos and division, using it to consolidate their power.

The dynamics of the Blues and Greens in the Byzantine Empire illustrate how factionalism can create a psychological trap similar to modern political duality.

The manipulation of these factions by those in power serves as a historical example of how division can be used as a tool for control, echoing contemporary concerns about polarization and the oversimplification of complex political issues.

Today, there is no single and simple answer as the "beneficiaries" operate on different levels; from direct and obvious to indirect and systemic.

Here is a usual list of the groups and entities often analyzed as gaining from perpetual war and financial crises: 

1. The Military-Industrial Complex

2. The Financial Sector

3. Political and Governmental Elites

4. Resource and Energy Corporations

5. Media and Information Outlets

In summary, these entities are not isolated actors but interconnected components of a dominant system, often described as the 'rules-based international order' or the "Global North" for western citizens. Think of NATO, MFI, WTO, WHO, UN, etc..

They call it the "international community" but in reality it is a monopoly or thalassocratic hegemon system. In that system, nothing happens by chance. Most major events are forecast and comes as a "surprise" to the common people.  

“In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.” – Franklin D. Roosevelt (e.g., think Day of Infamy)

As they control the narrative, whenever you read a big headline or a "controversial narrative", think first that this is an attempt to brainwash and oppress you. 

The reality is not hidden in secret documents; it's right in front of us and everything is intertwined. It operates in plain sight and is masked by the noise of artificial divisions.

The ultimate takeaway is this: What appears as spontaneous political chaos is often the deliberate output of a well-managed system (e.g., C-19, 9/11 or 1898 Cuba crises).

"What is history, but a fable agreed upon?"

Quote often attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte but it is also associated with the reflections of Emmanuel de Las Cases in his writings.