Cui malo? A new tool for scraping off the BS
“Cui bono,” often rendered “Who benefits?” more literally, “A good thing for whom?” needs an inversion: Cui malo, “Who is this bad for?” FRN's retired Latin prof ponders a Latin logic tool
Cui malo? A new tool for scraping off the BS
“Cui bono,” often rendered “Who benefits?” more literally, “A good thing for whom?”needs an inversion: Cui malo, “Who is this bad for?”
“Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad” — a saying whose original expression goes all the way back to Sophocles. The US regime-change madness bids us take note of a variant: Whom the yanks would destroy, they first demonize. This is so effective that the typical American believes that Assad is a monster, and that Maduro is, too, while real monsters, like the king of Saudi Arabia, get a pass, as we have no plans to overthrow S. Arabia. In the less recent past, monster was spelled “communist” and crying “Communist” about Lumumba, Goulart, Arbenz or Allende was all the demonizing it took.
The demonizing of Assad often comes in the epithet “who kills his own people,” which we have heard many a time from our leading warhawks, Senators Graham and McCain. Specifically, they pinned the Ghouta gas attack on Assad, and now another one is in the works: Our head of the military, Mad Dog Mattis says he’s getting reports of gas attacks by the Syrian regime, “I don’t have any evidence to show you, but I’m getting reports.” So help me, I read this in yesterday morning’s paper. Of course, the reports are from White Helmets, who win Oscars at Hollywood for their Hollywooding. And from Bana, the precocious 7-year-old with the English language skills of a native speaker, whose most recent public appearance was in fact at the Oscars. And we get them from the from the last, last, last hospital in [whichever region is falling to the Syrian army]. This has the effect of actuating the R to P, the UN’s overall excuse for military intervention, incursion or invasion, getting vigorously pushed by our UN representative Nikki Haley.
But rational people have been noting that the promoted sequence is counter to all logic: whenever the Syrian Army is on the verge of some signal success, the Syrian President does something really cruel, and thus brings down on his own head the ire and missiles of the West. Cui bono, after all. Who benefits? Obviously the beneficiary is the jihadi terrorists trying to replace the secular government of Syria with another post-Obama Libya-style wasteland.
“Cui malo?” turns the question around. “Who is it bad for?” As Socrates asks in the Apology, “Does anyone like to be injured?” “Certainly not,” answers Meletus.
When there is an obvious “false flag” like the recent pointless poisoning of Sergei Skrypal in Britain, which is being put to good use by the British MIC to
– bolster their case for further funding for the military, and
– spur on the placement of more anti-Russian troops on Baltic borders, and
– stymie prospects of success for the World Cup to be held in Russia,
rational people are taking note that it would be absurd for the Russians to do such a thing, especially with this timing.
If we ask Cui Malo? in addition to Cui bono? even a Meletus off the street might come up with the plain answer. Say it with Socrates:
Does anyone want to be injured?
And then in Russian shoes, What is the worst thing we Russians could do to ourselves? And are we going to do it? That would be a “No.” The answer to the Cui malo question, is innocent.
Optional conclusion for language fans: Bear with me a little further while I deal with the Latin. Cui is the dative form of the question-asking pronoun meaning “Who?” Put it in dative case, and it’s the question “For whom?” Now for the other word, the adjective bonus, bona, bonum. Put it in the neuter gender [bonum] and it either modifies a neuter noun, or, if all by itself, is a noun, and the neuter gender makes it a thing. Bonum est = it’s a good thing. Now any time the Romans linked an abstract noun (like courage, sorrow, a good thing, a bad thing, a tragedy) the abstract noun also got dative case applied to it. It just sounded better. So “for whom is it a good thing” was cui bono, not (as one might expect) cui bonum. Do not translate that dative: example from Caesar: “The death of Vercingetorix was a bad thing [malo] for the Arverni,” not (as my high school Latin teacher wanted!) “The death of Vercingetorix was a for a bad thing for the Arverni.”
You may wonder why I put in the “is” since it is not there in the Latin. It turns out that Latin in the present tense, just like Russian, does not need a state of being verb, but English does, so Cui bono? is a complete sentence, literally rendered by “Who is it good for?” Thus Cui malo is “Who is it bad for?”