Who really benefits?

Every sort of narrative has a purpose, and often, it's to benefit someone.

Most narratives are of benign nature, like one's life, latest vacation, best friend's wedding, and so on. It's often for "social prestige" or "social capital".

However, sometimes, narratives are for commercial, or financial gain. Advertisements are the most commonly seen narrative, where they want you to buy the product in question, or raise the prestige of the company in question.

If you are not sure about the narrative's purpose, ask this question: "WHO REALLY BENEFITS?"

The results may surprise you.

----

One of the most often used fake arguments used by defenders of a suspect scheme against a critic of the scheme is to claim that the critic is just out to raise controversy to push for ad views to the blog or website.

Consider from two different perspectives: the defender of the scheme, vs. critic of the scheme.

When a critic criticizes the scheme, who benefits?

Does the critic achieve any financial gain? No. (Though defenders often make baseless accusations of this, such as "your'e just out to get ad views" or "you're just bashing us for our competitor". ).  They don't really gain either way by busting a scam. They are doing it because it's the right thing to do.

Does the defender achieve any financial gain? Yes! They continue to benefit from whatever they are participating in! They *have* to protect their own livelihood, even if it means making illogical attacks!

As a neutral observing the situation, think about it: who has the most to gain, or lose?




The more insidious arguments appears to be benefiting one thing, but in reality, actually benefit someone else.

In the November 2012 election, Michigan voters defeated proposition 6, which would have made it more difficult for the state to build a new bridge linking Michigan to Canada just across the lake. The proposition was promoted as "fiscal responsibility", "voter's choice", and so on, as it would have required both a local vote AND a state-wide vote to approve such a bridge being built.

So who's the primary backer of Prop 6, to the tune of 33 million dollars spent? Matty Moroun, who just happens to OWN one such bridge. That's right, he's out to squash any competition to his existing monopoly.

Who really benefits from Prop 6? He does, of course.

Here's another example. Remember Zeek Rewards, the Ponzi scheme that was shut down by the Feds back on August 16th, 2012? A certain group had been raising funds from now ex-Zeek members claiming it has "solid evidence" that proves SEC is just full of **** and Zeek can be reopened. And they were soliciting donations for a legal fund.

As of 17-NOV-2012, this group has yet to file a single document, other than "intent to appear" before the court and supporting documentation. There was no evidence, no defense, no action whatsoever, despite prior claims that any fund will be used as common defense.

Who really benefits from this fund, raised from Zeek members? A better question is... who needs this fund?

The victims of Zeek Ponzi will be paid by the receiver when he has recovered all the assets and done all the clawback lawsuits against the people who had BENEFITED from the Ponzi scheme (or settled for a lesser amount). So they don't need a lawyer. In fact, this was discussed by various experts, such as Kevin "TheMLMAttorney" Kevin Thompson and Jordan "Ponzitracker" Maglich, among others.

Thus, the only people who NEEDS a defense fund are the people who BENEFITED from this Ponzi scheme, and thus is required to GIVE BACK their ill-gotten gains.

So they are using other Zeek's victims money so they don't have have to give back money that doesn't belong to them.

Who benefits? The people who shouldn't!

Ask the question: who benefits? And be honest.



Inspired by Forbes Article http://www.forbes.com/sites/joannmuller/2012/11/07/when-even-a-billionaire-cant-buy-a-state-law/