hoi.polloi wrote:Even supposedly intelligent people get caught up in the mythos that it's Americans' ignorance, Americans' fault and Americans' deserved fate that they should be subjected to such epically terrible leadership. Perhaps, there is some truth to it, but I don't think the key is to examine the leaders or the ignorance. You must see what the culture has produced. Could it be, for example, the "catch 22" of the average person desperately needing fresh education and having the State being the only one capable of giving it in the form of propaganda? I don't think it's wrong, for instance, that America escaped the doldrums of some countries' education systems which are as flawed as America's because their pride and gullibility compensates for the additional knowledge they claim to end up with. Part of 'freedom' means freedom from being a decent person by any moral standards, for better or worse.
For example, the raving genocidal racist president Andrew Jackson did his best to undermine the banking cartels but they just came back. It seems we can never get one totally good leader; they are a little right in some ways and so wrong in others. But it's just what we need — good leaders, who can somehow teach people to not need leaders. Whomever owns the major companies of this world seem to be the opposite. They train people to be dependent on a product flow, and if people slip up or try to escape, they create more dependence. Corporations operate more like the culture of London, obsessed as it is with control, with what is "proper" and bowing to quasi-useless authority figures. Few things are as shudder-inducing for me as the idea of cringing before some tailored lord with a stick up his bum because it's "proper". Not to sound like a right-wing asshole, but it does seem that the question of freedom is part of the self-destructive culture of America. Someone who is ignorant is not necessarily stupid or incapable of reasoning within the territory they know. Americans have a culture which perhaps too deeply craves conveniences, like not having to know what's out one's back yard.
As another personal tangent, I think one of the reasons pure sugar is in most everything in the States is because it creates a general craving for another product with sugar within, it doesn't matter what. It's a catalyst for consumerism and unnecessary cravings and need. (It's also cheap filler, but it serves many purposes, like oil.)
This is too general, sorry. The topic title is better to focus on. Just who "controls" the major companies? Well, thanks to kickstones and others, we do have some names and some sources to examine. A good re-read of this thread would help most people understand how the octopus tentacles of bad culture permeate the chain of command. Also, sceppy made a good point:
sceppy wrote:Those who tax the companies, 'own' the companies. No business runs, unless they pay protection money, or tax...whichever way you want to look at it. That's a simple and short answer.
Hoi, here’s another name of interest, I.G. Farben.
I came across it in this book:
World Without Cancer (1974) - G. Edward Griffin
While Part 1 of the book is concerned with the science of cancer, Part 2 examines the politics of cancer. It is this section that is relevant to the subject at hand.
“In the years prior to World War II, there came into existence an international cartel, centered in Germany, that dominated the entire world's chemical and drug industries. It had spread its operations to ninety-three countries and was a powerful economic and political force on all continents. It was known as I.G. Farben.
I.G. stands for lnterssen Gemeinschaft, which means "community of interests," or more simply, "cartel." Farben means "dyes," which, because the modern chemical industry had its origin in the development of dyestuffs, now is a deceptively innocent sounding category that, in reality, encompasses the entire field of chemistry , including munitions and drugs.“
In particular the book looks the early history of the I. G Farben and the cartel's early success in the United States with particular emphasis on its "marriage" with DuPont, Standard Oil, and Ford.
While I’m not saying all the factual evidence presented is 100% reliable, I do think there are many truths given, and they do present a clearer picture, from a historical perspective, as to how and who own the major companies, or more specifically, control them.
“One percent of the population owns more than seventy percent of the nation's productive property, and ten percent own all of it. About half of this, in turn, is held in trust by the ten leading Wall Street banks, which, in turn, are heavily influenced, if not controlled outright, by a group so small that they could be counted on the fingers of one hand. This, stated in plain English, represents the greatest and most intense concentration of wealth and power that the world has ever seen. “
For those interested, the online publication of the source can be found on the link below:
https://archive.org/stream/World_Withou ... 3/mode/2up