27 votes

Some Dare Call It a Conspiracy

Anyone got those beautiful maps of the food and media companies all pointing to just a few companies?

Add this one to those other ones: http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303...

We need a giant infograph of the corporatism in the US so we can print it and tack it to our walls so our children know exactly who the parasitic enemy really is....




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

???

Not sure that the chart in and of itself proves some kind of conspiracy. It basically outlines parent companies and mergers/purchases that have come along the way. Some of these happened in '08 when the housing market crashes, eg. Washington Mutual bought by Chase, Merrill Lynch purchased by Bank of America after government coercion.

Just another case of central planners in DC trying to decide winners and losers.

The real American Empire


http://www.youtu.be/CkQN4EVBXuw

Gold standard: because man can not be trusted to control his greed

I love this series

thanks for posting.

It's really inevitable that

It's really inevitable that the system as we know it is going to crash, and crash hard, by design. The Robber Barons needed the money and the power to spike the technology that we have today. Soon, maybe even now, the Robber Barons, or industrialists, corporatists, Bilderbergers, elites, whatever you want to call them, will need to thin the herd. Yes, I realize they've been doing it for sometime, but they've ultimately failed thus far, so one can assume that the process will be sped up either by war, famine or disease in the coming years.

I posted this yesterday--though it didn't get much attention: http://www.dailypaul.com/318560/why-you-need-to-teach-your-k...

I believe this is very significant. A manufacturer that doesn't need "man" any longer! WOW! We have hit the precipice of our society. I don't see this ending well. I'm sure the elder American Indians probably thought something similar when the first European rowed ashore.

+1

...Something needs to be done, and yes, self-sustainability is the key, like Jefferson's idea for a mostly agrarian society.

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

Check out this comprehensive blueprint:

http://bureaudetudes.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/wordlgov...

To make the diagram more complete, the intelligence community pyramid should be filled in at the top with something like this:

Wow Veritas

Thanks for posting. Cannot believe I have never seen that worldgov map before. A lot to read, but what a great breakdown!

Nice chart

It explains a lot.

"A vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote to keep things the same", Buckminster Fuller..
A choice for liberty is always a choice for liberty.

Most of what is called Conspiracy

is just the inherent ends to the society we live in. We are a capitalist society and this is the natural outcome. It is much the same as the natural degenerate outcome of democracy, the political control of the two party system, the rise in power of the medical establishment, brutality of the police, etc...

For your reading pleasure

Mises debunks inherent influences in capitalism.

http://www.dailypaul.com/319162/misses-debunks-inherent-infl...

Sorry but I can see with my own eyes.

I'm not going to read something that is obvious bullshit. I can see and I don't need to quote others to legitimize what I know.

No intelligent person dismisses inherent influences. Why don't you open your eyes and stop letting others do your thinking for you? Or are you really so stupid to believe that capitalism is exempt from inherent influence.

I mean do you really believe that through mergers and buyouts that the number of businesses will grow? NO, You have more consolidation. IT IS INHERENT.

Yeah, this has nothing to do

Yeah, this has nothing to do with capitalism and we aren't a capitalist society. This is the result of gov granted monopoly and cronyism. The banking consolidation here is the result of the bailout that allowed failed banks to take their bailout money and scoop up smaller banks when they should have gone out of business, pretty much THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF CAPITALISM.

You should probably know this, just sayin'.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

why are you being downvoted--

.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Please do not bring rational

Please do not bring rational arguments into this discussion.

Check out http://ronpaulforums.com for activism and news.

You forgot your sarc tag

100 years of creeping "progressivism" leading to fascism in this country and we're to believe "capitalism" is the problem? That's a "rational" argument?

hold on, pardner--

*we* libertarians get awfully defensive of captitalism--

but it doesn't exist; Dr. Paul called what does exist "crony capitalism", and it's a perverted form of the real thing--

the 'big guys' won't let it work--

now and again it works within a small circle--

now and again you have something your neighbor needs, etc.--

and everyone ends up happy, but for the most part, thanks to corporatism, capitalism is just a dream--

but it's a dream many believe is worth trying to achieve.

How can something be achieved if its true enemies are not recognized?

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Keep fighting for it

Capitalism

Mises debunks inherent influences in capitalism.

http://www.dailypaul.com/319162/misses-debunks-inherent-infl...

Giddy Up

My point of contention with a few of the commenters on this thread is this idea that the concentration of wealth in a few hands is somehow a natural progression or outcome of capitalism. I believe that is false because, like you said, we've never truly had capitalism in this country and what originally passed for capitalism at its inception has been "progressively" destroyed to where even using the word capitalism to describe is misleading. This has been particularly pronounced in the past 100 years.

To your point about being defensive about capitalism, I certainly am. It is worth trying to achieve and yes, it has enemies. The trend on this site appears to me to be a type of Sunstein-ism, a muddying of the waters about capitalism, sometimes slightly, sometimes egregiously. This "natural" critique of capitalism seems anachronistic in this day and age, like something contrived in the late 1800s to bolster a burgeoning collectivism where now that collectivism is in full bloom. For some of these folks, the answer to fascism is a friendlier type of collectivism. I reject that notion.

Two questions:

1. What was it about the original thing that "passed for capitalism" that made it not capitalism?

2. What was it about this thing which "passed for capitalism" that allowed it to progress into what is not capitalism?

I suspect I am approaching a rabbit hole...

But what the heck, this is Fight Club. Oh wait, that's the other site. Anyways, here goes. I am somewhat reluctant to label the early Republic through say, 1896, as an example of this mythical "true free market capitalism" that gets bandied about. While, during this time, the general attitude of gov't in this period was laissez-faire towards the economy, there were aspects, tariffs and excise taxes for example, that could be cited as restraints on trade.

As to your second question, in the late 1800s, despite all the actual "progress" brought on by the heretofore prevailing "passable capitalism", the population of the US was beginning to be propagandized by a new ideology, collectivism, that emanated from Europe. Politicians, always eager to subvert any principles, even long held traditional American ones, in their lust for power and wealth, quickly appealed to that worst of instinct, envy, especially in communities where there was a large surplus of new immigrants from Europe who did not have a strong tie to American traditions. Upon gaining political power via the ballot box, these new purveyors of collectivism, and preachers of eliminating "inequality" via gov't intervention found themselves at odds with "business.". Many false accounts were spread in the "muckraking" journals of the day to stigmatize the "rich" and propagandize this idea of a "gilded" age. Some of it was no doubt true but the distortions captured the imagination of those who wanted something for nothing, and believed you could get it by voting the right way.

In the face of an alien ideology, a hostile voting majority, and a newly empowered "intervention-minded" government, owners of capital were faced with a choice. They could make the case to defend US economic tradition and fight the gov'ts efforts against the long odds that democracy creates for even a 49% minority. This would also mean continuing to have to compete in the marketplace to retain their wealth. The second choice was to embrace then capture the efforts of gov't and the collectivist ideology in order to cement both their wealth and power. Lip service had to be paid to altruism, of course, but it was entirely self-serving.

The people also had a choice. One could imagine a different trajectory for capitalism in the US if the people had voted to support the economic traditions of the US that had served them so well and raised living standards tremendously and made the US a rising, if not preeminent world power (along with a foreign policy of non-intervention). These included sound currency, competition in the marketplace by rejecting barriers to entry and regulation. They did not include empowering the gov't to become the unlimited arbiter of the economy and the protector of wealth for its donors and cronies.

But alas, business joining with gov't to pander to the baser instincts of the voters won out. It's also true that this new "progression" happened slowly at first then accelerated beginning with the coups of 1913 involving direct voting for senators and, most importantly, the creation of the central bank. The "war collectivism" morphed into the "new deal" which morphed into the "great society" and on and on. Through the years many folks saw what was happening and spoke out. Unfortunately, the welfare and warfare created a business-gov't alliance that implemented continual looting of the treasury leading to the current state of affairs.

John T. Flynn called out the nascent fascism of Roosevelt and the US in his book "As We Go Marching" in 1944. Pinpointing the exact moment the US made this transition away from capitalism into fascism is impossible but it's safe to say it has been this way for many decades.

My point of contention is that it takes 3 to tango to get where are today. Business interests, politicians, and voters. I simply reject blaming capitalism or attributing the current state of affairs to a natural or inevitable result of it.

Bill3 is a pseudo-libertarian

Bill3 is a pseudo-libertarian troll. Don't feed him. Trust me and save yourself the frustration.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

So to your first answer

you mention only tarrifs and excise taxes as making early America not capitalist. Do you think tarrifs and excise taxes are what caused this system to concentrate wealth and allow that wealth to be converted into political power?

To your second answer, you attribute the departure from "what passed as capitalism" to the propaganda of the progressives. So was this caused by tariffs and excise taxes?

If not, then what you're saying is that the system that "passed for capitalism," except for tariffs and excise taxes, was inherently unstable to the propaganda of influential media organs and so was transformed into today's conditions. That would seem to be in accord with the position of those who say that capitalism does in fact have within it the inherent tendency to succumb to the propaganda of influential minorities with effective propaganda.

You should probably formulate your position as "Assuming everyone is vigilant, then capitalism does not naturally progress into something else which is promoted by those with control of media organs and influence over academia." You need that caveat about vigilance, otherwise your free capitalism does in fact permit concentration of wealth and the herding of people into whatever system is desired by those with control of political propaganda.

Stop putting words in my mouth

Tariffs and excise taxes were examples of restraints on trade. In and of themselves, they didn't allow concentration of wealth or political power.

Aside from propaganda, you could've said the same thing about European immigration around the turn of the 20th century or any other factors. Different choices by different actors allow for different outcomes. There is absolutely nothing natural, inevitable, or inherent about capitalism that causes concentration of wealth and power.

I think you see yourself some kind of white knight coming to the aid of the commenter I'll call Mr. Inherent Influences. You should let him/her fight their own intellectual battles

If excise taxes and tariffs

weren't the condition that made "what passed for capitalism" not actually capitalism, than you have yet to answer question 1.

If you can't provide an answer to one, then you can't define capitalism, and so the claim that "true capitalism" won't lead to concentrated wealth and political corruption can't be sustained.

You're going in circles...

Re-read the first paragraph of my first reply to you. It speaks for itself. You haven't debunked anything.

I'm content that

the first question was answered only with excise taxes and tariffs.

Since you just said in response that those were not the things which allowed wealth concentration, then you're at a loss to show why capitalism doesn't produce wealth concentration.

As for you complaints that progressivism won the propaganda battle, you haven't shown why your undefined "true capitalism" would have prevented progressivism from winning the propaganda battle.

And a dosey do, round and round we go...

Again, I'm not going to reiterate or restate my first paragraph in response to your initial 2 questions. It speaks for itself. I think all of my comments so far speak for themselves and will let them stand.

BTW, Neither capitalism nor the mythical "true capitalism" you mention is a volitional thing that could "prevent progressivism from winning a propaganda battle." Individuals and groups of individuals fight, win and lose propaganda battles.

Hehe

Hollow I think this is the first time we've conversed, and we're having a rocky start. It's interesting to me when people take a phrase like circular and completely mis use it. There's nothing wrong with circling back to the point. There's a reason I asked questions 1 and 2, which should be clear. If you are arguing that capitalism doesn't involve wealth concentration, you need to explain why wealth concentration occurred. Your only offering so far was tariffs and excise taxes, which you subsequently withdrew as the thing which made "what passes for capitalism" not capitalism. So as of this moment, unless you offer some other answer to question 1, it remains unanswered. So I will have to keep leading you back to it, as it's the only interest I have in this discussion.

As for question 2, you offered propaganda as the reason for progressivism. But propaganda is something that capitalism does not outlaw, does it? So on both 1 and 2 you seem stuck with the fact that capitalism produced the current distribution of wealth and political power. Unless you can give good answers to 1 and 2, you will be in an untenable position.

It should be stressed that there's nothing wrong with returning to the original point if it has 't been answered. You seem to want to conflate returning to the initial points with some sort of circular reasoning or some other problem, but they're not the same thing, that's just silly. Question 1 remains entirely unanswered, leaving you with no basis for claiming that capitalism isn't subject to wealth concentration and its effect on government.

I'll warn you in advance that each time you reply, if you avoid answering questions 1 and 2, I'll just ignore your protestations and meanderings, and return you to the point, as it's the only thing I'm interested, and can't advance to your other points until the first questions are answered.

You and your

Circular logic.

"I'm Ron Paul." - Ron Paul