Thread by @FedPoasting

Want to Know Why so many corporations have adopted ESG and All of the Social Justice Nonsense has Spread so Insanely Quickly and Why it Seems the World has Simultaneously Gone Insane and Accepted so Many Blatantly Obvious Lies?

A Thread 🧵

1/X

Simple Answer:

One Megacorp controls the entire world and they basically do whatever they want whenever they want, and everything else is a facade. It's all fake. The trans issues, the race, issues, the feminism issues, every aspect of the framing of these issues is literally designed to make you point the finger at every. single. person. but. the. actual. guilty. party.

Not a single one of these theories is legitimate. Not a single one. Every hierarchy they purport to spot and dismantle, is a guise to prevent you from spotting the only hierarchy that is actually of any consequence:

Megacorp is your god, and the political theatre is how it obfuscates this fact.

Ouroboros: If You Want To Control The World, Make The Snake Swallow Itself.

Long answer:

Buckle up, I am about to ruin what you thought you knew about our "free-market" economy.

*Disclaimer I'm not saying there's a conspiracy to say, control the whole entire economic world.

I'm just providing evidence that supports the idea that if a group of people at the top of this mess wanted to, they are all set up to do so. Many of these investment firms and banks that make up Megacorp have been around for well over a century, some for more than two centuries, owned by the same families that own them now (at least in part; I’ll show below how they have retained ownership because it isn’t obvious).

Of interest: compare the last four oldest banking institutions in that link (Citibank, Chase, State Street, and Mellon) to the top institutional owners of Megacorp. If you take out “BlackRock” and “Vanguard,” you get those four at or near the top everywhere.

I will get to some deeper connections between them later on.

This investigation causes a few questions for me. Does someone (whatever "someone" means) own the entire world? If so, why? Is “greed” (in monetary terms) really applicable at that scale? It’s the entire planet; its resources, goods, services... everything looks black in the ownership map. What would be the motive behind such potential economic control of the entire world? And if its true that someone already owns everything, why the pretense?

I personally think the ultimate end game is global centralization and global governance: it's easier to own you if they don't need to maintain the veil via 200+ different governments.

It's easier to bribe one mechanism of centralized control than it is to bribe 200+, of which there is the occasional defector who steps out of line.

You can't defect if there is no where to defect to.

Well, Mars still exists, but who knows, they probably already own that too.

1/x

First things first, let's establish some definitions:

Mutual Funds: Pools of money allowing fund managers to own stock using other people's funds. They symbolize, but do not equate to, direct stock ownership.

Fund Structure: A mutual fund is an account, not a corporate entity, lacking direct ownership or control over stocks it invests in.

Share in Mutual Fund: Represents a portion of the fund, not actual stock ownership. Investors in mutual funds have no legal rights to underlying stocks.

Fund Manager Ownership: The entity (corporation or trust) managing the fund owns the stocks. The name on the stock purchase order indicates actual ownership.

Investor Rights: Mutual fund investors have contractual rights to withdraw and a share of profits, but no control over specific investments or underlying stocks.

Source of Funds: The original source of funds, such as retirement accounts, does not affect stock ownership, which lies with the entity making the stock purchase.

Withdrawal Rights and Contracts: Mutual funds are bound by contracts to provide profit shares and allow withdrawals, often with conditions like penalties for early withdrawal.

Asset Managers: Funds enable asset managers to control stock ownership of companies, significantly influenced by the usage of other people's money.

Why this matters:

When you purchase a mutual fund stock, you are “purchasing” a “stock” in the fund itself. The “stock” isn’t really a stock in the normal sense; rather, it’s more like a share in a shell company. It’s not really a “shell corporation” though, because it’s not a corporation. A fund is just a pool of money.

That is all it is. It owns nothing, it holds no assets, its not anything at all in the “corporate” (legal person) sense. When investing in a mutual fund, you're essentially buying a share in a fund, not a traditional stock. This share is more symbolic, representing investment in a variety of stocks, rather than conferring actual ownership of these stocks. The fund itself, essentially a pool of money, doesn't hold any assets or stock ownership.

Instead, the fund manager, which could be a corporation or trust, legally owns the stocks purchased with the fund's money. This structure means that as a mutual fund investor, you have no direct control or legal rights over the individual stocks in the fund.

Your role is more akin to that of a depositor, with rights to withdraw and a share in the profits, as per the fund's contract, but no say in the fund's stock choices or management. Essentially, mutual funds allow asset managers to control stock ownership of companies using investors' money, significantly impacting the distribution of stock ownership in the market.

For example, if BlackRock buys 8% of General Motors stock, and 30% of the money they used comes ultimately from a group of retirement funds (as a made up example), the original source of that pool of money (fund) is irrelevant to who owns the GM stock. The purchase of this stock, using money from the fund, gives ownership and control of the stock to BlackRock (or whoever’s name is on the stock purchase order). What funds really do is allow for ownership of the stock of the world’s companies to fall into the hands of asset managers using other people’s money.

2/x

The Russian Nesting Doll of All Nesting Dolls

There are certain “investment firms”, such as Blackrock, Vanguard, State Street Corporation, JP Morgan, BofA, Fidelity (FMR LLC), Northern Trust Corp, etc., etc. who have purchased large percentages of stock in every single company in America that has a name big enough to make a blip on their radar (and many that have yet to do so). When you add up the ownership of all these investment firms into any random production or retail company it totals anywhere from a very large minority (40%+) all the way up to nearly 100%.

Examples: Intel 63% and AMD 67% (note that these are not the complete lists of investment firm ownership of voting stock, just the top ten):

Here are a few more stock ownership listings that show the approximate institutional ownership of some mostly random corporations; sourced from yahoo and wallstreetzen:

Walmart 43%
Target 83%
Apple 59%
Tesla 45%
Facebook 81%
Google 70%
Amazon 65%
Disney 67%
National Amusements (traded though its subsidiary: ViacomCBS) 88%
AT&T 53%
Comcast 86%
News Corp 76%
Sinclair Broadcasting Group 88%

By looking at the investment data, since each large company is primarily owned by most of the same investment firms, it would be reasonable to assume that the real competition is in the investment firms themselves.

That it is they who compete with each other for profits, and argue over who gets which part of the market. They fight with each other over which stores and brands get to rise to the top, and who gets shorted out of existence.

This assumption would be completely wrong.

All the investment groups I listed above, and every single one of those not listed that have publicly available records (including all privately owned), all own just as much of a share of each other as they do in all the other world's corporations.

3/x

THE MEGACORP

Lets look at a Treemap of percent ownership of a few different investment companies. Lets start with BlackRock, the largest institutional investor in the world.

When you walk up to the door, BlackRock looks like this:

4/x

It’s a big company and Larry Fink is the all powerful deity in control of assets worth almost half of America’s GDP.

But does Larry own BlackRock?

When you look into the actual ownership, the voting rights, equity, etc. it looks like this (from wallstreetzen):

5/x

It looks to me like Merrill Lynch owns BlackRock for the most part. BlackRock only owns 6.5% of BlackRock. Hell, even Vanguard owns more.

But this is an illusion as Merrill Lynch is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bank of America. So BofA is the real owner of this megamachine. Well, not really, because Bank of America doesn’t own Bank of America. When I add the actual ownership of Merrill Lynch (BofA) into the Treemap it looks like this:

6/x

We see BlackRock actually owns more BlackRock than we thought through ownership of Merrill Lynch. Quite a bit of BR is owned by Berkshire Hathaway.

This apparent ownership is still illusory, since all of the other companies besides Merrill Lynch/BofA are also owned by other companies.

If we fill out the rest of the Treemap with their ownership it looks like this:

7/x

So here at last is BlackRocks ownership.

Except of course its not because each of these companies are also owned by others. If I fill in all of these companies with their ownership it looks like this:

8/x

As you keep filling in the ownership further and further eventually it gets below the resolution of the screen, or your eye, or the wavelength of light (or in the case of the program used to create these graphics, below the one pixel limit of the box boundary).

For a simple example, this it the iterative “actual ownership” replacement for HankeyPoo Inc., a made up company:

9/x

Using this same process for BlackRock it looks something like this.

Welcome to BlackRock.

In this Treemap the white represents Retail investors, the gray represents non-institutional insider investment (the actual people we think of as the companies "owners") and the black represents the Big Bad megamachine: Megacorp.

This (the black) shows that as you continually apply the voting stock ownership to each layer above it you eventually can’t distinguish the colors of the individual corporations that hold the stock.

The black for Blackrock is effectively the same as the black for Vanguard is the same as the black for State Street Corp is the same as the black for Fidelity, etc. It’s all one corporation as a function of the voting stock ownership map

10/x

In 2008, Merrill Lynch made a baffling move by exchanging a significant portion of their voting stock in BlackRock for non-voting stock, a decision seemingly in response to a violation of the Advisers Act's Rule 206(4)-3.

This rule, concerning the payment of cash fees to solicitors, was apparently flouted by Merrill Lynch who, instead of rectifying the violation through proper disclosure of their intertwined relationship with BlackRock during client solicitation, chose to relinquish more than 40% of their voting rights in one of the world's most influential financial companies.

This action seems inexplicable on the surface – who in their right mind would give up such substantial control without any apparent direct compensation?

This drastic exchange of power suggests an indifference towards the significant influence that voting stock represents, further supporting the concept of 'Megacorp' – a single, monolithic entity where power is shared and the transfer of voting rights is inconsequential.

The ownership map post-exchange barely shifts, indicating a stable power structure despite the change in stock distribution. This leads to the hypothesis that in the grand scheme of corporate giants, the consolidation of power within an elite circle makes the exchange of voting stock a trivial matter, a mere rearrangement within an already established order. The full implications of this, and further evidence supporting the idea of the irrelevance of this power shift, are explored in the subsequent part of the series.

11/x

The Institution of Ownership

What about other institutional investors?

Lets look at the ownership Treemaps of a few other investment institutions.

In the same vein as BlackRock, here is Bank of America:

12/x

And State Street Corp:

13/x

Analyzing Vanguard's ownership structure presents a challenging task due to its unique model, where the "owners" are essentially the investors in the funds. The SAI (Statement of Additional Information) report provides some insight, listing investors with more than 5% stake in any Vanguard fund. However, this report doesn't offer a clear picture of the total ownership stakes in Vanguard, especially since there are multiple share classes in each fund with no detailed breakdown of their quantities.

Any attempt to map Vanguard's ownership in the database is, by necessity, an approximation. The identified players are likely correct, but the proportions of their holdings are estimates and should be treated as such. Notably, if an institution or individual were to invest just under 5% across all funds, they could amass a significant stake in Vanguard, potentially becoming one of its largest holders, yet remain invisible in ownership reports.

One curious observation is BlackRock’s absence from the list of significant Vanguard investors, despite being the largest investor globally and having a notable reciprocal investment relationship with Vanguard (Vanguard holds a substantial portion of BlackRock's institutional shares).

Additionally, there's an intriguing connection through Merrill Lynch, a subsidiary of Bank of America, which is not only a major broker/dealer for Vanguard funds but also holds a substantial portion of Vanguard itself. This creates a linkage back to BlackRock, considering Merrill Lynch's significant ownership in BlackRock. Moreover, other major investors in Vanguard are also heavily invested in by BlackRock, like Charles Schwab, where BlackRock is a primary institutional investor.

These connections reinforce the intertwined nature of major financial corporations, illustrating a complex web of investments where the same key players frequently appear across different entities.

14/x

Megacorp Ownership Dominates Every corner of Our Human Existence

It owns all the places you shop:

15/x

It owns the grocery stores, the food manufacturers and even the farms that grow the food:

16/x

It owns the construction companies that build houses and buildings, the raw materials harvesters and processors (lumber, mining, oil, etc.) that supply them, and the companies that sell them:

17/x

*Only read this section if you are interested in how the program used to create the above graphics works*

Because private investment corporations are not required to show who owns their stock, making a map of them, and by extension completing the other maps that have substantial stock ownership from such private investment corps, is difficult.

Below is the justification making them black (largely institutionally owned) in the ownership map.

They are likely somewhat gray (personal “owners” of the private investment firms themselves), but here, the justification for defaulting them as completely black where we can’t find good ownership data (as a close approximation) because the "companies" themselves are largely funds, and the stocks contained under the umbrella of those funds (see above definition section) are actually controlled and purchased by Megacorp entities as shown here.

Below is a justification for these statements for the largest such private investment corp in America, Fidelity.

A link of the original report containing all of this information will be provided at the end, and this includes the original source code to the program used to generate the graphics.

18/x

So Who is Pulling The Strings?

When all of the major investing corporations are really just one investment corporation and that one investment corporation owns the majority (or super mega majority in most cases) of the voting stock of all the companies in the world large enough to make a blip, who really decides what choices our favorite companies make?

Who decides who is CEO?

Even if Megacorp isn’t directly represented at a typical board meeting, as a 0.69% owner of your “own company” do you say “no” to the 98% owner that puts the “black” in BlackRock? (I’m looking at you Mr. Fink.)

Some of the more important decisions a company makes are based on a democracy of sorts. In the case of a company with sole ownership, that single person makes all of the decisions.

You can think of a sole proprietorship (one that is formally incorporated) like a company with one stock share, and one person holds that share, even if it isn’t formally set up with shares in the articles of incorporation.

So what happens in the prevailing scenario where a single, dominant investment corporation (Megacorp) controls a vast majority of the voting stock in global corporations?

If such a Megacorp were to own the lion's share of a company, it's not just a stakeholder – it's the puppeteer, with the power to pull strings in ways that can dramatically influence corporate directions, strategies, and leadership.

Consider the appointment of CEOs. In theory, this decision is the prerogative of a company's board of directors, reflecting the interests of the shareholders.

However, in a landscape dominated by Megacorp, this process becomes more of a formality than a democratic election.

How can a board, representing a fraction of the company's ownership, realistically oppose or challenge the wishes of Megacorp, the entity that holds the overwhelming majority of the voting power?

The reality is stark – Megacorp, either directly or through its influence, can effectively decide who leads these companies. The CEOs, in this context, may well be viewed as appointees of Megacorp, operating under its overarching agenda.

This concentration of power fundamentally alters the dynamics of corporate governance.

In a traditional setup, a wide array of shareholders, each with their own perspectives and interests, contributes to a diverse and balanced decision-making process.

However, when a single entity like Megacorp holds sway, this diversity is replaced by a singular vision – the vision of Megacorp.

The implications are far-reaching, extending beyond mere corporate decisions to shaping industry trends, influencing economic policies, and even impacting societal norms and values (Lobbying and the Citizens United decisions is whole other 30 post thread type of can of worms).

The autonomy and individuality of companies, once celebrated as the hallmark of a free market, are overshadowed by the monolithic presence of Megacorp, leading to a homogenization of corporate agendas and priorities.

In essence, the presence of Megacorp as a dominant shareholder isn't just a matter of financial stakeholding; it's a reshaping of the corporate landscape where the illusion of independence is overshadowed by the reality of centralized control.

The decisions, traditionally thought to be the outcome of independent corporate strategies, are now potentially guided, if not outright dictated, by the interests of this singular, omnipotent entity.

The world of corporate governance and business strategy is no longer a diverse ecosystem of independent entities but a theater where Megacorp holds the strings, orchestrating movements in a grand performance of its own design.

19/x

Stakeholder Capitalism and Environmental Social Governance: A Wolf in Wolf's Clothing

Stakeholder capitalism is a model of corporate governance that emphasizes the interests of all stakeholders in a company, not just shareholders. This includes employees, customers, suppliers, local communities, and the environment.

Some asset managers, like BlackRock and Vanguard, have publicly committed to principles of stakeholder capitalism. This approach can sometimes lead to voting in ways that prioritize broader societal or environmental outcomes, which they argue are ultimately in the long-term financial interest of shareholders, but ESG indexes and projections have reliably shown that adopting ESG negatively affects profitability.

The shift towards stakeholder capitalism indeed offers 'Megacorp' an expanded scope of autonomy in decision-making processes. By stepping away from the narrow confines of fiduciary duties that prioritize shareholder profits, 'Megacorp' can operate under the guise of serving a broader spectrum of interests. This ostensibly altruistic approach allows it to justify actions that are not in the best interest of its shareholders, but are instead aligned with environmental, social, and governance (ESG) principles.

So what are "ESG principles?"

Anything they want them to be. Literally anything.

Such decisions, while they may not maximize short-term financial returns, are presented as investments in the long-term health and sustainability of the company and society at large.

The implications of this transition are substantial. 'Megacorp' can now implement its agenda functionally without constraint, taking actions that are directly counter to the interests of shareholders under the pretense of "the greater good."

This latitude means that the traditional checks and balances provided by shareholder oversight are totally moot.

Minority shareholders, in particular, may find their influence and voice significantly diminished, as the larger entity can wield its ESG-aligned decisions as a shield against criticism of financial performance.

Consequently, "stakeholder capitalism" grants 'Megacorp' an operational framework of abject leniency, one where accountability is malleable and the lines between corporate benefit and societal good are blurred, allowing it to redefine the metrics of corporate success and governance.

20/x

So How Exactly Does Megacorp Convince CEO's like Larry Fink to do What It Wants?

The sweeping incorporation of ESG metrics into executive compensation plans across the globe might seem like a noble stride towards responsible capitalism. But when you peel back the layers, the narrative begins to twist, bending towards the strategic plays of the corporate titans like 'Megacorp'. So, how does 'Megacorp' persuade CEOs, like Larry Fink, to align with their agenda?

Let's dissect the numbers that narrate this shift. A staggering 76% of S&P 500 companies in the U.S. now intertwine ESG metrics with executive pay, a jump from 69% just last year and a mere 52% three years prior. In Canada, the figure stands at 80% for the TSX 60 companies, marking a significant rise from 68% over the same period.

But it's not just a North American phenomenon; Europe and Asia Pacific regions are witnessing similar upticks, with the usage of ESG metrics in executive incentive plans climbing from 90% to 93% and 63% to 77%, respectively.

The mechanism for this persuasive influence is intricately woven into the fabric of corporate governance.

The decision to embed ESG metrics into executive remuneration is in the hands of the company's board of directors, specifically the compensation committee.

These committees, laden with non-executive directors, orchestrate the alignment of executive interests with those of the shareholders and broader stakeholder interests.

Human capital remains the most popular metric within the ESG umbrella, utilized by 70% of S&P 500 companies and 75% of TSX 60 companies. Environmental metrics, too, have seen a marked rise in adoption.

But the introduction of these metrics into short-term incentive (STI) plans, more so than long-term incentive (LTI) plans, where their prevalence has nearly quadrupled in the past three years, unveils a deeper strategy.

By tying executive rewards to these metrics, 'Megacorp' effectively steers executives towards the ESG agenda they advocate for – an agenda that CEOs like Larry Fink, influential in their own right, are essentially, bribed to follow.

And here lies the twist: as explained in the 'So Who is Pulling The Strings?' section, major shareholders, the 'Megacorps' of the world, hold sway over who sits on these boards and committees.

They are the ones who select the decision-makers, effectively setting the stage for influencing executive actions.

21/x

So Who or What is Determining the Terms of the Bribe?

The role of attaching ESG scores to executive 'cooperation' is an act carefully curated by a company's board of directors, with the compensation committee playing the lead. This essay peels back the curtain on who these individuals are and how they wield their influence to shape executive behavior.

The compensation committee, a subset of the board of directors, is often composed of non-executive directors.

These are individuals not engaged in the day-to-day operations of the company. Their vantage point is one step removed from the internal workings of the organization, allowing them to ostensibly take a more "objective view" *wink wink* of how executives should be rewarded.

These non-executive directors are in a prime position to influence corporate strategy profoundly.

By tying executive compensation to ESG metrics, they send a clear message: the path to personal financial success for executives is paved with the achievement of ESG goals.

The compensation committee, therefore, becomes a crucial link in the chain, transforming ESG from a buzzword into a tangible target with direct implications for executive performance and, consequently, their pockets.

But the question of 'who' these committee members are, and 'how' they come to occupy these influential roles, often leads back to the dominant shareholders, aka, Megacorp.

Megacorp can exert considerable influence over the composition of the board and, by extension, the committee. They vote in directors who "align" with (aka bribed to be in alignment with) their perspectives on how the company should be run.

In this dynamic, the non-executive directors on the compensation committee serve as the architects of a new form of governance where executive incentives are strategically linked to the underlying motivations of Megacorp.

They are the agents of change, empowered by 'Megacorp' to embed ESG considerations into the heart of corporate strategy.

As a result, these directors are not merely overseers of pay structures; they are the custodians of a new corporate ethos, one that seeks to align the free-market with whatever they loosely define as "social or environmental justice."

22/x

So... How Does this not Violate Megacorp's Fiduciary Duty it Owes to its Shareholders?

The essence of fiduciary duty within the corporate sphere has seen its boundaries stretched and its core principles diluted. Traditional fiduciary duty, grounded in the premise of maximizing shareholder value, has been subtly and subversively been reshaped by the adoption of principles by regulatory agencies that allow for an arbitrarily broad interpretation of what constitutes acting in the 'best financial interest of its shareholders.'

Stakeholder capitalism, as it has been embraced, grants asset managers considerable latitude. This framework posits that actions once considered tangential or even contrary to the financial interest of shareholders may now be justified as long as they *think* there is a possible chance that it will positively impact long-term financial performance *wink wink*.

This shift has led to a scenario where speculative long-term decisions, particularly those involving ESJ and other "social Justice" considerations, can be rationalized as aligning with shareholder interests, provided there's a belief—however conjectural—that these actions might be beneficial in the long run.

This shift is a consequence of duplicitous 'word games,' where the potential sacrifice of immediate financial gains is offset by the attainment of ESG scores that ostensibly reflect a company's commitment to ESG

This expansive interpretation of fiduciary duty takes on a new dimension when considering that these decisions often involve the capital of the unwitting—such as pension funds belonging to ordinary workers. The crux of the issue, then, is the extent of influence wielded by colossal entities like 'Megacorp.'

Megacorp's influence extends beyond the ability to secure favorable investment terms; it affords Megacorp the authority to set the agenda for corporate governance, including the operationalization of ESG metrics.

Megacorp doesn't just participate in the market; it shapes it.

23/x

So... How does Megacorp Appear to Own ... Everything?

Easy: They Only Pretend To

Pension funds, mutual funds, and various retirement accounts are traditionally viewed as conservative investments aimed at steady growth over time.

However, when pooled together under the management of Megacorp, they represent an enormous pool of assets—often running into trillions of dollars. These assets grant 'Megacorp' a seat at the table in every major corporate decision, not through overt ownership, but via the subtler mechanism of proxy voting.

Proxy votes, cast during annual shareholder meetings, are the conduits through which Megacorp can influences corporate governance, executive compensation, and strategic direction. With the weight of countless pension and retirement funds behind each vote, 'Megacorp' has a voice that can reverberate through the corridors of power in virtually any corporation.

Moreover, 'Megacorp' is not just a passive investor. Through strategic voting and engagement, it pushes for the adoption of policies that align with its interests: not yours.

These interests can range from corporate strategies that prioritize ESG initiatives, as mentioned, to more contentious decisions that may affect the company's short-term profitability—and by extension, the value of the pensioners' investments.

This influence is not limited to domestic markets. Megacorp, with its vast AUM, is a global player, capable of shifting the dynamics in international markets and exerting its will on multinational corporations. The ripple effect is such that the investment decisions made by Megacorp can influence economic trends, sector shifts, and even regulatory policies across borders.

24/x

Before we Begin The Next Deep Dive I Want You to Read This:

"But there’s a reason. There’s a reason. There’s a reason for this, there’s a reason education sucks, and it’s the same reason that it will never, ever, ever be fixed.

It’s never gonna get any better. Don’t look for it. Be happy with what you got. Because the owners of this country don't want that.

I'm talking about the real owners now, the real owners, the big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions.

Forget the politicians. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice.

You don't.

You have no choice.

You have owners.

They own you.

They own everything.

They own all the important land.

They own and control the corporations.

They’ve long since bought and paid for the senate, the congress, the state houses, the city halls, they got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear.

They got you by the balls.

They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying, lobbying, to get what they want.

Well, we know what they want.

They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I'll tell you what they don’t want: They don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking.

They don’t want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. They’re not interested in that. That doesn’t help them. Thats against their interests. Thats right.

They don’t want people who are smart enough to sit around a kitchen table to figure out how badly they’re getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fucking years ago.

They don’t want that.

You know what they want?

They want obedient workers. Obedient workers.

People who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork, and just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it, and now they’re coming for your Social Security money.

They want your retirement money.

They want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street, and you know something? They’ll get it.

They’ll get it all from you, sooner or later, 'cause they own this fucking place.

It's a big club, and you ain’t in it. You and I are not in the big club.

And by the way, it's the same big club they use to beat you over the head with all day long when they tell you what to believe.

All day long beating you over the head in their media telling you what to believe, what to think and what to buy. The table is tilted folks.

The game is rigged, and nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care.

Good honest hard-working people -- white collar, blue collar, it doesn’t matter what color shirt you have on -- good honest hard-working people continue -- these are people of modest means -- continue to elect these rich cocksuckers who don’t give a fuck about them.

They don’t give a fuck about you.

They don’t give a fuck about you.

They don't care about you at all -- at all -- at all.

And nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care.

That's what the owners count on; the fact that Americans will probably remain willfully ignorant of the big red, white and blue dick that's being jammed up their assholes everyday.

Because the owners of this country know the truth: it's called the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it.”

― George Carlin

25/x

So Does the Free-Market Even Exist Anymore?

Does Megacorp mean there is no actual competition between say, Intel and AMD, or Big Five and REI, etc.? No, I do not think that is true at all. I think that all companies that “play ball” get to play ball. When a master owns many dogs, and he takes them out to play fetch, all the dogs chase after the ball when its thrown with everything in them, but only one brings it back. The dogs are in full competition at all times, vying for that extra treat, or pat on the head. No matter which dog gets the ball though, it always returns to the same master.

In the same way, it appears that someone (person, group, family, group of families, Board of Supers, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, whatthefuckever?!?) is making a buck off of (and potentially controlling???) every transaction in the world, from the bottom to top of the production chain in every industry.

Monopolies Are Illegal, But Megaloogalopolies We Are Totally OK With

With the massive shared ownership of Megacorp in mind, we might think of this little morsel:

According to the Investment Company Act of 1940:

Hmm. Well ain’t that a peach. I guess the 438 Gazillion violations of this law that I’ve just shown are all perfectly acceptable.

26/x

The Ministry Of Truth

Just in case you thought maybe Megacorp didn’t own the media companies, this is where we pull out the book on Super Advanced Fuckery and, with some sucus citrum (lemon juice) and our super secret lucernam arcanum (arcane candle), we’ll take a look at the blank pages at the end of that book.

In order to gain a deeper understanding of our “modern economy” as the evidence of this report suggests it is... in order to even look at the evidence I will present, there must be an understanding of the Media chapters in the Super Advanced Fuckery book. Some of this is going to seem a little off topic from the economics of ownership, but I feel this information is essential to understanding the evidences I will present on those topics.

Outside of our immediate sphere of experience, what we perceive to be "really going on in the world" is completely dependent on the mediums we use to view the information. If those mediums are manipulated, even a little bit, our view of reality is manipulated commensurately. I will be presenting some evidence here that suggests such a manipulation of our view of the outside world. This isn’t just evidence that it happens. Most people realize it happens. This is an exposure of the scope, both in the past and present, and in product space. It also gives evidence of the actors involved, and their motivations.

This evidence, as it pertains to the media specifically, will be scattered throughout the rest of this thread. It will gain more specific focus later on, but before we get to any of that though, I want to look at who owns the media; Megacorp style.

27/x

The Information Dealers

In the section "The Russian Nesting Doll of All Nesting Dolls" many of the companies that were chosen were chosen specifically because if you look, you can find a direct connection of ownership between the last few companies listed and every single form of information exchange.

All of our media is owned by these companies (e.g. CNN (AT&T), FOX (Split up into News Corp and Disney), MSNBC (Comcast), Marketwatch (News Corp), etc.).

28/x

You have probably heard it said “only six companies own all the media”.

They are wrong. It’s one.

All of these companies have as primary shareholders the same investment groups and thus are all owned by Megacorp.

While what I will be showing here is far from enough evidence to support the statement of a "single owner for all of media," a great deal more evidence will be forthcoming when we get closer to the relevant conundrum.

29/x

It's not just the news websites and stations that are owned by Megacorp. Its also social media (Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, LinkedIn, etc.), Google et al (which provide "personalized" search results and are the gatekeepers of all information):

30/x

Hollywood, and all entertainment:

31/x

They Own The Fact Checkers?!?!

Yes. They even own the fact checkers.

Below is a funding money trail for just one of the Fact Checkers to provide evidence for Fact Checker Fuckery.

This one leads directly to all the others, so it will be sufficient.

I think understanding the Fact Checker web is essential to an appreciation of the potential scope of the media problem. It’s easy to get lost in the weeds in these investigations but I encourage further independent investigation if you think this must be incorrect or if you are just curious. (I recommend digging into Snopes' weeds if you are really curious).

Not every fact checker that exists has been checked, but the money trail for a few has been investigated.

They all lead directly back to Megacorp paying their salaries.

As you will see below, they are all fundamentally connected by other means as well.

The parent organization for is the Poynter Institute for Media Studies. The Poynter Institute is a “non-profit” journalism school that gets its funding from a who's who of billionaire's foundations.

Poynter:

Funders:


An abbreviated list of funders:

Charles Koch Foundation
Democracy Fund
Environmental Defense Fund
Facebook
Foundation to Promote Open Society
Gill Foundation
Google News Initiative
Institute for War and Peace Reporting
The list goes on, all in the same vein.

There’s also the list of their “Largest custom training partners:”

Largest custom training partners in 2019-2021:

American Society of Business Publication Editors
Charles Koch Institute
ESPN
Facebook
Huffington Post
Marketplace
MRC Media
Middle East Broadcasting Networks
National Public Radio
Newsweek
New York Times
Pinellas County School District
Southern Newspapers Publishers Association
The Washington Post
TikTok
USA Today Network
Vice
Voice of America – Broadcasting Board of Governors.

These are the institutions that give Poynter's the facts ("collaborate"), ensuring that everyone has the same facts:



Here are a couple examples from that link:

We will be seeing the real ownership of quite a few of the organizations above as the report unfolds.

Not because there was a need to look per se, but because in the course of other investigations, the information came up and was relevant to something else. All of the ones found are surprisingly more interesting than they appear on the surface.

Through Poynter, they don’t just contribute to PolitiFact, but to many (likely all) Fact Checking organizations through a central control structure for “best practices”:



Does this sound like fact checking organizations are “independent” to you?

"Our team monitors trends in the fact-checking field to offer resources to fact-checkers, contribute to public discourse and provide support for new projects and initiatives that advance accountability in journalism."

They do everything they can to make sure “Fact Checkers” are all saying the same thing.

No “fact checker” has to investigate the facts themselves if they can simply go to a fact checker source, or get the predetermined “facts” in a newsletter.

Here’s the crazy thing about actual facts. If something is a fact, all truly independent, honest sources will come to the same conclusion.

If there are nuances, or questions, then debate will occur.

An independent path of investigation, followed by debate (which never officially ends), is foundational in the scientific method.

Indeed, I assert the only path to the truth in a constitutional reoublic, is through using our methods of reason (e.g., logic, science, etc.) is through debate and consideration by many minds, taking on that goal in earnest.

Why would it be any different in any other report of observations?

From the “Funders” list above, many of the organizations who contribute to Poynter are also deeply invested in and/or owned by and/or funded by Megacorp (i.e. Fact Checkers are also Megacorp by ownership and funding money trail).

Looking at the funders listed above there are some real doozies. Each NGO, NPO and Foundation is a deep dark rabbit hole itself. I will delve into potential fuckery involving Philanthropic Foundations in another section of this report.

Rather than go through the whole list of funders (to save time), just notice two of the contributors to the IFCN: Facebook and Google News Initiative.

That PolitiFact is used to fact check for two of the largest information sources on the planet does not prove lying or deceit.

That Facebook (Meta) and Google also contribute to their "journalistic endeavors" (i.e. "collaborates" with them on the facts, that they turn around and check) does not prove anything nefarious either.

This only shows a direct line of funding and information contributions between two of the largest sources of public information consumption and one of the large fact checker websites that “fact check” them.

This evidence shows clear conflicts of interest (though nothing more at this point). The same exact types of monetary paths can be found for every single Fact Checker that I looked at.

The phrase “Independent fact checker” is a provable oxymoron (at least through proof of monetary dependence) in each and every case.

It isn’t just funding that asserts a lack of independence with the rest of the Fact Checkers.

The IFCN also has a “code of principles” and an “application and vetting process.”

The link to the application:

The Code of Principles page which is here:

Link to the verified fact checkers:



At the bottom of the first link is a list of “approved fact checkers.” It contains all the sites you would think of: Associated Press, Washington Post, Snopes, etc. I don’t know for certain if that list is comprehensive or up to date.

Any wannabe Fact Checker has to pass this vetting process (and pay its dues) or it isn’t allowed to be a part of the Fact Checking network.

If you’re not a part of the Fact Checking Network will you show up on a Google search?

What about one of the bajillion sites that use a Google search function? Will you show up on Facebook or Twitter or anywhere? Lets try Google:

Using a mostly random, but likely controversial topic, the search term “fact check do masks stop covid,” was selected.

I got the following list of websites:

(approved by IFCN)

(“”)

(partnered with Associated Press (AP) (see below), approved by IFCN)

(“”)

(approved by IFCN)

usatoday (at the bottom of the page says: “Our fact check work is supported in part by a grant from Facebook.”)

(A UCSF medical school site. Almost every single “fact check” on this page is a copy/paste from the WHO or CDC, which are also cited often in all other Fact Checkers. Nevertheless, maybe this is the “exception that proves the rule?” I will return to this question in another part of this report.)

(This page does its entire debunking in a few sentences and cites twice as an authority.)

(AFP, like Reuters is also a part of AP)

(This begins its “debunking” with “We are collaborating with ” with a big link to their website.)

Note: due to Google’s personalized algorithm and the date of the search (sometime around Aug 2021), you are not likely to get the same results as these, though I suggest the end result will have all the same direct ties to the IFCN.

32/xPolitiFact.com
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynter_I…
web.archive.org/web/2021071312…
poynter.org/major-funders/…
poynter.org/ifcn/
drive.google.com/open?id=1e-A_A…
ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org
ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/signatories
factcheck.org
factcheck.org
reuters.com
reuters.com
politifact.com
covid19factcheck.com
wionews.com
FactCheck.org
factcheck.afp.com
wcvb.com
FactCheck.org

So the Media is Owned by the Same Company?!? So its the Mega Mainstream Media?!? The MMSM?!?

Yes.

According to a report from the United Nations in 1952 titled, News Agencies, Their Structure and Operation, AFP (formerly Havas), AP, and Reuters are the primary “World News” sources.

Link:

On page 15 of that document it says most of the National News agencies from all over the world became part of the Reuters Trust. This ensured that all news came from one source. It says:

"it is true to say that in 1952 world news is disseminated mainly by six agencies: the US agencies (AP, INS and UP); the British agency, Reuters; the French agency, AFP (formerly Havas); the Russian agency, TASS."

UP is the United Press. It was the competition to AP in America as a World News source. At the bottom of page 12 it says:

"Once the new Associated Press had concluded an exclusive contract with Reuters, which provided it with the services of Havas and Wolff as well as with its own (a contract, moreover, which in practice gave AP the monopoly of all European news in the United States), the first United Press agency was gradually pushed out of business and ceased operating."

This first UP, a competitor to AP, was pushed out of business in 1893 according to the chart on page 16, surviving only seven years.

Some of this document gets a little confusing because there was another UP created in 1907 by E. W. Scripps (who I will get back to briefly in later section).

This second UP was not a competitor but was a part of the Reuter's Trust, just like everyone else. I could not find any information on this first UP (who created it, how it was pushed out of business, etc.).

Searching the internet is not fruitful, at least on an initial search. Any information that might exist is drowned out by all of the information on the second UP.

Perhaps there are more specifics at some other point of this UN report. I didn’t read the entire document. It was only used it to try to figure out who AFP was in relation to the others. It may be a treasure trove of other useful Megacorp/MegaMedia info and it should get dug into more at some point. Nevertheless, enough of it was scoured to get some useful info.

Apparently there were contracts that gave this “alliance” of World News sources effectively one news voice from before 1870.

Sometime around WWII there may have been a falling out (page 19) of this alliance (no big surprise), but at some point all World News sites were brought back under one roof (from which all MSM news sites world wide, by contract, get their world news).

There have been several contracts and alliances formed between these groups over the past 150 years. As of now, their joint Trusted News Initiative (TNI) ensures all reporting voices and all fact check voices are one voice world wide. No dissension happens within the framework of the MSM.

This latest contract, the TNI, apparently started with the BBC getting together with all its MSM buddies to “stop the spread of disinformation:”

Link:

Who assesses what is “disinformation” or a “risk of real-world harm”?

They do.

The same single organization that is allowed to tell you “the truth” also determines what that is. The above paragraph, and the start of the TNI was for the UK election in 2019:

"This new expansion to the US follows the TNI’s success in tackling disinformation during the UK 2019 General Election, the Taiwan 2020 General Election..."

To be clear that this was not the first or only such partnership:

"The Trusted News Initiative (TNI) was set up last year to protect audiences and users from disinformation, particularly around moments of jeopardy, such as elections. The TNI complements existing programmes partners have in place."

Its members are, well, everyone (MegaMedia):

The partners currently within the TNI are: AFP; BBC, CBC/Radio-Canada, European Broadcasting Union (EBU),Facebook, Financial Times, First Draft, Google/YouTube, The Hindu, Microsoft, Reuters, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Twitter, The Wall Street Journal.

And just in case you thought the big American boys were left out:

"The TNI is also expanding its global network. New organisations joining the TNI for the US Election include The Associated Press and The Washington Post."

Just in time for the 2020 U.S. election.

Right before the vaccines were deployed they also made sure to include a censorship and fact check of potential disinformation about them:



"With the introduction of several possible new Covid-19 vaccines, there has been a rise of ‘anti-vaccine’ disinformation spreading online to millions of people...

TNI partners will alert each other to disinformation which poses an immediate threat to life so content can be reviewed promptly by platforms, whilst publishers ensure they don’t unwittingly republish dangerous falsehoods."

One voice is good right? It makes sure that no “harmful misinformation” occurs. The fact that the CEO of Reuters which leads the TNI is also on the Board of Directors for Pfizer might be a conflict of interest when it comes to fact checking vaccine information, but I’m sure nothing untoward is happening there.

Link:


The whole idea of a one voice world wide media also sounds a little bit like one of the ten planks of the communist manifesto (page 28):

"6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State."

The “Ten Planks” are the steps necessary to bring about Marx’s ideal utopian world. Of course it’s centralizing the means of communication into the one voice of MegaMainstreamMedia and not “The State,” so there’s really nothing to worry about.

Unless The State and Megacorp are less distinct than they appear? Then it might be exactly as Marx envisioned it. Not that I'm saying that at all. I'm just saying if there were some fundamental connections, then it would look a lot like Marx's Utopia.

I would also like to add one thing about the name “Trusted News Initiative.” Anytime you have to tell someone you are trustworthy, there’s a fair chance you might not be. A complete lack of independent investigative journalism and a requirement to pass their own built in Fact Checking Network to be allowed to “fact check” (debate a point), doesn’t seem very “Free Press-y" to me.

As I will show later, there are organizations that incorporate under names that are provable as the opposite of what their name suggests.

Such names have pulled the wool over the public’s eyes for a very long time. It won’t make a lot of sense how big of a deal that is until later, but when you see what I mean, remember this part.

Corporate names that are designed to make you believe the opposite of the truth are a very, very big deal. I’m not saying the TNI is an example of that.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. Maybe it’s totally the bestest most trustworthiest Ministry of Truth Media Conglomerate ever conceived.

I am only suggesting that you remain suspicious of anyone who is named one thing (Trusted), but their actions suggest the opposite (no independence in journalistic endeavors).

I don't know if it's fair to call this mess The Ministry of Truth. I am not trying to prove intent. I am looking at how they define themselves, and following their money and ownership trails. Plus the name is already taken ().

Instead I call all well known media, MegaMainstreamMedia, AKA, MMSM. There appear to be multiple voices and opinions proffered by MMSM to various demographics, but this evidence (and a great deal more to come) suggest that there may be ultimately only one source.

33/xunesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0…
web.archive.org/web/2020121220…
web.archive.org/web/2020121010…
investors.pfizer.com/corporate-gove…
enotes.com/homework-help/…

The Reute To The truth

The UN report shown above suggests that Reuters was the start of this "single voice" in media (or at least in "world news"). It is also currently the main “Trust” (Reuters Trust) that manages it (and I assert always has been). Where did Reuters come from?

According to historical record, in the late 18th century five Rothschild brothers were sent out by their father, Mayer Amschel Rothschild to establish a paneuropa banking empire, by creating family banks in five cities; London England, Paris France, Frankfurt Prussia (Germany), Vienna Austria, and Naples Italy. Since this story on the Rothschild banking empire is generally accepted as true (GAT) and neither I, nor anyone else is disputing it, I will not be looking too hard for a primary reference source (although I will be showing you one in about three seconds).

Link:

In 2011 Sir Evelyn de Rothschild gave a talk at Peking University at which he was speaking about his families banking empire in the 19th century (7:20 in that video link):



His speech continues and says some interesting things that I will get back to later. For now I want to focus on the founding of Reuters.

Evelyn de Rothschild is here proclaiming that the five brothers were the first clients of Reuter, which is to say, they gave him his first business, and his first dollar (pound sterling, whatever).

The Rothschild’s fully understood the value of information. In fact their entire empire was built upon it. Nathaniel Mayer Rothschild used both information and disinformation to effectively buy England after his family funded both sides of the Napoleonic war and he performed the greatest short sale of all time.

This was a very important event from which an avalanche of fuckery began. I will provide all the sources and evidence for this after. These aren't really controversial statements though.

All but the "owned England" part are GAT:

Link:

Part 2 here:

The GAT sources suggest they "saved the Bank of England from collapse with their own money."

For now I'll call that tomato/tomahto. As we will see later, the details are important.

There is evidence that shows a pattern of behavior by the Rothschilds in the 19th and 20th centuries of providing seed money for some entrepreneur, and effectively owning (controlling) their company (or in some cases entire countries) through sometimes stock or bond ownership, and in some cases through leverage.

I am introducing the Rothschilds here only because they come up in trying to understand the beginings of our modern media. The details of all of these things are important, and the original sources are important to see. I will elaborate quite a bit further on all of these topics later.

Given my assertion of the Rothschilds above (which I promise to get back to in a big way), is it too much of a stretch to think that perhaps such a thing happened with Reuters?

Perhaps it was further funded, and indeed even founded by Rothschild, with Reuter as CEO, but also merely a frontman when it comes to actual ownership AKA top level decision making?

At this point that is speculative, but I will provide substantial evidence that this behavior is common.

I will proceed to make the case that this "frontman" relationship is almost ubiquitous, at least for the larger corporations, i.e. the “owner” is not exactly the person who it appears to be. While I certainly have not made the case for such a situation at Reuters, at the very least, in the beginning, the Rothschilds almost certainly had substantial influence. The only other "concrete" (set in stone?) connection I have found (as of the time of this writing) between Reuters and the Rothschilds is this:
"The supply of information to the world’s traders in securities, commodities and currencies was then, as is now the mainspring of Reuters activities & the guarantee of the founder’s aims of accuracy, rapidity and reliability. News services based on those principles now go to news papers, radio & television networks & governments throughout the world. Reuters has faithfully continued the work begun here to attest this & to honour Palullius Reuter. The memorial was set here by Reuters to Mark the 125th anniversary of Reuters foundation & inaugurated by Edmond L’de Rothschild td 13-10-76"

By Sir Evelyn de Rothschild’s own admission, Reuters began life as the information lifespring for the Rothschild’s Banking Empire. This 125th Reuters anniversary plaque at the Royal Exchange London was inaugurated by a member of the Rothschild Dynasty suggesting there is still a substantial connection.

It would seem that I am grouping all members of the Rothschild’s together as if they were a single entity. I will explain why this is, to an extent, appropriate, even necessary (legally speaking) in a later section.

I will return to the media at several points as we progress.

There is a great deal more to be looked at here, but the evidence that supports the topics must be presented first, to set up the context for the evidence of the media itself.

34/xinvestopedia.com/updates/histor…

businessinsider.com/the-rothschild…
web.archive.org/web/2011060405…

The Big Apple Tree

William Avery Rockefeller Sr., known as Big Bill (when he wasn’t known for one of his aliases), was a snake oil salesman.

Link:

Like, he actually sold real (“real”), honest to God, Snake Oil. It was made from crude oil (which at the time was considered a pollutant) mixed with a laxative. He sold it for $25 bucks a pop.

That may not sound like a lot, but back in the early to mid decades of the 1800s, hourly wage was about $0.05 to $0.06.

Price of goods and wage info:


A brand new large house was in the $1000 range (see page 28, moderate estate home $1350). $25 was about 2 months wages for the average person. He posed as a doctor, and “cured all ills” with the same potion. And he was good at it. He made a killing at it (reportedly he always had thousands of dollars on hand). Oh ya, and he was also a convicted rapist, though he never spent any time in prison for it. It probably “pays” to have thousands of dollars on hand for just such unfortunate circumstances as being caught raping people.

The Big Apple That Fell From The Big Apple Tree’s One Eyed Snake Oil (and didn’t fall very far away)

From these “not really all that humble” beginnings was brought forth the fruit of “Dr.” Rockefeller’s loins, John D. Rockefeller (Sr., though obviously he wasn’t “Sr.” at the time) and John’s brother, William Avery Rockefeller, Jr. (obviously he was “Jr.” at the time). In addition to JD and William, a few other apples fell from this wandering tree. There were several “whole apples” running around (JD's known siblings); however, William Sr. was a rapist, philanderer, and bigamist, so who knows, maybe there were some “half apples” as well, though none are recorded that I was able to find (the man's life is quite the mystery). Other than JD, William Avery, and a couple cameo’s by JD’s other brother Frank however, none are part of this report.

I’m not going to go through the whole JD story, you can read about him anywhere. For the first part of section five, I'm going to focus on a few details of how he built his absolutely massive fortune because those details seem to have everything to do with what is going on today. I know it's crazy to think things that happened over 150 years ago can have any relevance today, but that's where my investigation led me. It's not my fault the evidence went there. I'm just reporting it.

At the time period under investigation, his business encompassed a tremendous portion of the business world. It extended deeply into political control as well. How much control did JD have over governments and journalists back in the day? Well, that is a matter of some debate. The best way to attempt to find a reasonable answer, is to dig into the primary evidence. The answer seems to lie somewhere between “a fair bit of control” and “near total control.” It certainly wasn’t “none,” or “not very much,” as I will show.

In American industry though, JD’s business, the Standard Oil Trust of the 19th and early 20th centuries had nigh complete control, not just in oil, but in all of corporate America (and no small amount of the industry of the world as well). Of course me saying all this stuff is not the point of this report. The evidence is what matters. The details of “how,” are also quite important, as the direct links to today’s world are surprisingly many. At the time, the Standard Oil Trust was described as an Octopus. It is called that in several period books, magazines and newspapers. Here is an illustration from 1904, Puck magazine by Udo J. Keppler, found on library of Congress archives:

Puck Magazine:

Udo J. Keppler:

Library of Congress archive:

Notice Congress, the Supreme Court, the White House, and all the other businessmen were all Tentacled up in this depiction. Whether the Standard Oil reach extended that far or not, this seems to have been the predominant belief at the time. Such statements are all over the place in the literature. It motivated many law changes. It even ended up breaking up the Standard Oil Trust, not once, but several times. Of course each time it got “killed” it ended up being stronger as we will see.

Everuthing suggests that the tentacles of the Standard Oil Trust didn’t just go through the business space of the 19th and 20th centuries, but extends through time as well. It seems that The Trust has tentacles that extend to the present day and Megacorp. How much are they intertwined? Well, evidence first, and then you can decide for yourself. I would suggest that The Trust seems nigh unkillable. It might be more appropriate to call it something other than an Octopus. Maybe something more immortal, with lots of heads, like a Hydra. Maybe an Octopus Hydra hybrid. Hydropus? Whatever, something with lots of heads, lots of arms, and immortality:

This is Ravana, the Hindi king of demons. The story of Ravana is colorful, with a couple interesting tidbits. From a random website:



"...Ravana... was one of the most powerful beings and rulers of all time. He was known for his wisdom, strength and control over the gods, demons and human beings alike.

...the Valmiki Ramayana portrays the demon King... as a powerful tyrant, who committed evil deeds and, many a time, held the gods at ransom...

He was extremely wise, powerful and ambitious as well - his major goal was to dominate the devas (gods) and gain full control over the entire Universe.

He is believed to have been in possession of the Nectar of Immortality, which he carefully stored within his belly."

I am not suggesting any correlation between Ravana and JD Rockefeller, or his Standard Oil Trust... Other than, of course, the multiple arms and heads, and immortality, and “the major goal of gaining full control over the entire universe”.

In this section I will expose a few pertinent details of how JD Rockefeller became the “richest person of modern times.” This “richest person” statement is something I may dispute in Part 3, but it’s close enough for now. At the least he was the first ever reported billionaire.

All of the stuff on JD and Standard Oil in the section called "The Architect" is GAT (unless specifically stated otherwise). There is no real controversy here. The historical documents all suggest he was the quintessential Market Fucketeer (like Mouseketeer, only less Disney and more WTF). In general, people either don’t know about this stuff, or they believe it has no relevance to the present; it is “ancient history.”

I will be showing both what happened (for those that don’t know) and that it is not only relevant, it is essential knowledge to understanding the present fuckery in the Market (and beyond). This report is laid out as it is with great intent. This crescendos until the end, but if you skip around, you will miss necessary context, and you won’t understand the evidence, because, quite frankly, it is not believable without a complete background understanding of what you are reading. I implore you to read this in sequence, and read to the end. It is the only way you will understand why 42 is the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything.

I’m kidding. It is however, I believe, the only way you will understand why the title of this Part 2 is called The Matrix, and I suggest that will be just as impactful an epiphany.

Thus this history deep dive has two primary goals (though really it is more like two different scopes of the same goal): first I must show, through primary historical documents, a pattern of behavior by an entity that the evidence suggests still has influence today. Second, the broader scope of this report is an investigation into Megacorp as it exists today, and its influence on Economics and the Market. Megacorp didn’t just all of the sudden happen recently.

To expose the justifications for that statement, and to show the evidence that Megacorp is not just a meaningless anomaly, but a real singular entity, that has remained alive and well and very influential for a very long time, I have to go back in time to the (a?) beginning.

On an unrelated note: a “real” (mythical) hydra looks like this:

34/xhistory.com/news/john-d-ro…
measuringworth.com/datasets/uswag…
babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=gri.…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puck_(mag…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Udo_Keppl…
loc.gov/pictures/item/…
dollsofindia.com/library/ravana/

The Hydra symbol from the Marvel Universe looks like this btw:

35/x

Competition Is A Sin

Competition is a sin – John D. Rockefeller, Sr. (maybe)

I don’t know whether or not Mr. JD Rockefeller really did say “Competition is a sin” despite it being a quote commonly attributed to him.

The first trace I could find was from a 1971 book by William Hoffman titled David: Report on a Rockefeller. I couldn’t find a copy online to see whether or not the author uses a source for this quote, but he seems to be a well respected and prolific author, so who knows? I will be using this quote on occasion because whether JD did say it or not, the evidence suggests he acted like it was a personal truism. I will use this “quote” as occasional rhetoric to point that out. It should not be seen as an actual quote (unless you can track down a primary source for it).

Rockefuckery

I will occasionally use the term “Rockefuckery,” so I will here define it:

Rockefuckery: Fuckery committed by a member of the Rockefeller family, or a proven Rockefeller agent. Sometimes it will reference Fuckery by “The Trust” (a corporate entity defined in a later section).

As you will see, this word comes up a lot.

The Muckity Muck Run Amok

muckity-muck: an important and often arrogant person (AKA the Big Kahuna)

Muckraker:

Muckrakers were journalists and novelists of the Progressive Era who sought to expose corruption in big business and government.

The work of muckrakers influenced the passage of key legislation that strengthened protections for workers and consumers.

Some of the most famous muckrakers were women, including Ida Tarbell and Ida B. Wells.

In 1902, Ida M. Tarbell published her report from a deep dive investigation into the Standard Oil Trust in McClure’s Magazine. In 1904 it was made into a two volume book titled The History of the Standard Oil Company. In 1911, following public outcry from the work, the evidence contained within it was used in the Supreme Court case against the Standard Oil Trust.

McClures Mag:

The History of the Standard Oil Company:

The preface of the book talks about how the “war” with the Trusts went on for decades. It places the start of that war, and the start of the Gilded Age, with the start of the Standard Oil Trust (vol 1, page vii/13):

It goes on to talk about how Standard Oil was constantly in front of congressional committees for crimes, both State (Ohio, Penn, NY, etc.) and Federal. It rarely got into trouble for any of those crimes; and the “trouble” was a slap on the wrist and the creation of new laws to “limit” or “break up” The Trust. Those numerous laws, regulations, and/or Trust “break ups” that were inspired by the crimes of Standard Oil and their ilk all ended up turning out in favor of Standard Oil, despite them being “anti-Trust” actions by government. The strangle hold of the Standard Oil Trust was complete. The Standard Oil Trust, because it extended into, well, everything, is interchangeable with my title for them: “The Trust.” The Trust can be thought of as an entity in its own right. It may have begun in Oil, but to limit it in your mind to “oil” is not appropriate. In fact, to suggest it is limited at all is not supported by the evidence, which is forthcoming.

The Gilded Age, which began soon after the Civil War and “ended” (ostensibly) in the early 1900s was a time of much government corruption. This era saw a huge leap of income and asset disparities among the populace. It also brought about the birth of investigative journalists called Muckrakers (raking the muck). Ms. Tarbell was one such muckraker. There were several famous muckrakers, who did some great investigative work. Another interesting muckrake came from David Graham Phillips in 1906 titled The Treason of the Senate where, according to this history website, he names 75 Senators (of 96 at the time) as beholden to corporate interests (I have not delved into the veracity of that statement). His work inspired the 17th amendment to the constitution which changed how Senators were selected in an attempt to reduce the corruption he exposed. (I suggest it didn’t do what it was intended to do, but I am not going to touch election fuckery in this report with a ten foot Zucker box. Even if it was carried by 719 Superdelegates!) Mr. Phillips specifically names Nelson Aldrich at the top of the Senate corruption heap in one article of his series titled The Treason of the Senate: Aldrich, the Head Of It All. Mr. Nelson Aldrich will come up again in this report (and again (and again)).

The gilded age:

David Graham Phillips:

Treason of the Senate:

17th Amendment:

Zucker Box:

The Treason of the Senate: Aldrich, the Head Of It All:

U.S. capitol gov’s official history of Ms. Tarbell’s work suggests it had substantial influence on the SCOTUS' litigation of Standard Oil:

"The rise of corporate trusts and monopolies in the Progressive Era spurred Congress to legislate regulations on business practices. The first such law, the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, met its greatest test in a case against the Standard Oil Company. Journalist Ida M. Tarbell brought the company’s shady dealings to light, and the federal government sued Standard Oil. The Supreme Court ordered Standard Oil’s breakup in 1911"

Official History:

On another government website page it states that Standard Oil controlled 90% of U.S. oil production, and was founded by and had as the largest shareholder John D. Rockefeller:

Link:

"By 1900 John D. Rockefeller, founder and largest shareholder of the Standard Oil Company, controlled more than 90 percent of U.S. oil production, dominating the world market. Rockefeller controlled pipelines and arranged for secret, discriminatory railroad rates, which allowed him to cut prices and force competitors out of business. Rockefeller’s conglomerate of companies was called a “trust” or “combination.”

That page includes an image from 1901 which shows Rockefeller as the king of a conspiracy of monopolies, all working together to control not just their respective industries, but all industries together.

A brief expose from that website on Tarbell says:

Link:

"Ida M. Tarbell’s series for McClure’s was reissued in two volumes titled The History of the Standard Oil Company. Tarbell used testimony from congressional hearings, interviews with Standard Oil executives, and other sources to expose the company’s predatory practices. In 1906 the federal government sued Standard Oil under the Sherman Antitrust Act. The case reached the Supreme Court in 1910."

- U.S. Senate Library

Because a government website is crediting Tarbell’s sources as legitimate and her journalism as instrumental in a Supreme Court case, I consider her book to be a credible secondary source. I can’t tell you what the truth is about any of this stuff, I can only show what people say themselves. But in this case, when I quote Rockefeller from Tarbell’s book, what I am really doing is quoting Tarbell (or a book purportedly written by Tarbell), who says Rockefeller said something. The government seems to agree on the source, or at least the government website shown above agrees (there are many others : ).

Just because it isn’t a primary source with respect to Rockefeller, doesn’t mean it’s a bad source, but it must be recognized for what it is in an investigation. (I’ve been trying to do this investigation using only primary sources, but there just isn’t enough time!). In the case of JD Rockefeller quotes specifically, it is a weaker source than a primary source. For example, a newspaper report printed the day after a Rockefeller speech, with the full speech printed, would be considered a solid primary source. In this case her quotes are tertiary, i.e. she was not there to hear it. She is instead reporting what others reported Rockefeller said from their memory. She does make an effort to get multiple corroborative quotes however, and those quotes are included in affidavits in the large appendix for her book. These affidavits were used in the Supreme Court case. This turns the affidavits from others (included in the appendix of her book) into verified (or at least SCOTUS validated) primary sources. Her quotes and reporting should be seen as at least somewhat validated by the Supreme Court case that used it as a reference. I still do not find such a tertiary memory quote to be a great source. There could be missing context for example. Nevertheless, it is at the least a good place to dig during further investigation.

The parenthetical link above goes to the Library of Congress which has this to say about what happened as a result of the SCOTUS case against Standard oil:

"In 1911, the Supreme Court found Standard Oil in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. As a result, Standard Oil was split into 34 independent companies, although over time these corporate descendants regrew into large integrated oil companies that still dominate the market, such as ExxonMobil.

The Supreme Court case also hadn’t slowed Rockefeller’s wealth: newspaper headlines from 1916 announced he was the world’s first billionaire. According to Forbes, Rockefeller’s total assets in 1937 equaled 1.5% of America’s total economic output for that same year, making him one of the wealthiest people in the world to this day."

This report estimates that Rockefeller’s fortune almost instantly tripled (from $300M to over $900M) because of this decision by the Supreme Court.

He also kept the same stock interest in the child companies as he had before the forced breakup. If all the same people retained the same ownership of all the companies, how exactly is it a split up of a monopoly? To requote the Library of Congress entry, it says explicitly it wasn’t really a monopoly breakup at all:

...although over time these corporate descendants regrew into large integrated oil companies that still dominate the market, such as ExxonMobil.

So they split up and then came back together, like the Terminator T-1000, all under the same governance the entire time. And his wealth tripled.

In the Supreme Court case itself, at the end of the Opinions SCOTUS says:

Link:

"...a dissolution of the offending combination should not deprive the constituents of the right to live under the law, but should compel them to obey it.

In determining the remedy against an unlawful combination, the court must consider the result, and not inflict serious injury on the public by causing a cessation of interstate commerce in a necessary commodity."

This sounds a lot like Standard Oil was “too big to fail.” It doesn’t matter that they got there by lying, cheating, stealing, colluding, conspiring, ruining lives, owning politicians and newspapers, manipulating the creation of laws and altering reports, and all other manner of Rockefuckery (example evidence for all of those statements is forthcoming). Apparently the “potential harm” on the public was so great, instead of punishment, Rockefeller tripled his wealth (making him the first American billionaire) and he retained all the ownership he had before, of all the oil in the U.S., and a great deal of the world’s oil as well. His other monopolistic interests (which were even larger than his oil interests, as I will show) were never even touched in the Supreme Court case. Rockefeller’s Oil Trust never even flinched from this “anti-trust victory.” By outcome, it seems to have been nothing more than a show.

I don’t know if there was Rockefuckery involved in the SCOTUS decision, but if Rockefeller did grease a few SCOTUS palms, it wouldn’t be the first time he was accused of similar actions.

36/xen.wikipedia.org/wiki/McClure's
archive.org/details/histor…
history.com/topics/19th-ce…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gra…
ushistory.org/us/42b.asp
law.cornell.edu/constitution/a…
npr.org/transcripts/94…
archive.org/details/muckra…
visitthecapitol.gov/exhibitions/co…
visitthecapitol.gov/exhibitions/ar…
visitthecapitol.gov/exhibitions/ar…
guides.loc.gov/this-month-in-…
supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/…

The Pros And Cons Of A Sales Job

The first couple chapters of Ms. Tarbell’s book discuss the state of the oil business and how Rockefeller got his start. From the beginning she talks about his “genius,” in this case as a salesman (vol 1, page 43/77):

"John always got the best of the bargain," old men tell you in Cleveland today, and they wince though they laugh in telling it. "Smooth," “a savy fellow," is their description of him...

He could borrow as well as bargain. The firm's capital was limited; growing as they were, they often needed money, and had none. Borrow they must. Rarely if ever did Mr. Rockefeller fail. There is a story handed down in Cleveland from the days of Clark and Rockefeller, produce merchants, which is illustrative of his methods. One day a well-known and rich business man stepped into the office and asked for Mr. Rockefeller. He was out, and Clark met the visitor. "Mr. Clark," he said, "you may tell Mr. Rockefeller, when he comes in, that I think I can use the $10,000 he wants to invest with me for your firm. I have thought it all over."

"Good God!" cried Clark, "we don't want to invest $10,000. John is out right now trying to borrow $5,000 for us."

It turned out that to prepare him for a proposition to borrow $5,000 Mr. Rockefeller had told the gentleman that he and Clark wanted to invest $10,000!

"And the joke of it is," said Clark, who used to tell the story, "John got the $5,000 even after I had let the cat out of the bag. Oh, he was the greatest borrower you ever saw!"

The rich business man (whoever that is) came in expecting to get $10,000, ended up giving $5,000, and he was told about the switcheroo accidentally beforehand. To be able to take the deficit of having the manipulation told, and still get the money, is the gift of an absolute Pro Salesman, or a Con Man. It required Rockefeller to be able to, through his words, manipulate the beliefs of the "rich business man" (the mark) to Rockefeller’s designs, even though the mark (according to the implication of the story) saw the manipulation coming. “The greatest borrower you ever saw” requires the exact same skillset as “the greatest con man you ever saw.” Both the borrow and the con require convincing someone to give you their money for your ideas. I would suggest the only difference between conning someone out of money and borrowing money is that in borrowing there is at least a chance both parties might get something of value in the end. The difference is, at least ostensibly, one of intent. The process is identical. It is the manipulation of belief, convincing someone that their future reality will be a certain way, through words and possibly props. By all accounts JD’s father was a remarkably successful con man. Maybe The Big Apple (John D. Rockefeller) learned a trick or two from dear old Apple Tree.

The Hanky Panky Choo Choo Money Back Shuffle

Ms. Tarbell talks a great deal about something called a “rebate,” which is, as the name suggests, a refund on a purchase. The “Railroad Rebate” was central to Rockefeller’s early success, without which this whole affair may not have occurred (though Rockefeller’s ingenuity and persistence may have found another way). Rebates were given by a select few top Railroad lines to the largest oil producers to encourage those successful Oil Men to ship more oil with their railroad. This was done purely in secret, because such a system was discriminatory and completely illegal at the time (vol 1, page 34/64):

The Central in this period was waging its famous desperate war on the Erie, Commodore Vanderbilt having marked that highway for his own along with most other things in New York State. All three of the roads began as early as 1868 to use secret rebates on the published freight rates in oil as a means of securing traffic. This practice had gone on until in 1871 any big producer, refiner, or buyer could bully a freight agent into a special rate. Those "on the inside," those who had "pulls," also secured special rates. The result was that the open rate was enforced only on the innocent and the weak.

The process of the rebate was interesting. Rockefeller paid full rate, but then got a kickback (rebate) from the Railroads in secret. This allowed him to pay less than everyone else, while appearing to pay the same. One of his competitors figured out this advantage and went to the Railroads to demand the same rebates (page 46/80):

"In 1868 or 1869 a member of a rival firm long in the business, which had been prosperous from the start, and which prided itself on its methods, its economy and its energy, Alexander, Scofield and Company, went to the Atlantic and Great Western road, then under the Erie management, and complained. "You are giving others better rates than you are us," said Mr. Alexander, the representative of the firm. "We cannot compete if you do that." The railroad agent did not attempt to deny it he simply agreed to give Mr. Alexander a rebate also. The arrangement was interesting. Mr. Alexander was to pay the open, or regular, rate on oil from the Oil Regions to Cleveland, which was then forty cents a barrel. At the end of each month he was to send to the railroad vouchers for the amount of oil shipped and paid for at forty cents, and was to get back from the railroad, in money, fifteen cents on each barrel. This concession applied only to oil brought from the wells. He was never able to get a rebate on oil shipped eastward."

It was a mechanism that could only lead to the destruction of a competitive market. The Erie Railroad gave the same rebate to Alexander when asked, but only in one direction (from the Oil wells to the Refineries). Rockefeller still got rebates on the whole route; including outbound from his Refineries (in Cleveland Ohio at the time) to the end users; people in Philly, NYC, etc., i.e. “Eastward” (page 49/82):

"Mr. Alexander claims he was never able to get his rate lowered on his Eastern shipments. The railroad took the position with him that if he could ship as much oil as the Standard he could have as low^a rate, but not otherwise. Now in 1870 the Standard Oil Company had a daily capacity of about 1,500 barrels of crude. The refinery was the largest in the town, though it had some close competitors. Nevertheless on the strength of its large capacity it received the special favour. It was a plausible way to get around the theory generally held then, as now, though not so definitely crystallised into law, that the railroad being a common carrier had no right to discriminate between its patrons. It remained to be seen whether the practice would be accepted by Mr. Rockefeller's competitors without a contest, or, if contested, would be supported by the law."

Due to potential legal issues of discrimination, these rebates were all done in secret. These backroom dealings gave a massive advantage to Rockefeller. He was “the largest” by 1870 in no small part because he got the largest of the secret rebates for years. It was almost impossible for him to not get a monopoly, just from the rebates from the Railroads. That wasn’t by any means even close to the extent of the fuckery, but it was a piece that the Railroads would have no reason to give, unless Rockefeller incentivized them to do so.

Eventually the rebates were found out by all, and they became widespread, even if not equally applied. The outcry was still great due to the discrepancies, so to be “fair” they created a new, more insidious advantage (page 52/86):

"By 1871 things had come to such a pass in the business that every refiner suspected his neighbour to be getting better rates than he. The result was that the freight agents were constantly beset for rebates, and that the large shippers were generally getting them on the ground of the quantity of oil they controlled. Indeed it was evident that the rebate being admitted, the only way in which it could be adjusted with a show of fairness was to grade it according to the size of the shipment."

It became “fair” that those who shipped the most would get the best rebates. Which means, those who have the advantage, get more of an advantage. Such a system leads inevitably to a market dominance by whoever already has the largest share of it. In this case, the Rockefeller Combination already had the largest share by quite a bit (though far from a majority yet). This new system, a Rockefeller design, worked to solidify their dominance, while at the same time seeming fair.

And it does seem fair. We think of “bulk discounts” as completely normal today because they are ubiquitous, and “anyone could get them”; however, such discrimination, especially when the discounts or rebates are large, ensure that “the rich get richer” and the starting entrepreneur has far reduced chance of entering the market competitively. This is especially true as you scale up, which ensures that the very rich stay the very rich. It is a practice that all but ensures a monopoly, especially when it becomes widespread.

I’m not suggesting the idea has no merit. That discussion is beyond the scope of this exposure. I only want to point out what it is, to provide evidence that it is exploitable in general, and that it has been exploited to accomplish exactly what I suggest is inevitable.

37/x

The Wombo Combo

wombo combo: to be utterly destroyed very quickly by a combination.

The works of Rockefeller et al was the creation of “Combinations”. A Combination is grouping together multiple companies that have a joint goal. It’s similar to the idea of a “monopoly” except it isn’t necessarily restricted to a specific field of interest, and it isn’t necessarily complete market dominance (page 51/85):

"With such a set of associates, with his organisation complete from his buyers on the creek to his exporting agent in New York, with the transportation advantages which none of his competitors had had the daring or the persuasive power to get, certainly Mr. Rockefeller should have been satisfied in 1870. But Mr. Rockefeller was far from satisfied. He was a brooding, cautious, secretive man, seeing all the possible dangers as well as all the possible opportunities in things, and he studied, as a player at chess, all the possible combinations which might imperil his supremacy. These twenty-five Cleveland rivals of his how could he at once and forever put them out of the game? He and his partners had somehow conceived a great idea the advantages of combination. What might they not do if they could buy out and absorb the big refineries now competing with them in Cleveland? The possibilities of the idea grew as they discussed it."

In this case the use of Combination signifies the joining of multiple Oil Refinery companies under one umbrella Oil Refinery company that controls all of them. These Cleveland companies represented at the time about 20% of the oil business (so not a monopoly). However, as stated, the word “combination” can also be used to signify joining other related interests, like railroad companies with oil companies. It’s a little confusing since the word Combination isn’t strictly defined (at least not within Ms. Tarbell’s work), but Combination can mean Oil Monopoly (e.g.), it just doesn’t necessarily mean that, and it is used interchangably.

38/x

The SIC Plan To Conquer The Universe

The SICness Begins
By late 1871, Rockefeller’s endeavor to create The Combination of all of Oil was right and truly established with the creation of a company that both never really existed (shell company), and became the greatest monopoly of all time: The South Improvement Company (SIC).

Page 54/90:

"In the fall of 1871... certain Pennsylvania refiners, it is not too certain who, brought to them a remarkable scheme, the gist of which was to bring together secretly a large enough body of refiners and shippers to persuade all the railroads handling oil to give to the company formed special rebates on its oil, and drawbacks on that of other people. If they could get such rates it was evident that those outside of their combination could not compete with them long and that they would become eventually the only refiners. They could then limit their output to actual demand, and so keep up prices. This done, they could easily persuade the railroads to transport no crude for exportation, so that the foreigners would be forced to buy American refined. They believed that the price of oil thus exported could easily be advanced fifty per cent. The control of the refining interests would also enable them to fix their own price on crude. As they would be the only buyers and sellers, the speculative character of the business would be done away with. In short, the scheme they worked out put the entire oil business in their hands."

Here Ms. Tarbell is stating explicitly “Pennsylvania refiners” as the instigators of this “scheme” (AKA conspiracy to commit fraud), but she is “not too certain who” it was that did it. In such a case, where there is zero evidence to support the claim, nor even a justification as to why she is making the claim in the first place, I suggest that the instigators of this action should remain a subject for further investigation. Who knows who it may have been? It could have been Rockefeller himself, or someone on his crew. It may have been the homeless lady that sat on the street corner in Cleveland who’s cat meowed 8 times and a Shaman passing by interpreted it as “South Improvement Company” and Rockefeller overheard him talk about it in a bar. There is no way to know without any context or evidence, and she provided neither. I could find almost nothing in the entire book that supports Ms. Tarbell’s statement excepting only one testimony from one of Rockefeller’s crew in a different section and context, and it was, I think, intentionally vague (I will show what I found in a bit).

Don’t get me wrong, I am not faulting Tarbell. I don’t think it is necessarily intentional. I just want this statement of blame to be seen as what it is. It guides thoughts in a certain direction (“Rockefeller wasn’t to blame for the scheme itself”), but as presented it is nothing but a useless guess with suggestions that it is meaningful. Her statement doesn’t encourage debate or further investigation into this unknown. In fact, it detracts from both of those.

If evidence had been provided and it was weak, a reader would notice the weakness of the evidence and would be more likely to be skeptical and possibly look into it for themselves; either finding evidence that supported or refuted the claim, or finding no further evidence. Going further, a presentation with weak evidence, which is explicitly stated as weak evidence, encourages investigation and debate. It makes people (at least some people) curious. Stating it without evidence however, causes the mind to simply accept it, because there is nothing else to attach to it. “The expert says it’s this way, so it’s most likely true.” It’s a minor trick of rhetoric that guides beliefs. Not everyone will be caught in that rhetorical trap, but many will be. Once you begin to notice such statements that seem innocuous, but are really quite guiding in thought, you start to see them everywhere. This is a standard form of our communication, yet it is nothing more than a statement of belief, as if it were meaningful or true, without any evidential support whatsoever.

I have caught myself doing this same thing in this report. Upon self-reflection I notice it usually happens because the evidence I have to present is weak (not non-existent, but not sufficiently convincing), or because there is more that I am aware of, but I am too lazy to go through the process of presenting it, and I want to inject my assessment without doing more work. It doesn’t happen on purpose, and if I see myself doing it, I take it out or try to make clear what I am doing. Having seen myself do it though, and since becoming aware of it, I see it everywhere. It seems to be a huge part of our communication patterns. I don’t know if it’s by training or natural, but it is fuckery, even if unintentional. It’s a form of propaganda, which is to say, words intended to guide beliefs along a specific path (section 8.).

I’m not saying such rhetoric implies the statement is false. I’m not even saying it’s necessarily bad. I only want to suggest that it should be seen for what it is; a statement, without evidence. Which is to say, we can come to no reasonable conclusions based on the statement, and more investigation is needed. In this particular case, based on other evidence that I have seen, I think that Ms. Tarbell is wrong in her placement of blame. I think it was originally a Rockefeller scam, or Rockefeller was present in the initial planning phase, i.e. I don’t think anyone came up with the scam, and “presented it to Rockefeller” as Ms. Tarbell suggests. (See, I just did it! I placed blame without evidence. In my defense I said “I think,” showing it was speculative (which Ms. Tarbell did not do), and some evidence will be forthcoming, though it will not be strong evidence by my estimation.)

The point of this diatribe was not really to talk about the source of this particular SIC scheme. It really isn’t all that important. The point was to show this particular form of rhetoric that guides belief without evidence. I am doing so because this nature of ours to allow our beliefs to be guided without evidence is exploitable (can be used in propaganda). This will be relevant in later sections.

As for the evidence of the source of the scheme, there were only 13 initial signers (vol 1, page 57/93) with the top shareholding group being the five members of Standard Oil (Rockefeller et al). It’s not that hard to figure out that the original source was almost certainly one or more of those 13 people. The best supporting evidence that I could find for Ms. Tarbell’s statement of blame is the testimony by Henry M. Flagler in front of the House of Representatives on 1888 (17 years after the fact) in volume 1 on page 280/336 where he says:

Testimony Link:

"...Neither of the Messrs. Rockefeller, Colonel Payne, nor myself, nor any one connected with the Standard Oil Company, ever had any confidence in or regard for the scheme known as the South Improvement Company. We did not believe in it, but the view presented by other gentlemen was pressed upon us to such an extent that we acquiesced in it to the extent of subscribing our names to a certain amount of the stock, which was never paid for...

Q. Who presented these views to you gentlemen? Who was the person that had charge of this South Improvement Company's scheme?

A. I think Mr. Warden and the Messrs. Logan were the great leaders in the South Improvement Company policy."

Flagler, one of the Standard’s top men from day one, almost two decades after the fact, stated effectively (paraphrased) “We didn’t want to do it, they convinced us to,” and “I think Warden and the Logan’s were the leaders.”

“I think...” You were there Mr. Flagler. You were one of a handful of people plotting to take over the entirety of Oildom, one of the grandest schemes of all time, yet you don’t know who brought it to the table. It sounds to me like you don’t want to commit to a statement. This is exactly the type of plausible deniability rhetoric used by the world’s great politicians... 5 year olds... liars. “Tommy, what happened to the cookies in the cookie jar?” “I think the dog ate them!”

Maybe these people Mr. Flagler is casting the blame on were the leaders, maybe they weren’t, but given the obvious conflicts of interest, and the sheer unfalsifiableness of his testimony, coupled with the complete lack of corroborating evidence, I suggest it is also very likely that this is total bullshit. I’d bet dollars to tiny hand pilfered cookies that he knew exactly who the “leaders” were.

He also states pretty clearly that “We knew it wouldn’t work anyways,” and I think that is almost certainly true.

39/xen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Fla…

My Way Or The Highway To Hell

Regardless of the SIC’s origin speculations, a secret group of refiners (AKA “Oil Barons”), that included Flagler, the Rockefeller brothers (John D. and William Avery, Jr.), the other two founding members of Standard Oil (Samuel Andrews and Stephen V. Harkness), along with a few Pennsylvania refiners and oil shippers (railroads) created the Southern Improvement Company to ensure “fair” Rebates for anyone willing to join it, and a lack thereof for anyone who refused. It also left out all of those who weren’t asked at all, which included a huge swath of refiners, including the whole state of New York. To those they did talk to, they used the mere existence of this company to force them to join in the Combination or be destroyed through pure economic necessity (vol 1, page 63/101):

"...There were at that time some twenty-six refineries in the town some of them very large plants. All of them were feeling more or less the discouraging effects of the last three or four years of railroad discriminations in favour of the Standard Oil Company. To the owners of these refineries Mr. Rockefeller now went one by one, and explained the South Improvement Company. "You see," he told them, "this scheme is bound to work. It means an absolute control by us of the oil business. There is no chance for anyone outside. But we are going to give everybody a chance to come in. You are to turn over your refinery to my appraisers, and I will give you Standard Oil Company stock or cash, as you prefer, for the value we put upon it. I advise you to take the stock. It will be for your good." Certain refiners objected. They did not want to sell. They did want to keep and manage their business. Mr. Rockefeller was regretful, but firm. It was useless to resist, he told the hesitating; they would certainly be crushed if they did not accept his offer, and he pointed out in detail, and with gentleness, how beneficent the scheme really was preventing the creek refiners from destroying Cleveland, ending competition, keeping up the price of refined oil, and eliminating speculation. Really a wonderful contrivance for the good of the oil business.

That such was Mr. Rockefeller's argument is proved by abundant testimony from different individuals who succumbed to the pressure. Mr. Rockefeller's own brother, Frank Rockefeller, gave most definite evidence on this point in 1876 when he and others were trying to interest Congress in a law regulating interstate commerce."

I’ll get back to the second bolded part later, but why does this sentence taken from the first paragraph sound so familiar?

It was useless to resist, he told the hesitating; they would certainly be crushed if they did not accept his offer

...

...

Oh, I know!

40/x

Charting The Course: Second Star To The Left, And Straight On ‘Til Mourning

To start his sinister “never really existing,” SIC business, Rockefeller needed a charter. Any valid charter must be endorsed by the State. This legal document, like any document of this nature (Constitution, Articles of Incorporation, etc.) defines the boundaries of allowed activity of the corporation it creates. The SIC Charter was quite unique in its breadth of allowed activity.

Vol 1, page 56/92:

"The first thing was to get a charter quietly. At a meeting held in Philadelphia late in the fall of 1871 a friend of one of the gentlemen interested mentioned to him that a certain estate then in liquidation had a charter for sale which gave its owners the right to carry on any kind of business in any country and in any way; that it could be bought for what it would cost to get a charter under the general laws of the state, and that it would be a favour to the heirs to buy it. The opportunity was promptly taken. The name of the charter bought was the "South (often written Southern) Improvement Company." For a beginning it was as good a name as another, since it said nothing."

They got a corporation charter in an estate sale from some rich person? The charter was already approved, it had a name that meant nothing, and it was a blank slate charter, which meant it could do anything they wanted. That makes no sense to me. Information on how such a thing could exist, just floating around in the aether, is not obvious. At some point I may try to figure that one out. I’m also curious who they bought it from.

Whatever. Anyone joining also had to sign secret documents, like an NDA (page 56/92):

Considering the completely illegal intentions of this company, who exactly would be the enforcers of breaking such an oath? I have no idea, but it’s an interesting piece of evidence. Maybe it was psychological manipulation? Mafia style coercion? I wonder if they had to sign it in blood at the crossroads at midnight.

"...while the incorporators [Rockefeller et al] had intended to kill off all but themselves and their friends, the railroads refused to go into a scheme which was going to put anybody out of business--the plan if they went into it must cover the refining trade as it stood. It was enough that it could prevent any one in the future going into the business."

The Railroads, according to Ms. Tarbell, insisted that it wouldn’t leave anyone out, which makes perfect sense from a “not lose any customers” perspective. The fact that such a deal would forever close off the market for any new entrepreneur was apparently unimportant. This SIC combination was really fantastic for everyone as it would truly eliminate all competition and everyone who signed on would make more money, because they could set the prices, all under the exclusive and contractually bound direction of The Directors (original signers).

Page 61/99:

"An interesting provision in the contracts was that full waybills of all petroleum shipped over the roads should each day be sent to the South Improvement Company. This, of course, gave them knowledge of just who was doing business outside of their company of how much business he was doing, and with whom he was doing it. Not only were they to have full knowledge of the business of all shippers they were to have access to all books of the railroads."

This company's charter intended to give The Trust full knowledge of every single oil transaction by anyone anywhere. Through this intended information network, it would be well on its way to becoming a fully integrated combination of Oil and Railroad. I suggest it is only through having complete information that total dominance, a true monopoly, can be accmplished. Or at least by his actions, Rockefeller seemed to think so as will be seen.

It took only a few weeks for them to completely take over the largest refining city at the time, Rockefeller’s home town of Cleveland. Next on the agenda was the Whole Oil World (vol 1, page 69/107):

"On February 26, the subordinates, ignorant of the nature of the rates, put them into effect. The independent oil men heard with amazement that freight rates had been put up nearly 100 per cent. They needed no other proof of the truth of the rumours of conspiracy which were circulating. It now remained to be seen whether the Oil Regions would submit to the South Improvement Company as Cleveland had to the Standard Oil Company."

They tried to implement a 100% increase in freight rates all at once across the whole country; they themselves, after getting the rest of Cleveland on board, only controlled 20% of the total country's oil at the time. This 100% increase is an amount so great, it could have produced no other possible effect except outrage in the rest of the oil community. Yet despite this outrage, as you will see, it all worked out perfectly for the people who created the SIC plan, even if not in a straightforward manner.

Perhaps their eventual success was purely by chance, and they merely took advantage of opportunities that came up. However, because it was so obvious and destined to fail, and ended up eventually completely uniting the entire countries oil business under Rockefeller et al, perhaps it was planned to fail, to cause what came next. Of course that last is insane right? No one can make such plans; purposefully causing a panic and a war to get a desired outcome of complete monopoly. No one is that devious! No one is that good at “social chess.” To think that would be Conspiracy Theory! And yet, all evidence (including Supreme Court decisions) suggests it was exactly a successful conspiracy of the largest magnitude imaginable (as will be shown). The only question is, how far ahead did they plan?

Regardless of the depth of the planning, this act threatened to completely destroy competition across the whole country in oil (page 70/108):

"In twenty-four hours after the announcement of the increase in freight rates a mass-meeting of 3,000 excited, gesticulating oil men was gathered in the opera house at Titusville. Producers, brokers, refiners, drillers, pumpers were in the crowd. Their temper was shown by the mottoes on the banners which they carried: "Down with the conspirators" "No compromise" "Don't give up the ship!" Three days later as large a meeting was held at Oil City, its temper more warlike if possible; and so it went. They organised a Petroleum Producers' Union,* pledged themselves to reduce their production by starting no new wells for sixty days and by shutting down on Sundays, to sell no oil to any person known to be in the South Improvement Company, but to support the creek refiners and those elsewhere who had refused to go into the combination, to boycott the offending railroads, and to build lines which they would own and control themselves. They sent a committee to the Legislature asking that the charter of the South Improvement Company be repealed, and another to Congress demanding an investigation of the whole business on the ground that it was an interference with trade. They ordered that a history of the conspiracy, giving the names of the conspirators and the designs of the company, should be prepared, and 30,000 copies sent to "judges of all courts, senators of the United States, members of Congress and of State Legislatures, and to all railroad men and prominent business men of the country, to the end that enemies of the freedom of trade may be known and shunned by all honest men."

So, I guess they were kinda upset. It continues:

"They prepared a petition ninety-three feet long praying for a free pipe-line bill, something which they had long wanted, but which, so far, the Pennsylvania Railroad had prevented their getting, and sent it by a committee to the Legislature; and for days they kept 1,000 men ready to march on Harrisburg at a moment's notice if the Legislature showed signs of refusing their demands. In short, for weeks the whole body of oil men abandoned regular business and surged from town to town intent on destroying the "Monster," the "Forty Thieves," the "Great Anaconda," as they called the mysterious South Improvement Company."

The Great Anaconda is an interesting name. There were a couple of later Rockefeller interests that were named Anaconda. Though I think a “petition ninety-three feet long” probably qualifies as an Anaconda in its own right.

It probably looked something like this:

41/x

Down With The SICness

The quick demise of the South Improvement Company was due in no small part to efforts of J. D. Archbold, and J. J. Vandergrift and their Petroleum Producer’s Union which they created as an organization against it.

Page 73/111:

"...Their tempers were not improved by the discovery that it was a secret organisation, and that it had been at work under their very eyes for some weeks without their knowing it. At the first public meeting this fact came out, leading refiners of the region relating their experience with the "Anaconda." According to one of these gentlemen, J. D. Archbold the same who afterward became vice-president of the Standard Oil Company, which office he now holds--he and his partners had heard of the scheme some months before...

The South Improvement Company by some means had convinced the railroads that they owned the Oil Regions, producers and refiners both, and that hereafter no oil of any account would be shipped except as they shipped it. Mr. Archbold and his partners had been asked to join the company, but had refused, declaring that the whole business was iniquitous, that they would fight it to the end, and that in their fight they would have the backing of the oil men as a whole. They excused their silence up to this time by citing the pledge exacted from them before they were informed of the extent and nature of the South Improvement Company."

Mr. Archbold, a fellow oil big wig, and soon to be VP for Standard Oil, had heard about it “months before.” It had only been signed a few weeks before, so they must have come to him during or shortly after the scheming phase. He was initially (ostensibly) one of the main opposition agents against it. He created the Petroleum Producers’ Union for that purpose of opposition. I have reason to suspect that Mr. Archbold was something called “controlled opposition,” i.e. a part of the scheme as the “head of the opposition.” It’s a little crazy sounding, but if you know you are going to get backlash from some action, the best way to ensure the outcome you desire is to be the one doing the backlashing. I’m not saying in this case that Archbold was part of the scheme, I have no idea what the truth is, but there is evidence to support the idea.

I can’t find any solid evidence that Lenin made this statement (I didn’t look very hard), but Operation Trust was a massive Controlled Opposition endeavor by the State Political Directorate of the Soviet Union which they started in 1921 to control the anti-Bolshevik movement, by leading the anti-Bolshevik movement.

Operation Trust:

I want to introduce the idea of such direct control of opposition here because it plays a part in some of the Rockefeller schemes that we know about, and may play a part in others that are less clear (like with Archbold). When you think about it, it makes perfect sense to have such agents to control the opposition. If you know, with certainty, you are going to get backlash from your actions of takeover, the best way to win in the end is to control the backlashing yourself. I will get to supporting evidence for Archbold as controlled opposition in a bit.

Regardless, this Petroleum Producers’ Union (PPU) created an “oil blockade,” which kept oil suppliers (drillers) from selling to any refinery that was a part of the South Improvement Company. They created a committee to investigate and write a history of the South Improvement Company. This was used in the Pennsylvania Congressional investigation in March of the same year (1871, only a few weeks after the start of the SICness), as well as the U.S. Congressional Investigation Committee in April (page 77/117):

"The former report [by the Union] was published broadcast, and is readily accessible today. The Congressional Investigation was not published officially, and no trace of its work can now be found in Washington, but while it was going on reports were made in the newspapers of the Oil Regions, and at its close the Producers' Union published in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, a pamphlet called "A History of the Rise and Fall of the South Improvement Company," which contains the full testimony taken by the committee. This pamphlet is rare, the writer never having been able to find a copy save in three or four private collections."

It is interesting that 30ish years after the fact, Ms. Tarbell could find no official record of the Congressional Investigation. The pamphlet she found, created by the PPU for the investigation included the SIC charter. This charter is published in Ms. Tarbell’s book on page 295/351.

Below she quotes the PPU’s pamphlet’s assessment of the charter. This quote is interesting because it shows that the South Improvement Company charter is the precursor model (basically copypasta) for The Trust created in 1882, i.e. the first American Trust of it’s type: The Standard Oil Trust:

"The South Improvement Company can own, contract, or operate any work, business, or traffic (save only banking); may hold and transfer any kind of property, real or personal; hold and operate on any leased property (oil territory, for instance); make any kind of contract; deal in stock, securities, and funds; loan its credit, guarantee any one's paper; manipulate any industry; may seize upon the lands of other parties for railroading or any other purpose; may absorb the improvements, property or franchises of any other company, ad infinitum; may fix the fares, tolls, or freights to be charged on lines of transit operated by it, or on any business it gives to any other company or line, without limit.

Its capital stock can be expanded or "watered" at liberty; it can change its name and location at pleasure; can go anywhere and do almost anything. It is not a Pennsylvania corporation only; it can, so far as these enactments are valid, or are confirmed by other Legislatures, operate in any state or territory; its directors must be only citizens of the United States not necessarily of Pennsylvania. It is responsible to no one; its stockholders are only liable to the amount of their stock in it; its directors, when wielding all the princely powers of the corporation, are also responsible only to the amount of their stock in it; it may control the business of the continent and hold and transfer millions of property, and yet be rotten to the core. It is responsible to no one; makes no reports of its acts or financial condition; its records and deliberations are secret; its capital illimitable; its object unknown. It can be here to-day, to-morrow away. Its domain is the whole country; its business everything. Now it is petroleum it grasps and monopolises; next year it may be iron, coal, cotton, or breadstuff's. They are landsmen granted perpetual letters of marque to prey upon all commerce everywhere."

When you read it, this charter is... unbelievable. Like, I don't believe it was legitimately incorporated by the state of Pennsylvania. It was apparently, somehow, but I bet the "how" of that story is interesting (if I could find it).They bought this charter from some rich dude (whatever that means), and it was already legit (incorporated with the state). As we will see with The Standard Oil Trust, which turned out to be pretty much the same company as the SIC intended, with unlimited power comes unlimited responsibility [no responsibility whatsoever] to the shareholders or the directors.

Congress didn’t appreciate the scope of the endeavor either (page 80/120):

"The committee of Congress could not be persuaded to believe it either. "Your success meant the destruction of every refiner who refused for any reason to join your company, or whom you did not care to have in, and it put the producers entirely in your power. It would make a monopoly such as no set of men are fit to handle,"

They concluded it was a straight up power grab, on a scale that is difficult to imagine. It was an attempt to control the entire countries oil:

"Of course Mr. Warden, the secretary of the company, protested again and again that they meant to take in all the refiners, but when he had to admit that the contracts with the railroads were not made on this condition, his protestations met with little credence. Besides, there was the damning fact that no refiners had come in except those in Cleveland, and that they with one accord testified that they had yielded to force. Not a single factory in either New York or the Oil Regions was in the combination."

It was done at the expense of We The People:

"No part of the testimony before the committee made a worse impression than that showing that the chief object of the combination was to put up the price of refined oil to the consumer, though nobody had denied from the first that this was the purpose."

This was intended to be an asset transfer vehicle from We The People to the Powers That Be. They estimated it would increase their wealth by $6,000,000 per year, on price increases, all taken directly from the public (page 79/119).

"It was computed and admitted by the members of the company who appeared before the investigating committee of Congress that this discrimination would have turned over to them fully $6,000,000 annually on the carrying trade."

That was kinda an insane amount of money at the time.

Under Committee investigation, the implications became apparent that this intended monopoly wouldn’t stop at just oil/railroads (page 83/123):

"...From the first the sympathy of the press and the people were with the oil men. It was evident to everybody that if the railroads had made the contracts as charged (and it daily became more evident they had done so), nothing but an absolute monopoly of the whole oil business by this combination could result. It was robbery, cried the newspapers all over the land. "Under the thin guise of assisting in the development of oil refining in Pittsburg and Cleveland," said the New York Tribune, "this corporation has simply laid its hand upon the throat of the oil traffic with a demand to 'stand and deliver.' "And if this could be done in the oil business, what was to prevent its being done in any other industry? Why should not a company be formed to control wheat or beef or iron or steel, as well as oil? If the railroads would do this for one company, why not for another? The South Improvement Company, men agreed, was a menace to the free trade of the country. If the oil men yielded now, all industries must suffer from their weakness. The railroads must be taught a lesson as well as would-be monopolists."

It was all so over the top, I just can’t shake the feeling that they intended for it to fail. It did have the beneficial result of Standard Oil getting 22 out of 26 of the Cleveland Refiners to come under complete control of Rockefeller, so that may have been sufficient motivation for a “we knew it was going to fail” business. This Combination of Ohio Oil is known as the Cleveland Massacre. It was a forced combination under threat of economic ruin, which was really only true after the fact, as no one would have been harmed if no one would have signed on. It was a brilliantly successful coercive scam. Regardless, within four weeks of the start of the business, the South Improvement Company charter was repealed by the Pennsylvania Legislature and a full on “Oil War of 1872” (as Ms. Tarbell calls it) ensued.

Cleveland Massacre:

"...On the 28th the railroads officially annulled their contracts with the company. About the same time the Pennsylvania Legislature repealed the charter. On March 30 the committee of oil men sent to Washington to be present during the Congressional Investigation, now about to begin, spent an hour with President Grant. They wired home that on their departure he said: "Gentlemen, I have noticed the progress of monopolies, and have long been convinced that the national government would have to interfere and protect the people against them." The President and the members of Congress of both parties continued to show interest in the investigation, and there was little or no dissent from the final judgment of the committee, given early in May, that the South Improvement Company was the "most gigantic and daring conspiracy" a free country had ever seen. This decision finished the work. The "Monster" was slain, the Oil Regions proclaimed exultantly.

And now came the question, What should they do about the blockade established against the members of the South Improvement Company? The railroads they had forgiven; should they forgive the members of the South Improvement Company? This question came up immediately on the repeal of the charter. The first severe test to which their temper was put was early in April, when the Fisher Brothers, a firm of Oil City brokers, sold some 20,000 barrels of oil to the Standard Oil Company. The moment the sale was noised a perfect uproar burst forth. Indignant telegrams came from every direction condemning the brokers. "Betrayal," "infamy," "mercenary achievement," "the most unkindest cut of all," was the gist of them. From New York, Porter and Archbold telegraphed annulling all their contracts with the guilty brokers. The Oil Exchange passed votes of censure, and the Producers' Union turned them out. A few days later it was learned that a dealer on the creek was preparing to ship 5,000 barrels to the same firm. A mob gathered about the cars and refused to let them leave. It was only by stationing a strong guard that the destruction of the oil was prevented.

But something had to be done. The cooler heads argued that the blockade, which had lasted now forty days, and from which the region had of course suffered enormous loss, should be entirely lifted. The objects for which it had been established had been accomplished that is, the South Improvement Company had been destroyed now let free trade be established. If anybody wanted to sell to "conspirators," it was his lookout. A long and excited meeting of men from the entire oil country was held at Oil City to discuss the question"

The heat died down and within a few weeks the Oil Blockade was lifted. However, since clear water is no where near as useful at hiding schemes as murky water, Rockefeller started stirring up shit again (this is an assumption of motive, but it fits).

Vol 2, page 98/140:

"By the time the blockade was raised, another unhappy conviction was fixed on the Oil Regions--the Standard Oil Company meant to carry out the plans of the exploded South Improvement Company. The promoters of the scheme were partly responsible for the report. Under the smart of their defeat they talked rather more freely than their policy of silence justified, and their remarks were quoted widely. Mr. Rockefeller was reported in the Derrick to have said to a prominent oil man of Oil City that the South Improvement Company could work under the charter of the Standard Oil Company, and to have predicted that in less than two months the gentlemen would be glad to join him...

The effect of these reports in the Oil Regions was most disastrous. Their open war became a kind of guerilla opposition. Those who sold oil to the Standard were ostracised, and its president was openly scorned."

Why would he go out of his way to start shit again? Why create more turmoil? He could have said nothing. He had just accomplished a huge increase in ownership through the coercion and fraud of the South Improvement Company. What did such action accomplish? I can’t ascribe motive to action, but I can suggest that people are more likely to accept a controversial solution if there is tremendous turmoil than if there is not, and what was coming next from Rockefeller was exactly that.

Setting that idea of intentional turmoil aside for the moment, Rockefeller did have problematic consequences from his SIC business. For example, the rebates were no more and he was (ostensibly) paying far more for shipping. So as Ms. Tarbell asks...

Vol 1, page 100/142:

"What did he do?

He got a rebate. Seven years later Mr. Rockefeller's partner, H. M. Flagler, was called before a commission of the Ohio State Legislature appointed to investigate railroads. He was asked for the former contracts between company and the railroads, and among others he presented one showing that from "the first of April until the middle of November, 1872," their East-bound rate was $1.25, twenty-five cents less than that set by the agreement of March 25th, between the oil men and the railroads. The discrepancy between the date Mr. Flagler gives for this contract and that of Mr. Vanderbilt's telegram to Mr. Hasson stating that his road had no contract with the Standard Oil Company, April 6, and of Mr. Rockefeller's own telegram stating he had no contracts with the railroads, April 8, the writer is unable to explain."

The South Improvement Company was annulled, everyone said “no more rebates, down with Rockefeller” and within a week he had rebates again.

"...Mr. Vanderbilt made the concession while he was signing the contract with the oil men. Of course the rate was secret..."

William H. Vanderbilt (a last name that should be familiar to most) was making secret deals with Rockefeller, the same week that the SIC was annulled in the Pennsylvania Congress, while telling the rest of the industry as well as Congress that he wouldn’t do that. Why? That is a great question. Maybe he knew which way the Improved Southern Wind was blowing.

42/xen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation…
americanhistoryusa.com/cleveland-mass…

The Carrot Stick Switcheroo Shill Shell Game

Shell game: In the shell game, the tosser lays three half shells or cups face down on the table and slips a ball or pea underneath one. [The tosser] slides the shells around while the player tries to track the shell with the pea.

When the game is in play, [the tosser] lifts the shell as it slides over the edge of one newspaper sheet. The ball rolls under the newspaper sheet, and the tosser keeps shuffling. There is no winning shell!

In most cases, this sleight of hand is actually the simplest part of the scam. Most card and shell games are very elaborate operations involving several crew members. In addition to the tosser, the scam depends on... a roper to bring in potential players and one or more shills to get people to play. The shill blends in as part of the crowd -- in fact, the shill will appear to be the opposite of the tosser. If the tosser is wearing a dirty T-shirt and a baseball cap, the shill might be dressed in a suit, carrying a briefcase. The shills job is to act as a player or an involved spectator.

Shill: someone who helps another person to persuade people to buy something, especially by pretending to be a satisfied customer

A shill is, by definition, one type of controlled opposition (section 8.), pretending to be on one side, but actually on the other.

The Carrot and the Stick: a system in which you are rewarded for some actions [carrot] and threatened with punishment for others [stick].

After his hostile takeover attempt (that “they knew wouldn’t work”), and after he created a war, a panic, and even more turmoil, it seems Rockefeller then decided it was time to play “Good Beneficent Prince” to the previous month's “Evil Robber Baron.” He went to work making nice with the peons after his SIC scheme that was decried as the “’most gigantic and daring conspiracy’ a free country had ever seen”, by presenting the exact same scheme again.

Vol 1, page 103/145:

"Unhampered, then, by any ethical consideration, undismayed by the clamour of the Oil Regions, believing firmly as ever that relief for the disorders in the oil business lay in combining and controlling the entire refining interest, this, man of vast patience and foresight took up his work. That work now was to carry out some kind of a scheme which would limit the output of refined oil. He had put his competitors in Cleveland out of the way. He had secured special privileges in transportation, but there were still too many refineries at work to make it possible to put up the price of oil four cents a gallon. It was certain, too, that no scheme could be worked to do that unless the Oil Regions could be mollified. That now was Mr. Rockefeller's most important business. Just how he began is not known. It is only certain that the day after the newspapers of the Oil Regions printed the report of the Congressional Committee on Commerce denouncing the South Improvement Company as "one of the most gigantic and dangerous conspiracies ever attempted," and declaring that if it had not been checked in time it "would have resulted in the absorption and arbitrary control of trade in all the great interests of the country." Mr. Rockefeller and several other members of the South Improvement Company appeared in the Oil Regions. They had come, they explained, to present a new plan of co-operation, and to show the oil men that it was to their interest to go into it. Whether they would be able to obtain by persuasion what they had failed to obtain by assault was now an interesting uncertainty."

JD was completely untouched by the SIC, and now he went to work to do it again. The SIC was the stick. Now, a month later (May, 1872)*, after he had solidified his gains from the previous attempt, he showed the world the same shell company, this time dressed as a carrot.

* Note: Tarbell’s book says “May, 1873,” but Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller by Ron Chernow says 1872. It also doesn’t mesh with the rest of timeline of the story in her book unless it is 1872.

Link:

"The men who had fought him so desperately now stared in amazement at the smiling, unruffled countenance with which he greeted them. Did not the man know when he was beaten? Did he not realise the opinion the Oil Regions held of him? His placid demeanour in the very teeth of their violence was disconcerting.

Not less of a shock was given the country by the knowledge that Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Flagler, Mr. Waring and the other gentlemen in their party were pressing a new alliance, and that they claimed that their new scheme had none of the obnoxious features of the defunct South Improvement Company, though it was equally well adapted to work out the "good of the oil business."

For several days the visiting gentlemen slipped around, bland and smiling, from street corner to street corner, from office to office, explaining, expostulating, mollifying. "You misunderstand our intention," they told the refiners. "It is to save the business, not to destroy it, that we are come. You see the disorders competition has wrought in the oil industry. Let us see what combination will do. Let us make an experiment that is all. If it does not work, then we can go back to the old method."

“It is for the greater good...”

“See how much disruption the SIC caused? See how bad things are? Look at all the turmoil! We want oil to be great! We want everyone to do well!” (Paraphrased.) Of course, JD would be in control, but “everyone would prosper.”

That JD was the instigator of a great deal of the “disorders” in years past through dominating the market with Rebate fuckery and other manipulations was not part of the conversation. He shuffled around the facts, confusing intents, selling his shiny new sea shell company by the oily sea shore. “Look, this is a completely different shell company compared to my SIC shell company!” (Paraphrased.)

This “new” shell company was called The Pittsburg Plan. The documentation for the Pittsburg Plan can be found in its entirety in vol 1, page 336/392. The following is from vol 1, page 106/148.

"As in the case of the South Improvement scheme, a company was to be formed to run the refining business of the whole country, but this company was to be an open instead of a secret organisation, and all refiners were to be allowed to become stockholders in it. The owners of the refineries who went into the combination were then to run them in certain particulars according to the direction of the board of the parent company; that is, they were to refine only such an amount of oil as the board allowed, and they were to keep up the price, for their output as the board indicated. The buying of crude oil and the arrangements for transportation were also to remain with the directors. Each stockholder was to receive dividends whether his plant operated or not. The "Pittsburg Plan" was presented tentatively. If anything better could be suggested they would gladly accept it, its advocates said. “All we want is a practical combination. We are wed to no particular form.""

“We don’t care how it works out, as long as it works out where everyone is in one group, and we are in control” (paraphrased).

"The first revelation of the public meetings at which the "Pittsburg Plan" was presented was that in the days Mr. Rockefeller and his friends had been so diligently shaking hands with the oil men from Titusville to Oil City they had made converts that they had not entered these open meetings until they had secured the assurance of co-operation in any plan of consolidation which might be effected from some of the ablest refiners and business men of the creek, notably from J. J. Vandergrift of Oil City, and from certain firms of Titusville with which John D. Archbold was connected. All of these persons had fought the South Improvement Company, and they all now declared that if the proposed organisation copied that piratical scheme they would have nothing to do with it, that their allegiance to the plan was based on their conviction that it was fair to all who went in and that it was made necessary by over-refining, underselling, and by the certainty that the railroads could not be trusted to keep their contracts."

ohn D. Archbold (the head of the “opposition”), and the firms with which he was connected (which means he had been "working on them" all), were now declaring “allegiance” to the plan AKA, he was a shill, fully supporting it, but (I think) pretending to be still in opposition. “if the proposed organization copied that piratical scheme they would have nothing to do with it.” And of course “It was fair... and necessary.”

But perhaps this “new” plan was just a skosh too soon? I mean, Rockefeller could have at least let the ink dry on his exit papers before coming back in again.

People were not happy with this endeavor. However, while (some of) the media, and the people were uproarious, it turns out the Pittburg plan wasn’t the real shell company either. It was another shell company (in this case an “association”) that had the pea under it, the National Refiner’s Association (NRA).

"...the Derrick [a newspaper] underrated both the man and the principle at which it sneered. A great idea was at work in the commercial world. It had come to them saddled with crime. They now saw nothing in it but the crime. The man who had brought it to them was not only endowed with far vision, he was endowed with an indomitable purpose. He [Rockefeller] meant to control the oil business. By one manoeuvre, and that a discredited one, he had obtained control of one-fifth of the entire refining output of the United States. He meant to secure the other four-fifths. He might retire now, but the Oil Region would hear of him again. It did. Three months later, in August, 1872, it was learned that the scheme of consolidation which had been presented in vain at Titusville in May had been quietly carried out, that four-fifths of the refining interest of the United States, including many of the creek refiners, had gone into a National Refiners' Association, of which Mr. Rockefeller was president, and one of their own men, J. J. Vandergrift, was vice-president."

So Archbold joined the NRA, the other “head of the opposition” J. J. Vandergrift joined, and nearly all of Oildom joined because “if the leaders say its OK, it must be OK.” Both Vandergrift and Archbold became directors for The Standard.* Vandergrift became V.P. of the NRA (JD Rockefeller was Pres.), and Archbold became V.P. of Standard Oil within a few years. He was in fact Rockefeller’s “right hand man” for decades in Standard Oil, becoming President of the main corporation after the 1911 “break up” when JD moved on to bigger and better things (section 5.).

And just like that, in less than half a year from scorned birth to inglorious adulthood, the Southern Improvement Company grew up, changed its name to the National Refiner’s Association, and completed the prophecies declared at its birth. What a proud father Rockefeller must have been.

* I don’t know exactly when Archbold and Vandergrift became Standard Directors. The evidence I’ve found so far is unclear. It should be noted that the Board of Directors of The Standard Oil Company was among the most exclusive clubs on Earth. Of all the companies assimilated and promised to be a part of the Brave New World of Oil by Rockefeller, there were only two other people besides Vandergrift and Archbold who joined The Standard as directors prior to its first “break up” in 1888 (H. H. Rogers and Charles Pratt being the other two), and I believe only four others before its inevitable “final demise” (lol) in 1911. They also both joined the NRA and were the “trusted leaders” that brought everyone else in. Evidence within Tarbell’s book suggests that both were on The Standard’s Board of Directors by 1875 for various reasons, but if that was when it happened for one or both, or if it had happened long before, I have not been able to figure out. In truth, I’m not certain anyone knows for sure. All of the deals, schemes, joins, etc. were always done in secret long before they ever became public knowledge.

44/xerenow.net/common/lifeofj…

Equality Of Outcome

According to Ms. Tarbell, the NRA died about a year after it began. It was on rocky ground due to some members not following “the plan.” It was dissolved by agreement after a meeting in Aug. 1873. Rockefeller did just fine though. He still retained full control of even more of the oil refineries. He had built substantial additional infrastructure, expanded his control network into other “related” areas, and gained more control over the railroads, owning railway stations, and cars himself (page 128/174). When he used other roads his rebates never skipped a beat, despite others being less fortunate in that regard.

Rockefeller’s advantages were (according to Tarbell’s book) made in no small part through the signing of contracts (just like a certain someone else of nefarious repute?). These contracts seemed perfectly sensible, from the perspective of making money, though they always eliminated the freedoms of everyone but Rockefeller and gave him more control. Even though they generally increased someone else’s monetary pool, they also all ultimately gave a larger economic advantage to Rockefeller, than any of the other signatories. For example, he negotiated a deal where the shipping cost and rebates of oil was the same for everyone, and that at the lowest rate that anyone was currently getting. It was the ultimate in fair and everyone but those already getting the lowest rate benefited, but it still worked out massively to Rockefeller’s advantage.

From the testimony of George H. Blanchard at the Hepburn Committee hearing (page 138/185):

"It was "urgently represented to the trunk lines," he said, "by some refiners at the West as well as by others at the seaboard, and also by crude shippers and receivers and by owners of pipelines, that it was in every way desirable that the refiners of Cleveland and Pittsburg, and those at the seaboard be put upon a basis of equalisation in the gross rates of transportation to and from the refineries." Now to do this the element of distance had to be disregarded. Cleveland was 150 miles west of the Oil Regions, but she must be treated as if she were at the same distance from the seaboard.

As soon as the proposition was made, certain of the refiners and producers objected unless the railroads went further and equalised rates on coal, acids, cooperage, etc. This, however, the roads declined to do."

In this way, everyone got the lowest rate, so everyone should be happy right? There were two ways this turned out to Rockefeller’s advantage. One (the first bolded section above) was that Cleveland, where The Standard did it’s refining, was the furthest of the main refining centers from where the bulk of oil was sold (the eastern seaboard), so Rockefeller et al got more of a net discount than anyone else. The biggest advantage of this “fairness” however, was (from the second bolded section) it only applied to the shipping of oil. These “fair” rates purposefully excluded anything else needed to sell oil, like delivery systems (barrels, containers) or distribution, etc.

So while everyone got the same shipping rate on oil no matter the distance as a result of the negotiations, everyone got charged based on distance for everything else. The Standard (who created the deal in the first place) didn’t care about that though. They had their operations for packaging and distribution already set up in New York City. Once again, by being “fair,” Rockefeller created a massive economic advantage through contracts; having set all this up for Standard Oil during the NRA’s control of everyone.

This pattern of creating “fairness” is seen not just in contracts, but in laws (regulations). There are numerous regulations put into place that increase the power of Megacorp, and decrease the power of anyone else to enter the market competitively. In fact, a great many of the regulations that currently exist in the United States follow this pattern (all that I have looked at so far, which admittedly isn’t that many yet, but I’m batting a thousand). It is often the corporate interests themselves (or people with numerous conflicts of interest and/or known agents in the Congress/Senate) who are the motivators (in one way or another) for the creation of these "regulations". Even when it seems that the law was put in place to restrict monopolistic activity, having the perfect vision of hindsight shows these laws always work to an increase in Megacorp monopolistic control. I will be going through several examples of this “Regulations” fuckery, but not here. I am just connecting this example of Rockefairness to similar behavior in our laws (without evidence yet).

45/x

Running Circulars Around The Competition

The Rutter Circular was an announcement of intended shipping rates based on Rockefeller contracts, put out by James H. Rutter from the New York Central railroad. It was supposed to be a private (internal) railroad communique, but made it into the public sphere. Similar to the railroad shipping deals in the previous section, it was intended to be “fair”, not giving advantage to someone based on their location. Once again, since Rockefeller was the furthest away; advantage Rockefeller. It did more than that though, it substantially disadvantaged specific pipelines, putting the pipeline network effectively under Rockefeller control (vol 1, page 143/190):

"At first the Oil Region was puzzled by the Rutter circular. It certainly was plausible. Was it not true that every man shared equally under it? As the days passed, the dazed mental condition into which it had thrown the oil men cleared up. Mr. Allen's editorials began to take effect. The pipe-lines left out of the pool began to ask how it could be legal that the railroads should enter into an arrangement which obviously would drive them out of business. The creek refiners began to ask by what right the advantage of geographical position at the wells should be taken from them, and Cleveland be allowed to retain the advantages of her proximity to the Western market; Pittsburg her position on the Ohio River and the market it commanded; all of the cities the advantage of their proximity to great local markets and to such necessary supplies as barrels and acids. Besides, was it constitutional for the railroads thus to regulate interstate commerce? Was not the arrangement, as far as the Pennsylvania was concerned, plainly prohibited by the new constitution of the state of Pennsylvania? The producers slowly began to realise, too, that the Rutter circular, like the South Improvement charter and contracts, did not recognise them as a body..."

The editorial mentioned above where the Rutter Circular was made known to the public had a few interesting things to say, but I just want to mention one part (same page as above):

"We are opposed to the new arrangement for the large advance in the price of freight upon oil. If the railroad companies have lost money in carrying oil for the Cleveland refineries during several years past, let not the whole petroleum interest, in its depressed condition, be required to sustain the penalty."

This suggests that these “equality of outcome” deals were a loss for the railroads with regards to the “Cleveland refineries” (all of which were part of Standard Oil). This loss was taken up by the charges to everyone else. I do not wish to discuss anything that smacks of potential political divides in this report, but I want to point out what this is. This is an example of the Communism Economic Design Model as applied (by force) to the corporate sphere. “Everyone pays equally,” “everyone benefits equally,” except some benefit more than others. By being “equal” and “fair,” Rockefeller gained, and everyone else had to pay more.

No one is that lucky. No one is that persuasive (without hidden coercive efforts). It’s not like the system he created was the best it could possibly be (though it was very efficient). There are even examples in Ms. Tarbell’s book of people fighting the Monopoly in cleaver ways and advancing the oil industry substantially. These advances would not have happened if not for the ingenuity of attempting to escape Rockefeller’s dominance (example not shown, but see vol 2, Chapter XV, end result on page 170/212).

This “Rutter circular”, or rather the policies contained within it, giving so much advantage and thus control of the shipping of oil to Rockefeller, was his Oil Combination coup de grace (page 144/192):

"In this discussion of the Rutter circular Mr. Rockefeller's name scarcely appeared. It was known that he had been admitted to the conferences at which the tariff was arranged. This was taken as a matter of course. There was nothing which concerned the oil business which John Rockefeller was not on the inside of. Mr. Blanchard later stated that the "crude equivalent" scheme was suggested by certain Western refiners. The tremendous advantage Cleveland secured by the new arrangement, practically 300 miles of free transportation, seemed to prove, too, that Mr. Rockefeller had not been inactive during the conference. Whether he had or had not suggested the points in the "Rutter circular" so advantageous to his interests, he used them now to aid him in accomplishing one of the shrewdest and most far-reaching moves of his life the move which was to lead at last to the realisation of his Great Purpose the concentration of the oil business in his own hands. For Mr. Rockefeller, quiet as he had been since the breaking up of the Refiners' Association in the summer of 1873, had by no means given up the idea of doing for the refining interest of the whole country what he had done for that of Cleveland through the South Improvement Company."

During this time Rockefeller bought asset after asset. I use the following as an example only because the person (Pratt) plays a small part in future sections (vol 1, page 148/198):

"On October 15, 1874, Mr. Rockefeller consummated another purchase of as great importance. He bought the works of Charles Pratt and Company, of New York city. As before, the purchase was secret."

It seems that in Rockefeller’s world, all the really good stuff is done in secret.

By March of 1875 Rockefeller had created another Combination. This time called the Central Association. Mr. Rogers (Pratt’s business partner before they became the only other two Oil men to join The Standard’s Board of Directors for a couple decades) is quoted in the New York Tribune as having said the following (among other things) about this combination (page 149/199):

"The movement at the present time is a revival of the former idea, and, it is believed, has already secured fully nine-tenths of the oil refiners in the country in its favour."

90% of oil refining was once again secured in a secret combination by JD. It just popped up out of no where at 90%. Maybe the NRA didn’t actually die so much as dissolve, because it was no longer a necessary pretense.

Page 152/202:

"If this organisation succeeded, and the refiners in it claimed nine-tenths of the capacity of the country it gave Mr. Rockefeller "irrevocable authority" to negotiate freights. The Pennsylvania road immediately felt the pressure. The oil they had carried for big firms like those of Charles Lockhart in Pittsburg and of Warden, Frew and Company in Philadelphia was in the hands of the Standard Oil Company, and Mr. Rockefeller asked a rebate of ten per cent, on open rates. The road demurred."

Rockefeller, by this combination, effectively controlled not only the Oil Producers, and every other part of the Oil Market, but no small part of the Railroads as well. It put everyone over (ahem) a barrel.

The control of this Central Association wasn’t complete. It was a group of agreements that gave Rockefeller control of the market, not necessarily complete control of the companies that were left. Nevertheless, it quickly and inevitably led to that conclusion since if you control the whole market, you can ensure that anyone you want to buy out (which is everyone) suffers until they sell out.

This is an excerpt from the testimony of A. H. Tack, a partner of the Citizens’ Oil Refinery Company of Pittsburg, in the 1888 House Committee on Manufactures investigation into The Trust. Mr. Tack was speaking of his successes as a Pittsburg Oilman, that started going to shit around the time of the South Improvement Company. After that their company struggled and fought, trying to stay afloat with Railroad price gouging (without rebates, the prices were too high to make a profit). Then... (page 154/204):

"“...In 1874 I went to see Rockefeller to find if we could make arrangements with him by which we could run a portion of our works. It was a very brief interview. He said there was no hope for us at all. He remarked this I cannot give the exact quotation 'There is no hope for us,’ and probably he said, 'There is no hope for any of us'; but he says, 'The weakest must go first.' And we went.""

“The weakest must go first.”

This sentiment is only true when you are being hunted.

"Throw Grandpa in front of the tiger! He's only got six months left anyways!"

In addition, their company wasn’t weak until Rockefeller made it weak through secret conspiracies, market manipulation, and all manner of Rockefuckery.

In this way, Rockefeller snatched up, at bargain prices, all of the Refineries (vol 1, page 155/205):

"All over the country the refineries in the same condition as Mr. Tack's firm sold or leased. Those who felt the hard times and had any hope of weathering them resisted at first. With many of them the resistance was due simply to their love for their business and their unwillingness to share its control with outsiders."

Mr. William W. Harkness, at the same committee hearing (1888) says similar things to Mr. Tack, but he also says this (vol 1, page 157/207):

"...My brother would complain of it, but I believed that the time would come when that would be equalised. I had no idea of the iniquity that was going on; I could not conceive it..."

Who can conceive of such “iniquity”; such a massive scope of manipulation? It is inconceivable. Ms. Tarbell had this to say about Mr. Harkness’s testimony:

"Here we have a refiner discouraged by the conditions which Mr. Rockefeller claims his aggregation will cure. Under the Rutter circular and the discrimination in freight to the Standard which followed, his difficulty in getting oil increases, and he consents to a running arrangement with Mr. Rockefeller's partner in Philadelphia, but he wants to do an "independent business." Impossible."

First create the hardship in secret; create a situation where it is impossible to succeed without giving up control to Mr. Rockefeller, then offer the solution; “Join or die.” “Joining” really wasn’t “joining” so much as completely giving up your business and getting money or stock in return. From Mr. Rockefeller’s perspective, it seems ownership is nice, but control is even better. Specific, and very explicit examples of this sentiment as well as actual quotes will be forthcoming.

Just to be sure that when he killed a competitor they stayed dead, Rockefeller double tapped; he made the receivers of these forced sales sign a contract to not go into Oil again (vol 1, page 160/210):

"These men had, many of them, handsome sums to invest, but what were they to put them in? They were refiners, and they carried a pledge in their pockets not to go into that business for a period of ten years...

[Some] tried new enterprises, but men of forty learn new trades with difficulty, and failure followed many of them. The scars left in the Oil Regions by the Standard Combination of 1875-1879 are too deep and ugly for men and women of this generation to forget them."

In order to sell out, you must sign a contract saying you won’t ever work in oil again (because it’s ALL MINE!! MWAHAHAHA!).

“Oh, and you’re screwed. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.”

Is it Rockefeller’s fault that so many lives and livelihoods were ruined in his evil scheme to take over the world? Very likely. Was it intentional? Was it “the plan?” Probably not. Did he give a fuck? Probably not. I don’t think caring about other people was one of Rockefeller’s strengths. By all accounts and testimonies in this book, he wanted to create the Perfect Machine, and he wanted full control of the whole thing, because no one else was good enough to run it.

The control, the manipulation, the power grab was total (vol 1, page 161/211):

"Nor was it refiners only who sold out. All departments of the trade began to yield to the pressure. There was in the oil business a class of men known as shippers. They bought crude oil, sent it East, and sold it to refineries there. Among the largest of these was Adnah Neyhart, whose active representative was W. T. Scheide. Now to Mr. Rockefeller the independent shipper was an incubus; he did a business which, in his judgment, a firm ought to do for itself, and reaped a profit which might go direct into the business."

The road to domination wasn’t filled with just tricky contracts and rosy payoffs. Here is an example of direct coercion, mafia style. Mr. Morehouse had a business and patents on converting the waste products from refineries into useful products; lubricants, etc. (page 163/213):

"According to [Mr. Morehouse’s testimony to the Hepburn Commission, 1879] he was then making oils adapted to lubricating all kinds of machinery he held patents for several brands and trade marks… Then came the South Improvement Company and the concentration of the town's refining interest in Mr. Rockefeller's hands. Mr. Morehouse, according to the testimony he gave the Hepburn Commission in 1879, went to Mr. Rockefeller, after the consolidation, to arrange for supplies. He was welcomed--the Standard Oil Company had not at that time begun to deal in lubricating oils and encouraged to build a new plant. This was done at a cost of $41,000, and a contract was made with the Standard Oil Company for a daily supply of eighty-five barrels of residuum. Some time in 1874 this supply was cut down to twelve barrels. The price was put up too, and contracts for several months were demanded so that Mr. Morehouse got no advantage from the variation in crude prices. Then the freights went up on the railroads… Now it was impossible for Mr. Morehouse to supply his trade on twelve barrels of stock. He begged Mr. Rockefeller for more. It was there in the Standard Oil works. Why could he not have it? He could pay for it. He and his partner offered to buy 5,000 barrels and store it, but Mr. Rockefeller was firm. All he could give Mr. Morehouse was twelve barrels a day. "I saw readily what that meant," said Mr. Morehouse, "that meant squeeze you out buy your works. They have got the works and are running them; I am without anything. They paid about $15,000 for what cost me $41,000."

Rockefeller, according to Mr. Morehouse’s account, set him up to fail, so he could get his patents and his business at bargain prices. He did it through manipulation of the Market, by being a monopoly. Once you control enough, if you care nothing about other people (lack of empathy), you can control everything, because everything is connected.

"At every refining centre in the country this process of consolidation through persuasion, intimidation, or force, went on."

“Persuasion, intimidation, or force” AKA by any means necessary. While Rockefeller did have patterns (which is the point of this section), it is more important I think to realize he had one goal. It’s not perfectly clear yet what that goal was, because it wasn’t just “oil” as will become apparent soon (section 5.3). However, it does seem that whatever it took to achieve that goal was the path he took. Persuasion was great, if persuading would gain advantage for Rockefeller. Getting someone smart and devious on your side is better than pushing them out. However, if they aren’t going to be an asset (not smart enough, not devious enough, not controlled enough) then intimidation or force are better paths. Every indication I have been able to find on Rockefeller with regards to this time period suggests that other people’s lives were irrelevant; only winning Monopoly mattered.

46/x

A Deal With The Devil

Building off the exposure of secret deals from the first monopolistic SIC contract and the contracts in the immediately previous section, the following is in reference to these deals as Rockefeller was gathering in his nets during his accumulation of assets under his pitchfork umbrella (vol 1, page 166/216):

The contracts under which all the refineries brought into line were run were of the most detailed and rigid description, and they were executed as a rule with a secrecy which baffles description...

The making of this contract [an example she gives of a contract with Scofield, Shurmer and Teagle] and its execution were attended by all the secret rites peculiar to Mr. Rockefeller's business ventures. According to the testimony of one of the firm given a few years later on the witness stand in Cleveland the contract was signed at night at Mr. Rockefeller's house on Euclid Avenue in Cleveland, where he told the gentlemen that they must not tell even their wives about the new arrangement, that if they made money they must conceal it they were not to drive fast horses, "put on style," or do anything to let people suspect there were unusual profits in oil refining. That would invite competition. They were told that all accounts were to be kept secret. Fictitious names were to be used in corresponding, and a special box at the post-office was employed for these fictitious characters. In fact, smugglers and house-breakers never surrounded their operations with more mystery.

Secret rites in the dead of night (Tarbell’s words (mostly) not mine). Ms. Tarbell doesn’t mention if any of these deals were signed in blood, or at the crossroads at midnight, but I’m still gonna give both of those a definite maybe.

How secret were they really? This is from vol 2, page 129/165:

THERE was no characteristic of Mr. Rockefeller and his great corporation which from the beginning had been more exasperating to the oil world than the secrecy with which operations were conducted. The plan of the South Improvement Company had only been revealed to those who signed an agreement to keep secret all transactions they might have with it. The purchase in 1874 and 1875 by the Standard Oil Company of Lockhart, Frew and Company of Pittsburg, of Warden, Frew and Company of Philadelphia, and of Charles Pratt and Company of New York was so thoroughly concealed that Mr. Rockefeller, five years after it occurred, dared make an affidavit that it had never occurred! [Appendix 44] Men who entered into running arrangements with Mr. Rockefeller were cautioned "not to tell their wives," and correspondence between them and the Standard Oil Company was carried on under assumed names!

So powerful were the contracts, Rockefeller had enough confidence to give an affidavit that a combination with contractual bonds of secrecy never happened, when in fact it was later found out to have happened years before. It’d be really interesting to figure out how Rockefeller et al enforced that power since the contracts were themselves illegal. Of course he never got in trouble for lying to congress on an affidavit, but whatever. If that were all he was guilty of, I wouldn’t have written this.

47/x

Don’t Shoot The Messenger

A repeating pattern in the control mechanisms of The Standard Oil Monopoly was the use of newspapers and other media to disseminate ad hominem attacks and contextual lies to persuade the population against certain endeavors that threatened any piece of The Standard. In the example case below, an oil shipping company, the Pennsylvania Transportation Company, wanted to build a pipeline over a mountain to the seaboard. It would have cut down on the stranglehold of transportation power Standard Oil had in that region. I am including part of the rebuttal for a propaganda attack made on the intended engineer of the project, because I think it is important to see how a contextual lie is created in the news. Such ad hominem attacks, and lies of context occur often to change public beliefs, and they can have a remarkably large impact on our world, as will be seen in other sections of this thread.

From page 174/224:

...If it was a feasible idea would General Haupt take charge of the engineering for the Pennsylvania Transportation Company? At the same time Mr. Harley employed General Benjamin Butler to look after the legal side of such an undertaking. Both General Haupt and General Butler were enthusiastic over the idea and took hold of the work with a will. It was not long before the scheme began to attract serious attention. The Eastern papers in particular took it up. The references to it were, as a whole, favourable. It was regarded everywhere as a remarkable undertaking... the line would be, when finished, at least 500 miles long, and it would be worked by thirty or more tremendous pumps. On July 25 a meeting was held at Parker's Landing, presenting publicly the reports of General Haupt and General Butler. The authority and seriousness of the scheme as set forth at this meeting alarmed the railroads. If this seaboard line went through it was farewell to the railroad-Standard combination. [I suggest it wasn’t so dire, but it would have cut off one section under their control] Oil could be shipped to the seaboard by it at a cost of 16 2-3 cents a barrel, General Haupt estimated...

This pipeline was a direct threat to a sizeable piece of The Standard’s control. It couldn’t be allowed to stand, so of course they worked to cut its legs out from under it by telling the truth... taken completely out of context:

...All of the interests, little and big, which believed that they would be injured by the success of the line, began an attack.

Curiously enough one of the first points of hostility was General Haupt himself. An effort was made to discredit his estimate in order to scare people from taking stock. They recalled the Hoosac Tunnel scandal and the fact that the General once built a bridge which had tumbled down, ridiculed his estimate of the cost, etc., etc. The "card" in which General Haupt answered his chief critic, one who signed himself "Vidi," was admirable:

A CARD FROM GENERAL HAUPT What are the charges that I am requested to "smash"? They are, as I understand them from others, for some I have not seen:

1. That I once built a bridge that tumbled down.

2. That I was connected with the Hoosac Tunnel that cost seventeen millions of dollars.

3. That my estimates of cost of transportation are ridiculously low and unreliable.

1. I did design a bridge some twenty years ago, and constructed a span near Greenfield, in Massachusetts, which gave way, owing to a defective casting, while being tested. The bridge was not finished; had not been opened to the public; had not been accepted from the contractor, who repaired the damage in such a manner that a recurrence of a break would have been impossible. I have built spans of bridges and tested them until they broke, to ascertain their ultimate strength, but I supposed that this was a matter that concerned myself and not the public. If the bridge had been thrown open for public use, and an accident had then occurred from defective design or material, the engineer might have been censurable, but not otherwise. In an experience of nearly forty years I have never had a bridge to fail, after being opened for travel, or a piece of masonry to give way. No accident occurred even upon the temporary military bridges constructed during the war, which President Lincoln used to say were built of bean poles and corn stalks....

Gen. Haupt is basically letting everyone know that in engineering, when a thing fails during testing, that’s a good thing. This is exactly how engineering works. Find me an engineer who never had a failed test (or rather, a successful test that showed a failure during the design or construction phase) and I will show you a liar. How many rockets did SpaceX RUD (Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly) before blowing the grid fins off of NASA and becoming the greatest rocket company of all time?

The rest of Mr. Haupt’s rebuttal (not shown) similarly addresses the other specifics of the propaganda attacks. These ad hominem attacks and contextual lies, promulgated by media outlets owned by The Standard, designed to change public belief in the project, did not stop at the engineer, but were also directed at the company itself:

At the same time that General Haupt was attacked the Pennsylvania Transportation Company was criticised for bad management. A long letter to the Derrick August 14, 1876, claimed that the company in the past had been mismanaged; that the credit it asked could not be given safely; that its management had been such that it had scarcely any business left. Indeed this critic claimed that the last pipe-line organised, a small line known as the Keystone, had during the last six months done almost double the business of the Pennsylvania. Under the direction of the Pennsylvania Railroad, it was believed, the Philadelphia papers began to attack the plan. Their claim was that the charters under which the Pennsylvania Transportation Company expected to operate would not allow them to lay such a pipe-line.

Other efforts of a similar ilk were used to stop the pipe-line from being created. These propaganda efforts to sway public opinion, disseminated through the media (newspapers, shills at meetings, etc.), were not based on the whole of the evidence, but were based on non-truths, half-truths, and out of context lies.

There are many other examples in Ms. Tarbell’s book of similar effort to create beliefs in the population through use of owned media to ensure Standard Oils monopolistic endeavors.

This isn’t merely “advertising,” since it is promoted as “news.” When people trust the source to be “investigating journalists” but they are in fact agents working for the other side, it causes the reader to believe the lies and half-truths; to sway their opinion, to ensure that the corporate or government entities that manage these news agencies get their way through control of public opinion. These endeavors have nothing to do with “the Truth.” On the contrary, they can and often are used against the best interests of We The People as I will show in future sections.

48/x

It’s Not What You’re Saying, I Just Think You Smell Bad

This association of the message with the messenger, as shown in the previous section, is an easy and common tactic people employ to ignore evidence or reasoned argument. It is also exploitable and is a common tactic in the media. In formal debate this argumentative fallacy is called an ad hominem. It means to present an argument “against the person” (ad→ against, hominem→ person), with the implication (because Latin loves to imply) that it is “not against the argument that person presented,” i.e. it is not a true counterargument because it doesn’t address the argument itself AKA it is a false counterargument. This doesn’t mean that finding evidence against a person is always an argumentative fallacy. This is specifically about using these tactics to ignore an argument given or evidence presented by a person. Ad hominem attacks are considered false arguments in debate, in science, and in a courtroom. Don’t get me wrong, they get used in those venues, but they are generally called out when they are. In public discourse however, it seems to be as common and accepted as saying, “Hello.”

DON’T PANIC

Despite Standard Oil’s best efforts, eventually the seaboard pipe-line was built (vol 2 chapter 9). And of course Rockefuckery ensued. I don’t want to go through it all, I just want to point out one particular trick of Rockefuckery, with a bonus trick added on at the end (page 23/49):

Because he had failed in his old South Improvement Company trick, that is, failed to create a panic among Tidewater stockholders, and so get their property at panic prices, was no reason at all to suppose he had abandoned the chase. There still remained a legitimate method of getting into the company, and, as a last resort, Mr. Rockefeller accepted it. He bought the minority stock of the concern, held by the Taylor party. Up to this time Mr. Rockefeller had appeared in Tidewater affairs as a destroyer. He now appeared in a role in which he is quite as able as a pacifier, and his extraordinary persuasiveness was never exercised to better effect. "We own $200,000 worth of your stock," he could tell the people he had been fighting. "If you will consent to confine yourselves to a fixed percentage of our joint business, and will sustain pipage rates and the price of refined oil, we will let you alone. Let us dwell together in peace."

In the first bolded section above Ms. Tarbell talks about “creating a panic to buy up stocks.” This is what happened with the SIC. He caused people to believe that if they didn’t let him buy them out, they would lose all their business, so they complied. They panicked on cue. Here he is doing it again. This is Standard practice for The Standard. I mean, we all know this stuff happens, but the scope of its potential applications and rewards are difficult to process. In the case of the original SIC he gained about 15% of all the oil control of the United States from a few weeks of work, and set the stage to get the rest of it. This came from a business they stated they “knew would fail.” The design of causing a panic to gain advantage is particularly devious. I will show some examples of that later that will be difficult to give credence despite the solidity of the evidence I will present, so I am setting precedence here.

As a bonus, in the second bolded portion he shows another trick: control with minority ownership. He gains a foothold with a minority share, then he dictates the extent of their business through this minority share and (not all that) veiled threats. Control can be retained even through divestment, via setting up your agents on the Boards of Directors along with contractual obligations, as will be seen later (section 5.).

The Tidewater, tired of the fight, accepted... The agreement between them was the same in effect as all Mr. Rockefeller's running agreements, it limited and kept up prices.

Looks like the Tidewater got washed out to sea by the Rockefeller storm. If only they hadn’t forgotten their towel.

49/x

“Centralization of Authority”

In addition to giving Ms. Tarbell credit for the title of this section, I am going to let her explain her title herself. The highlights are only because they will be parts of future sections of this report. They are not self-contained sentences that can be read out of the context of the paragraphs.

Page 232/277:

If one attempts to analyse what may be called the legitimate greatness of Mr. Rockefeller's creation in distinction to its illegitimate greatness, he will find at the foundation the fact that it is as perfectly centralised as the Catholic church or the Napoleonic government. As was pointed out in a former chapter, the entire business was placed in 1882 in the hands of nine trustees, of whom Mr. Rockefeller was president. These trustees have always acted exactly as if they were nine partners in a business, and the only persons concerned in it. They met daily, giving their whole time to the management and development of the concern... below them, and sifting things for their eyes, were committees which dealt with the various departments of the business. There was a Crude Committee which considered the subject of crude oil, the world over; a Manufacturing Committee which studied the making of refined, the utilisation of waste, the development of new products; a Marketing Committee which considered the markets. Before each of these committees was laid daily all the information to be found on earth concerning its particular field; not only were there reports made to it of what was doing in its line in the Standard Oil Trust, but information came of everything connected with such work everywhere by everybody. These committees not only knew all about their own business, they knew all about everybody else's. The Manufacturing Committee knew just what each of the feeble independent refiners still existing was doing what its resources and advantages were; the Transportation Committee knew what rates it got; the Marketing Committee knew its market. Thus the fullest information about new developments of crude, new openings for refined, new processes of manufacture, was always at the command of the nine trustees of the trust.

How did they get this information? As the press does by a wide-spreading system of reporters. In 1882 the Standard had correspondents in every town in the oil fields, and today it has them not only there but in every capital of the globe. It is a common enough thing, indeed, in European capitals to run across high-class newspaper correspondents, consuls, or business men who add to their incomes by private reporting to the Standard Oil Company. The people in their employ naturally report all they learn. There are also outsiders who report what they pick up "occasional contributions." There is more than one man in the Oil Regions who has made his livelihood for years by picking up information for the Standard. "Spies," they are called there. They may deserve the name sometimes, but the service may be perfectly legitimate.

These trustees then "know everything" about the oil business and they have used their information. Nobody ever used information more profitably. What was learned was applied, and affected the whole great structure, for by a marvellous genius in organisation Mr. Rockefeller had devised a machine with a head whose thinking was felt from the seat of power in New York City to the humblest pipe-line patrol on Oil Creek. This head controlled each one of the scattered plants with absolute precision. Take the refineries; they were individual plants, having a manager and a board of directors like any outside plant, but these plants were not free agents. According to J. J. Vandergrift's testimony in 1879, the Imperial Refinery, of which he was president, had no control of its oil after it was made...

One of Mr. Rockefeller's greatest achievements has been to bring men who had built up their own factories and managed them to suit themselves to work harmoniously under such limitations. As this history has shown, the first attempt to harness the refiners failed because they would not obey the rules. No doubt the chief reason why they finally consented to them was that only by so doing could they get transportation rates equally advantageous to those of the Standard Oil Company; but, having consented and finding it profitable, they were kept in line by an ingenious system of competition which must have done much to satisfy their need of individual effort and their pride in independent work. In the investigation of 1879, when the producers were trying to find out the real nature of the Standard alliance, they were much puzzled by the sworn testimony of certain Standard men that the factories they controlled were competing, and competing hard, with the Standard Oil Company of Cleveland. How could this be? Being bitter in heart and reckless in tongue, the oil men denounced the statements as perjury, but they were the literal truth. Each refinery in the alliance was required to make to Mr. Rockefeller each month a detailed statement of its operations. These statements were compared and the results made known. If the Acme at Titusville had refined cheaper that month than any other member of the alliance, the fact was made known. If this cheapness continued to show, the others were sent to study the Acme methods. Whenever an improvement showed, that improvement received credit, and the others were sent to find the secret. The keenest rivalry resulted every factory was on its mettle.

Here again is another example of “controlled opposition.” Each company competes aggressively (opposition), but each one answers to a central agency. I will call this variant of controlled opposition a Type III CO. In Type I and Type II they are not genuine competition, but active secret agents for the “other side.” In Type III they are in competition, they know they are in competition, they know they work for the same master person, but the competition is still genuine. That they are all working for the same team is the secret, because from the outside, they appear to be working for their own interests, not a central control.

50/x

He’s A Player

By all accounts, and by outcome it seems that Rockefeller was a master chess player, where by “chess” I mean, “social manipulation.” Ms. Tarbell even uses the word chess in her description of him (vol 1, page 51/85):

[Mr. Rockefeller] was a brooding, cautious, secretive man, seeing all the possible dangers as well as all the possible opportunities in things, and he studied, as a player at chess, all the possible combinations which might imperil his supremacy.

Where by “chess”, she seems to mean “the ability to see ahead and manipulate people to his intended outcome” AKA “social manipulation.”

She elaborates his ability to manipulate throughout her book, in fact that is in no small part the main topic of the book; because that was how he built his empire. That he was a master at manipulation, thinking ahead, and creating grand plans for domination, very often illegally, is evident not only in the outcome, but in the rhetoric of the relevant documentation. For example, Ms. Tarbell uses the word “conspiracy” 93 times in the two volumes of her work.

conspiracy: the activity of secretly planning with other people to do something bad or illegal

I will define “conspiracy” in a legal sense later (or rather I will elaborate the legal definition) when it becomes relevant (section 8.).

She also uses the word “scheme” 123 times.

scheme: an organized plan for doing something, especially something dishonest or illegal that will bring a good result for you

I think it’s fair to assume that she thought Rockefeller’s monopolistic construction was rife with both conspiracies and schemes. So did the populace, and the courts. These are the same words used in the affidavits, the quotes, court documents, and all other period literature that I looked at.

Every time she uses these words, it has negative or criminal connotations, for example (vol 1, page 229/283):

the verdict of the Congressional Committee had been that the South Improvement Company was a conspiracy. Therefore, said the producers, the Standard Oil Company is a conspiracy.

According to these books, there were several times members of The Standard were criminally charged with “conspiracy” (acquitted of course).

Here is one example of an unsuccessful indictment for criminal conspiracy (page 240/293):

With damaging testimony piling up day by day in three states, and with an indictment for conspiracy hanging over the heads of himself and eight of his associates, matters looked gloomy for John D. Rockefeller in the spring of 1879. "The good of the oil business" certainly seemed in danger.

The Standard was never broken up. Each time they were indicted, or even found guilty and “forced to stop” they didn’t. It never happened. They always found a way out, and the government never did anything about it. How did they get out of the indictment above? They “compromised” (page 252/308):

Mr. Campbell began the session by reporting that all the suits at which they had been labouring for nearly two years had been withdrawn, and that in return for their withdrawal the Standard and the Pennsylvania Railroad officials had signed contracts to cease certain of the practices of which the producers complained. The Standard contract, which Mr. Campbell then presented, pledged Mr. Rockefeller, and some sixteen associates, whose names were attached to the document, to the following policy:

They would hereafter make no opposition to an entire abrogation of the system of rebates, drawbacks and secret rates of freight in the transportation of petroleum on the railroads.
They withdrew their opposition to secrecy in rate making...
They abandoned entirely the policy which they had been pursuing in the management of the United Pipe Lines that is, they promised that there should be no discrimination whatever hereafter between their patrons...
They promised hereafter that when certificates had been given for oil taken into the custody of the pipe-lines, the transfer of these certificates should be considered as a delivery of the oil, and the tankage of the seller would be treated as free.
Mr. Rockefeller also agreed in making this contract to pay the Producers' Union $40,000 to cover the expense of their litigation. In return for this money and for the abandonment of secret rebates and of the pipe-line policy to which he had held so strenuously, what was he to receive? He was not to be tried for conspiracy.

Mr. Rockefeller’s compromise was, “I will stop breaking the law, if you won’t prosecute me for the crimes of conspiracy, coercion, blackmail, lying, deceit, fraud, etc. that I have already committed for the past decade that have given me the entirety of Oildom” (paraphrased).

These negotiations were made between the head of the Producers Union, Mr. Benjamin B. Campbell (the group who brought the suits against Standard Oil), the prosecuting attorney, and “Standard officials”. There was a reason it went to negotiations and not to court, but those reasons are not obvious at all. There had been some issues, like one of the key witnesses had himself been charged with a crime in the interim (no possible fuckery there I’m sure), but there was an absolute mountain of evidence against Standard Oil and it’s Board, and it never saw the light of day in court (though some of it eventually did 10 and then again 30 years later). Additionally the court date had kept getting postponed, because that’s what courts do when Mr. Rockefeller determines it should be so. Ms. Tarbell doesn’t seem to know exactly what happened to keep it out of court; but whatever it was, it was fuckery. No one commits world changing crimes on this level and escapes court without fuckery. Eventually, according to Ms. Tarbell, the only recourse from the perspective of the Producers Union and the Prosecutor was to compromise with Rockefeller, because after two years of effort, getting them in to court had proven impossible. The Rockefeller “compromise,” as it turned out, did effectively nothing at all.

The numerous people who actually brought these suits were beside themselves when it ended in negotiation instead of criminal court:

There were both humiliation and bitterness in the Council when the report was read--humiliation and bitterness that after two years of such strenuous fighting all that was achieved was a contract which sacrificed what everybody knew to be the fundamental principle, the principle which up to this point the producers had always insisted must be recognised in any negotiation that the rebate system was wrong and must not be compromised with. Hard speeches were made, and Mr. Campbell's head was bowed more than once while big tears ran down his cheeks.

Below I include the Producers Union meeting resolution (ending statements) because it has potential relevance to today (page 255/311):

They ended their meeting by a resolution bitterly condemning the courts, the state administration at Harrisburg, and corporations in general:

"We declare that by the inefficiency and weakness of the secretary of internal affairs in the year 1878; by the interposition on more than one occasion of the attorney-general in 1879, by which the taking of testimony was prevented; by the failure of the present government for many months, either to grant or deny the requisition for criminals indicted for crime, within the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, fugitives to other states; and by the interference of some of the judges of the Supreme Court, by an extraordinary and, according to the best legal judgment of the land, unlawful proceeding, by which the trial of an indictment for misdemeanour pending in a local court was delayed and prevented, the alarming and most dangerous influence of powerful corporations has been demonstrated. While we accept the inevitable result forced upon us by these influences, we aver that the contest is not over and our objects not attained, but we all continue to advocate and maintain the subordination of all corporations to the laws, the constitution, and the will of the people, however and whenever expressed; that the system of freight discrimination by common carriers is absolutely wrong in principle, and tends to the fostering of dangerous monopolies; and that it is the duty of the government, by legislation and executive action, to protect the people from their growing and dangerous power."

All branches of the government had, at least by common belief at the time, and certainly by the evidence of the effect, completely failed in its duty. By all accounts the government was completely compromised, dancing to the tune Rockefeller was playing. The Gilded Age, which was called that in no small part because of what was happening with Standard Oil and the other monopolies, was considered to be the most compromised time in the history of our government. I assert that “consensus” is incorrect. I think The Gilded Age was only the beginning, and they just got better at hiding the corruption. If anything, the evidence suggests it got worse as time went on. However, that is my assessment. Me saying that is meaningless. The evidence is all that matters. Evidence to support that statement will be in future sections.

51/x

The Corporate Intelligence Agency

Rockefeller had a massive Marketing Agency, with Agents all over the country. Ms. Tarbell elaborates their efforts of propaganda to control all of the information about oil. But this agency wasn’t just about “sales,” or even “media control” regarding Oil or The Standard’s operations, they also kept track of every detail of every deal that had anything to do with the oil business. They accomplished this in no small part through the railroads, just as the South Improvement Company had originally intended via it’s articles of incorporation, albeit in this case through more subversive means than the original SIC contracts (vol 2 page 34/62):

But the Standard Oil agents were not sent into a territory back in the seventies simply to sell all the oil they could by efficient service and aggressive pushing; they were sent there to sell all the oil that was bought. "The coal-oil business belongs to us," was Mr. Rockefeller's motto, and from the beginning of his campaign in the markets his agents accepted and acted on that principle. If a dealer bought but a barrel of oil a year, it must be from Mr. Rockefeller. This ambition made it necessary that the agents have accurate knowledge of all outside transactions in oil, however small, made in their field. How was this possible? The South Improvement scheme provided perfectly for this, for it bound the railroad to send daily to the principal office of the company reports of all oil shipped, the name of shipper, the quantity and kind of oil, the name of consignee, with the destination and the cost of freight.* Having such knowledge as this, an agent could immediately locate each shipment of the independent refiner, and take the proper steps to secure the trade. But the South Improvement scheme never went into operation. It remained only as a beautiful ideal, to be worked out as time and opportunity permitted. The exact process by which this was done it is impossible to trace. The work was delicate and involved operations of which it was wise for the operator to say nothing. It is only certain that little by little a secret bureau for securing information was built up until it is a fact that information concerning the business of his competitors, almost as full as that which Mr. Rockefeller hoped to get when he signed the South Improvement Company contracts, is his today. Probably the best way to get an idea of how Mr. Rockefeller built up this department, as well as others of his marketing bureau, is to examine it as it stands today. First, then, as to the methods of securing information which are in operation.

Rockefeller had complete control on every level. His marketing division (AKA propaganda arm) was also “a secret bureau for securing information”. That sounds kinda like a corporate version of the Central Intelligence Agency. Not that it’s a direct correlation. That was just a thought that came to mind. Control of all information, in and out, is a necessary element to dominating a market; to maintaining an absolute monopoly. It makes sense to put all intelligence operations into one agency.

There are even more parallels between these two “CIA’s” than just control and knowledge of information. For example, Rockefeller had “double agents” in any pockets of competition that remained, or any that tried to pop up (vol 2 page 38/66):

"For many years independent refiners have declared that the details of their shipments were leaking regularly from their own employees or from clerks in freight offices. At every investigation made these declarations have been repeated and occasional proof has been offered; for instance, a Cleveland refiner, John Teagle, testified in 1888 to the Congressional Committee that one day in 1883 his bookkeeper came to him and told him that he had been approached by a brother of the secretary of the Standard Oil Company at Cleveland, who had asked him if he did not wish to make some money. The bookkeeper asked how, and after some talk he was informed that it would be by his giving information concerning the business of his firm to the Standard. The bookkeeper seems to have been a wary fellow, for he dismissed his interlocutor without arousing suspicion and then took the case to Mr. Teagle, who asked him to make some kind of an arrangement in order to find out just what information the Standard wanted. The man did this. For twenty-five dollars down and a small sum per year he was to make a transcript of Mr. Teagle's daily shipments with net price received for the same; he was to tell what the cost of manufacturing in the refinery was; the amount of gasoline and naphtha made and the net price received for them; what was done with the tar; and what percentage of different grades of oil was made; also how much oil was exported. This information was to be mailed regularly to Box 164 of the Cleveland post-office."

The Rockefeller “double agent” endeavor was apparently as wide spread as can be imagined; a part of every railroad, every non-Standard Oil refinery, producer, or seller, not to mention numerous media and government offices as well. While the extreme breadth of the program is apparent from Ms. Tarbell’s story, there is no way to know how deep their capacity for corrupting “the opposition’s” employees really goes. For example, an agent who is on the payroll for “just information” or any other minor indiscretion becomes ripe for blackmail, which means even further subversion is possible through this agent. I suggest that escalating coercion, first through a tiny act of bribery, then through further greed or blackmail (or both) is no small part of how this type of full control of the opposition is created (this doesn’t count the type of “controlled opposition” that starts on your side, like in a standard con (section 5.)). The idea and scope of “controlled opposition” will become fleshed out more in other sections of this report as new evidence opportunes. For now, I will call this type of “double agent,” controlled through bribery or coercion (someone who didn’t start as part of a con) a Type II Controlled Opposition (Type II CO).

While I don’t have direct evidence of any such escalation of blackmail as I have suggested from Ms. Tarbell, there will be supporting evidence for that idea in other sections. For immediate evidence however, watch literally any spy movie. Once a person is compromised by any method, even in the littlest bit, they are subject to further control. The only options after the first sell out, is to continue on the sell out path, or “come clean,” with the result of the second being almost certainly termination, and very likely everyone knowing you are prone to traitorous action. The longer a person is an acting agent of subversion, even if only on a small scale, the more complete the control of them becomes.

Tarbell talks about the results of one of these double agent situations; where actions of thievery and treason, that were instigated by Standard Oil, turned to ruination for the agents (employees of a competitor). In this case the agents were promised to be rewarded with employment in The Standard after the acts of espionage.

One of the two double agents was a black kid who was convinced to steal information because he was in a position to do so at the competing company. The other was his handler, a former employee at the same company, now paid by The Standard to get the information. After sufficient information was stolen, and further information was no longer useful... (vol 2, page 58/86):

"The negro was never taken into the Atlantic Refinery, [A Standard Company he was promised employment at] and Buckley soon after lost his position, as he of course richly deserved to. A man who shows himself traitorous, lying, thieving, even for the "good of the oil business," is never kept long in the employment of the Standard Oil Company."

The Standard got the info, destroyed the competition, and threw both of their subversive agents under the bus, their reputations in shambles. In this case the blackmail ended and there is no account of a “blackmail escalation” as I have suggested above (though the bribery went on for months), but there was no motivation to do so. Both of the agents were too minor (one literally) in the scheme of things and thus no longer useful, so... “don’t let the door hit you on the way out.”

It’s important to appreciate how complete this spy agency was. The Rockefeller CIA err… Corporate Intelligence Agency was everywhere. They kept tabs on everything:

"In 1903... the writer came into possession of a large mass of documents of unquestionable authenticity, bearing out all and more than the independents charge. They show that the Standard Oil Company receives regularly today, at least from the railroads and steamship lines represented in these papers, information of all oil shipped. A study of these papers shows beyond question that somebody having access to the books of the freight offices records regularly each oil shipment passing the office the names of consignor and consignee, the addresses of each, and the quantity and kind of oil are given in each case."

Ms. Tarbell means “all” (the italics emphasis was hers). Everything about every drop of oil is recorded, all records kept. This method of doing business through knowing everything will be important to remember later (section 7.).

Having control of all the information allows for complete control of everything. Threat’s of ruination help too (vol 2 page 41/69):

Copies of letters and telegrams accompanying the reports show that as soon as a particular report had reached Standard headquarters and it was known that a carload, or even a barrel, of independent oil was on its way to a dealer, the Standard agent whose name was written after the shipment on the record had been notified. "If you can stop car going to X, authorise rebate to Z (name of dealer) of three-quarters cent per gallon," one of the telegrams reads, There is plenty of evidence to show how an agent receiving such information "stops" the oil. He persuades the dealer to countermand the order. George Rice, when before the House Committee on Manufactures in 1888, presented a number of telegrams as samples of his experience in having orders countermanded in Texas. Four of these were sent on the same day from different dealers in the same town, San Angelo. Mr. Rice investigated the cause, and, by letters from the various firms, learned that the Standard agent had been around "threatening the trade that if they bought of me they would not sell them any more," as he put it.

Know everything, demand compliance under threat; the path to complete dominion.

The Standard created “independent” shell companies to run scams (vol 2 page 51/79):

This is through what are called "bogus" oil companies. The obdurate dealer is approached by the agent of a new independent concern, call it the ABC Oil Company, for illustration. The agent seeks trade on the ground that he represents an independent concern and that he can sell at lower prices than the firm from which the dealer is buying. Gradually he works his way into the independent's trade. As a matter of fact, the new company is merely a Standard jobbing house which makes no oil, and which conceals its real identity under a misleading name.

I point this out because the creation of companies with “misleading names” that are the opposite of what they pretend to be is a common theme for Rockefeller enterprises.

One particularly insidious such venture plays a fundamental role in the next part, and in fact leads to the relevant conundrum of this entire endeavor.

The following example is just to drive home how complete the control is:

There is never a dealer in oil too small to have applied the above methods of competition. In recent years they have frequently been applied even to oil peddlers. In a good many towns of the country oil is sold from door to door by men whose whole stock in trade is their peddling wagons. Many of these oil peddlers build up a good trade. As a rule they sell Standard oil. Let one take independent oil [oil not bought from Standard Oil], however, and the case is at once reported. His customers are located and at once approached by a Standard tank wagon man, who frequently, it is said, not only sells at a lower price than they have been paying, but even goes so far as to clean and fill the lamps! In these raids on peddlers of independent oil, refined oil has been sold in different cities at the doors of consumers at less than crude oil was bringing at the wells, and several cents per gallon less than it was selling to wholesale dealers in refined. It is claimed by independents that at the present time the "bogus" companies generally manage this matter of driving out peddlers, thus saving the Standard the unpopularity of the act and the dissatisfaction of the rise in price which, of course, follows as soon as the trade is secured.

The mega million dollar company Standard Oil is selling at a loss to individual people, just to keep peddlers in wagons from selling any non Standard Oil. That they would know about all such cases; that they would have in place operations to take care of it, suggests that the network is absolute. To me this doesn’t seem like it’s about money per se. It seems more like it’s about dominion. This is across the whole country, in every nook and cranny.

The following is talking about grocers. Just random people who sell oil in their shop:

Another curious use made of these reports from the freight offices is forming a card catalogue of local dealers. (See form on page 55.) Oil is usually sold at retail by grocers. It is with them that the local agents deal. Now the daily reports from the freight offices show the oil they receive. The competition reports from local agents also give more or less information concerning their business. A card is made out for each of them, tabulating the date on which he received oil, the name and location of the dealer he got it from, the quality, and the price he sells at. In a space left for remarks on the card there is written in red ink any general information about the dealer the agent may have picked up. Often there is an explanation of why the man does not buy Standard oil not infrequently this explanation reads: "Is opposed to monopolies." It is impossible to say from documentary evidence how long such a card catalogue has been kept by the Standard; that it has been a practice for at least twenty-five years the following quotation from a letter written in 1903 by a prominent Standard official in the Southwest to one of his agents shows: "Where competition exists," says the official, "it has been our custom to keep a record of each merchant's daily purchase of bulk oil; and I know of one town at least in the Southern Texas Division where that record has been kept, whether there was competition or not, for the past fifteen years."

They keep records on everyone. Everyone. Local grocers, peddlers with a horse and wagon, everyone. They keep records of dissenters to their dominance. They started keeping those records from the beginning, and still keep up those records even though by this time they controlled (at least) 90% of all oil sales. As we will see their control went far beyond oil. Did they keep such records on everyone no matter the industry? Maybe. When you see how big their industry really is, you will appreciate the scope of what that question implies.

Ms. Tarbell concludes this chapter with an interesting additional point (vol 2 page 62/90):

The marketing department of the Standard Oil Company is organised to cover the entire country, and aims to sell all the oil sold in each of its divisions. To forestall or meet competition it has organised an elaborate secret service for locating the quantity, quality, and selling price of independent shipments. Having located an order for independent oil with a dealer, it persuades him, if possible, to countermand the order. If this is impossible, it threatens "predatory competition," that is, to sell at cost or less, until the rival is worn out. If the dealer still is obstinate, it institutes an "Oil War." In late years the cutting and the "Oil Wars" are often intrusted to so-called "bogus" companies, who retire when the real independent is put out of the way. In later years the Standard has been more cautious about beginning underselling than formerly, though if a rival offered oil at a less price than it had been getting and generally even small refineries can contrive to sell below the non-competitive prices of the Standard it does not hesitate to consider the lower price a declaration of war and to drop its prices and keep them down until the rival is out of the way. The price then goes back to the former figure or higher. John D. Archbold's testimony before the Industrial Commission in 1898 practically confirms the above conclusion. Mr. Archbold said that the Standard was in the habit of fighting vigorously to hold and advance its trade even to the extent of holding prices down to cost until the rival gives way--though he declared it to be his opinion that the history of the company's transactions would show that the competitor forces the fight. Mr. Archbold told the commission that he personally believed it was not advisable to sell below cost for the sake of freezing out a smaller rival, save in "greatly aggravated cases," though he admitted the Standard sometimes did it. The trouble is that, accepting Mr. Rockefeller's foundation principle that the oil business belongs to him, any competition is "an aggravated case."

When you have that much control (monopoly), you can (and apparently will) start a war any ole’ time you want, to both ensure that monopolistic dominance, and to expand your domain.

I’m just glad all this monopolistic oil (gas) price manipulation is in the past (NOT!).

52/x

Greasy Palms

If your business is at least ostensibly controlled by laws and governments, it makes good business sense to have some law makers and government people on your side. This is a small exposure of a few times when JD Sr. got caught in, shall we say, governmental indiscretions.

Oliver Hazard Payne was on the board of directors of Standard Oil (also the Treasurer). His father, H. B. Payne became a Senator, and there may have been some Rockefuckery involved in the election. From Mrs. Tarbell’s The History of the Standard Oil Company Vol. 2, here she suggests that H. B. Payne of Ohio had his Senate seat bought and paid for by JD (vol 2, page 111/145):

Oliver Hazard Payne:


From Mrs. Tarbell’s The History of the Standard Oil Company Vol. 2:

"The Buffalo case demonstrated that when their ordinary advantages failed to get a rival out of the way they winked at methods which a jury called criminal. It was fresh proof of what the oil men had always claimed, that the Standard Oil Company was a conspiracy! At the same time that these cases were arousing their indignation anew there occurred in Ohio an affair which gave them new evidence of their old charge that the Standard was steadily intrenching itself in state and national politics in order to direct the course of legislation to suit itself. There had been many evidences of this, satisfactory enough to the initiated. There was no doubt that the investigation of 1876 and the first bill to regulate interstate commerce introduced at that time had been squelched largely through the efforts of two members of Congress, one of them directly and the other indirectly interested in the Standard these were J. N. Camden of West Virginia, head of the Camden Consolidated Oil Company, now one of the constituent companies of the Standard Oil Trust, and H. B. Payne of Ohio, the father of the treasurer of the Standard, Oliver H. Payne. It had certainly used its influence to oppose the free pipeline bill which the independent oil men had been fighting for since the early days of the industry. In 1878 and 1879, during the prosecution of the suits against the railroads and the Standard by the Petroleum Producers' Union, there had been incessant charge of the use of political influence to secure delay. It was a matter of constant comment in Ohio, New York and Pennsylvania that the Standard was active in all elections, and that it "stood in" with every ambitious young politician, that rarely did an able young lawyer get into office who was not retained by the Standard. The company seems to have taken a hand in politics even before the days of the South Improvement Company, for Mr. Payne once said in the United States Senate that when he was a candidate for the House of Representatives in 1871, "no association, no combination" in his district did more to bring about his defeat or spent so much money to accomplish it as the Standard Oil Company!

But all of the examples they quoted were more or less poor in evidence. Of no one of them perhaps could they have produced satisfactory proof. Now, however, simultaneously with the three cases outlined in the last two chapters there came a case of bribery in an election which they held established their charge. The case was the familiar one of the election of H. B. Payne of Ohio to the United States Senate in January, 1884. Mr. Payne was at the time of his election the aristocrat par excellence of Cleveland, Ohio. He had birth and education, distinction of manner and mind. His fine old mansion still remains one of the most distinguished houses in a city of beautiful homes. He had been active in Democratic politics for many years a member of the state Senate and a member of Congress, and he had been mentioned as the Democratic candidate for the presidency in 1880, receiving eighty-one votes on the first ballot. At the time of his election to the Senate he was a man seventy-four years old. Now Mr. Payne's son, Oliver H. Payne, was one of the thirteen original members of the South Improvement Company, and one of the rare Cleveland refiners who had a strong enough stomach to go into the Standard Oil Company when it swept up the oil trade of Cleveland in 1872, and he had gathered in his share of the spoils of that raid. Oliver Payne was proud of his father, and it was well known that he wanted to see him in the Senate of the United States, but there had been no movement to nominate him, and in 1883 he seems to have made up his mind to see what he could do."

Rumours of large sum payments made by JD caused newspapers to call out the bribes (vol 2, page 114/148):

The New York Sun, under the head "Was Payne's Election Bought?" said:

...It is now believed, and I believe, that the Standard Oil Company recently bought with money Ohio's seat in the Senate of the United States for Mr. Payne.

The arguments for investigation went on for three days. Here she quotes Senator Frye:

"The Senate of the United States," said Senator Frye, "when the question comes before it as this has been presented, whether or not the great Standard Oil Company, the greatest monopoly to-day in the United States of America, a power which makes itself felt in every inch of territory in this whole republic, a power which controls business, railroads, men and things, shall also control here; whether that great body has put its hands upon a legislative body and undertaken to control, has controlled, and has elected a member of the United States Senate, that Senate, I say, cannot afford to sit silent and let not its voice be heard in an inquiry as to the truth of the allegation."

Despite compelling arguments the final result of a vote was 44 to 17 against investigating charges of bribery by JD Rockefeller. That wasn’t the end of the story however (vol 2, page 117/151):

For the time the matter rested, but only for the time. The failure to investigate rather intensified the convictions that Payne's seat was bought by the Standard Oil Company. In 1887 Mr. Payne voted against the Interstate Commerce Bill. "That is why he was put in the Senate," people said bitterly. The feeling became still more intense in 1888. The question of trusts was before Congress. The Republicans had come out with an anti-trust plank in their platform; the Democrats, in response to Mr. Cleveland's message, were declaring the tariff the greatest trust-builder in existence, and calling on their opponents for reform there if they were sincere in their anti-trust attitude. In this agitation the Standard Oil Company undoubtedly exerted its influence against all trust investigation and legislation.

While only Standard Oil is named, and the accusation is only about laws that directly affect the Standard Oil Company, here is evidence of effectively complete control of the government by The Trust, whenever it mattered to them.

It’s easy to see when a law passes, or doesn’t pass, when it benefits the company. The company comes out ahead, and that benefit can be traced to the law. I assert it may not be so easy to see such control when the designs are less straightforward in the profit margins. But just because it isn’t obvious, doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. I’m not making any accusations here, I am only suggesting that if we find evidence of a gain in advantage in areas other than mere money, we shouldn’t discount the possibility of political fuckery. Once you have “enough,” money itself is really only a means to power, to control. In the case of an already established monopoly, more money gives you more control of more areas. But money is not the only path to that goal. I suggest weighing power (control) in investigations into corporate fuckery can be just as fruitful as looking into monetary gains. In other words, while “follow the money” is an excellent path in investigations and has led me to a great deal of the best evidence, “follow the increase in measurable control” is equally valid. I will be justifying this statement with evidence in future parts of this thread.

In a later section Mrs Tarbell talks about another piece of legislature against Mr. Rockefeller as he was performing more of his Monopolistic fuckery. This was about the Billingsly Bill being brought up for a vote in the Pennsylvania State legislature (vol 2, page 122/158):

...The bill was immediately amended. When it came back it was at once apparent that, in spite of this preliminary hitch, a tremendous fight to carry it was being organised by the oil men. Then determination to push it grew in proportion to the Standard opposition. The Standard, indeed, realised immediately that unless a hard fight was made the bill would go through by popular clamour, and they turned their big lawyer, Mr. Dodd, against it, set their newspapers the Oil City Derrick, Titusville Herald and Bradford Era, all of them by this time subsidised organs to argue against it, and sent Mr. Scheide, one of the ablest of their pipeline managers, to present their side at Harrisburg. They also secured the services of a well-known young Republican member of the Legislature, Wallace Delemater, of Crawford County, one of the counties in the Oil Regions, to organise an opposition to the bill in the Legislature.

Here Tarbell is accusing Rockefeller of owning the local newspapers in Penn., and controlling another member of a State legislature. While it’s not necessarily proof that this was what happened, she does give supporting evidence within her book. Again, this book, and it’s affidavits were instrumental in the Supreme Court case against the Standard Oil Trust. It has merit to use this as viable evidence, even if not sufficient to be beyond a reasonable doubt. I bring this up so that the scope of the power of Mr. Rockefeller can be understood. This wasn’t even Ohio, Mr. Rockefeller’s home base; this is Penn. In Penn. he owns newspapers and members of the Legislature. It begs the question, how far does his reach extend?

Pretty much the whole of the U.S. had been hammering for a while to investigate the Trusts (ever since the last time). It finally happened again in 1888 (vol 2, page 131/167):

When the epidemic of trust investigation broke out in 1888, and the Standard Oil Trust was brought up for examination, there was a general public demand to have the matter cleared up. The first investigation of importance took place in February, 1888, in New York City, and by the direction of the Senate of New York State. A list of more than a score of trusts was in the hands of the committee, and, with the limited time at their disposal, it was certain that they could not look into more than half a dozen. There seems to have been no hesitation about including the Standard Oil Trust. "This is the original trust," wrote the committee. "Its success has been the incentive to the formation of all other trusts or combinations. It is the type of a system which has spread like a disease through the commercial system of this country."

There is a clear statement by the New York Senate that Standard Oil Trust was the “original trust” of what had become Monopolistic Trusts in every major industry; sugar, tobacco, cereal, firearms, oil (Rockefeller), steel (Carnegie), chemicals (Du Pont), railroad (Morgan and Rothschild), and of course Banks (next part).

53/xcase.edu/ech/articles/p…
case.edu/ech/articles/p…
archive.org/details/histor…

The Shell [Shill] Game

In addition to conspiracy and scheme, there is another phrase that may apply in the summation of Mr. Rockefeller’s activities:

confidence game (con): to make someone believe something false, usually so that that person will give you their money or possessions

A con is so named because a con is created by gaining the “confidence” of someone (or a group of people). Cons are very often done through two or more people pretending to be in opposition, when in fact they are both part of the con. Think of any of a thousand movies or TV shows where there is the exposure of the workings of a con: Ocean’s Eleven, Twelve, and Thirteen, The Sting, White Collar, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, etc.; the list is extensive. In every single one they have people on both sides. The real opposition (i.e. the “mark”) trusts one or more of the con’s agents that are acting as if they are on “their side” when in fact they are not on their side at all. The mark distrusts some other agent on the “other side,” and the trust for the agent “on the mark’s side” is bolstered by the interplay between the two con actors acting in opposition. The con artists control the mark through this trust that they have built with their “inside man,” and thereby complete the scheme. The abuse of trust is the fundamental part of this “controlled opposition” that makes the scheme work.

As a con man, you don’t even have to have someone technically “on your team” for them to be on your side. As shown above , you can control someone by blackmail for example.

You could even convince some other person, external to the con, of some key lie as a helper part of the con, even though they are not the mark. In such a case this “controlled opposition” wouldn’t even know they were controlled or opposition. All you need to have controlled opposition, is to have the opposition, the counterweights, the “trusted agent” and the “distrusted agent”, be controlled by some method. The only way to always win a game is to play both sides (section 5.). Rockefeller always won (in a huge way).

Because this plays (at least potentially) a huge part in the evidence I will presenting in this report, and is, by it’s nature, often quite speculative, I will give a couple examples of this particular brand of Rockefuckery. The first is one that Ms. Tarbell was aware of. The second is one that she did not mention (as controlled opposition), but I will attempt to justify it’s inclusion when I get there.

Eventually, Mr. Rockefeller had decided it was time to stop playing footsie with the oil producers (drillers). He had them under his thumb by controlling all the refining and shipping etc., but he had not heretofore taken control of all the oil wells themselves. Again, I’m not going to go through the whole thing, but I want to show a specific example of controlled opposition laid out explicitly. As part of the (actual) opposition, the producers had banded together to create a Producers’ Protective Association. This group was, as Ms. Tarbell states, a “secret society”.

Secret society:

A secret society is (generally), not a group that no one knows about, but a formal group that swear oaths (verbal contract) to not allow what happens in the meetings to leave the meetings. This swearing of oaths of secrecy was apparently something they took pretty seriously back in the day. I like to think of the whole “secret society” thing as something like a Bachelor’s party in Vegas, “What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas;” only in the secret society case there is less debauchery (presumably) and it lasts longer (presumably). Sometimes, it is said, there are secret societies that are so secret they don’t even allow their existence to be known, but since I’ve never heard of any like that, I can’t really say anything about them. In general, I don’t really want to touch the topic of secret societies with a ten foot sacrificial dagger. I just want to point out that secret societies are a thing, since many authors, newspapers, etc., prior to around WWII talk about them as if it is something that everyone understands. I’ve found in my research that surprisingly, quite a few still exist today. God alone knows why.

Importantly, one of the requirements for membership into this Secret Society was that you couldn’t be in any way allied with the Standard Oil Company. You couldn’t even be friends with someone who was (vol 2, page 159/199):

Hardly had the Producers' Protective Association been organised before Mr. Rockefeller had an opportunity to try his plan for conciliation. An independent movement had been started in the summer of 1887 by certain large producers in favour of a general "shut-down," its object, of course, being to decrease the oil stocks. The president of the Producers' Association, Thomas W. Phillips, who at that time was the largest individual producer in the oil country, his production averaging not less than 6,000 barrels a day, was called into consultation with the leaders of the "shut-down" movement. Mr. Phillips promptly told the gentlemen interested that he would not join in such an undertaking unless the Standard went into it. He pointed out that the Standard owned a large proportion of the 30,000,000 barrels of oil above ground. They had bought it at low prices. If the production was shut down prices would go up and the Standard would reap largely on the oil they owned. The producers would, as usual, be standing all the loss.

These oil producers wanted to shut down production so they could drive up the price of crude oil. Where they got that idea, I’m not sure, but it sure worked out well for Mr. Rockefeller as we will see. The President of this anti-Standard Oil society insisted they had to join with Rockefeller if they wanted to pull it off because Rockefeller had so much crude oil already in storage. It’s sound thinking, but seems very antithetical to the foundational purpose of the society. This idea was put forth near the beginning of their organization by the President of it himself. It’s all very sus imo, but that’s not the good part.

Here was a chance for Mr. Rockefeller to apply his theory of handling the oil producers--conciliate them when possible--encourage them in limiting their production...

Stuff happened, it didn’t work out "as planned” (maybe) and (page 161/201):

...at the end of the year, though oil was higher and stocks considerably less, the benefits of the shut-down had not been conspicuous enough to produce that "harmonious feeling" Mr. Rockefeller so much desired; not sufficient to distract the minds of the producers from the idea they had in forming their association, and that was a co-operative enterprise for taking care of their own oil. Throughout 1888 and 1889 two schemes, known as the Co-operative Oil Company, Limited, and the United Oil Company, Limited, were under consideration. By the end of the latter year it looked as if something could be done with the second, and it was turned over by the executive board of the association to a special committee, of which H. L. Taylor, of the Union Oil Company, one of the largest and oldest producing concerns of the Oil Regions, was chairman. How Mr. Taylor had succeeded in getting into the Producers' Protective Association it is hard to say, for it was he and his partner, Mr. Satterfield, who in 1883 had tried to throw the Tidewater Pipe Line into the hands of the Standard Oil Company, and who, when that unworthy scheme failed, had sold their stock to the Standard, thus giving that company its first holdings in the Tidewater.* The independents had forgotten or overlooked this fact, for Taylor was a member of the Producers' Protective Association and prominent in its councils.

The special committee, of which Mr. Taylor was chairman, went actively to work. Lawyers were employed to consider the safest form of organisation for a company doing an interstate pipe-line business and carrying on refineries. Certain German capitalists, owners of tank-steamers and interested in foreign marketing agencies, were brought into the scheme. Things were going well, when suddenly the committee found the chairman cooling toward the enterprise. Then came the rumour that Mr. Taylor and his partners Mr. Satterfield and J. L. and J. C. McKinney had sold the Union Oil Company to the Standard. A meeting of the executive board was at once called, Messrs. Taylor and J. L. McKinney both being present. They acknowledged the truth of the report and were promptly informed their resignations would be accepted.

The rumour of the secret desertion of strong members of the Producers' Protective Association, while holding positions of trust, soon spread through the Oil Regions. It was a staggering blow. It took from them one of the largest single interests represented. It deprived them of men of ability on whom they had depended. It introduced a fear of treachery from others. It brought them face to face with a new and serious element in the oil problem the Standard as an oil producer.

Mr. Taylor, a Standard Oil shill gained access to the “anti-Standard Oil” Producers’ Protective Association, worked his way up and became a prominent and trusted member, gained control of one of the companies the group had designed to establish their “independence,” and then sold it to Rockefeller. THIS is what controlled opposition looks like. He was a “secret agent” for Rockefeller, becoming a “prominent member” of the opposition, gaining their trust, then selling them out.

This takeover of production was almost certainly planned far in advance. It may even have been Mr. Taylor (or some other Rockefeller agent) who proposed that “Rockefeller must be a part of the shut-down” to the President, or the President was a Rockefeller agent himself, either beforehand or through coercion. Mr. Taylor may have even proposed the “shut-down” itself. I have no idea, there is a lot of speculation in there, but it is consistent. Who knows?

This is the problem with finding so much fuckery. Once you see it, you see it everywhere. But it doesn’t actually exist everywhere. This is one more reason why having many people investigating independently, and then engaging in honest debate, all with the shared intent of finding the truth, is so essential. The Gestalt of Many Minds.

This shows that controlled opposition of this type (what I will call Type I CO) AKA “inside trusted agent” isn’t just movie fantasy or small single person cons. Of course that doesn’t mean Archbold was such a controlled opposition agent, set up in opposition to the original SIC to bring about the inevitable compete monopoly that happened in a little over a year, but there are signs he may have been:

Facts (according to Ms. Tarbell’s book and the testimonies contained therein):

1. John D. Archbold knew about the scheme “months before” the South Improvement Company became a thing.

2. John D. Archbold was one of the leaders of the opposition to the SIC.

3. John D. Archbold (AKA the trusted leader) of the real opposition (AKA “the marks” AKA the Oil Men) was also the leader for supporting “the new plan” right when it came out. This was an essential switch of intent that gave Rockefeller the monopoly.

4. John D. Archbold became VP for the resulting Megamonopoly (and eventually President), wealthy beyond imagining, and Rockefeller’s “right hand man.”

Right hand man:

Other relevant facts:

JD’s father was a known Confidence Man. And not just any conman, but an incredibly successful one; always rich, and never jailed (even when he was convicted of rape).
Con’s follow specific design patterns that gain and then abuse trust. Many of those patterns use controlled opposition to do so.
JD et al almost certainly knew the South Improvement Company would fail and would create turmoil and massive backlash.
According to the NYT, 1974;“Rockefeller,” said John Archbold, who served for many years as his chief lieutenant, “always sees a little farther than the rest of us—and then he sees around the corner.”

Archbold is letting us know that Rockefeller is really good at thinking ahead AKA scheming.

Tarbell seems to believe that Archbold was “convinced to convert.” I think that is almost certainly true. I only suggest that maybe (MAYBE) he was convinced to convert just a little bit sooner than people think.

Of course such a statement is a conspiracy theory (though there is no doubt a conspiracy happened). However, all of the evidence does support the idea that Archbold was part of the plan even when he was “the opposition,” though it is not conclusive. Nevertheless, as we will see, that same pattern of “controlled opposition” and “playing both sides” repeats over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over…

and over...

again.

...

Ok, one more quick (bonus!) example, because this is a REALLY important concept. It is a pattern that is really hard to see unless you are willing to look, and really hard to prove even if you do. It’s also the most subject to ridicule as “Conspiracy Theory,” and not unjustly, because it requires speculation of a person acting against their apparent interests, and being “in on the plan.” I mean, if it’s not already proven in a court of law as a conspiracy, it’s literally a theory of a conspiracy. Of course so is every single investigation by a police detective of any crime committed by two or more people (the definition of a conspiracy, and the most common sort of crime), so it’s not an illegitimate venture, but the speculative nature of it must be admitted. As I will show however, Type I Controlled Opposition is not “bullshit” at all, and is in fact a commonly employed and well documented tactic, not just by confidence men, but by governments and corporations as well (section 8.).

One of the primary testimonies against the South Improvement Company was given by none other than JD’s brother, Frank Rockefeller. He was (supposedly) an “independent” oil man in Cleveland, who had “endured hardship” due to JD’s SIC (vol 1, page 169/219):

The two principal witnesses of the oil men were E. G. Patterson of Titusville, to whose energy the investigation was largely due, and Frank Rockefeller of Cleveland, a brother of John D. Rockefeller.

The first paragraph of the following quote was presented earlier, but I am here showing the follow up paragraphs in this new context (vol 1, page 63/101):

[John D.] Rockefeller was regretful, but firm. It was useless to resist, he told the hesitating; they would certainly be crushed if they did not accept his offer, and he pointed out in detail, and with gentleness, how beneficent the scheme really was preventing the creek refiners from destroying Cleveland, ending competition, keeping up the price of refined oil, and eliminating speculation. Really a wonderful contrivance for the good of the oil business.

That such was Mr. Rockefeller's argument is proved by abundant testimony from different individuals who succumbed to the pressure. Mr. Rockefeller's own brother, Frank Rockefeller, gave most definite evidence on this point in 1876 when he and others were trying to interest Congress in a law regulating interstate commerce.

"We had in Cleveland at one time about thirty establishments, but the South Improvement Company was formed, and the Cleveland companies were told that if they didn't sell their property to them it would be valueless, that there was a combination of railroad and oil men, that they would buy all they could, and that all they didn't buy would be totally valueless, because they would be unable to compete with the South Improvement Company, and the result was that out of thirty there were only four or five that didn't sell."

"From whom was that information received?" asked the examiner.

"From the officers of the Standard Oil Company. They made no bones about it at all. They said: 'If you don't sell your property to us it will be valueless, because we have got advantages with the railroads.' "

"Have you heard those gentlemen say what you have stated?" Frank Rockefeller was asked.

"I have heard Rockefeller and Flagler say so," he answered.

As shown, JD made out like a bandit as a result of everything that happened regarding SIC. If you give the opposition what they want (Frank’s testimony was damning), but withhold specific important information (it wasn’t that damning, nor revealing beyond what was already known), you gain advantage. These “truths,” but not the “whole truth” are particularly convincing, especially when given by a credible witness. Such a thing could also make Frank “the trusted brother” in the eyes of those in opposition. Was this testimony by Frank intentional “control the oppositions narrative?” I don’t know, but when we look at the result, I’m gonna call it a definite maybe.

The present day narrative with regards to Frank is that there was long term conflict between the two brothers. Even if true, that doesn’t mean that this testimony from Frank wasn’t intentional “controlled opposition”. He was, throughout his life, on the board of directors of many Rockefeller interests, including Standard Oil.

It is also possible that the “family conflict” story isn’t true at all, or is only partially true. All of the Rockefellers always benefited from every one of their activities. Even if “massive success” is less obvious in Frank’s case he was still always a millionaire and as stated was on many boards of directors of The Trust. Even his “failed adventures” (at least the couple I looked at) became part of The Trust in another way.

All three Rockefeller brothers were sons of a famous con man. Pappa Con Man didn’t just disappear. The official narrative is that William Sr. “abandoned his family when they were young” (which likely has an element of truth to it), but according to John D.: The Founding Father of the Rockefellers by David Hawke, 1980, Big Bill had numerous interactions with all members of the Rockefeller family throughout the decades. So “abandonment” was likely more “not always home” and less “never to be seen again” as the official narrative implies.

The Founding Father of the Rockefeller:

It’s wild speculation at this point without further investigation, but who knows; maybe “the family conflict” was a running contrivance, a plot useful towards certain ventures. Every good group of con artists runs scams from a collection of “Con Design Patterns.” For example, the Type I CO as I have labeled it is a variant of the well known False Good Samaritan design pattern. In each con design pattern, specific parts are played by specific members based on their strengths. Type casting is really useful in cons.

Con Design Patterns:

False Good Samaritan:



I haven’t looked into “Frank as Controlled Opposition” to see if it has merit beyond what has been described above, so big grain of salt there. Frank only comes up briefly one more time in this report. My total investigation into him does not extend past that.

In addition to showing the potential scope of controlled opposition, this brief speculation on Frank also shows the pitfalls of such an investigation. While I have a fair bit of evidence for Archbold (most of it shown above, but a few other pieces in support will be shown later), and Ms. Tarbell herself states that Mr. Taylor was exactly a Type I CO, I have also created the idea of Frank Rockefeller as “part of a scam” with very little evidence. Once you start to see the fuckery, and as you get an exposure to it’s extent with further investigation, it becomes easy to “find it” where it may not actually exist at all. This example of my bias is, once again, the reason why I can’t tell you the Truth (I don’t have any idea what it is) and why debate, engaged in earnest by all parties, is the only reasonable path out of a messy investigation.

54/xen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_so…
snaccooperative.org/ark:/99166/w6p…
archive.org/details/johndf…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c…
askmen.com/top_10/enterta…

The Godfather

Rockefeller et al was a mafia style syndicate of unimaginable proportions. The following condensed excerpt is from William Harkness at the 1879 Pennsylvania Congressional Committee hearing mentioned previously (page 202/254):

"I had consulted one or two other gentlemen, whose advice was worth having, whether it would be worth my while to go to see President Roberts. I went there and laid the plans before him, and told him I wanted to build a refinery of 10,000 barrels capacity a day. I was almost on my knees begging him to allow me to do that. He said; 'What is it you want?' I said; 'I simply ask to be put upon an equality with everybody else, and especially the Standard Oil Company.’ I said; 'I want you to agree with me that you will give me transportation of crude oil as low as you give it to the Standard Oil Company or anybody else for ten years, and then I will give you a written assurance that I will do this refining of 10,000 barrels of oil a day for ten years.' I asked him if that was not an honest position for us to be in; I, as a manufacturer, and he, the president of a railroad. Mr. Roberts said there was a great deal of force in what I said, but he could not go into any written assurance. He said he would not go into any such agreement, and I saw Mr. Cassatt. He said in his frank way; 'That is not practicable, and you know the reason why.'""

This is one of numerous similar examples given in Ms. Tarbells’ book on acts of menace (living under constant threat). Others are even more compelling (evil) but take longer to lay out. These mafia tactics, this complete control through economic coercion (and possibly other forms of coercion?) was the primary method of the Rockefeller takeover, once they had gained sufficient dominance. There is evidence they continued to use all the other tactics I have shown as well, but this one really just made it easy. Everyone fell before this juggernaut.

juggernaut: A juggernaut in current English usage, is a literal or metaphorical force regarded as merciless, destructive, and unstoppable. This English usage originated in the mid-nineteenth century, and was adapted from Sanskrit word Jagannath, a title given to Krishna, meaning "lord of the world".

It’s a juggernaut. There isn’t really any other option but compliance or death by definition.

One of the more interesting components of these takeovers was the “bond” the involuntary sellers had to sign that ensured they wouldn’t enter into the oil business again. I wonder what the penalty was if they didn’t comply.

Acting against your interests seems so foreign. This is why controlled opposition is so powerful. People don’t really think in terms of acting against your apparent interests. It’s too duplicitous. It’s too “conspiracy theory.” But it happens (page 237/291):

That instead of using these advantages which they possess for the benefit and profit of the partnership, as they covenanted to do, they have used them against its interest by restraining trade, preventing competition, and forcing plaintiffs to accept any price which defendants, the said Standard Oil Company, or the other organisations aforesaid, might offer for their production.

In this case this is just fixing prices at a loss (or relative loss) to destroy competition. But doing things against apparent interests happens all the time. The goal here is complete dominion over the entire oil industry, and not the accumulation of more money (at this time). When dominion is understood as the goal, it becomes easier to see the motive for certain actions. Us mere humans think in terms of money AKA the bottom line, and thus we don’t see the evidence that “money” is not the goal, power/control is. The following quote is by Nelson Rockefeller (JD's grandson). I will get to the source later:

“The secret to success is to own nothing, but control everything.”

Perhaps money was never the goal, except in its usefulness as a means to control. Most people don’t think that way (I think). It’s difficult to even conceive of things in those terms because we need money to survive. But what if you don’t? What if you could already buy anything you wanted? What would “money” be then? What if what you wanted was total control? Could you use your unimaginable wealth to get it? Would you be willing to constantly invest in the future, even at a loss in the present, to get more control? Could such investments look, to the outside world, as “against the interest” of gaining money, and thus “fair,” or even altruistic? If you can’t judge an endeavor by the balance sheet bottom line, what can you judge it on? Can you measure control? If the goal is control, and not “money” per se (except as a means towards the real goal), does it not make sense to make some measure of the gains in control?

55/x

How To Take Over The World In Six Easy Steps

Having looked at some of Rockefeller’s actions in how he accomplished his Grand Combination, let me summarize for all you erstwhile Dr. Evil’s, how you would take over the world if that were your goal; at least according to Rockefeller:

1. Create a problem that permeates the whole of the population. In this case the "problem" is the SIC, and its "unfairness." The population is all of the other oil men.

2. Create an enemy to hate. In this case that was Rockefeller himself.

3. Create (or control) the organization against the enemy you’ve created. This is an exploitation of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” While not stated by Tarbell and certainly not conclusive in all cases, she shows evidence of Type I Controlled Opposition throughout her book; substantial evidence for it in some of the more important cases, and even calls it out herself in one case. I also suggest this is a necessary step to ensure victory. You can’t be sure you will win, unless you are in control of both sides. Such tactics also happen to be a fundamental part of a great many successful multi-person Confidence Game Design Patterns.

4. Offer a path out of the problem you created. In this case the NRA, pushed by the heads of "the opposition."
Make people believe that the path out that you have created solves all the problems that are causing the fear, turmoil and uncertainty that exist, regardless of the original source of that turmoil.

5. Use fear, controlled opposition (preferably “trusted” leaders), and propaganda to incite those in opposition to willingly, or begrudgingly, accept your solution as reasonable.

Bonus:

1. Collect all the information, about everything and everyone. Leave no possible source unused for this information. This includes “inside sources” (AKA double agents). Use that information to guide the dissemination of your own information (propaganda), i.e. control the narrative. It’s convenient to also use that information as part of widespread coercion, applied to both your controlled agents as well as sellers, distributors, competition; everyone really.

2. Make all your contracts in secret long before you reveal them to the population.
This will not be the only time we see Rockefeller employ these six (plus bonus) steps.

56/x

The Birth, Death, And Resurrection Of Trust

In Ms. Tarbell’s book, chapter 14 is dedicated to the “breaking up of the Trust.” Part of this process was an 1888 New York Senate Committee Investigation into Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Trust, which was a new type of entity in the American Corporate scene (at least as Rockefeller et al used it). In testimony before that committee, Rockefeller was ever evasive; answering questions with vagaries, never admitting to anything, but… (vol 2, page 135/171):

...when it came to the questions which, after all, it was most essential to have answered at that moment, Mr. Rockefeller, after some skirmishing, gave the committee as frank testimony as is on record from him. The information wanted was in regard to the organisation of the Standard Oil Trust. As pointed out in a previous chapter, there had been some kind of an agreement adopted in 1882, binding together the varied interests which controlled the oil business. But what it was, where it was kept, by what authority it lived, nobody knew. For six years it had succeeded in hiding itself. What was the understanding which had made a trust of a company? The committee asked to know. Mr. Rockefeller and his counsel were the soul of amiability under the demand. They had only one request, and Mr. Choate made it persuasively:

"If the committee please," he said, "I do not arise to make an objection to a request of the committee; we think that it is very proper that the committee should be made acquainted with this document and everything pertaining to it in order to advise them as to the nature and operation of this trust; at the same time, there are private interests and controversies involved which might be seriously prejudiced by a public exposition of its details, and therefore, in producing it, we, without asking the committee to make any promise or to commit themselves at all, request that while they make whatever use of it they please, it shall not be in all its details made a matter of public record or exhibition unless in their final judgment, after consideration of the matter, they shall consider it necessary. There are very important private interests involved that ought not, under the guise of a public investigation, to be interfered with."

The committee examined the document and concluded to include it in its report. [Appendix 52] Like all great things, it was simplicity itself an agreement which anybody could understand, by which some fifty persons holding controlling interests in corporations, joint stock associations, and partnerships of different states, placed all their stock in the hands of nine trustees, receiving in return trust certificates. These nine trustees themselves owned a majority of the stock and had complete control of all the property. Mr. Rockefeller, when questioned, stated that one of the trustees was a responsible officer in almost every refinery or organisation in the trust; that the trustees, as a body, knew by reports and correspondence, and by frequent consultation in New York with active promoters of each concern, just how the business was going on. "We all know how the business goes," said Mr. Rockefeller; "we get reports once in thirty days showing what it has cost for everything."

The trustees evidently ran the entire great combination under the agreement. But consider the anomaly of the situation. Thirty-nine corporations, each of them having a legal existence, obliged by the laws of the state creating it to limit its operations to certain lines and to make certain reports, had turned over their affairs to an organisation having no legal existence, independent of all authority, able to do anything it wanted anywhere; and to this point working in absolute darkness. Under their agreement, which was unrecognised by the state, a few men had united to do things which no incorporated company could do. It was a situation as puzzling as it was new.

As of this particular investigation (1888), nine people controlled thirty nine corporations in Combination, joined under a new type of secret shell company, (a Trust) that had carte blanche authorization. Contractually speaking, the trustees themselves didn’t have to own the stock, though they owned the majority in this case, but that was not the purpose of the construction of this type of Trust corporation, nor was it necessary as will be seen. They had complete control of all of the businesses of the combination (monopoly in this case). The stockholders had a share in profits, but they had no legal input into how the companies were run. Full authority was in the hands of the nine people on the Board of Directors. Thus is born, in a little town named Bethle... The Big Apple... New York, Megacorp America.

Don’t think America is the only country with a Megacorp (or rather, a Megacorp branch). While I will only be presenting incidental evidence for them in Part 2 (with more direct evidence in Part 3) there are European, Middle Eastern, and (I think) Oriental versions of Megacorp also. My assessment of other evidence (most not shown, though some will be) is that these four Megacorp branches basically own the other two continents outright (Africa and Australia). They are really all just the same company now though, and have been for over 100 years; or I should say, I have some level of evidence that traces a collaboration (shared ownership) between them back that far. I have seen other evidence that traces fundamental connections between them back much, much further into history; however, that evidence is less substantive and needs more digging. I hope to have the time for that at some point in the future.

Please consider the entirety of the following quote as bolded (vol 2, 137/173):

The committee in reporting on what it discovered did nothing to solve the puzzle. It simply sounded a warning:

"The actual value of property in the trust control at the present time is not less than one hundred and forty-eight millions of dollars, according to the testimony of the trust's president before your committee. This sum in the hands of nine men,energetic, intelligent, and aggressive and the trustees themselves, as has been said, own a majority of the stock of the trust which absolutely controls the one hundred and forty-eight millions of dollars is one of the most active and possibly the most formidable moneyed power on this continent. Its influence reaches into every state and is felt in remote villages, and the products of its refineries seek a market in almost every seaport on the globe. When it is remembered that all this vast wealth is the growth of about twenty years, that this property has more than doubled in value in six years, and that with this increase the trust has made aggregate dividends during that period of over fifty millions of dollars, the people may well look with apprehension at such rapid development and centralisation of wealth wholly independent of legal control, and anxiously seek out means to modify, if not to prevent, the natural consequence of the device producing it, a device of late invention, namely, the aggregation of great corporations into partnerships with unbounded resources and a field of operations quite as extended as its resources. So much for the nature of the Standard Oil Trust. The committee regret that they are not able to make a more complete and satisfactory report as to the method of its operations and its effect upon public interests.

In 1888 this New York Senate investigating committee estimated the control of The Trust at $148M. This didn’t include its control (and ownership) of surrounding industries (Railroad/pipeline/wells/etc.). Nevertheless, the scope of the Senates estimation is important. I will bring in up again. The Standard had grown from nothing to complete dominance of Oil and the surrounding industries in 20 years.

..the people may well look with apprehension at such rapid development and centralisation of wealth wholly independent of legal control, and anxiously seek out means to modify, if not to prevent, the natural consequence of the device producing it...

The people will only “look with apprehension” if they know about it. They will only “seek out to modify… [or] prevent” if they have any path to take to do so. If the people don’t know that the control is so centralized, or so complete, or if they have no path to do anything about it, then the power will remain in such an organization for, well, forever. If the controllers of such an organization can somehow take away the knowledge of its existence, or take away the paths to keep them in check, their power will remain in perpetuity. Bonus points if both are accomplished.

I’m not saying that’s happened of course. I just mean that theoretically it would be a really smart idea to do that if “control was the goal.”

Finally, in 1892, after numerous investigations, more lying, corruption, and Rockefuckery, Congress finally did their job and killed The Trust. People jumped for joy in the streets. “The Hydropus was Dead” they cried (paraphrased). Of course what really happened was it got bigger and stronger with broader control and power. Rockefeller gets even more bonus points for this one though: while they were “in the process of liquidation” (which lasted years while they set up a new bigger and better Trust) they avoided paying taxes on dividends! (vol 2, page 261/311):

In 1893 an auditor in Ohio tried to collect taxes on 225 shares of the Standard Oil Trust. The owner refused to pay and took the case into court. He won it. The Standard Oil Trust is an unlawful organisation, said the court. Its certificates have no validity. It would seem strange that a certificate which was void to all purpose would still be valid as to taxable purposes. Here was an anomaly indeed. The certificates were drawing big quarterly dividends, had a big market value, but were illegal.

They kept that scam up for at least six years and never got in trouble for it (who knows how long it really went on for). When it was brought up in court they Rockefuckeried their way out. The evidence presented in this report (and so much more) suggests that while Rockefeller (et al), was unbelievably coercive, conniving, scheming, corrupt, power hungry, and manipulative, the guy was hands down a fucking genius.

In Ms. Tarbells “Conclusion” section she gives a synopsis of the powers of the The Trust as of 1903(ish) (vol 2, page 266/316):

(Forgive the wall of text. It's not my fault her paragraph is two pages long!)

The new Standard Oil Company is managed by a board of fourteen directors. They probably collect the dividends of the constituent companies and divide them among stockholders in exactly the same way the trustees of 1882 and the liquidating trustees of 1892 did. As for the charter under which they are operating, never since the days of the South Improvement Company has Mr. Rockefeller held privileges so in harmony with his ambition. By it he can do all kinds of mining, manufacturing, and trading business; transport goods and merchandise by land and water in any manner; buy, sell, lease, and improve lands; build houses, structures, vessels, cars, wharves, docks, and piers; lay and operate pipelines; erect and operate telegraph and telephone lines, and lines for conducting electricity; enter into and carry out contracts of every kind pertaining to his business; acquire, use, sell, and grant licenses under patent rights; purchase, or otherwise acquire, hold, sell, assign, and transfer shares of capital stock and bonds or other evidences of indebtedness of corporations, and exercise all the privileges of ownership, including voting upon the stocks so held; carry on its business and have offices and agencies therefor in all parts of the world, and hold, purchase, mortgage, and convey real estate and personal property outside the state of New Jersey. These privileges are, of course, subject to the laws of the state or country in which the company operates. If it is contrary to the laws of a state for a foreign corporation to hold real estate in its boundaries, a company must be chartered in the state. Its stock, of course, is sold to the New Jersey corporation, so that it amounts to the same thing as far as the ability to do business is concerned. It will be seen that this really amounts to a special charter allowing the holder not only to do all that is Specified, but to create whatever other power it desires, except banking.* A comparison of this summary of powers with those granted by the South Improvement Company shows that in sweep of charter, at least, the Standard Oil Company of today has as great power as its famous progenitor! The profits of the present Standard Oil Company are enormous. For five years the dividends have been averaging about forty-five million dollars a year, or nearly fifty per cent, on its capitalisation, a sum which capitalised at five per cent, would give $900,000,000. Of course this is not all that the combination makes in a year. It allows an annual average of 5.77 per cent, for deficit, and it carries always an ample reserve fund. When we remember that probably one-third of this immense annual revenue goes into the hands of John D. Rockefeller, that probably ninety per cent, of it goes to the few men who make up the "Standard Oil family," and that it must every year be invested, the Standard Oil Company becomes a much more serious public matter than it was in 1872, when it stamped itself as willing to enter into a conspiracy to raid the oil business as a much more serious concern than in the years when it openly made warfare of business, and drove from the oil industry by any means it could invent all who had the hardihood to enter it. For, consider what must be done with the greater part of this $45,000,000. It must be invested. The oil business does not demand it. There is plenty of reserve for all of its ventures. It must go into other industries. Naturally, the interests sought will be allied to oil. They will be gas, and we have the Standard Oil crowd steadily acquiring the gas interests of the country. They will be railroads, for on transportation all industries depend, and, besides, railroads are one of the great consumers of oil products and must be kept in line as buyers. And we have the directors of the Standard Oil Company acting as directors on nearly all of the great railways of the country, the New York Central, New York, New Haven and Hartford, Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul, Union Pacific, Northern Pacific, Delaware, Lackawanna and Western, Missouri Pacific, Missouri, Kansas and Texas, Boston and Maine, and other lesser roads. They will go into copper, and we have the Amalgamated scheme. They will go into steel, and we have Mr. Rockefeller's enormous holdings in the Steel Trust. They will go into banking, and we have the National City Bank and its allied institutions in New York City and Boston, as well as a long chain running over the country. No one who has followed this history can expect these holdings will be acquired on a rising market. Buy cheap and sell high is a rule of business, and when you control enough money and enough banks you can always manage that a stock you want shall be temporarily cheap. No value is destroyed for you only for the original owner. This has been one of Mr. Rockefeller's most successful manoeuvres in doing business from the day he scared his twenty Cleveland competitors until they sold to him at half price. You can also sell high, if you have a reputation of a great financier, and control of money and banks. Amalgamated Copper is an excellent example. The names of certain Standard Oil officials would float the most worthless property on earth a few years ago. It might be a little difficult for them to do so to-day with Amalgamated so fresh in mind. Indeed, Amalgamated seems to-day to be the worst "break," as it certainly was one of the most outrageous performances of the Standard Oil crowd. But that will soon be forgotten! The result is that the Standard Oil Company is probably in the strongest financial position of any aggregation in the world. And every year its position grows stronger, for every year there is pouring in another $45,000,000 to be used in wiping up the property most essential to preserving and broadening its power.

Ms. Tarbell gives quite the scope for Mr. Rockefeller, assigning nearly a billion dollars of industry capitalization under his direct control (about 4% of the total U.S. GDP at the time). Unfortunately she missed the real scope by more than an order of magnitude.

57/x

How To Play Monopoly According To It’s Inventor

To finish off Tarbell (not kill her! I just want to be done with her book OMG!), I will end with one small quote:

(Vol 2, page 237/285):

All of the industries which have been grafted on to the refineries have always been run with the same exact regard to minute economies. These industries were numerous because of Mr. Rockefeller's great principle, "pay a profit to nobody."

What does it mean to be a Monopoly? Does it mean to control all of one sector of the Market? How do you “pay a profit to nobody?” She quotes Rockefeller with this line several times, it was, according to her, a guiding principle of all his work (like “competition is a sin,” only this quote has a better established lineage). “Paying a profit to nobody” is problematic though, because everything is connected. For example, if you choose the Oil Rig as your Monopoly Piece, you need wood, steel and copper for the containers. But steel is made from iron and coal, so you need iron and coal. And you need the steel makers, because you can’t just throw coal at iron to make steel. You need the linseed oil to coat the barrels, which means you need the farmers to gather the linseed, and the pressers to extract the oil, and the pressers are made out of steel, and wood, and who knows what else. You need the coopers to make the barrels, and the ironworkers to make the steel, and the steel workers to make the linseed oil presses, and the carpenters to make all the other parts that aren’t made out of steel, which means you need not only copper, iron, tin, aluminum, and zinc mines, along with forests, and farms, you need smelters, and lumberjacks, and pressers, and chemists, and steel workers, and copper workers, and carpenters, and coopers, and hoop makers, and OMG, you need everything. And that’s just to make the containers for the oil. Everything is connected. There is only one possible conclusion for any erstwhile monopolist who believes that no profit should be given away, and competition is a sin.

That is to control everything.

58/x

to be continued ... after I take a break

59/x

If you want to keep reading, this leaves off at section 5.3:


I have already spent 5 hours attempting to condense and abridge this and I need a break, I will continue later... probablywelcometothemachine.co/index.html#_5-…

Also relevant: