Welcome To The Machine, Part 1

Welcome To The Machine: Part 1

Finkle Is Einhorn

finkle is einhorn
"Finkle is Einhorn" is a reference from the movie Ace Ventura Pet Detective. In the movie the detective, Ace Ventura, is trying to solve a case of a stolen dolphin. His epiphany, and the mystery's resolution comes when Mr. Ventura realizes that one of the suspects in the case, a man named Finkle, is the same person as the police officer investigating the case, a woman named Einhorn (belated Spoiler Alert!). This suggests that what appears on the outside to be two different entities may be a purposefully constructed illusion designed for less than honorable ends.

Table of Contents

  • Part 1, Finkle Is Einhorn. A brief exposure to the evidence that there exists a single corporation in America, a true Monopoly, by measure of the ownership of voting stock. Released June 2021

    • Section 0: Preamble
    • Section 1: The Company You Keep
    • Section 2: The Company Your Company Keeps
    • Section 3: Finkle Is Einhorn

  • Part 2, The Matrix. Sections 4 and 5 released June 2022. Section 6 to be released soon (TM)

    • Section 4: Megamedia (Intro). Introduction to the evidence of a single voice in news and mass media.
    • Section 5: The Architect. Introduction to a group I call "The Trust," and a detailed exploration of the creation of Megacorp; the complete corporate monopoly which appears to exist today, beginning during the American Civil War.
    • Section 6: Foundation. Exposure to the creation and uses of the American system of philanthropic foundations by The Trust, and their influence on our systems of education, medicine, and science.
    • Section 7: Empire. Exposure to various parts of the United States Government, the United Nations, and the intelligence agencies that were created by The Trust, and an introduction into what they have done with them.
    • Section 8: The Minds of Men. A more comprehensive exposure of Megamedia, a single voice in media.

  • Part 3, Everybody Wants To Rule The World

    • Section 9: The World Is A Vampire. The creation of our banking systems and the origins and uses of "A Modern Economy."
    • Section 10: The Final Solution. If you know your history, you may find this title a tad... uncooth. But I assert the irony of it will make a whole lot more sense when I get there!

Section 0: Preamble

0.0 Even A Black Swan Is White Twice A Day


This work is the result of my investigation into something “impossible.” Of course, it wasn’t impossible, since it happened, but I had thought it was impossible all the way up until reality proved me wrong. This “impossible,” but totally actually happened event, and my investigation into it, ended up completely altering my view of “how the world works.” An event that changes a world view in this manner is sometimes called a Black Swan Event. I hate to bust out wikipedia so early to elaborate something, but sometimes it’s explanations can be nice and concise, and thus useful. I have highlighted, in bold, the parts that I consider important, but, as I am wont to do, I have included the larger quote for context:

The phrase "black swan" derives from a Latin expression; its oldest known occurrence is from the 2nd-century Roman poet Juvenal's characterization in his Satire VI of something being "rara avis in terris nigroque simillima cygno" ("a bird as rare upon the earth as a black swan"). When the phrase was coined, the black swan was presumed not to exist. The importance of the metaphor lies in its analogy to the fragility of any system of thought. A set of conclusions is potentially undone once any of its fundamental postulates is disproved. In this case, the observation of a single black swan would be the undoing of the logic of any system of thought, as well as any reasoning that followed from that underlying logic.

Juvenal's phrase was a common expression in 16th century London as a statement of impossibility. The London expression derives from the Old World presumption that all swans must be white because all historical records of swans reported that they had white feathers. In that context, a black swan was impossible or at least nonexistent.

However, in 1697, Dutch explorers led by Willem de Vlamingh became the first Europeans to see black swans, in Western Australia. The term subsequently metamorphosed to connote the idea that a perceived impossibility might later be disproven. Taleb notes that in the 19th century, John Stuart Mill used the black swan logical fallacy as a new term to identify falsification.

People believing a thing is impossible doesn’t make a thing impossible. The moral of the Black Swan suggests that seeing direct evidence of something can change a belief, no matter how tightly that belief is held, nor how ubiquitously it is adopted. Such a challenge to beliefs (if it’s a belief perhaps a bit more important in the scope of things than “all swans are white”) can bring a paradigm shift in a world view. Evidence isn’t always black or white however. For example, sometimes a black swan is just a white swan dipped in oil. However, I suggest a piece of evidence that appears at first blush to challenge a fundamental world view deserves further investigation.

My Black Swan Event, the event that started me on this investigation, was apparent collusion between various broker agencies and certain hedge funds in the Gamestop short squeeze. Please don’t think that this report is about that event. It is not. That was just the instigator of an investigation that went far beyond what I had, or even could have, imagined possible.

I am providing this opener purely for context. This opening section (section 0.0) was not in my original release. The original intended audience was a stockmarket subreddit full of people invested in Gamestop who had experienced the same event and were similarly investigating it. I added a new opening to this report because I feel the results of my investigation are relevant to a much broader audience. Pretty much everyone really.

The Gamestop event made some news after it occurred. From the perspective of those investigating this Black Swan, the news reports seemed so far off from what we were seeing in our own investigation it further raised suspicions, suggesting an even larger scope of collusion. Collusion between any of these entities should have been impossible, and perhaps it was, but it smelled a whole lot like collusion; so much so that even some members of congress called it out. Of note, that article quotes Senators Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ted Cruz. Please don’t think I am endorsing anyone here. I’m not endorsing Senators. I’m not endorsing the information contained within that link. I am providing quotes and links purely to establish that it wasn’t just those of us invested in Gamestop that were suspicious.

"This is unacceptable," Ocasio-Cortez tweeted Thursday. "We now need to know more about @RobinhoodApp's decision to block retail investors from purchasing stock while hedge funds are freely able to trade the stock as they see fit."

Senator Ted Cruz retweeted her, saying, "Fully agree."

This event resulted in lawsuits that have still not been resolved (as of this writing). Indeed, there are quite a few issues surrounding the Gamestop event that still have not been resolved, not the least of which is that according to our collective research, the hedge funds involved did not close their short interest at the time (which was far more shares than most realized) and STILL have not closed their short interest (now a couple years after the event). Rather, the evidence suggests they have kicked the can down the road, and the problem (amount of short interest) has actually gotten worse since the initial event. That is not what this report is about however, so I will not be justifying any of those statements. Unfortunately, you won’t find many corroborating statements in the news. If you would like to see some excellent investigatory work on the Gamestop Black Swan which does corroborate those statements you can find it here. It’s a fair bit to work through without a guide, but for completeness I am showing you that door. I would like to plug a further reading of this report first however. I suggest it is more accessible, and because of it’s scope, applicable, no matter your partialities. To shamelessly toot my own swan, err, horn.

0.1 The Truth Of It

In this report I will not be telling you the truth. It isn’t that I am avoiding telling you the truth, or that I don’t want to; I can’t tell you the truth because I don’t know what the truth is. What I will be doing is showing you the evidence. This evidence comes from my investigation into who owns what, how they got it, and what is this "ownership" thing anyways? (both legally and practically). Since almost everything in the world is owned by someone, and that ownership was achieved somehow, this report has a rather broad scope. The breadth of that scope becomes more clear when you realize that almost all of our decisions in life, at least on some level, are economic in nature. Our economic decision making processes tie directly into who owns what and how. While I don’t know if this report accomplishes its goal in its entirety, it shows a whole lot of evidence that puts a few of the answers (for the really big questions), for me at least, beyond a reasonable doubt. YMMV

The evidence I will be presenting is largely what specific people have said, either formally (official government documents, reports, laws, etc.) or informally. By “specific people” I mean natural persons, governments, corporations, laws, court cases, etc., hereafter collectively referred to as “people”. I will be showing you what these people say in their own words and in full context (to the best of my ability). The sourcing of this evidence can’t be overstated.

I can’t tell you that what these people are saying is the truth. I can’t tell you that they believe what they are saying. I can only show you exactly what they say, who exactly is saying it (within scope, which I will elaborate), and the context in which it is said.

0.2 The Long And The Short Of It

Before I begin, it is necessary to understand the basics of “going long” or “selling short” on a stock. A long position is basically placing a bet that a stock’s value will increase. A short sale is basically placing a bet that the stock’s value will decrease. Of course that is an oversimplification, but its all you need to know before beginning this report.

0.3 Can You Make It Shorter? It's Just Too Long

Some of the sections of this report should be considered optional. These will be prefaced with a "TL;DR"; a summary of the argument contained within the section. Such sections are in general designed to support an argument and are not what I consider necessary to appreciate the overall report (though many will be very useful for that I think). If what is presented in the TL;DR is interesting and you would like to hear my argument in support of the claims, please read that section.

I will sometimes refer back to the optional sections within a new context. If you would like to see the support for the claims I make within the context of a later reference, feel free to read it then.

0.4 Legal Disclaimer Before We Begin

This investigation is primarily on ownership; who owns what; and what benefits and detriments ownership gives, both by the law, and within the scope of what is realistic. Since this is a report on ownership, it isn’t really about personal finance (excepting in that it applies directly to almost every economic decision made by every person on the planet), and should not be taken as financial advice.

Section One: The Company You Keep

1.0 Your Favorite Companies!

Unless you shop at Walmart, Costco, or Amazon exclusively (no judgments!), you probably buy your clothes from one store, your groceries from another, and your electronic devices from a third. Maybe you even buy these consumables at multiple different stores in each category. All of these different retailers and brands obviously have nothing in common; oftentimes they are fierce competitors.

As smart shoppers we find the stores with the best prices, each store hawking their wares with ads and sales, all vying with each other for our hard earned cash. When we aren’t shopping or working we spend a fair bit of our free time watching shows on competing cable stations or the online equivalent (Netflix e.g.), or reading news through a plethora of competing news sites that are trying to get us excited with eye popping headlines, or maybe interacting with our friends, relatives, and the world at large through games, social media platforms, or other interactive media.

But are these really different companies competing for your time and money in a free market; full of original ideas and products? Or has the entire concept of a competitive market, and the free flow of information and trade become nothing more than a game of pretend we are forced to play? Does the market really encourage any innovator to introduce their ideas for public judgment? Or does judgment come long before the public even knows about an innovation? (e.g. naked shorting biotech cancer research start-ups, or EVtech companies.)

Does the money from every purchase go into the same corporate pocket, no matter which sign hangs over the door?

1.1 Your Favorite Companies?

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):

amd and intel stock ownership

In the case of these listings of voting stock ownership the "Type" column is the category of the stock holder. There are basically three different categories of stock owner:

  1. Institutional: An Institutional owner is an investment firm (like Blackrock, Vanguard Group, etc.).
  2. Insider: Insider ownership has two subcategories:
    1. A person "Insider" is a Natural Person (or a trust) that we think of as being the “owners” of a company (e.g. Jeff Bezos for Amazon). These are people who have special access to information regarding the corporation that the average person doesn't have.
    2. The other category of insider is an Insider Corporation, which is a corporate entity which is affiliated (legally speaking) which means it too has special access to information before it becomes publicly available.
  3. Retail: Retail ownership is random people, like you or me, who own a piece, a share (or a hundred shares) of a company we like.

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

Some of the institutional ownership is tied up in funds, but the majority of this ownership is in long term investment. This not only gives these investment firms collectively a majority share in equity and profits, but also voting rights. For the vast majority of the companies we buy from, these institutions have (if taken together) the majority voting rights to decide who runs the companies and how they handle their assets. Whether or not they use those voting rights to make decisions for these companies is not the focus of Part 1. I am only pointing out that the ownership trail suggests that they can if they want to.

Before continuing it is essential to understand that what I am looking at (in Part 1) is stock ownership. I am examining who owns the actual stock in a company; i.e. the people who have the voting rights (and dividend rights, etc.) in a company because of stock ownership.

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. If its two people with equal ownership, say a husband and wife bakery for example, then there are two votes. Now, whether or not those two votes are really equal in that case is not the point. I’m not going to try to tell a married couple how much butter each partner is supposed to put on their respective muffins. The point is that legally, they probably are supposed to be weighted equally unless explicitly stated otherwise in the articles of incorporation (if applicable). In the case of a publicly traded corporation (or any private corporation with multiple shares), each share gets an equal vote unless explicitly stated otherwise (preferred stock e.g.). So a person who owns ten shares gets ten votes on any official corporate vote; such as who is CEO, who sits on the Board of Directors, management of some assets, direction of the company, etc., and a person (entity) who owns one million shares gets one million votes. Once we start looking at the Boards of Directors, the nuances of this legal structure of control changes a bit, but that’s a topic for Part 2.

This report will focus primarily on American or American based international companies, but this institutional ownership is not restricted to just these. While some of the data (that I know how to access) gets a little more muddy, here are a couple examples of foreign (to the U.S.) based companies that are owned in large part by the exact same investors:

The list, foreign and domestic, goes on, and on, and on, and on…


Section Two: The Company Your Company Keeps (That Keeps Your Company)

2.0.0 They Eat Their Own

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 I have been able to find records for (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. Here are just a few examples (from wallstreetzen)


Here are a few more: JP Morgan, Charles Schwab, Ameriprise Financial Inc, Bank of New York Mellon. I’ll get to Vanguard in section 2.3, but here is ownership in a sample Vanguard fund (Investment holdings start on page 34).


By all appearances, at least on the large scale, the connectivity of the investment firm network seems to be very close to all nodes are directly connected to all nodes. A big black spider web of corporations.

2.1.0 Who's The Real Spiderman?


This shared ownership seems shocking (at least it shocked the shit outta me) but the full implications aren’t obvious without some analysis. I will start with a simple math example (really).

2.1.1 Mr. Hankey The Christmas Poo


Let’s say I own an investment company named Money Inc.. I’m competing for investor monies with my friend Cartman who owns Fat Money. Down the street is a former friend of ours named Kenny. He owns Money Castle. Kenny is short, has a speech impediment, and steals some of our customers sometimes. (Note: If you are unfamiliar with South Park, the inspiration for the references in this section, please forgive my rhetoric. The story told in this section should still be easy to follow and is essential to grok what comes after.)

On the edge of our little town there is a really nice big fat juicy new company named HankeyPoo that I want to invest in. I really like the stock so I buy 20% of the company. I tell Cartman about it and he agrees with my assessment. He buys 20% as well. Unfortunately Kenny got (down) wind and buys up another 20%. As much as I don’t like Kenny, he does have a nose for investment opportunities. HankeyPoo now has 60% institutional ownership. Combined our ownership gives us a lot of control over what kind of shit goes on at the company if we choose to use our "Poo" leverage, though there is little apparent motivation for us to work together since we are obviously competitors. The rest of the town loves HankeyPoo. They seem to think his shit don’t stink and scoop up 20% of “The Poo” (Retail). Hankey decided to keep 20% of The Poo stock in house (Insider).

Here are ownership maps of what these four companies look like:


These pictures are created by a Treemap program I wrote that shows percent ownership. The code and the database can be found on github. A Treemap is a graphical display of data that shows a distribution by percent of something in 2D rectangles. In this case it is relative percent ownership of voting stock. Each sub-rectangle is, by area, a percent of the area of the whole square. For example, in the case of the HankeyPoo Co. above, it shows that Money Inc (red), Fat Money (green), Money Castle (blue), Retail (white) and Insider (gray, Mr. Hankey himself) all own 20% each of the voting stock of HankeyPoo Co. since their area is in each case 20% of the area of larger containing square. By contrast, in the case of the three investment companies above; Money Inc, Fat Money, and Money Castle, it shows that they are 100% self owned; they are clearly different companies.

Pleased with my HankeyPoo investment, and having some extra cash, I look elsewhere for investment opportunities. I’ve always really liked Cartman’s company. He may be a slob, but he’s a savvy slob. I decide to buy up a third of the total shares in his company. Being nice, I let him know. He decides that’s a good idea and buys up 33% of mine as well. Neither of us like Kenny very much so we each decide to snag up as much of his company as we can. We buy out 33% each for a total of 66% ownership. Unbeknownst to us, Kenny, being not as stupid as we thought, bought up 33% of each of our companies as well.

As far as HankeyPoo is concerned, we each still own 20% of that company, even though we only own 33% of our own company. For example; I own 1/5 of 1/3 = 1/15 through my own company, and 1/5 of 1/3 through both Cartman’s and Kenny’s companies. That’s 1/15 + 1/15 + 1/15 = 3/15 = 1/5 = 20%. Together we still own 60% and the voting majority. Here is the new ownership treemap:


While I may still be CEO of my company Money Inc., I have to respect that I have broader interests now. It behooves me to coordinate and work with both Cartman and unfortunately Kenny since its really difficult to tell, by stock ownership anyways, who owns which company. As far as how invested we are in both each other and HankeyPoo, we might as well be one company with three different “investor” doors and one “retail” door.

If HankeyPoo does well (and we’ll make sure it does, with "brown gift bags" at Christmas time) we will have plenty of money to invest in other companies in the same manner; all coordinating for the best interests of each other and of course the corporations we deem worthy. For any companies we don’t like, maybe just because they won’t sell us controlling interest, or we just think their shit stinks, we’ll have the capital to short them out of existence (Kenny is a pro at that). Any competition to the corporations we own gets deleted if they choose not to join us. If they play ball, they can join our “free market”. All we would need to ensure a dominant victory in our little version of “capitalism” is a little help from the media to drive appropriate emotional responses from the public; lean them towards a company or away from it with selective advertising. It’s a good thing our companies already own the local news paper!

2.1.2 The Hanky Panky Poo Poo BlackRock Shuffle

With HankeyPoo in mind, 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:


It’s a big, bad ass 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):


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:


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. I delved into Berkshire a bit and there are interesting things to say about it, but I won’t discuss it in this report. This apparent ownership is still illusory, since all of the other companies besides Merrill Lynch/BofA are also owned by other companies.

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


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:


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 my program, below the one pixel limit of the box boundary). For a simple example I will show this iterative “actual ownership” replacement for HankeyPoo Inc.


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


Welcome to BlackRock. The name is certainly fitting. 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. (Spoiler alert: it’s not really the Big Bad. We have a ways to go for that reveal.) 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.

2.1.3 BlackRock vs. Merrill Lynch: Fight!(?)

Edit note: This section was added to Part 1 after its first publishing in response to discussion.

After posting this it was brought to my attention that in 2008 Merrill Lynch exchanged a large portion of their voting stock for non voting stock (preferred stock), removing their voting rights in BR in compliance with a violation of the Advisers Act (a)(2)(ii) of rule 206(4)-3.

(a) It shall be unlawful for any investment adviser required to be registered pursuant to section 203 of the Act to pay a cash fee, directly or indirectly, to a solicitor with respect to solicitation activities unless:

(2) Such cash fee is paid to a solicitor:

(ii) Who is (A) a partner, officer, director or employee of such investment adviser or (B) a partner, officer, director or employee of a person which controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with such investment adviser: Provided, That the status of such solicitor as a partner, officer, director or employee of such investment adviser or other person, and any affiliation between the investment adviser and such other person, is disclosed to the client at the time of the solicitation or referral

I think this applies because ML is an advisor, solicitor and a partner and didn’t follow procedures for such a combination? This is what the SEC report in 2010 on this violation has to say (page 3 number 4):

4. Prior to the Transaction, broker-dealer subsidiaries controlled by Merrill Lynch (“ML Broker-Dealers”), through their registered representatives, solicited clients for the investment adviser subsidiaries controlled by Merrill Lynch that conducted the Private Investors and ISA portions of the MLIM Business, in exchange for a cash fee and in reliance on subsection (a)(2)(ii) of rule 206(4)-3 under the Advisers Act (the “Control-Affiliate Solicitor Provision”). The Control-Affiliate Solicitor Provision allows “partner[s], officer[s], director[s] or employee[s] of a person which controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with [an] investment 3 adviser” to solicit clients for the investment adviser in exchange for a cash fee so long as the solicitor discloses the identity of his employer and the nature of the affiliation between his employer and the recommended adviser at the time of the solicitation or referral. The ControlAffiliate Solicitor Provision does not require solicitors and advisers to follow any other particularized requirements in making these required disclosures. The ML Broker-Dealers never used the independent solicitor disclosure procedures contained in subsection (a)(2)(iii) of rule 206(4)-3 under the Advisers Act (the “Independent Solicitor Provision”), which contains several specific requirements that an independent solicitor must follow, when referring clients to the MLIM Business because Merrill Lynch controlled both the MLIM Business and the ML BrokerDealers.

So they “never used the independent solicitor disclosure procedure”. Ok, so presumably they could have just used the correct procedure during solicitation, but instead they decided to give up their voting stock? According to that report they simply exchanged voting stock for non-voting stock straight across (page 3, number 3):

3. On December 26, 2008, BlackRock and Merrill Lynch entered into an Exchange Agreement pursuant to which Merrill Lynch and BlackRock agreed to exchange (i) 49,865,000 shares of BlackRock common stock held by Merrill Lynch for a like number of shares of BlackRock’s Series B non-voting convertible participating preferred stock, and (ii) 12,604,918 shares of BlackRock’s Series A non-voting convertible participating preferred stock held by Merrill Lynch for a like number of shares of Series B Preferred Stock (the “Exchange”), in effect reducing Merrill Lynch’s voting interest in BlackRock to 4.6%, while its economic interest remains largely unchanged at 46.3% on a fully diluted basis

ML gave up 40%+ of their voting stock in exchange for equal valued non-voting stock. 40% of the voting stock in the most powerful company in the world in exchange for… Nothing.

They gave that up because of a procedural violation that could have (presumably) been rectified by following procedure (disclosure of an ML/BR partnership during solicitation I think).

Here is the official SEC report of this exchange agreement. It says the same thing. They exchanged the stocks directly. I scanned the document and could find no further compensation.

Who gives up over 40% of the voting stock in the most powerful company in the world in exchange for nothing? Someone for whom that exchange doesn’t fucking matter.

Who could it possibly not matter to? Would it matter to you? Would you give up 40%+ of the voting stock in the most powerful company in the world for nothing? That is tremendous power. Unbelievable power, but they gave it up with nary a shrug.

To me this provides further evidence for the concept of Megacorp (as a single entity). It wouldn’t matter to give up that much power if you aren’t really giving it up. If such power is already shared across the board; if it is already contained by a single entity, shuffling around a few numbers becomes meaningless. So what does this do to the ownership map?

BlackRock Inc., ML Adjusted

I made this map by reducing ML’s position to 4.6% and adjusting all of them up to fit 100% (decreasing the total overall voting stock number proportionately). Can you point to the company that “owns” BlackRock? Other than minor pattern variations which are mostly due to how the algorithm sorts the largest contributors, can you see a difference?

Part 2 will provide corroborating evidence for the assertions of “it didn’t matter” made here.

2.1.3.a It's Not Mutual

TL;DR: This section was added to Part 1 after its first publishing in response to discussion. This looks at what Mutual Funds really are. They are not "stock purchases" at all. All they are with respect to stock ownership, are pools of money (accounts) that allow for fund managers to own stock using other people's money. That doesn't mean they serve no other purpose with regards to investments, but from a stock ownership perspective, that is all they are.

When I first posted Part 1 of this report, there were questions regarding corporate stock ownership through mutual funds (or other funds; ETFs, etc.) and the large amount of money put into these funds, especially by retirement funds (401k’s e.g.). These mutual funds make it seem like We The People actually own a large portion of the stocks that are attributed to the asset managers, since no small portion of their ownership is in mutual funds.

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. From Investopedia:

shell corporation: a shell corporation is a corporation without active business operations or significant assets.

It’s not really a “shell corporation” though, because it’s not a corporation.

fund: a fund is a pool of money set aside for a specific purpose.

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. It’s just an account.

The fund itself does not own the stocks purchased by the money that was taken from the fund (pool of money), thus purchasers of "stock" in a mutual fund have no legal rights to the underlying stocks whatsoever:

Mutual Fund: Unlike stock, mutual fund shares do not give its holders any voting rights. A share of a mutual fund represents investments in many different stocks (or other securities) instead of just one holding.

The key (legal) word there is represents. A share of a fund represents investment in many different stocks. It isn't actual investment in many different stocks, it represents it.

represent: To have as a meaning, suggestion, or association; stand for or symbolize.

It symbolizes ownership in the underlying stocks, which is to say, it’s not in any way shape or form actual ownership in the stocks.

The Fund Manager, which might be a Corporation (i.e. Vanguard, BlackRock, etc.) or Trust (TIAA e.g.), owns the stock. Whatever name is on the stock purchase order owns the stock. This name must be a “person,” though in this case a Corporation is a legal person (by definition). Having said that, the actual ownership (beneficiary and/or controller) ultimately falls to a Natural Person (Larry Fink e.g.), and not a legal person (company, trust, government, etc.), but I’ll get back to that later.

The Company that created the fund has contracts they must follow as a legal corporation, but the fund itself (that which you are “buying”) is just a pool of money. The Fund Manager may have contractual obligations to purchasers of a funds "stock" (which may give you "voting rights" to influence the fund manager), but the fund itself is nothing. It’s not even a “shell corporation.” It's just a shell. That is what a "stock" in a mutual fund is; a piece of a shell (a portion of a money pool); where you don't actually own any of the money in the pool, you only have contractual withdrawal rights. The money you put into the pool belongs to the corporation that set up the fund to do with as they please (within the bounds of the contract that sets up the fund). From the SEC’s guide to mutual funds (page 8):

Lack of Control. Investors in both mutual funds and ETFs cannot directly influence which securities are included in the funds’ portfolios.

It may seem like I am splitting hairs here, but this has important implications for both the ownership of the underlying stocks (the REAL companies) and the money that resides in the pool of money itself (aka the fund).

You can think of “buying a share” of a mutual fund (or putting money into your retirement fund if it follows the same format) like depositing money into the bank. In the case of the bank, your deposit becomes their money. They can do with it as they please (within the bounds of your contract with them). Generally they take that money (which is theirs) and loan it out to other people, but it can under certain circumstances (depending on the contractual obligations of the account type), be used for anything the bank wants, like buying other real assets. It’s their money. What you have are contractual withdrawal rights and possibly contractual interest depending on the account type. (I will get back to this in more detail in Part 3.)

In the same way, your “fund stock purchase” is you giving the fund managers your money, for them to use however they want, within the bounds of the contract. You have no say on what stocks (or other assets) they purchase, though there may be bounds in the fund definition. You also have no rights or privileges on the underlying stock. They belong to the fund manager (or the corporation, or whatever name is on the purchase). You are a depositor. You have the right to “sell your stock” in their fund (like withdrawal rights). You have the right to some contractually agreed upon amount of the gains of the underlying stocks (like contractual interest rights), but that is an agreement between you and whatever entity set up the fund, and has absolutely nothing to do with ownership or control of the underlying company stock itself.

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).

That doesn’t mean that a fund is “a scam.” The corporation that creates the fund is contractually bound to provide a share of the profits and allow for withdrawal from the fund. These withdrawal rights are generally "on demand," though in the case of some funds, like a retirement fund, there are substantial penalties for “early withdrawal” which promotes a strong desire to not withdraw. Intentional or not, this has the added benefit of ensuring that the money (and thus the stock ownership, and whatever they take off the top) stays in the hands of those who set up the fund for most of your life. 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. Not that that’s where they get all of their stock ownership, but it does play a meaningful part in the system. If you have the assets to set up such a system, it’s a pretty sweet gig from an ownership perspective.

2.1.4 Into The Black

The ship Serenity, from Firefly

In order to justify this model, I need to justify some of the larger contiguous chunks of black that have no white or gray speckles. These large black areas are due to a few reasons.

  1. Some of it is due to an incomplete database for some smaller contributors to Megacorp.
  2. Some of it is because my computer pukes on me when I try to force my inefficient Treemap algorithm through it at too great an iteration depth.
  3. Some of it is “Other Institutions” that represents either the balance between the top 25 institutional holders and the rest (also all Megacorp), or stock that is tied up in mutual funds (which means the actual institutional ownership of some of the larger institutions may be higher).
  4. The rest of it is investment institutions without public stock offerings that are not required to disclose their stock ownership (Fidelity e.g.).

1, 2, and 3 add only very small sprinkles and are otherwise irrelevant to the overall map; their lack of inclusion is reasonably justified. A more complete database would produce the same results with a few more small sprinkles mixed in.

As for 4, that requires further justification. Those black contributions could potentially be all gray for example (100% owned by insiders). Trying to find the real ownership of these non-public companies (like Fidelity) is like trying to pull out your own teeth with your fingers; its slippery, a little painful, you look silly trying, and its ultimately probably impossible. Maybe someone knows exactly where to look for this information, but I do not.

2.2 Fidelity In Marriage Marriage To Fidelity

TL;DR for section 2.2: 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. Here I justify 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 I justify defaulting them as completely black where I 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 are actually controlled and purchased by Megacorp entities as I will show here.

Below is a justification for these statements for the largest such private investment corp in America, Fidelity. I touch on this real stock ownership in the funds again for another private investment corp (Citadel) in Section 3.0.1.

Other than making this case, the rest of section 2.2 is not fundamental to the larger picture.

Because Fidelity is one of the largest asset managers in the world, I investigated it a bit when putting together my database to try to make a more accurate map. I will go over my findings briefly.

My core research tool for this investigation is a Statement of Additional Information (SAI) from the Fidelity parent company FMR LLC.

I looked through this source trying to answer the following questions:

  1. Who are the primary investors in FMR LLC funds?
  2. What rights and influence do institutional investors have over fund management as a portion of the size of their investment in that fund?
  3. How much voting stock of FMR LLC is owned by institutions?
  4. How much voting stock is owned by “the owners”?

The first questions are important because a great deal of the over $10 Trillion dollars in managed assets in FMR LLC subsidiaries are in funds. I looked in the 15 U.S. Code Title 15 – Commerce and Trade to try to find a legal path to the answers, but there was no clear lead and time is not infinite: there are bigger fish to fry. I did find a juicy tidbit I will disclose later though, so all was not in vain. Fortunately some hints at the answers are found within the SAI itself.

Page 22:

Fidelity® funds are overseen by different Boards of Trustees. The funds’ Board oversees Fidelity’s investment-grade bond, money market, asset allocation and certain equity funds, and other Boards oversee Fidelity’s high income and other equity funds. The asset allocation funds may invest in Fidelity® funds that are overseen by such other Boards. The use of separate Boards, each with its own committee structure, allows the Trustees of each group of Fidelity® funds to focus on the unique issues of the funds they oversee, including common research, investment, and operational issues. On occasion, the separate Boards establish joint committees to address issues of overlapping consequences for the Fidelity® funds overseen by each Board

So each fund (or fund group?) is managed separately. Some trustees are listed (starting on page 22). There are both “Interested”* and “Independent” Trustees. Most of the Trustees are Independent. So what do the owners of the actual company called Fidelity do, pick out bathroom towels?

* Interested Trustee is defined on page 22 as:

Determined to be an “Interested Trustee” by virtue of, among other things, his or her affiliation with the trust or various entities under common control with FMR.

The main difference I see looking at the descriptions is the Interested are upper management of FMR and the Independent are not employed by FMR. There are only two Interested listed, and eight Independent. It is unclear which fund this board of Trustees manages. If its “all”, that goes against what is said above about each fund being managed by its own board. Regardless, there are many more on the Board that are not otherwise affiliated with FMR than are. The Independents are also largely affiliated with other members of Megacorp.

Who owns the voting stock of FMR LLC? According to page 35:

FMR LLC, as successor by merger to FMR Corp., is the ultimate parent company of FMR, FMR UK, Fidelity Management & Research (Hong Kong) Limited (FMR H.K.), and Fidelity Management & Research (Japan) Limited (FMR Japan). The voting common shares of FMR LLC are divided into two series. Series B is held predominantly by members of the Johnson family, including Abigail P. Johnson, directly or through trusts, and is entitled to 49% of the vote on any matter acted upon by the voting common shares. Series A is held predominantly by non-Johnson family member employees of FMR LLC and its affiliates and is entitled to 51% of the vote on any such matter. The Johnson family group and all other Series B shareholders have entered into a shareholders’ voting agreement under which all Series B shares will be voted in accordance with the majority vote of Series 35 B shares. Under the 1940 Act, control of a company is presumed where one individual or group of individuals owns more than 25% of the voting securities of that company. Therefore, through their ownership of voting common shares and the execution of the shareholders’ voting agreement, members of the Johnson family may be deemed, under the 1940 Act, to form a controlling group with respect to FMR LLC.

So the Johnson family owns a “predominant” number of Series B stock, which is entitled (in total) to up to 49% of the vote. The majority of voting stock (51%) is the Series A stock, which is held by other entities, notably FMR LLC’s “affiliates” (which could be anyone). Note it also says that the Johnson family may be deemed to form a controlling group (they “may” have 25% voting stock AND more than anyone else, or they may not). The word “may” is very important. It doesn’t say “shall be deemed”, it says “may be deemed”. In official documents like this, words matter a great deal as I will show with examples in later sections. The word “may,” could be imperative, or it could be permissive; it is ambiguous in this statement without further clarification.

So is the Johnson family actually a controlling group? This official document does not state that clearly, so even in the ownership of FMR LLC it is unknown if they even control the company, much less own it. In fact it states they do not own it, owning at most 49% of the FMR voting stock (it implies it is less, maybe even a lot less). The statement of ownership of funds within this document makes it clear the Johnsons do not own a majority of any fund either (beginning on page 32).

If you look at the fund investors list its almost all banks. Banks are 100% Grade AAA pure Megacorp as I will show later.

This is a small snippet. Note the “Treasury Portfolio” as it will come into play in later in Part 3.


So what do the “owners” of FMR LLC do? (page 35):

At present, the primary business activities of FMR LLC and its subsidiaries are:

(i) the provision of investment advisory, management, shareholder, investment information and assistance and certain fiduciary services for individual and institutional investors;

Give advice and information.

(ii) the provision of securities brokerage services;

Act as a broker.

(iii) the management and development of real estate;

Pick out bathroom towels?

(iv) the investment in and operation of a number of emerging businesses.

Invest in (and operate???) emerging businesses.

That last may be significant, if rather vague. So I guess the managers do something. It still isn’t perfectly clear how much operational control the managers actually have. It also isn’t clear how easy it is to direct them otherwise if some other entity wishes it; perhaps an entity with possibly even more FMR LLC shares, and/or majority monetary investment “control” of a fund.

Since the vast majority of FMR LLC monetary control seems to lie in the fund trustees, which seem to be membered by different persons depending on the fund, and are not necessarily controlled by the owners of Fidelity, I think it is safe to assume that FMR LLC is, at least in large part, Megacorp as defined; both in the money invested in the company itself (voting shares), and in ultimate control of much of the assets. This will be further explored in Part 2.

Since the actual stock is owned by the managers of the funds (or whoever purchased the stock), and a fund’s stocks are not directly owned by FMR LLC itself but by other Megacorp entities (which I will fully justify in Part 3), the Black on my graph is sufficiently validated. It should probably have some small amount of gray (Johnson Insider), though there is no way to determine how much from the information I have seen so far, and certainly the only white will be from the little sprinkles of Retail investors that own stock in the companies that own the funds themselves (as a measure of ownership or control).

2.3 The Legion of Doom

2.3.0 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:

and State Street Corp:

2.3.0.a The Institutional Vanguard

TL;DR: This justifies the ownership map for Vanguard. It shows why it should not be taken as accurate as presented, but presents evidence to support the assertion that the overall map is sufficient, even if the details are fuzzy.

Vanguard was difficult. I found an SAI here (Investment holdings start on page 34). Since the “owners” of Vanguard are the investors, a general idea of ownership may not be impossible to determine, but precisely how much any one corporation owns is difficult to figure out. This SAI report shows all investors of Vanguard funds that have greater than 5% investment in that fund.

There are multiple classes of shares in each fund (Admiral class, Institutional Select class, etc. as seen in section 2.0), without any obvious listing of how many of each type exist. Figuring out how much of the total Vanguard any institution owns may be difficult, but with other resources it might be possible. What I have created in the database for Vanguard ownership is a guesstimate. The players are correct, but the sizes should not be considered at all accurate (though I did try a little). Because it only shows investors above 5% in any one fund, if an institution (or person) were to invest 4.99% in all funds they would own 4.99% of the entire company (half a trillion investment), making them possibly one of the largest holders, yet they would never show up in a report of ownership. So take the sizes and even the players with a grain of salt. At best it’s not completely inaccurate and potentially representative. Regardless it shows that institutional investment is very large, and by the same companies that have investment in the rest of the market (Megacorp).

BlackRock is suspiciously absent from the stated Vanguard investors. You would think the largest investor in the world would be heavily invested in the second largest. It is certainly true in reverse. Vanguard has 8% of the institutional shares of Blackrock.

However, as I showed in the map above of BlackRock (BR) it shows Merrill Lynch owning 44% of BR as an insider institutional investor. Merrill Lynch is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bank of America. The Bank of America/Merrill Lynch combo is the largest broker/dealer for Vanguard funds (SAI page 54), and ML owns a sizable portion of Vanguard (page 40). So there is a link back to BR through ML/BoA. Not that that is necessary. Every other company that invests in Vanguard heavily is also owned by Blackrock. E.g. Charles Schwab has Blackrock as its second highest institutional investor (Vanguard is the highest).

To the best of my guesstimate ability, here is Vanguard:

2.3.1 The Bestest Company In The Whole Wide World

Megacorp ownership dominates every corner of our human existence.

It owns all the places you shop:

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

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:

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.)

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 return to how they have retained ownership in them in Part 2, 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 in Part 2.

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?

2.4 The Dogfight

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.

2.5 Monopolies Are Illegal, But Megaloogalopolies We Are Totally OK With

With the massive shared ownership of Megacorp in mind, when I was trying to figure out Fidelity I came across this little morsel. According to the Investment Company Act of 1940:

(c) Prohibition on purchase of securities knowingly resulting in cross-ownership or circular ownership

No registered investment company shall purchase any voting security if, to the knowledge of such registered company, cross-ownership or circular ownership exists, or after such acquisition will exist, between such registered company and the issuer of such security. Cross-ownership shall be deemed to exist between two companies when each of such companies beneficially owns more than 3 per centum of the outstanding voting securities of the other company. Circular ownership shall be deemed to exist between two companies if such companies are included within a group of three or more companies, each of which—

(1) beneficially owns more than 3 per centum of the outstanding voting securities of one or more other companies of the group; and

(2) has more than 3 per centum of its own outstanding voting securities beneficially owned by another company, or by each of two or more other companies, of the group.

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.

Section Three: Finkle Is Einhorn

Thank you, whoever this is, for this fantastic photo!

3.0.1 Blackrock vs. Citadel: Fight!(?)

TL;DR for part 3.0.1: BlackRock (The Big Long) is Citadel (The Big Short). They are two sides of the same Megacorp coin. One controls the longs, one controls the shorts, together they (and their incestuous siblings/clones/other doors to the same Megacorp company) control the entire market.

Other than making a case for this statement (and further evidence of Megacorp as a single entity), section 3.0.1 is not fundamental to the larger picture.

As it relates to Gamestop, Citadel is the largest holder of the Gamestop short interest (by a large margin). This is why this particular company is worth investigating, because both Citadel and Gamestop appear to be huge players in possibly the largest stock market fuckery stalemate of all time. Though as we will see in later sections, it's not the largest stock market fuckery, nor is it the largest short sale fuckery.

In the light of an appreciation for Megacorp, is Citadel just one more door into the Megacorp building? Citadel is a whole slew of companies; each one locked up tighter than a drum. It really is a castle. Who do the walls of this castle protect? I don’t know. In trying to find out I feel like I’m trying to scratch an itch I can’t reach.

Scouring the internet I have found a few documents that link Citadel with Megacorp, and thus with Blackrock. I have not found the smoking gun that proves Citadel is just another head of hydra (aka owned by Megacorp), but I have found intimate links of company and money management jointly by Megacorp and Citadel.

I think it's important to look into this relationship. If Citadel is really just another facade for Megacorp, then Megacorp may be ultimately responsible for covering the shorts. If Blackrock and all of the other institutional owners are responsible for covering the shorts through Megacorp and institutional ownership of Citadel, than their shares are not “the Whale”, and they are not waiting to “profit” from the Mother of all Short Squeezes (MOASS). They could even be an active part of the effort to keep MOASS from happening, using their long position as leverage. If direct ownership is established, it may even be that their long shares will go directly to cover the shorts when MOASS finally happens, meaning there is zero (less than zero really) actual institutional ownership in GME.

This is a sheet for CITADEL ADVISORS LLC that details funds that they manage. There are numerous funds here. I will pick one of the larger ones to illustrate some connections (page 156 in the linked document). This is one of many similar funds in this document.

  • Custodians of the private fund (custodian holds the assets)
  • Administrator of the fund (other than Citadel)

This shows just one of the many funds like it that Citadel “manages”. It is completely owned by Megacorp. It is managed by Megacorp. It is held by Megacorp. And it is administrated by Megacorp. Included in this is Merrill Lynch (primary shareholder of BlackRock). Keep that in mind, I’ll get back to it.

According to the FINRA profile for Citadel Securities LLC (page 5) their primary shareholder (75%+ ownership (which could be up to 100%)) is CSHC US LLC. There is no SEC report for CSHC US LLC, but there is an LEI (legal entity identifier) report. This shows (I believe) that CSHC US LLC is the big daddy Citadel parent company.

(For more information about Citadel Securities see Citadel Has No Clothes by u/attobit.)

Looking up CSHC US LLC I find their main address is:


Guess who else has that as a primary address:

BLACKROCK CAPITAL HOLDINGS, INC. and God alone knows how many other Blackrock companies and other similar companies.

This is not proof of a connection. The Corporation Trust Company is the registered agent (legal representative) for hundreds of thousands of corporations. I wonder how many of them are owned by Megacorp.

I am not providing evidence of anything other than a shared address of incorporation here. It does beg the question though, why are both of these companies incorporated at the same address?

Due to very welcoming laws and lenient courts there are many reasons to incorporate in Delaware; one of the biggest being the privacy reasons.

Delaware LLCs are not required to list member names and addresses in their filings. Members and managers are only specified in the LLC’s operating agreement, which is private by nature. Therefore, ownership and management information is not recorded and available as public records. For asset holdings and protection, LLCs are generally the preferred way to go. Corporations can also be filed without listing shareholders, directors or officers on the public record if you were to make use of a third party incorporation service. However, every Delaware corporation is required to make a Franchise Tax payment every year and, in doing so, must list the names and addresses of the company’s directors and one officer. Shareholders, however, do not need to be specified and therefore have privacy protection.

THE CORPORATION TRUST COMPANY is (I believe) the largest registered agent in the world. It is used ironically by those corporations that are the least trustworthy. Incorporating in Delaware allows a company to not disclose their ownership. So we know who owns Citadel, but we still have no way of knowing who owns the company that owns Citadel (CSHC US LLC) through this avenue.

Looking at this DD by u/Get-It-Got they look at shared interests between Blackrock and Citadel using whalewidom.com. They say:

“Something curious about Blackrock ... you really have to dig deep to find anything other than long share positions. In fact, not a single one of their largest positions in $$$$ is in options. Take look: https://whalewisdom.com/filer/blackrock-inc#tabholdings_tab_link

Citadel, on the other hand, nothing but options as far as the eye can see. They love the shit (probably because it's easy to run complex shenanigans with derivatives).

It's almost like Blackrock and Citadel have this arrangement ... Blackrock buys and holds the shares then lends them to Citadel so they can short them, rehypothicate them, do all kinds of fuckery in options, etc. to fuck over retail investors. Blackrock has Citadel by the balls, Citadel has retail investors by the balls, ya-da-ya-da-ya-da.”

This also does not prove Citadel is Megacorp, or that Citadel and Blackrock are two sides of the same coin, but it is evidence of that.

u/gfountyyc was looking into a BofA Citadel connection and found a few tidbits of interest. They link to a Statement of Financial Condition 12/31/2020. On page 8 that statement says:

Credit Risk

Credit risk is the risk of losses due to the failure of a counterparty to perform according to the terms of a contract. Since the Company does not clear all of its own securities transactions, it has established accounts with other financial institutions for this purpose. This can, and often does, result in a concentration of credit risk with one or more of these institutions. A substantial portion of the Company's options, clearing and financing activities are with a Bank of America Merrill Lynell subsidiary ("BAML"). These positions are recorded al fair value under securities owned on the statement of financial condition. This results in a concentration of operational and credit risks with BAML.

This shows a clear financial link and possible shared responsibility for naked shorting between BofA and Citadel. Given the link between Blackrock and ML (BofA), and certainly a link between Megacorp and Citadel through BofA at the least, it seems that there is evidence that Blackrock and the rest of the long institutional (Megacorp) positions in GME are fiscally linked to Citadel’s shorts.

3.0.2 Apes Is GameStop

TL;DR: This is a very short section, so it’s kinda like it’s own TL;DR. It is really just showing GameStop ownership. It is not overly important to the larger assertions and evidence in this report. It was the initial impetus for the investigation however, and thus deserves an honorary note.

What does the ownership map of GME look like?

Below is the map according to wallstreetzen.com. Note that instead of white for Retail and gray for Insider I have made Retail light red, and Insider red; because its my program and I can do what I want to:

Edit note: The store colors of GameStop are red, white, and black. I changed the colors of the ownership map for GME for Insider from gray to red and for Retail from white to light red to make the map look GameStopish. It was purely thematic autistic artistic license and has no deeper meaning. I am mentioning this because it caused some confusion for some non GME readers.

I do not think the above map represents the real ownership.

I think that Megacorp owns Citadel, and I think that Apes own several times the entirety of the “available” stock. If I assume that the total shares sold (and bought by Retail) is the 21% listed on public databases plus two times more than the total legal shares sold (~225M total shares and ~180M total Ape shares) and that Megacorp long shares are going to cover the shorts because they are fiscally responsible per the exposure of Citadel (shorts) as Megacorp (longs) above, then the real GME ownership looks like this:

This would make GME unique (in all the world) in that it has no Megacorp ownership, meaning no leverage, meaning GME can do whatever the fuck they want.

It also means we own it.

End of Part 1

Welcome To The Machine: Part 2

The Matrix

Section Four: MegaMedia

Section 4.0: Preamble, Part 2

4.0.1 The Truth Of It

4.0.1 Note: This section (4.0.1) is identical to section 0.1 (on this site, not the original Reddit version). Sections 4 and 5 were released on Reddit almost a year after the original release of Part 1 (sections 1 through 3). This is here for readers that begin in Part 2 and/or read the Reddit version of Part 1.

New reader note: If you have not read any of Part 1, I recommend at least reading up to section 2.3.1 (inclusive) to have a better comprehension of what I will be saying in section 4.1. It will also provide, what I believe, is an essential appreciation of the scope of what the evidence suggests. Feel free to skip the sections with a TL;DR. That is what they are there for.

In this report I will not be telling you the Truth.

I know, that’s a helluva hook. It isn’t that I am avoiding telling you the Truth, or that I don’t want to; I can’t tell you the Truth because I don’t know what the Truth is. What I will be doing is showing you the evidence. This evidence comes from my investigation into who owns what, how they got it, and what is this "ownership" thing anyways? (both legally and practically). Since everything in the world is owned by someone, and that ownership was achieved somehow, this report has a rather broad scope. The breadth of that scope becomes more clear when you realize that almost all of our decisions in life, at least on some level, are economic in nature. Our economic decision making processes tie directly into who owns what and how. While I don’t know if this report accomplishes its goal in its entirety, it at least shows a whole lot of evidence that puts at least a few of the answers (for the really big questions), for me at least, beyond a reasonable doubt. YMMV.

The evidence I will be presenting is largely what specific people have said, either formally (official government documents, reports, laws, etc.) or informally. By “specific people” I mean natural persons, governments, corporations, laws, court cases, etc., hereafter collectively referred to as “people”. I will be showing you what these people say in their own words and in full context (to the best of my ability). The sourcing of this evidence can’t be overstated.

I can’t tell you that what these people are saying is the truth. I can’t tell you that they believe what they are saying. I can only show you exactly what they say, who exactly is saying it (within scope, which I will elaborate), and the context in which it is said.

4.0.2 Look Who's Talking

what did you say?

The sources I will be showing you are essential pieces of the evidence itself. It will seem that I am being overly cautious here, or that I am being pedantic, but the main driver of this report is evidence. Here I will be talking about my sourcing, because the topics that I will be discussing will be completely unbelievable unless you fully understand exactly who is doing the talking.

The evidence will be presented in the following way (any exceptions will be noted):

1. I will be naming the source.

This is usually done as part of the flow of the report.

2. I will be presenting a quote.

The quote format will be obvious. I usually present some of the surrounding context within the quote (i.e. I show more than I need to show for my purposes). If there is a specific part of the quote I will talk about, I often highlight that part. If nothing is highlighted, the whole quote is likely to be commented on, or the whole thing is something I consider to be important. This is not a hard and fast rule. I may talk about non-highlighted parts, for example, and really all of this evidence is important. It is best to read the entire quote, but that is up to you. This report is the evidence though. If you read nothing but the quotes, that would be a better way of reading this report than reading only my words which are far less important.

The context of the quote is incredibly important. I have striven to produce the quote in context and to supply necessary surrounding context to the quote in my narrative (this is a potential point of issue as will be discussed later). Much of my investigation has led to what I consider to be “Contextual Lies” (or if unintentional, “contextual non-truths”) that come from out of context quotes, or slight misquotes, or narrative overlays that do not match with what I think has really been said. That doesn’t mean my estimation of what has been said is correct, it only means I personally don’t think the primary source I am quoting meant what someone else is saying it meant. I generally make explicit when I think this occurs.

Because using your own critical thinking in any investigation is essential, I also provide a link to the full source so that you can look for yourself to determine if you think I have presented the context of the quote correctly.

3. I will be providing a link.

The links I provide go to the source; who is doing the talking (unless otherwise noted). Many of the links go to archived documents, but the archive itself has the original link text contained in the “archived” url. For example: when a web page is archived at archive.org a new link is created such as:


This url, from archive.org has two parts, shown below in green and red:


Don’t worry about what this specific website is right now. Note the red text goes do a website on an fda.gov server.


This particular link goes to a 404 (Page Not Found error). This means (in this case) that the page once existed on the fda.gov website, but has been removed.

The archived link adds the prefix to the original FDA site when it saves it (green text above and below):


Note the number at the end of the url (20170722135335). I’ll get to it in a moment.

This saved website is created by the archiver to store on the archive web server. Think of archive.org as “saving” a part of the internet at different points in time. The archived page link itself goes to a stored version of the fda.gov web page from a specific time in the past.

You can find other possible archived versions of the same web page from different time periods to get an idea of when it was removed from the original source, or when it may have changed. To use the internet archive just go to archive.org and put the desired url into the search bar. It will bring up all the times that someone (like me) has archived it.

For this example, such a search would produce the result here:


As you can see in that link many people have stored this specific fda.gov site in the past going back to 2009, which means many of the changes to that webpage, and the times of those changes are also part of the archive.

The web archives are a fantastic place to do research, as you will see as I go forward.

The important point is, this website should be considered the same as the FDA having said something at the time that it was saved. In the case of the first link above, this time is encoded in the url itself:


Which I can separate out by color (and by "|" for the color blind):


This part of the url says it was saved in 2017, on 07/22 at 13:53:35 UTC.

I should also mention that it is not impossible that the archive itself is compromised. In other words, while the website archive is considered to be like a vault, it is not actually coming from the fda.gov web server, and thus is considered to be a snapshot and not the original. Then again, the fda.gov server can be compromised (.gov servers are more likely to be hacked than archives imo). In either case, I believe it can be considered the same as original and from the FDA because I have seen no evidence that would cause me to doubt it. In other words, I consider it to be the same as the original at the time it was saved beyond a reasonable doubt. (This concept will be discussed later).

Not all sources are from the archive server. When they are still available on the web I usually include the current source. In all cases it is essential that you note the source (contained within the url). When it has a url of .gov, it means it comes from a government run server. You can’t get a .gov domain name unless it is sanctioned by the government. This .gov website is just an example. I consider all sources as primary unless explicitly noted otherwise. In other words, who is doing the talking is contained within the url, unless noted otherwise (some books I quote e.g.).

In many cases the person who has done the actual writing will not be obvious. In this example there is presumably some person(s) that is an agent for the FDA who wrote that website. When I use it, I use it as if the corporation called the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the one doing the talking (unless noted otherwise, e.g. it has been signed or published by someone else, which I will note).

You must understand that these are primary sources to understand the evidence. It is essential.

4.0.3 Did You Just Wiki Me?

In this report I will also use some non-primary sources. I use these often to elaborate on something non-controversial, i.e. for subjects that are considered to be Generally Accepted as True (GAT), and which I am not contesting. Alternatively, in some cases, I will use these sources to present what is GAT (the common, or consensus beliefs) before I contest the assertions contained within. These non-primary (or non fully vetted secondary) sources are really just used as a “showing you what is GAT” machine.

Many people believe that wikipedia is the worst source to use. The reasoning is that wikipedia can be written by anyone (which is only sort of true) and other sources are signed (which is also only sort of true). I will present evidence in a later section that such reasoning is flawed, but for now, understand that my use of wikipedia is strictly for things that are GAT (generally non-controversial, or low controversy topics). I like wikipedia because they provide so many sources for their statements. Many of the “accepted” references (Mainstream Media (MSM), encyclopedia’s, etc.) do not provide the level of external (non-wikipedia) source referencing that wikipedia does.

One of the problems with wikipedia is that their sources are usually secondary (a major flaw, or at least a nuisance), but at least there is a well referenced source there, very often one that I can find. From those secondary sources I have been able to find clues to track down many primary sources. In other words, wikipedia is a very useful tool.

The main flaw in the reasoning of why one “shouldn’t” use it, is that there is an implicit assumption that because it is semi-anonymous it is less trustworthy. The problem comes in the word trustworthy, or rather the word “trust”. I do not in any way trust wikipedia to be telling me the truth. As I will show evidence for in a later sections, using “trust” in any investigation is a flaw. There is no source that should be “trusted.” Instead, we should listen to their argument, on the merits of the argument itself. From the presented argument of any source we can then dig deeper, find supporting, corroborating, or contraindicating evidence and present counter or supporting arguments. No where in there does “trust” help in the process. In fact, it does the opposite. I will elaborate this concept later (section 6.).

I will be providing evidence in this report that may be controversial. None of this controversial evidence will rely in any way on wikipedia (or any other unvetted source), and in each case that I use wikipedia I have done a search on google to make sure the results are generally corroborating (which is really the definition of GAT, AKA consensus AKA conforms to the “official narrative”). I strongly encourage you to do your own investigation into anything I present, whether it is primary or stated as GAT. I am most certainly not believing that something is true just because it is GAT, I am only not contesting it (at this time).

For these reasons I assert Wikipedia is a good resource.

Just don’t trust it.

At all.

4.0.4 The End Of The Beginning

Don’t worry too much about the title “The Matrix.” I’m not going to present evidence that your brain is plugged into an all powerful machine that is controlling your views and beliefs of the world, nor that your body is used as the power source to run it.

I promise.

Section 4.1: The Ministry Of Truth (Intro)

4.1.0 The Company You Keep

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 this report. It will gain more specific focus towards the end of Part 2 in Section 8. Before we get to any of that though, I want to look at who owns the media; Megacorp style.

4.1.1 The Drug Information Dealers

In section 1.0 I picked many of the companies I did specifically because if you look, you can find a direct connection of ownership between the last few companies I 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.).

Note: to understand what these ownership heat maps represent, please read parts 1.0-2.1.2 of Part 1 of this report.

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 of Part 2.

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):

Hollywood, and all entertainment:

It’s even the "fact checkers".

4.1.2 International Fact Checking Network

I will show 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 I must be incorrect or if you are just curious. (I recommend digging into Snopes' weeds if you are really curious). I will admit that I have not checked every single fact checker, but I have investigated the money trail for a few. 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 PolitiFact.com 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. An abbreviated list:

  • 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

I believe these are the institutions that contribute to their journalistic endeavors, including their International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN). In other words, I think these are the places that give the Fact Checkers the facts.

Edit: I came back to this before final publishing to check the statement in the previous paragraph, because I wasn't sure. I thought these were the contributors to their "facts." It turns out, according to a more recent page, that their "custom training partners" are the organizations that Poynter's trains on how to give facts.

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:

  • Democracy Fund: Granting PolitiFact unrestricted support to sort out the truth in American politics.
  • Google News Initiative:
    • Enabling MediaWise and PolitiFact to launch independent media literacy and fact-checking initiatives
    • Collaborating with the International Fact-Checking Network to help fact-checkers uphold the principles of truth and transparency in their verification efforts
  • Meta:
    • Helping MediaWise and PolitiFact in the fight against mis- and disinformation to help people sort fact from fiction online
    • Empowering the International Fact-Checking Network to support fact-checkers, climate organizations and solution providers working to combat false and misleading information about the environment
    • Enabling the International Fact-Checking Network to foster mentoring partnerships between seasoned professionals and fact-checking organizations worldwide
  • TikTok: Helping PolitiFact continue to fact-check elected officials and hold government officials accountable

End Edit.

We will be seeing the real ownership of quite a few of the organizations above as the report unfolds. Not because I went looking per se, but because in the course of other investigations, the information came up and was relevant to something else. All of the ones I 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”:

The International Fact-Checking Network is a unit of the Poynter Institute dedicated to bringing together fact-checkers worldwide. The IFCN was launched in September 2015 to support a booming crop of fact-checking initiatives by promoting best practices and exchanges in this field.

Does that sound like fact checking organizations are “independent” to you? Look at the top two bullet points of the IFCN’s intentions (in the l link above):

* Monitors trends, formats and policy-making about fact-checking worldwide, publishing regular articles in the section below and in a weekly newsletter.

* Helps surface common positions among the world’s fact-checkers.

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 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 is about middle of the page of the Code of Principles page.) 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 (no date goes past Aug 2, 2017). 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, I selected the search term, “fact check do masks stop covid.” I got the following list of websites:

  1. factcheck.org (approved by IFCN)
  2. factcheck.org (“”)
  3. reuters.com (partnered with Associated Press (AP) (see below), approved by IFCN)
  4. reuters.com (“”)
  5. politifact.com (approved by IFCN)
  6. usatoday (at the bottom of the page says: “Our fact check work is supported in part by a grant from Facebook.”)
  7. covid19factcheck.com (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.)
  8. wionews.com (This page does its entire debunking in a few sentences and cites FactCheck.org twice as an authority.)
  9. factcheck.afp.com (AFP, like Reuters is also a part of AP)
  10. wcvb.com (This begins its “debunking” with “We are collaborating with FactCheck.org” 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 I did, though I suggest the end result will have all the same direct ties to the IFCN.

4.1.3 Oh What A Tangled Web We Weave...

Lets look deeper into the connection between some of these sources.

According to this 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.

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. I 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 I should get into it more at some point. Nevertheless, I read enough of it to get some useful info.

The geographical spheres of activity covered by the four world agencies which came into being between 1835 and 1851 were fairly circumscribed and were determined in the main by political, economic or ethnic affinities. The four agencies’ limited resources inevitably restricted their expansion. It was natural that they should co-operate and “ally” themselves by contracts for the exchange of services, so as to be able to cover the news in the greatest possible number of countries.

The history of the “treaties of alliance” signed by the agencies in Europe and the United States may be divided into four different periods: the alliances take shape from the beginnings to 1870; the reign of the “grand alliances”, from 1870 to the first world war; the alliances disintegrate, from the first world war to 1934; the present time.

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:”

The TNI is an industry collaboration of major news and global tech organisations working together to stop the spread of disinformation where it poses risk of real-world harm.

In the month leading to polling day, partners will alert each other to disinformation which poses an immediate threat to life or to the integrity of the election so that content can be reviewed promptly by platforms, whilst publishers ensure they don’t unwittingly republish dangerous falsehoods.

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 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.

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 MegaMedia 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 in other parts of this report, 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 Part 3, 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, MegaMedia. There appear to be multiple voices and opinions proffered by MegaMedia to various demographics, but this evidence (and a great deal more to come) suggest that there may be ultimately only one source.

Again, I'm not suggesting you believe that statement (or anything I say). I'm really just trying to report evidence, my words are inconsequential in comparison. I really haven't even gotten to the good evidence yet. I'm just saying it kinda is looking like that might be the case, a single voice, giving lots of different opinions to different demographics.

I do not want to come across as discrediting fact checkers or news just because of a lack of independence. In any argument or rebuttal, it is essential to address specifically what they say; the arguments they make. Within "what they say," it can be useful to look at the rhetoric they use, their narrative overlay on top of their “facts” (i.e. what are the facts they present, and what are their opinions pretending to be fact), whether or not the context of their facts match with the primary sources intent, and whether or not they use other parts of the larger media narratives and devices to tell their story (i.e. are their corroborations primary sources, or are they using basically themselves to fact check themselves). I will address questions of the validity of certain “fact checking” arguments in later sections, with specific examples on a few very important topics.

4.1.4 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).

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):

We covered Europe. We covered the European Union that we have today. From that grew a business which was successfully built upon an understanding between the five brothers. The five brothers used to talk to each other through writing. That was one side. They were also the first client of a man called Mr. Reuter. Mr. Reuter made his name by flying pigeons around the world, and if you couldn’t send messages, you used a pigeon. And that’s why we were the first client of the great house of Reuter. Which as you know became the most important messaging company in the world today. And from that it grew, over a period of time.

His speech continues and says some interesting things that I will get back to in Part 3. 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 in Part 3. These aren't really controversial statements though. All but the "owned England" part are GAT (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. Note here that I'm making statements without any evidence whatsoever. Please keep that in mind. I try not to do that too often, but in cases that I do, it is merely to connect the dots. The evidence and sources will be shown in later sections. I can't show all of the evidence at the same time, and some things require substantial corroboration to be appreciated. 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 (most of this report) that this behavior is common. Indeed, this report will 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 the report progresses. 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.

Section Five: The Architect

5.0.1 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. 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. 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.

5.0.2 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:

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.

My investigation 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:

And the Hydra symbol from the Marvel Universe looks like this:

5.0.3 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).

5.0.4 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.

Section 5.1: Trust Me

5.1.1 The Muckity Muck Run Amok

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


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.

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):

The Standard Oil Trust was chosen for obvious reasons. It was the first in the field, and it has furnished the methods, the charter, and the traditions for its followers. It is the most perfectly developed trust in existence; that is, it satisfies most nearly the trust ideal of entire control of the commodity in which it deals. Its vast profits have led its officers into various allied interests, such as railroads, shipping, gas, copper, iron, steel, as well as into banks and trust companies, and to the acquiring and solidifying of these interests it has applied the methods used in building up the Oil Trust. It has led in the struggle against legislation directed against combinations. Its power in state and Federal government, in the press, in the college, in the pulpit, is generally recognised. The perfection of the organisation of the Standard, the ability and daring with which it has carried out its projects, make it the pre-eminent trust of the world the one whose story is best fitted to illuminate the subject of combinations of capital.

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)).

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

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:

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.

I don’t know if “It’s good to be the King” or “Heavy is the head that wear’s the Crown” is a more appropriate caption. Perhaps, “Look at the size of that boy’s head. I’m not kidding it’s like an orange on a toothpick!

A brief expose from that website on Tarbell says:

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:

...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 (section 5.2.15).

5.1.1.a A Measure Of Reference

When I reference Tarbell (and other pdfs which are also books) in this report, I will often give two page numbers. This is because the “pdf page number” and the “book page number” are different numbers. In each reference the first number will be the page number according to the book numbering, and the second will be the page number according to your pdf reader. This is provided to make it easy to find the source quote in the reference material.

5.1.2 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.

5.1.3 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.

5.1.4 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.

Section 5.2: The SIC Plan To Conquer The Universe

5.2.1 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:

...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.

5.2.2 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!

5.2.3 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):

With this charter in hand Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. Watson and their associates began to seek converts. In order that their great scheme might not be injured by premature public discussion they asked of each person whom they approached a pledge of secrecy. Two forms of the pledges required before anything was revealed were published later. The first of these, which appeared in the New York Tribune, read as follows:

I, A. B., do faithfully promise upon my honour and faith as a gentleman that I will keep secret all transactions which I may have with the corporation known as the South Improvement Company; that, should I fail to complete any bargains with the said company, all the preliminary conversations shall be kept strictly private; and, finally, that I will not disclose the price for which I dispose of my product, or any other facts which may in any way bring to light the internal workings or organisation of the company. All this I do freely promise.

Signed __________________

Witnessed by ____________

A second, published in a history of the "Southern Improvement Company," ran:

The undersigned pledge their solemn words of honour that they will not communicate to any one without permission of Z (name of director of Southern Improvement Company) any information that he may convey to them, or any of them, in relation to the Southern Improvement Company.

Signed ________________

Witness _______________

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 (section 5.3). Though I think a “petition ninety-three feet long” probably qualifies as an Anaconda in its own right.

It probably looked something like this:

5.2.4 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.

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 (section 5.2.16).

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. (Section 5.)

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.

...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.

5.2.5 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.

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.

John 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.

5.2.6 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).

5.2.7 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.

5.2.8 A Deal With The Devil

Building off the exposure of secret deals from the first monopolistic SIC contract (section 5.2.2), 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 report.

5.2.9 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 (section 5.2.10) and contextual lies (section 6.) 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 report. 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.

5.2.10 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.”

When the goal is finding out the truth of a thing, it doesn’t matter who is making an argument or presenting evidence. The argument is the argument is the argument. The evidence is the evidence is the evidence. The argument or evidence either stands up to the rigorous test of free and open debate, or it doesn’t. The bringer of information is completely irrelevant. Only when we listen to the points of an arguments and look at the evidence and address them directly can an investigation into the truth of a thing be advanced. An ad hominem is a manipulation to not hear what someone has to say, or see what evidence they have to support their argument. An ad hominem is a purposeful attempt to ignore something. It is a misdirection; which is to say, the initial direction is to find the truth, an ad hominem changes that direction.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying we need to listen to every little thing everyone says. If you think it smells bad, don’t eat it. What I’m saying is, if you ignore someone, recognize that you have not listened to their argument or seen their evidence. If you haven’t looked at someone’s evidence in earnest, and addressed their argument point by point with evidence or reasoning of your own, you have no grounds to make claims of them being incorrect.

These ad hominem attacks, these particular argumentative fallacies, are ubiquitous in our society. When you open your eyes to seeing them, you realize they are everywhere. Seriously, they basically run the world. It is possible that these are just the result of an inherent flaw in human reasoning; an inevitable part of the human condition. Personally I think it is something we have been taught to do by the media. I will provide some evidence to support that later. Regardless of why we do it though, it is important to understand that we do it, that it has been happening for a long time, that it is always a detriment to investigations into the truth of a thing, and that it never adds positively to that endeavor. Whether the media is the source of that ubiquitous flaw in our collective logical discourse or not, the media uses it all the time to persuade us away from reasoned discussion, and they have been doing so for a long time (much more evidence for that statement will be forthcoming).

On the flip side of the ad hominem is trusting someone based on their credentials; caring less about what they say (their argument and/or evidence), and more about who is saying it (a form of pro hominem, another argumentative fallacy). This is another human tendency that is exploitable. It sells propaganda; it completes many cons. For example, Big Bill, when selling his Snake Oil, called himself Dr. William Levingston. That credential, even though fabricated, gave his sales pitch believability. It shored up the weakness of his evidence (a bottle of oil and likely contrived stories of anecdotes) and encouraged people to believe his lies. A promise of “curing what ails you,” coupled with the credentials, encourages a person to both “trust the doctor” and have an emotional response (hope), and not look deeper into what is being said.

It might seem like only fools would be taken in by this, but you’d be surprised how convincing a con can be. For example, if you have a plant (a co-conspirator) in the crowd who corroborates your “cure-all,” it makes it that much more believable. If you have ten people offering testimonials, both consensus and repetition make the original claims nigh undeniable. “There’s no way ten people would lie. I’ll take two!” For a present day example of this particular scam, just see Amazon reviews. Fake reviews, lauding the product or the storefront, give credence (credential means “letter of credence”) to the product/seller.

I will discuss the concept of trusting credentials, and how common and powerful of a manipulation it is, even (especially) when the credentials are genuine, after I have shown other evidence to support it.

5.2.11 DON’T PANIC

In honor of Douglas Adams. I have reservations at the Restaurant at the end of the Universe. I’ll see you there (but hopefully not too soon).

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.

5.2.12 “Centralization of Authority”

(Tarbell’s words, not mine).

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.

The quotes from above are below assigned to the sections that discuss them:

the utilisation of waste, the development of new products – Section 6. (snake oil part deux)

These trustees then "know everything" (and the rest of the paragraph) – Section 5.4.1 (Don't Call Me Junior)

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. – Section 8. (The Jar Shakers). Section 2.4 (The Dog Fight). The CCP's Capitalistic Communism, Megacorp, etc.

5.2.13 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:

  1. 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.
  2. They withdrew their opposition to secrecy in rate making...
  3. 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...
  4. 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.

5.2.14 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 Part 3, and in fact leads to the relevant conundrum of this entire endeavor that I have been working towards in Parts 1&2.

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.

5.2.15 Oily 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):

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.

While nothing seemed to come of this for two years, upon the next election cycle an investigation was taken up by The House and 55 testimonies were taken. This information was sent to the Senate Committee on Elections, which declined to proceed with further investigations due, according to Tarbell (who quotes the Senate hearing minutes (vol 2, page 115-116)), the outspoken protests of two Senators. The arguments are compelling examples of political fuckery. To me they suggest that Mr. Payne was not the only member of the U.S. legislature that had their fingers in the Rockefeller pocket.

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 report.

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 (Part 3).

5.2.16 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 (section 5.2.14), 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”.

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.”

    Other relevant facts:
  5. 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).
  6. Con’s follow specific design patterns that gain and then abuse trust. Many of those patterns use controlled opposition to do so.
  7. JD et al almost certainly knew the South Improvement Company would fail and would create turmoil and massive backlash.
  8. 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...



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.

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.

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.

5.2.17 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 (section 6.):

“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?

5.2.18 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."
  5. 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.
  6. Use fear, controlled opposition (preferably “trusted” leaders), and propaganda to incite those in opposition to willingly, or begrudgingly, accept your solution as reasonable.


  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.

5.2.19 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.

5.2.20 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.

Section 5.3: Welcome To The Machine: Part 1, Finkle Is Einhorn (1904 Edition)

5.3.0 Mr. Moody’s Maniacal Menagerie

John Moody was a financial analyst in the 19th and 20th centuries. He created Moody’s Corporation which became a world renowned investment services and analysis provider. His company is still on the radar as a Fortune 500 company called Moody’s Analytics. He invented the bond credit rating and his company is still today one of the “Big Three” credit rating agencies, among other notable accomplishments. In 1904 Mr. Moody wrote a book titled The Truth About the Trusts. It is an expose with amazing amounts of evidence of how enjoined the various monopolies really were, through co-ownership in stocks, and co-management in a web of Boards of Directors. His work as far as I have been able to corroborate is impeccable.

A fair bit of Mr. Moody’s book is pretty much the same as my Part 1 on Megacorp, only done 120 years ago. The biggest difference between what he does and what I did was a difference in perspective as to the social and moral values of Megacorp. To him, the MegaTrust he exposes is among the greatest feats humanity has ever endeavored; assigning all of our financial, economic and industrious present and future to a few people who are really good at it. I, on the other hand, am more inclined to take the stance of, What the Holy Hand Grenade of Antifuck kind of Fuckery is This Shit!

To each their own.

Mr. Moody begins his expose with a statement of intent; to “throw light on the growing Trust movement” (page XI/18):

The simple statement that there are in the United States today an aggregation of over 440 large industrial, franchise and transportation Trusts of an important and active character, with a total floating capital of $20,879,162,551, as disclosed in the following pages, is sufficient evidence in itself of a necessity for a work such as this, which, it is believed, will throw at least a partial light on the momentous and steadily growing Trust movement.

It’s not the “starting Trust movement.” It’s the “growing” Trust. It’s been growing for a while. Mr. Moody will explain in great detail how much it has grown (~600 pages worth), and how centralized its authority is.

He begins with defining what a Trust is using the words of the creator of the first Standard Oil Trust, AKA the creator of the very first American Trust of this type, the Trust that began The Trust, Mr. S. C. T. Dodd, partner of J.D. Rockefeller. Mr. Dodd defines a Trust in this way (page xiii/20):

“The term ‘Trust’ in its more confined sense embraces only a peculiar form of business association effected by stockholders of different corporations transferring their stocks to trustees. The Standard Oil Trust was formed in this way, and originated the name ‘Trust’ as applied to associations. * * *

“The term ‘Trust,’ although derived as stated, has (now) obtained a wider signification, and embraces every act, agreement, or combination of persons or capital believed to be done, made, or formed with the intent, power or tendency to monopolise business, to’ restrain or interfere with competitive trade, or to fix, influence, or increase the prices of commodities.”

A Trust, by this definition, is an intentional domination of everything pertaining to whatever scope the Trust has influence over. In the case of Standard Oil, that “scope” is quite substantial, as I have hinted at.

Mr. Moody uses Mr. Dodd again to help him define Monopoly (page xv/22):

Every combination in business,” to again quote Mr. Dodd, where he speaks of monopoly, “whether by partnership or by corporate organization, prevents competition between the persons combined; and in proportion as the business is widely and successfully conducted, its interference with the competition of others increases. The larger the business, the greater the number of persons and the amount of capital engaged in it, the greater is the power of those who conduct it over production and prices.

Monopolies are designed to “prevent competition” (“Competition is a sin”), and control production and prices. Control of production and prices means that economic decisions of the consumer (you, me, We The People) is also controlled by the monopoly. That of course doesn’t touch on advertisements, or other forms of propaganda, that’s just control through purely what’s available to buy, and whether or not it will be seen as a “value.” If it is seen as valuable enough, i.e. if our society is made to be dependent on it, they can charge whatever they want (section 6.). The larger the monopoly, the greater the control of the minutia. Mr. Moody follows up with his own statement on monopolies:

Like the word "trust," there is also much confusion in the public mind as to the term "monopoly." Everywhere we find people talking about the evils of monopoly and monopoly power. And almost universally the term is used in an opprobrious sense. Among the sensational newspapers, it has various interchangeable meanings, such as “predatory wealth,” “criminal trusts,” “money-power,” etc. The public has become largely imbued with the notion that a monopoly is some sort of dangerous menace to their general welfare, and this notion has, of course, been persistently kept to the front by agitators and demagogues of all kinds.

I assert the population may not have liked the Trusts or Monopolies because they could see their opportunities being stripped from them by entrenched powers. This wasn’t just a “confusion” as Mr. Moody called it, but a reality by all measures. All power was taken away from anyone who wanted to be a part of “capitalism” by the restrictions on the market by the Trusts. The market was not “free” by any measure. On the contrary, the market was in abject slavery to the Trusts, by their own admission. It wasn’t just Oil where this was happening, it was every industry in America that had any substantive impact on the average life.

Mr. Moody later speaks about the effects a minor depression in the stock market, that happened in early 1902ish, had on the larger populace (page xx/27):

Undoubtedly thousands of investors have been “hard hit” in the industrial stocks, and in some cases, such as that of the Shipbuilding Trust, they have been practically wiped out. In the majority of instances, however, they no doubt went in with their eyes more or less open. The average man who buys industrial issues is a semi-speculator, and he either knew or ought to have known that he was going into a gamble when urged or advised to invest his money in stocks yielding from 8% to 15% when prevailing interest rates were only 4% to 5%. No sympathy need be wasted on the many noisy speculators who are now loudly condemning all Trusts because they themselves happened to be caught in the speculative crash.

Of a different nature, of course, are those who, like the people of small means—widows, orphans and others—were induced to transfer their hard-earned savings into stocks like Steel common, Copper and a few others by trusted advisors who ought to have known better. Many thousands of this class have, no doubt, been involved in the general collapse, and it is only one more sad demonstration of the truth that it is much harder to keep money than to make it, and that where men often exhibit splendid judgment in their private business, they become but children when they reach the Wall Street atmosphere.

It seems to me he is basically saying that yes, the majority of the common investors are generally screwed by the whole “Trust thing” because parts of it will crash as mergers happen, or money shifts around, all of which increase the holdings of The Trust. The increases in The Trusts holdings come directly from those “average investors” who “ought to have known they were going into a gamble.” The greater Stock Market will also inevitably incur booms and depressions as time goes on. (In Part 3, I will make the case that such booms and crashes are not only inevitable, but 100% intentional and timed, AKA "part of the plan," used as an asset transfer mechanism from "the average investor" to the PTB (Powers That Be).) These poor sap average investors shouldn’t be playing with the big boys (who always survive and thrive under such crashes). I mean, that’s fair. The fact that, “The public has become largely imbued with the notion that a monopoly is some sort of dangerous menace to their general welfare” is 100% on the public, because they should realize there is 100% of nothing they can ("or should") do about it.

Resistance is futile.

Please don’t misunderstand me. I am extremely grateful to Mr. Moody for the work he has done here. As we will see, it is impeccable and painstaking evidence that is going to make a whole lot of things make a whole lot of sense. But he is a Shill Fanboi like there is no higher tier of Shilldom one could aspire to. And I’m just... not a fan of his favorite team.

The way Mr. Moody has laid out his book, he goes through and talks about each of the “440 large industrial, franchise and transportation Trusts” in great detail. I had intended to (had started to) write mini exposes on several of the major Trusts. I then wanted to create a few maps of the total layout. But as I went along, I realized that would be completely pointless (not to mention excessively long). He summarizes everything up really well at the end. I will expose a couple pertinent combinations, and then skip to the end.

5.3.1 Is It Really A Break-Up If You’re Still Humping?

What follows is Mr. Moody’s statement about the Standard Oil Trust’s first “breakup” into twenty smaller companies as a result of the Ohio decision in 1892 (section 5.).

Page 124/160:

...The decision thus handed down in the Ohio court was one of great importance. It not only forbade members of several corporations to combine as such, and merge their interests in a Trust, but it also declared such combinations to be in restraint of trade, and therefore illegal, and quite opposed to public policy. The result was that this decision practically put an end to the old trust form of business consolidation. Influenced by this decision, the Standard Oil Trust, as formed in 1882, was dissolved, and the separate establishments and plants were reorganized into the following twenty constituent companies:

Name.......................... Capitalization
Anglo-American Oil Co., Ltd...... $5,000,000
Atlantic Refining Co.............. 5,000,000
Buckeye Pipe Line Co............. 10,000,000
Eureka Pipe Line Co............... 5,000,000
Forest Oil Co..................... 5,500,000
Indiana Pipe Line Co.............. 1,000,000
National Tramsit Co.............. 25,455,200
New York Transit Co............... 5,000,000
Northern Pipe Line Co............. 1,000,000
Northwestern Ohio Natural Gas .... 3,278,500
Ohio Oil Co....................... 2,000,000
Southern Pipe Line Co............. 5,000,000
South Penn Oil Co................. 2,500,000
Standard Oil Co. of Indiana....... 1,000,000
Standard Oil Co. of Kentucky...... 1,000,000
Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey... 10,000,000
Standard Oil Co. of New York. .... 7,000,000
Standard Oil Co. of Ohio. ........ 3,500,000
Union Tank Line Co................ 3,500,000
Total.......................... $102,233,700

Although the Trust as it had existed was formally dissolved, yet this did not mean that the Standard Oil interests had in any sense disintegrated. On the contrary, the consolidation was made more secure, as the men who had been the trustees still held a majority of the stock in all the different companies which now composed the Trust, some of the smaller of which had been consolidated into larger companies, and their interest therefore made more staple.

This is not the only time the following sentence holds true:

“On the contrary, the consolidation was made more secure”

What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger... scary... T-1000... Hydra.

I agree with a lot of what Mr. Moody has to say in his book. It’s amazing how two people can see the same thing, agree on what they are seeing, and yet have such different responses. I guess it depends on how it will affect your life personally. For Mr. Moody, he was ridiculously wealthy (part of The Trust). I on the other hand prefer an actual “land of opportunity,” not a...

I finish that sentence later.

5.3.2 Trust Me: Whoever Smelt It Dealt It

The Smelter’s Trust was a conglomerate of ore refineries, among other notable interests. Just like how Standard Oil controlled Oil refining before owning any actual oil wells, the smelters owned the actual production of gold, silver, copper, lead, etc. They were (are) the gatekeepers and producers of the metals. They control the amount of metals available and the price of them to those that wish to use metals for industry.

Of course if you really want to be a Monopolist, you really need to own all parts of your industry; just being a Smelter’s Trust is insufficient, so eventually they expanded into mine ownership as well (page 53/85):

In August, 1903, a new corporation called the Federal Mining & Smelting Co. was formed in the interest of the Trust. At this writing (January, 1903) this new corporation is reported to be negotiating for the purchase of the Daly West and Silver King mines of Utah, valued at $17,000,000.

You’ll never guess who owned this Smelter’s Trust (I told you, they needed to make barrels and “pay no one a profit”), page 45/78:

“The Smelters’ Trust.”
(Standard Oil domination.)


In addition to the companies mentioned below, the company owns stock interests in the United States Zinc Company, at Pueblo, Colorado, and in the Carbon Coal & Coke Company, the latter owning valuable coal lands in Colorado and interests in mining and lime rock quarry properties.

The American Smelting & Refining Company is closely allied to the interests which control the American Linseed Company, known as the Linseed Oil Trust; the National Lead Co., known as the Lead Trust, and the United Lead Co. (formed in 1903), and these various corporations operate in harmony. It also controls a corporation, known as the American Smelters’ Steamship Company, which operates steamers in its interest between New York and other ports in the United States and Mexico, where the American Smelting & Refining Company has large interests. In addition, it is interested in the Federal Mining & Smelting Co., a new corporation, formed in 1903, which is now acquiring other mining properties.

All of these subsets of the “Smelters Trust” are primarily owned and operated by Standard Oil as Moody expands upon. They are thus married Trusts in a co-ownership of all sub-operations, i.e. all of their interests (in both the “plans” sense and the “monetary investment” sense) are acting as one entity. This combination also marries the Guggenheims (who were the original Smelter’s Trust owners) and the Rockefellers in The Trust.

The following is from Moody’s analysis section on the Smelter’s Trust. I am showing it to give an idea of how (and how easily) all of the Trusts were joined together (page 59/92):

The business policy from the beginning was one of conservative progression, and further absorptions were made from time to time, until with the acquisition of the Guggenheim properties, control was acquired of more than 85% of the entire silver and lead smelting business of the country.

It was at this juncture that the Rockefeller interests entered the property and showed their far-sightedness by linking it in interest with the Linseed Oil and Lead Trusts (which they already controlled), these latter being described in the preceding pages.

As was seen with the Oil Monopoly, once Rockefeller had the first 20%, the rest was easy. Control was already so completely established, no one could stand in front of the Juggernaut. Here again it’s so casual. He snatches up the Trusts, all under one giant “The Trust,” because there isn’t really any other option for anyone else. Once Critical Mass has been reached, the outcome of MegaMonopoly is inevitable.

Mr. Moody’s book is full of such Combinations; many hundreds of pages worth, in painful painstaking detail. I will now skip to the big reveal, because the details aren’t really that important at this point (though a few more connections will be visited in Part 3).

5.3.3 A Very Large Apple Orchard

Below is a Trust map created by Mr. Moody. It shows how the ownership and control of most of the various subTrusts he talks about are combined into a few larger Trusts, and then finally combined up into one big Trust. It is titled the The Rockefeller-Morgan Family Tree because, well, as a group, they control basically all of them. They themselves (Rockefeller and Morgan) are, by 1904, AsSnugAsABugInARug, as will be seen eventually. The Rockefeller-Morgan Trust is, 100%, through and through, in all practical ways (stock ownership, Boards of Directors, and contractually), one single Corporation. Since they also control, in all legal and practical ways, almost all of the other Trusts (probably all, but Mr. Moody doesn’t quite say that). The whole entire thing (all of American Industry, Banking, and Finance) is, by 1904, one single Combination; The Trust.

Below is a quote of Moody’s review/summary section titled Dominating Influences In The Trusts. I will interject some short comments in italics bounded by brackets to not disrupt the flow too much. Of course, as always, feel free to skip over my comments if you prefer to avoid my narrative. It is, in my opinion, a remarkable section.

Page 490/535:

The large diagram facing the Introduction [map above] gives an indication of the extent to which the Greater Trusts are dominated by that remarkable group of men known as the “Standard Oil,” or Rockefeller financiers. These men, it will be seen, either entirely control or make their influence felt to a marked degree in all the Greater Trusts. They are in fact the real fathers of the Trust idea in this country, and, of course, have always been the controlling factors in that most far-reaching and successful of all Trusts, the Standard Oil Company...

But it is not merely in oil and its allied industries that the Rockefeller interests are dominant. They are the controlling factors in the Copper Trust and the Smelters’ Trust, and are also closely identified with the mammoth Tobacco Trust, which now practically encircles the globe [i.e. The Trust extends beyond America to the whole world, even in 1904]. Furthermore, while not entirely dominant, they are interested in and display a marked influence in the great Morgan properties, such as the United States Steel Corporation. [There are several people who are on both the Standard Oil Trust Board and the Morgan Steel Trust board, shown below.] In the hundreds of smaller Industrial Trusts, the Rockefeller interests are also conspicuous in many ways. They dominate a variety of minor industries, and it was recently reported that they had acquired an important interest in the production of asbestos. [That they were the monopolistic producers of asbestos will be mentioned later.]

Even a hasty glance through the pages of this book will show that the different members of the Standard group of financiers are identified with a great many of the prominent Trusts herein described, and it is a well-known fact that their indirect influence is of great importance in many other industrial consolidations...

Coming to the Franchise aggregations, we find that everywhere the Standard Oil influence is most prominent. The Rockefeller interests practically dominate the entire public service aggregations of Greater New York, represented by over $725,000,000 of capital; they are allied in interest with the well-known United Gas Improvement Company of Philadelphia, which is itself the leading corporation of the famous Philadelphia or Widener-Elkins group, and which dominates the public utility interests in a number of the largest centres of population in the United States, and in addition controls the lighting interests of a score or more of the smaller, American cities.

And turning to the steam railroad field, we find that the Standard Oil interests are one of the conspicuous factors and are steadily increasing their influence there. One of the greater groups (the Gould-Rockefeller) is, of course, directly dominated by them; but, as a matter of fact, the Standard influence is felt quite forcefully in all the Railroad groups, and this influence is showing a steady growth throughout the entire steam railroad field. It is now freely predicted in Wall Street that the next decade will see the Rockefeller interests the single dominating force in the world of railway finance and control.

The great Rockefeller alliances in the railroad and industrial fields are supplemented and welded together, as it were, through the New York city financial interests of the group. Their banking influence is of very great importance, and their ramifications are far-reaching and of great effectiveness. Thus, the Standard Oil chain of banking institutions, headed by the great National City Bank [now called Citibank], with a capital and surplus of $40,000,000, and deposits exceeding $200,000,000, includes also the Hanover National Bank, the Second National Bank, the United States Trust Company, the Farmers Loan & Trust Company, the Central Realty Bond & Trust Company and a number of smaller institutions. Some of these banks (particularly the National City) have strong dominating influences with the larger banking institutions of other great cities. The Standard interests are also closely allied with the great life insurance companies, such as the Equitable and the Mutual of New York. [The Rockefeller control went far beyond oil or even Industry in general. It controlled a large swath of the banking world, even back in 1904. It also controlled the insurance companies.]

In fact, it is not possible to more than attempt an approximate estimate of the entire Standard Oil industrial, financial and commercial interests of the nation, as their ramifications are so varied and extensive that a clear line of demarcation could not be drawn which would absolutely distinguish the interests which are more or less dominated by them, from those which are not. The chart which we publish, however, gives a fairly accurate “bird’s eye view” of the immensity of their influence and importance as the leading factors in American financial and industrial affairs.

This influence/ownership over pretty much everything is complemented by the Morgan controlled Trust. I won’t get into the specifics, but pretty much everything that isn’t explicitly Rockefeller, is, according to Moody, Morgan (page 492/537):

The Morgan domination, like the Standard Oil, makes itself felt through the means and influence of large metropolitan financial institutions and great banks, such as the National Bank of Commerce, First National Bank, Chase National Bank, and Liberty National Bank. The great life insurance companies, such as the New York Life, and trust companies, such as the Mercantile, Guaranty and Central Trust, are generally rated as being at least partially under the Morgan control.

It should not be supposed, however, that these two great groups of capitalists and financiers are in any real sense rivals or competitors for power, or that such a thing as “war” exists between them. For, as a matter of fact, they are not only friendly, but they are allied to each other by many close ties, and it would probably require only a little stretch of the imagination to describe them as a single great Rockefeller-Morgan group. It is felt and recognized on every hand in Wall Street to-day, that they are harmonious in nearly all particulars, and that instead of there being danger of their relations ever becoming strained, it will be only a matter of a brief period when one will be more or less completely absorbed by the other, and a grand close alliance will be the natural outcome of conditions which, so far as human foresight can see, can logically have no other result.

Around these two groups, or what must ultimately become one greater group, all the other smaller groups of capitalists congregate. They are all allied and intertwined by their various mutual interests. For instance, the Pennsylvania Railroad interests are on the one hand allied with the Vanderbilts, and on the other with the Rockefellers. The Vanderbilts are closely allied with the Morgan group, and both the Pennsylvania and Vanderbilt interests have recently become the dominating factors in the Reading system, a former Morgan road, and the most important part of the anthracite coal combine, which has always been dominated by the Morgan people. Furthermore, the Goulds [Goa’ulds??? Sorry, a little Stargate humor, because, you know, The Trust.], who are closely allied with the Rockefellers, are on most harmonious terms with the Moores of the Rock Island system, and the latter are allied in interest quite closely with both the Harriman and the Morgan groups. Therefore, viewed as a whole, we find the dominating influences in the Trusts to be made up of an intricate network of large and small groups of capitalists, many allied to one another by ties of more or less importance, but all being appendages to or parts of the greater groups, which are themselves dependent on and allied with the two mammoth or Rockefeller and Morgan groups. [These “allied ties” are through the Board of Directors, which as will be shown, are all an intricate web of what can be thought of as a single MegaBoard. The Board should also be thought of as the people who actually run the company, even more than the CEO, who generally only handles the details at the direction of The Board. Although very often the CEO is also on the Board.] These two mammoth groups jointly (for, as pointed out, they really may be regarded as one) constitute the heart of the business and commercial life of the nation, the others all being the arteries which permeate in a thousand ways our whole national life, making their influence felt in every home and hamlet, yet all connected with and dependent on this great central source, the influence and policy of which dominates them all.

Here is the Board of Directors for the Big Daddy Morgan Trust, The Steel Trust. This is the Morgan equivalent to the Rockefeller’s Oil Trust (page 152):

Officers: Wm. E. Corey, President; James Gayley, First Vice-President; Francis Lynde Stetson, General Counsel; Richard Trimble, Secretary and Treasurer; W. J. Philbert, Controller. Directors: Elbert H. Gary, Chairman; Francis H. Peabody, Chas. Steele, Wm. H. Moore, Norman B. Ream, P. A. B. Widener, James H. Reed, Henry C. Frick, Wm. Edenborn, J. Pierrepont Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, Henry H. Rogers, Chas. M. Schwab, Geo. W. Perkins, Edmund C. Converse, James Gayley, Marshall Field, Daniel G. Reid, John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Alfred Clifford, Robert Bacon, Nathaniel Thayer, Clement A. Griscom, Wm. E. Corey. Main office, 71 Broadway, New York City.

This is not the only shared board between these two entities, this is not the only interesting connection. Nothing could be further from the truth. But I wanted to show you how combined Rockefeller was with the largest piece of the Morgan pie. JD Sr., JD Jr. and H.H. Rogers, all part of Standard Oil's Board of Directors are also on the Board of Directors (BoD) for the other top dog, Morgan’s Steel Trust.

In this case the Corporations name is the United States Steel Corporation. U.S. Steel Corp. was a conglomeration of numerous steel companies, just like The Standard was for Oil, with the largest contributor (~2/3rds of its valuation) coming from the Carnegie Company (page 153). The Carnegie Company was “bought” by U.S. Steel in 1901. That’s probably not the right way to put that. U.S. Steel was formed from Carnegie Co. as the basis. It was really the same company with a new name. It was "purchased" by exchanging stock in the Carnegie Company for stock in U.S. Steel. Two of Carnegie’s top men, Henry C. Frick, and Charles M. Schwab went from owning a sizable portion of Carnegie Co. and sitting on the Board of Directors (BoD), to owning the same sizable portion of U.S. Steel and sitting on the BoD. While Carnegie himself no longer held a BoD position at U.S. Steel (he had bigger fish to fry, as we will see), he gained an even higher value of stock in U.S. Steel than he had previously held in Carnegie Co. (proportionate to the new companies par value), and his agents still sat on the BoD. Carnegie’s subsequent efforts are deeply tied to Rockefeller’s efforts, which will be the main topic of Section 6. They too were SnugAsABugInARug.

Rockefeller and crew were also a part of the initial Board for U.S. Steel. The narrative is that “they bought out Rockefeller’s Iron mines with U.S. Steel stock and offered him a seat on the BoD” (paraphrased from J.D.’s wikipedia entry). Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it was a Rockefeller idea. I mean, there is literally no way to know. It’s not like they didn’t have any other previous shared BoDs. They had shared interests all over the place. It’s not like they “barely knew each other,” or weren’t besties already. Hell, they may have seen each other at family reunions (section 5.5.4). Whatever, Rockefeller and no small portion of his crew were partial owners/BoD for “Morgan’s” U.S. Steel (the centerpiece of his empire, and parent company for all sorts of Morgan interests) from day one of its formation.

There are numerous other evidences of Rockefeller control and ownership of Morgan institutions which I won’t elaborate in too much detail here, but to show one instance which will be relevant later: David Rockefeller (JD's grandson) was on the board of Chase National Bank (now known as JP Morgan Chase) starting in 1946. In 1960 he took over as President and CEO of Chase from his uncle Winthrop W. Aldrich* who held the position starting in 1930. David stayed Pres. and CEO until 1981 when he retired from Chase, to move on to (much) bigger and better (depending on your point of view) things, which I will elaborate eventually.

* Winthrop Aldrich’s sister, Abby Aldrich married JD Rockefeller, Jr.. Winthrop and Abby’s father was Senator Nelson W. Aldrich, who you may remember from section 5.1.1 as being "the top of the Senate corruption heap". This familial relationship, along with Chase Manhattan and other Rockefeller banks will have significance in later sections.

I highlighted the Rockefeller-Morgan Trust connections to the Harriman’s and Vanderbilt’s above (also elaborated in other parts of the book) because they play a part in some upcoming sections. It is also important to note that the Harrimans are directly linked with Kuhn-Loeb in the Railroad Trust (as stated on page 431/474 and several other pages as well as numerous other references). Kuhn-Loeb & Co. can be considered a Rothschild interest (which I will make a case for in Part 3). I’m not sure yet of the full extent of Rothschild interest in Kuhn-Loeb. I’m still doing research on the full connection, but the evidence so far suggests that Kuhn-Loeb is not just a Rothschild “interest” but a Rothschild Agent; not just invested in, but wholly run by them specifically as a control mechanism in the American Economy (i.e. a direct link between the European and American versions of The Trust). Of note, on page 437/482 the total capitalization of the Co-Owned Harriman-Kuhn-Loeb Railroad Trust is $1.32B according to Moody. That’s a quite substantial portion (>5%) of that years GDP.

As a final note on this section, one of the Trusts Mr. Moody explores is “The Telephone Trust” which he labels as a “Gould-Rockefeller Alliance.” Among those businesses specifically named as controlled by the Rockefellers’ web is American Telephone & Telegraph Company (page 373). I am not pointing this out because it is special, on the contrary, most of them are linked to the Rockefellers. I only state this because AT&T will come up later and I want it to be clear.

5.3.4 The Big Apple

Below is the Greater New York Public Utility Family Tree.

This ownership map by Moody (an insert from his book, linked above) shows the control JD Rockefeller had over some of the specific infrastructure of New York City itself. In 1904 they had control of pretty much everything; all electricity, railroads, subways, natural gas, and lighting are on this list. They controlled (according to this record) $724M dollars worth of the cities infrastructure capitalization. That’s 1/30th of the total 1904 United States GDP in NYC infrastructure alone. The Rockefellers Made New York City Go Brrr. It’s fair to say that JD Rockefeller was The Big Apple. Of course that doesn’t touch on all the other things they owned in NYC (or anywhere else), like real estate, which were substantial holdings, but it shows the grip they had on NYC; the center of American and even the World’s commerce at the time.

5.3.5 Oh What A Tangled Web We Weave

To close Mr. Moody's book I want to give an idea of MegaWeb.

Mr. Moody gives a great picture for the Great Steam Railroad Groups shown below. It gives a clearer picture of how The Trust is constructed, even though it’s only for one piece of The Trust (Railroads). Note the multiple connections. It is a multiply connected web, not a directed path or a tree. It is virtually impossible to tell who really owns what when all the stock is shared between them. It becomes even more difficult when everyone is sitting on each others Boards of Directors. The idea that there is any separation is a scam. It’s just one company. One Megacorp. And it has been for almost a century and a half. (Evidential support for the connection between then and now is forthcoming.)

On page 488/533 Moody summarizes his findings, adding up the capitalizations of all the Trusts he references in his book; a total of 445 Trusts that cover pretty much everything one can imagine as “productive” in our society. The total capitalization comes to $20,879,162,551. He shows that a great deal of it is ultimately controlled by the Rockefeller’s and Morgan’s, but The Trust includes several of the other “old money” family names as well. There’s du Pont, Vanderbilt, Harriman, Carnegie, and Rothschild, to name but a few. I only stop there because the list is kinda long, and each of those families plays large connecting parts in the “history you were never taught in school” part of this report. Moody and other sources I have referenced show that they all have substantial interest in The Trust, with numerous intimate ties to Rockefeller. Quite a few more connections will be shown.

To gain an appreciation for how much of American Industry The Trust controlled at the time (according to Moody), the nominal GDP in 1904 when this was put out was $25,928,000,000. I’m not sure how much of the $20.3B is controlled by the Rockefeller/Morgan clan because I didn’t take the time to really dig in and analyze the entire book, but from what I did read, it may very well be all of it. Even if not all, its probably “most” (an exact measure!) This puts the Rockefeller-Morgan control/ownership/influence as high as 80% of GDP by 1904. There is evidence that this grew even higher over the next decade or so.

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

I want to give an example of what it looks like to create a monopoly from the perspective of those doing it.

What follows is an excerpt from the economics book, The Worldly Philosphers by Robert L. Heilbroner, 1951. In the section I will be quoting below, the author is speaking about how the Stock Market was a “private casino for the rich in which the public laid the bets and the financial titans fixed the croupier’s wheel.” It tells the story of how William Avery Rockefeller, Jr., and H. H. Rogers (both Standard Oil Board) bought the Anaconda Copper Mining Company in 1899. It also touches on how the Stock Market is designed to be an asset transfer vehicle from We The People to the PTB. It doesn't really get into it though. More of that will come later.

The public, be it noted, responded with a will; when the news got around that Gould or Rockefeller was buying rails or coppers or steels, the public rushed to get in for a free ride. The fact that it took a fleecing for every killing never affected its unbounded faith, and on the strength of this faith a virtual legerdemain of finance was made possible, A head-spinning example was the purchase of the Anaconda Copper Company by Henry Rogers and William Rockefeller without the expenditure of a single dollar of their own. This is how they did it;

1. Rogers and Rockefeller gave a check for $39 millions to Marcus Daly for the Anaconda properties, on the condition that he would deposit it in the National City Bank and leave it untouched for a specified period.

2. They then set up a paper organization known as the Amalgamated Copper Company, with their own clerks as the dummy directors, and caused Amalgamated to buy Anaconda – not for cash, but for $75 millions in Amalgamated stock which was conveniently printed for the purpose.

3. From the National City Bank, Rogers and Rockefeller now borrowed $39 millions to cover the check they had given to Marcus Daly, and as collateral for this loan they used the $75 millions in Amalgamated stock.

4. They now sold the Amalgamated stock on the market (first having touted it through their brokers) for $75 millions.

5. With the proceeds, they retired the $39-million loan from the National City Bank, and pocketed $36 millions as their own profit on the deal.

Of course this free-for-all involved staggering dishonesty...

This is the House that Jack built: They bought The Anaconda without money. They created a parent shell corp and bought it from themselves without money. They created a loan from their own bank, based on stock in that shell company that had no intrinsic value, based on a company with no assets of its own, that had never produced a thing. They sold that stock to the public based on a prospectus that they created and pushed through their dealers. They “repaid” the loan that they had given to themselves, thus completing the transaction using the public money, all in their successful attempt to gain control of a huge part of the copper industry.

The Copper Anaconda ate it’s own tail, and Rockefeller controlled the World of Copper.

This is what happens when you literally control the Stock Market (sit on its Board of Directors) own the banks (National City Bank, their own bank, gave them the loan), own the press (they “touted it through their brokers”) and own no small part of the world already. It becomes profitable to get more of it; like, the very act of getting more itself is hugely profitable.

That assumes that the $36M they netted off this Ouroboros was a big deal. However, I assert that’s not the big deal. The big deal is that they created the Copper Trust for nothing. They didn’t just get the money, they got control (as the Board of Directors) of the whole Copper Trust through simply making it so (Captain Picard style), and they got the investors to pay them for the privilege (Tom Sawyer style). By hook and by crooked dealings they kept their Directorship in perpetuity (Banks and other institutions were also investors, etc.). Hell, for all I know, instead of “netting $36M” maybe they gave themselves $36M worth of stock without spending a dime. I’m not saying that’s what happened, I haven’t looked into it, I don’t care. The point is, it’s not about “money.” Once you have more money than it is possible to spend for yourself, all that is left to gain is power and control.

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

As for the bolded section about how “the public took a fleecing,” I’ll get back to that in Part 3, because how the public got fleeced in this Copper Snake eating it’s own tail story is very interesting once you dig into the details.

5.3.7 Welcome To The Machine: Part 1, Finkle Is Einhorn (1911 Edition)

In 1911, under the leadership of Congressman Arsene Pujo, Congress investigated the ties between the banking institutions and the largest corporations in the United States, in a report titled Money Trust Investigation. This is a part of a larger report. I only read (most of) this 41 page section. I didn't mean to find this. Like so many other pieces of evidence I have found, this came during a search for something completely different.

This effort looks at the banking institutions of New York. The presentations are general, but the Committee seems to focus a little more on the Morgan interests than the whole, or anyone else specifically. I’m not sure why. It may just have been this small section that did so. The beginning part talks about how the subpoena for William Avery Rockefeller was rejected due to poor health or something. I don’t know the details, I only skimmed that.

Congress called “witnesses” (statisticians, financial investigators, etc.) who built maps of the shared corporate interests between the BoDs of the Banks with Industry. They calculated their total influential holdings, and made projections of their potential ownership into the future. For comparison with the numbers below, the nominal U.S. GDP for 1911 was $34.6B.

Mr. Scudder is an investigator, Mr. Untermyer was a “counsel for the Committee.”

Page 12/980:

Mr. SCUDDEB. Our instructions, in part, were to prepare a chart showing the interlocking directorates of 18 large financial institutions, showing the number of directorships which each of such institutions had in a list of some 152 of the largest banks, trust companies, insurance companies, transportation systems, producing and trading corporations, and public utility companies in the United States....

Mr. SCUDDEB. In the first place I made up as complete—as up-todate—a list of the directors of these 152 corporations as could be obtained, starting with the latest annual reports of the various companies, and verified that by reference to such reports of changes in directorships as had become a matter of public knowledge.

Mr. UNTERMYER. Did you check all that up?

Mr. SCUDDER. I did, sir. Starting with this full information as to the directorships in these 152 corporations, I made a careful analysis of the list of individuals, picking out such as were also firm members or directors of these 18 large financial institutions. Having done so, I prepared a statistical chart showing the interrelations through interlocking....

Mr. SCUDDEB. I had a card index prepared of the directors in these various corporations, ascertained as I have described. Having made up this card index and selected from it the individuals who were also directors or firm members in these 18 financial institutions, I prepared preliminary charts for each of four groups, viz: Banks, trust companies, and insurance companies in one; transportation systems in another; producing and trading companies in a third; and public utility corporations in a fourth. I prepared a preliminary chart of interlocking directorates for each one of those divisions. Having done all that and made all corrections up to date, I prepared a final combined chart for the entire list....

Mr. SCUDDEB. On the left-hand margin of the chart are listed, in order, 18 financial institutions, viz: J. P. Morgan & Co., First National Bank, Guaranty Trust Co., Bankeis Trust Co., National City Bank, Kuhn, Loeb & Cx, National Bank of Commerce, Hanover National Bank, Chase National Bank, Astor Trust Co., New York Trust Co., Blair & Co., and Speyer & Co., all the above of New York.

These are the financial institutions looked at. Many others were left out, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t relevant. I assert they were, like all other things, The Trust; intimately tied. However, they were not part of the investigation and/or were on the fringes. Like all webs of connection, some nodes are more important (more connected) than others. When some nodes have fifty or a hundred connections, nodes with only five or ten are boring by comparison. That doesn’t mean they aren’t still part of The Trust.

Mr. UNTERMYER. Have you undertaken in that list on the lefthand side to go beyond these 18 institutions, or have you confined yourself to them?

Mr. SCUDDER. I have confined myself to them.

Mr. UNTERMYER. If so, why?

Mr. SCUDDER. For the simple reason that it would be impossible to include any further information on a chart of this size. In my preliminary chart I did tabulate information concerning other individuals outside these groups.

Mr. UNTERMYER. Did you drop them when you found they had no relation to the subject, or very little?

Mr. SCUDDER. Yes, sir.

Mr. UNTERMYER. Are these selected as the 18 important firms and institutions in the financial world of this country?

Mr. SCUDDER. Yes, sir.

Mr. UNTERMYER. In your selection of the trading companies and the insurance companies and manufacturing companies, what process did you employ? What method did you pursue?

Mr. SCUDDER. I selected the largest corporations in each class irrespective of whether they were connected with these financial institutions or not. It was a list made up independently....

Mr. SCUDDEE. The total number of individual names of firm members or directors of the 18 institutions is 180; that is, eliminating all duplications.

Mr. UNTERMYER. But of that 180 what proportion are men who are found in only two institutions?

Mr. SCUDDEE. A very large proportion. I have not figured it, but it is a very large proportion or the number.

Mr. UNTERMYER. What number of men does the chart in effect get down to, in bulk?

Mr. SCTIDDEE. I should say, roughly, 25 or 30.

Mr. UNTERMYER. Twenty-five or thirty of the men who are found together in the bulk of these institutions?

Mr. SCUDDEE. Yes, sir

Of the 180 people who sat on the BoDs for the financial institutions they looked at, only 25 to 30 had more than two seats. This is just the seats of those “largest corporations" looked at, not all possible seats in industry. I suggest these are the “power players”; the top dogs. This suggests a hierarchy within The Trust. Not that I think that’s surprising, but it is evidence of it, and I wanted to point it out. Congress seemed to think it was important as well since they pointed it out.


Mr. SCUDDEB. In the aggregate, those 180 men hold 385 directorships in 41 banks and trust companies having total resources of $3,832,000,000 and total deposits of $2,834,000,000, 50 directorships in 11 insurance companies having total assets of $2,646,000,000, 155 directorships in 31 railroad systems having a total capitalization of $12,193,000,000 and a total mileage of 163,200 miles, and 6 directorships in 2 express companies and 4 directorships in 1 steamship company with a combined capitalization of $245,000,000 and a gross income of $97,000,000.

I should explain that where the word "capitalization" is used here it is intended to coyer both the funded debt and capital stock.

They hold 98 directorships in 28 producing and trading corporations having a total capitalization of $3,583,000,000 and total gross annual earnings in excess of $1,145,000,000, 48 directorships in 19 public utilities corporations having a total capitalization of $2,826,000,000 and total gross annual earnings in excess of $470,000,000. In all, they hold 746 directorships in 134 corporations having total resources or capitalization of $25,325,000,000.

That’s 180 Directors from 18 banking institutions hold 746 directorships in 134 corporations with a total capitalization of $25.3B, or 73% of GDP. Again, that’s just from those top companies they looked at, not all possible companies for which these same people hold directorships. How many people does it really take to run the world?

Next they look at individual Banking institutions. I will show J.P. Morgan & Co. in it’s entirety, and then little snippets of three others of interest. J.P. Morgan & Co. is not the only “J.P. Morgan bank.” That’s in quotes because as we will see, it’s really all just one bank: MegaBank. I will highlight a couple banks just to show direct connections. These are not all the connections (shared Boards), I just want to establish that some exist between the “different” banks (i.e. Rockefeller, Morgan, and Rothschild specifically).

Mr. UNTERMYER. Taking up the individuals or the firms shown on the list, state with regard to them.

Mr. SCUDDEE. The table further shows that J. P. Morgan & Co., of New York, who are identical with Drexel & Co., of Philadelphia, in firm members, have 23 directorships in 13 banks and trust companies, namely, the following banks and trust companies of New York---

Mr. UNTERMYER. How many directors have J. P. Morgan & Co.? That is, the members of that firm are directors in each of these banks and trust companies in New York which you are about to name?

Mr. SCUDDEE. Yes. They have three directorships in the Astor Trust Co., three in the Bankers' Trust Co., two in the Chemical National Bank, three in the First National Bank, three in the Guaranty Trust Co., one in the Liberty National Bank, two in the National Bank of Commerce, one in the National City Bank, one in the New York Trust Co.; and in Philadelphia they have one in the Fourth Street National Bank, one in the Franklin National Bank, one in the Girard Trust Co., and one in the Philadelphia National Bank. All these banks and trust companies have total resources of $1,406,000,000 and total deposits of $989,000,000.

The Guaranty Trust Co. was one of “Morgan’s” top banks. The National City Bank, as mentioned in the previous section, was one of “Rockefeller’s” top banks. The National Bank of Commerce seems like, the Big Kahuna bank.

Mr. UNTERMYER. HoW many directors have they in insurance companies?

Mr. SCUDDEE. They have four directorships in insurance companies, namely: The Fidelity & Casualty Co., the German-American insurance Co., the Mutual Life Insurance Co., and the Penn Mutual Life Insurance Co.

Mr. UNTERMYER. You mean one in each company?

Mr. SCUDDER. One director in each company. They also have a controlling stock interest in the Equitable Life Assurance Society, which, with the other insurance companies, have total assets of $1,249,000,000.

Mr. UNTERMYER. How many directors have they in transportation systems?

Mr. SCUDDER. They have 20 directorships in 12 transportation systems.

Mr. UNTERMYER. How many members of the firm are directors in each of these systems?

Mr. SCUDDER. They have three directorships in the International Mercantile Marine Co., one in the Adams Express Co., one in the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co., one in the Chicago & Great Western Railway, three in the Erie, two in the Lehigh Valley, one in the New York Central, one in the New York, New Haven & Hartford, three in the Northern Pacific, two in the Pere Marquette, one in the Reading, and one in the Southern Railway.

Mr. UNTERMYER. Is there any voting trust in the Southern Railway?

Mr. SCUDDER. Yes, sir: there is.

Mr. UNTERMYER. Who are the voting trustees?

Mr. SCUDDER. J. P. Morgan is one of the three voting trustees of the Southern Railway Co.

Mr. UNTERMYER. Who are the others?

Mr. SCUDDER. George F. Baker and Charles Lanier.

Mr. UNTERMYER. Mr. Scudder, when you say that J. P. Morgan & Co. own the stock in the Equitable, do you mean J. P. Morgan & Co., or J. P. Morgan personally?

Mr. SCUDDER. It is J. P. Morgan personally.

There are, as might be expected, quite a few “J.P. Morgan personally’s” in this 1911 investigation. That changed rather soon after, as will be seen in upcoming sections, when they gave up personal ownership of stock, and put that stock ownership into their corporate entities. The control, of course, remained in the Boards of Directors.


Mr. UNTERMYER. You have named the transportation companies in which the firm of J. P. Morgan & Co. have representation and the number of those representatives?

Mr. SCUDDEE. Yes, sir.

Mr. UNTERMYER. What is the total capitalization represented in those companies, including the funded debt?

Mr. SCUDDEE. $4,379,000,000.

This $4.4B represents somewhere around 13% of the GDP. That’s just the transportation companies which have J.P. Morgan & Co. (only one of the "Morgan's" banks) Board members on these transportation companies boards.

Mr. UNTERMYER. What is their representation in producing and trading corporations?

Mr. SCUDDEB. They have 12 directorships in seven producing and trading corporations. They have one directorship in the Baldwin Locomotive Works, two in the General Electric Co., one in the International Agricultural Corporation, two in the International Harvester Co., one in the Pullman Co., four in the United States Steel Corporation, and one in the Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co.

Mr. UNTERMYER. And what is the capitalization?

Mr. SCUDDBB. The total capitalization of these companies is $1,989,000,000, and the gross annual earnings are in excess of $899,000,000.

Mr. UNTERMYER. What is their representation in the public utility corporations?

Mr. SCUDDEB. They have four directorships in three public utility corporations. They have one in the American Telegraph & Telephone Co., two in the Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., and one in the Public Service Corporation of New Jersey, these companies having a total capitalization of $1,013,000,000 and gross annual earnings of $234,000,000.

Mr. UNTERMYER. In how many corporations are the firm of J. P. Morgan & Co. directors?

Mr. SCUDDEE. They have 63 directorships in 39 corporations, having total resources or capitalization of $10,036,000.

Basically every major industry type is represented here, and this is just the top few companies. As shown by Mr. Moody, it extends far beyond this.

They go through several other “Morgan” banks before arriving at "Rockefeller's" National City Bank:

Mr. UNTERMYER. Will you take up the National City Bank, now, and tell us how many directors of that bank are also directors in other banks and trust companies shown on the chart?

Mr. SCUDDER. The National City Bank has 32 directorships in 16 banks and trust companies, namely, 1 in the Central Trust Co. of Chicago, 3 in the Continental & Commercial National Bank of Chicago, 1 in the Continental & Commercial Trust and Savings Bank of Chicago, 1 in the Merchants' Loan & Trust Co. of Chicago, 1 in the Mellon National Bank of Pittsburgh, 1 in the Union Trust Co. of Pittsburgh, 1 in the American Security & Trust Co. of Washington, 1 in the Biggs National Bank of Washington, 1 in the Bank of Manhattan Co. of New York, 1 in the Central Trust Co. of New York, 9 in the Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. of New York, 1 in the Guaranty Trust Co., 1 in the Hanover National Bank, 3 in the National Bank of Commerce, 3 in the New York Trust Co., and 3 in the United States Trust Co., these companies having total resources of $1,532,000,000 and total deposits of $1,130,000,000.

Notice all the “Chicago’s” above. Not that it’s a big deal, but as we will see, Rockefeller had quite a few interesting investments in Chicago. He kinda owned it (like New York). I also want to show the links between National City Bank and the Railroads, just for kicks:

Mr. UNTERMYER. How many of the City Bank's directors are directors in railroad corporations?

Mr. SCUDDER. They have 28 directorships in 17 railroad companies, namely, 1 in the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe, 1 in the Baltimore & Ohio, 1 in the Chesapeake & Ohio, 3 in the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul, 3 in the Chicago & North Western, 5 in the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western, 1 in the Illinois Central, 1 in the Missouri, Kansas & Texas, 2 in the New York Central & Hudson River; 1 in the New York, New Haven & Hartford, 1 in the Norfolk & Western, 1 in the Northern Pacific, 1 in the Pennsylvania, 1 in the Reading Co., 1 in the Seaboard Air Line, 2 in the Southern Pacific, and 2 in the Union Pacific, these companies having a total capitalization of $8,308,000,000 and a total mileage of 100,400.

This $8.4B (24% of GDP) in railroads is almost twice as much as J.P. Morgan & Co. Of course that was just one of “Morgan’s” banks, and I suggest me pointing out such a difference really only helps extend the fraudulent concept that there is any difference between them. Also note that they had two board members on the Southern Pacific Railroad. That was Leland Stanford’s railroad. He will come up again later.

Kuhn-Loeb is the “Rothschild” bank:

Mr. UNTERMYER. Now, will you take the relations of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. to the various corporations that are shown an the chart?

Mr. SCUDDEB. Kuhn, Loeb & Co. have 7 directorships in 6 banks and trust companies, viz, 1 in the Central Trust Co., 1 in the Equitable Trust, 1 in the Fourth National Bank, 1 in the National Bank of Commerce, 1 in the National City Bank, and 2 in the United States Mortgage & Trust Co., these companies and banks having a total capitalization of $810,000,000 and total gross annual earnings of $530,000,000.

The National Bank of Commerce appears to be, at this time, the Overlord, but also the Bitch. It has a piece of everyone, but everyone (who's anyone) has a piece of it. It later merged with the Guaranty Trust Co. in 1929. Of course the assets stayed the same, and the BoD stayed the same, but they changed the sign over the door. Eventually they changed the name on all the Morgan doors to JPMorgan Chase (run by David Rockefeller). I guess to make it more honest?

Mr. UNTERMYER. NOW, please take up the National Bank of Commerce, and tell the committee how many directors of the National Bank of Commerce are directors in others of the banks and trust companies shown on the large chart.

Mr. SCUDDER. They have 57 directorships in 22 banks and trust companies, viz, 1 in the Illinois Trust & Savings Bank, Chicago; 1 in the Merchants Loan & Trust Co., Chicago; 1 in the Girard Trust Co., Philadelphia: 1 in the Mellon National Bank, Pittsburgh; 1 in the Union Trust Co., Pittsburgh; 1 in the American Security & Trust Co., of Washington; 1 in the Riggs National Bank of Washington; 1 in the American Exchange National Bank, New York; 6 in the Astor Trust Co., of New York; 4 in the Bankers Trust Co., 4 in the Central Trust Co., 3 in the Chase National Bank, 2 in the Chemical National Bank, 4 in the Equitable Trust Co., 3 in the Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 3 in the First National Bank, 12 in the Guaranty Trust Co., 3 in the Liberty National Bank, 1 in the Mechanics & Metals National Bank, 2 in the National City Bank, 1 in the United States Mortgage & Trust Co., and 1 in the United States Trust Co., which companies have total resources of $2,110,000,000 and total deposits of $1,567,000,000.

Mr. UNTERMYER. How many of their directors are also directors in insurance companies?

Mr. SCUDDER. They have 21 directorships In 9 insurance companies, namely, 8 in the American Surety Co., 1 in the Continental Insurance Co., 3 in the Equitable Life Assurance Society, 1 in the GermanAmerican Insurance Co., 1 in the Home Insurance Co., 1 in the Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 4 in the Mutual Life Insurance Co., 1 in the New York Life Insurance Co., and 1 in the Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co., which companies have total assets of $2,509,000,000.

Mr. UNTERMYER. How many of the directors of the Bank of Commerce are also directors in the great railroad systems of the country?

Mr. SCUDDER. There are 36 directorships in 23 railroad companies, namely, 2 in the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe, 1 in the Baltimore & Ohio, 1 in the Chesapeake & Ohio, 1 in the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy, 1 in the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific & Rock Island Co., 1 in the Delaware & Hudson, 1 in the Delaware. Lackawanna & Western, 1 in the Denver & Rio Grande, 2 in the Erie, 3 in the Illinois Central, 1 in the Lehigh Valley, 1 in the Missouri, Kansas & Texas, 1 in the Missouri Pacific, 1 in the New York Central & Hudson River, 1 in the New York, New Haven & Hartford, 1 in the Norfolk & Western. 1 in the Northern Pacific, 2 in the Reading Co., 2 in the Seaboard Air Line, 3 in the Southern Pacific, 2 in the Southern Railway, 3 in the Union Pacific, and 3 in the Wabash, which have a total capitalization of $8,901,000,000 and a total mileage of 111,200.


Mr. UNTERMYER. How many in producing and trading companies?

Mr. SCUDDER. Twenty directorships in 17 producing and trading companies, namely, 1 in the American Can Co., 1 in the American Locomotive Co., 1 in the American Smelting & Refining Co., 1 in the American Sugar Refining Co., 1 in the Baldwin Locomotive Works, 1 in the Colorado Fuel & Iron Co., 1 in the Intercontinental Rubber Co., 1 in the International Agricultural Corporation, 1 in the International Harvester Co., 1 in the International Paper Co., 2 in the Lackawanna Steel Co., 1 in the National Biscuit Co., 1 in the Pullman Co., 1 in the United States Rubber Co., 2 in the United States Steel Corporation, 1 in the Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co., and 2 in the Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co.

Mr. UNTERMYER. What is the summary of the directorates held by directors of the Bank of Commerce in other corporations shown on the chart?

Mr. SCUDDER. One hundred and forty-nine directorships in 82 companies with total assets or capitalization of $18,165,000,000.

For just the 39 trustees of the National Bank of Commerce, they had Board of Directorships controlling $18.1B of assets; 52% of GDP. And that’s just looking at the top level industry. That’s not complete. That’s just one bank’s BoD.

But really, there’s only one bank. I’ve called this “MegaBank,” but this is not the main body of evidence for MegaBank. That is what Part 3 is, because the details there are really important. Nevertheless, it is some evidence of it. I mean, if a trustee from a “Rockefeller bank” is also a trustee of a “Morgan,” “Rothschild,” "Astor," and “Mellon” bank, is he really a “Rockefeller” trustee? Which bank is his favorite? Does the concept even have any meaning? Which one is he working towards boosting the most? All of them. Obviously.

As we will see in the next section, after The Standard was “broken up,” they personally (i.e. the people themselves) stopped even owning the stock. They stopped owning it because a) they kept getting looked at by congress, and the public, for owning so much stock and b) because it doesn’t matter. As long as the public doesn’t own the stock, it doesn’t matter who has it. Stock is designed to be “democratic,” giving power to the shareholders. How do you take the power away from the shareholders? Put it into BlackRock, State Street, Vanguard, TIAA, etc. Now where does the power reside? In the Board of Directors, 100%, in perpetuity, because no one can vote them out.

Of course these “asset managers” do a lot more than just suck up stock to keep any semblance of power out of the hands of the public, but that’s a topic for another time.

5.3.8 The House Always Wins

Imagine an intro to a spy movie: It begins with a close up shot showing some Dr. Evil-esque super-villain sitting there, playing chess. His brow is furrowed, his hawk-like gaze, apparently chiseled in stone, is fully intent upon the perfect next move. His mind seems to be going a million miles a minute, as if his life depends on the choice. He finally makes his move and his face relaxes a bit. The camera scrolls out to show his opponent... an empty chair. The villain gets up from his seat, moves to the other side of the table, sits down, and repeats the process.

If your whole life is playing some game, but you must be absolutely certain you always win the game... If you aren’t there because you like competition (competition is a sin), but rather only care about winning, how can you be absolutely, 100% certain you will always win?

You must play both sides.

I am not saying that that has anything to do with anything going on in the world right now, nor anything to do with any of the evidence I am showing in this report. I am not saying there is a room in some mountaintop castle somewhere where Dr. Evil is indiscriminately touching black and white bishops and playing with himself. I am saying that if you do not in any way care about competition, and you believe you need to both play and win a game, the only way to be absolutely certain you accomplish the second, when doing the first, is to be both sides.

Just like all the best cons.

Section 5.4: Johnny Apple's Seed

It’s time to get out the ruler and measure how far JD Sr.’s apples fell from his tree.

5.4.0 The Apple Dumpling Gang

To begin this section let me first define a Dynasty Trust. To do that I need to define a Trust of this type. I am going to start with the definition from Black’s Law Dictionary 6th edition (BLD). Not everything below is important; I have bolded the relevant parts, but I am including other parts for completeness and context. Note that in Black’s Law Dictionary, each paragraph can be a separate definition, or at least there are distinctions between the first and fourth paragraphs below. However, there are important similarities as well, especially the separation of asset “ownership” and "control":

Trust. A legal entity created by a grantor for the benefit of designated beneficiaries under the laws of the state and the valid trust instrument. The trustee holds a fiduciary responsibility to manage the trust's corpus assets and income for the economic benefit of all of the beneficiaries. A confidence reposed in one person, who is termed trustee, for the benefit of another, who is called the cestui que trust, respecting property which is held by the trustee for the benefit of the cestui que trust. State ex reI. Wirt v. Superior Court for Spokane County, 10 Wash.2d 362, 116 P.2d 752, 755. Any arrangement whereby property is transferred with intention that it be administered by trustee for another's benefit. A fiduciary relationship in which one person is the holder of the title to property subject to an equitable obligation to keep or use the property for the benefit of another.

A trust can be created for any purpose which is not illegal, and which is not against public policy. Collins v. Lyon, Inc., 181 Va. 230, 24 S.E.2d 572, 579.

Essential elements of trust are designated beneficiary and trustee, fund sufficiently identified to enable title to pass to trustee, and actual delivery to trustee with intention of passing title. City Bank Farmers' Trust Co. v. Charity Organization Soc. of City of New York, 238 App.Div. 720, 265 N.Y.S. 267.

An association or organization of persons or corporations having the intention and power, or the tendency, to create a monopoly, control production, interfere with the free course of trade or transportation, or to fix and regulate the supply and the price of commodities. In the history of economic development, the "trust" was originally a device by which several corporations engaged in the same general line of business might combine for their mutual advantage, in the direction of eliminating destructive competition, controlling the output of their commodity, and regulating and maintaining its price, but at the same time preserving their separate individual existence, and without any consolidation or merger. This device was the erection of a central committee or board, composed, perhaps, of the presidents or general managers of the different corporations, and the transfer to them of a majority of the stock in each of the corporations, to be held "in trust" for the several stockholders so assigning their holdings. These stockholders received in return "trust certificates" showing that they were entitled to receive the dividends on their assigned stock, though the voting power of it had passed to the trustees. This last feature enabled the trustees or committee to elect all the directors of all the corporations, and through them the officers, and thereby to exercise an absolutely controlling influence over the policy and operations of each constituent company, to the ends and with the purposes above mentioned. Though the "trust," in this sense, is now seldom if ever resorted to as a form of corporate organization, having given place to the "holding corporation" and other devices, the word became current in statute laws as well as popular speech, to designate almost any form of combination of a monopolistic character or tendency. Northern Securities Co. v. U. S., 193 U.S. 197, 24 S.Ct. 436, 48 L.Ed. 679; Mallinckrodt Chemical Works v. State of Missouri, 238 U.S. 41, 35 S.Ct. 671, 673, 59 L.Ed. 1192.

Perpetual trust. A trust which is to continue as long as the need for it continues as for the lifetime of a beneficiary or the term of a particular charity.

The fourth paragraph is the type of Trust we saw from the previous sections. It is interesting that BLD says the type of corporate entity that separates ownership from control to create a monopoly is now called called a “Holding Corporation” (or “other devices”). I will hold onto touching companies touch on holding companies in Part 3. For this section I will focus more on the first part, and the subsection “Perpetual Trust.” It is the separation of "ownership" and "control" of assets in perpetuity that is important.

I will give an idea of the potential scope of fuckery in such a separation of ownership and control later (Section 6: Foundation), but for now I just want to explain a couple reasons why I consider all the Rockefellers in this report as one Rockefeller Agent (there is more evidence later).

The first Rockefeller Dynasty Trust began in 1934, created by J. D. Rockefeller Sr.. There are reasons to think it may end at some point, which I won’t get in to, but it also may very well last forever. It is important to appreciate that all beneficiaries of the Trust can be thought of as a single entity with respect to how the law treats them (even if the specifics are not necessarily identical between beneficiaries). Most importantly, they can be thought of as pulling from, and, if they have some level of management of the Trust, contributing to, the same pool of assets. It is appropriate to think of all Rockefeller’s that are also Trustee’s (or that have direct influence over the Trustee’s) as one Rockefeller as far as the Trust's assets beneficial ownership and control is concerned. These Trusteeships overlap between Rockefellers, so this is a non-trivial statement.

It’s more complicated than that for a few reasons, not the least of which is that like everything else Rockefeller, there are numerous baby Trusts running around to hide assets in. As this article from nasdaq.com, cir. 2016 says (note: highlights and parentheses are from the article itself):

The trusts are, to this day, controlled by the male heirs to the fortune, as well as other powerful trustees who dole out annual stipends to the many Rockefeller heirs. Today, much of this wealth is pooled and managed at Rockefeller & Co. (of which David Rockefeller, Jr. is the chairman). But don't be fooled into thinking this is where the buck stops: There are hundreds of trusts and corporations, many of which have JPMorgan Chase as a trustee (unsurprising, as David Rockefeller ran Chase Manhattan Bank for several decades).

Pegging the value of these holdings and trusts is tricky. Making matters even more difficult, it has been estimated that there are over 150 direct descendants of John D. Rockefeller and his brother William. In fact, when the Rockefeller family sought to petition ExxonMobil's current management to make some changes in how it operates beginning in 2004, 73 of 78 adult direct descendants of John D. Rockefeller led the charge.

These direct descendants are almost certainly wealthier than their cousins, as evidenced by the fact that David Rockefeller, the oldest living member of the family, and its founder's grandson, is the only Rockefeller still found on Forbes' list of the 400 richest Americans.

...The sheer number of Rockefeller descendants clearly makes pegging the actual wealth of the family extremely difficult, if not impossible; with it mired in hundreds of trusts and real estate holdings (including, in the past, the World Trade Center and Rockefeller Center), we can merely guess.

The purpose of this section is to impress upon you that there is a shared pool of assets, it’s size is impossible to track, and the direct male descendants that I will be discussing in this report (as specified within the conditions of the charter of the Trust) had the majority (if not all) of the power (control) of this same pool of assets.

In addition to this common pool of assets there is a common general theme that can be found in the actions of all the Rockefellers in this report (some of which were also conditional within the definition of the Trust). It is a theme that spans the generations. It is for these reasons that I clump them all together in my exploration of the fruits of their collective labors. Normally the crimes or actions of the Father do not fall to the Son(s), but in this case, they kinda do. The extent to which they do I will leave you to be the judge as I present the evidence. I will suggest however, that they don’t call them Dynasty Trusts for nothing:


  1. A succession of rulers from the same family or line.
  2. A family or group that maintains power for several generations.
  3. A government; a sovereignty.

I include all three of these definitions for a reason. I will explore them all in time.

5.4.1 Don’t Call Me Junior!

This section is going to be a story of a single event. It will illustrate many things, including a continuity of Dynasty, Congressional complicity (and/or incompetence and/or lack of power), and how deep the depravity of the "ruling class" can could be.

Before I get to the Congressional Investigation on the subject matter of this section, I need to set the stage. The Ludlow Massacre was an event in 1913-14 where a Rockefeller company was responsible for the deaths of somewhere between 69 and 200 people. How many people it really was, depends on who you ask. I could find no official numbers that encompassed the whole event. Rockefeller (JD Rockefeller, Jr. in this case) accomplished this level of mayhem by hiring thugs and ultimately paying the Colorado State National Guard to come in and slaughter men, women, and children “bust” a strike: John D. Rockefeller, Jr.’s own little private National Guard army. Because, you know, we all have the National Guard on speed dial to come in and kill the plebs on our whim just because they want “better working conditions.”

Of course there’s a great deal more to this story, and it’s not like there was no hostility on the other side. They were armed striker’s, though I suggest attempting to end slavery is generally considered a reasonable effort, even if it can be violent. By all accounts the miners attempted to avoid violence as much as possible, and with only a couple reported exceptions, the specific acts of violence enacted upon the miners seem to have been almost entirely unprovoked.

A notable event was the straight up murder of the strike leader, Mr. Louis Tikas under the auspices of a truce which kicked off the final slaughter. Just slightly evil. Also of note is that no one on the side of the Rockefeller Company (including Rockefeller’s hired State Troopers) was ever charged with any crime, despite numerous unquestionably (according to GAT) straight up murders.

I also really like their car:

Baldwin–Felts armored car known as the “Death Special” with mounted M1895 machine gun.

The Death Special! You gotta love it. According to this article it was...

built at CF&I’s own steel works to use against its striking employees. At Ludlow the steel-plated vehicle was driven alongside and through the tent colony, its searchlight used to harass the sleeping strikers. Its guns took shots at the tents which left haphazard victims killed or maimed.

How wonderfully 1913 Dr. Evil Gangster Style! All it needs is some hood flames and a skull and bones on the side. There’s nothing quite like a drive by machine gunning on helpless families in tents in a stylish armored vehicle in the middle of the night with searchlights to assert your blatant disregard for anyone but yourself! Just to be clear, this was not a one time event. The brutality of this particular act of “strike busting” went on for over half a year with many deaths before it finished in the ultimate slaughter. To be more clear, there were many strikes against The Trust and subsequent busting event’s during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Many people died as a result. It was a war against The Trust.

Guess who won.

There was so much fucked up shit in this particular strike that Congress actually investigated it. I don’t think there was any other authority that could, since both the Governor and other officials of the State of Colorado (police, judges, legislature, etc.), as well as the almighty "The Trust" were all complicit.

Before I get into some of the evidence to support these claims as presented in the Congressional Investigation Report from 1915, I want to discuss some, not entirely related, tidbits found therein.

Page 28/54:

The ownership of wealth in the United States has become concentrated to a degree which is difficult to grasp. The recently published researches of a statistician of conservative views* have shown that as nearly as can be estimated the distribution of wealth in the United States is as follows:

The "Rich", 2 per cent of the people, own 60 per cent of the wealth.

The "Middle Class", 33 per cent of the people, own 35 per cent of the wealth.

The "Poor", 65 per cent of the people, own 5 per cent of the wealth.

I disagree with these numbers to some extent, because I don’t think it takes into consideration the total assets under control, but for now it is sufficient. While the distributions are not identical to how it is reported today, the overall separation is fairly similar. In other words, as far as reported money goes, wealth distribution has stayed fairly consistent since 1915 when they declare it to be “difficult to grasp.” It may be difficult for them to grasp, but I suggest it wasn’t really all that hard for the PTB to hold on to it. Indeed, as far as “assets under control” goes, I believe I have made a reasonable case the PTB holdings have gotten larger since then (more to come).

The Report then goes on to talk about the “Monarchs of Industry” (Monarchs of America by implication).

Page 30/56:

Besides the economic significance of these great inequalities of wealth and income, there is a social aspect which equally merits the attention of Congress. It has been shown that the great fortunes of those who have profited by the enormous expansion of American industry have already passed, or will pass in a few years, by right of inheritance to the control of heirs or to trustees who act as their "vice regents". They are frequently styled by our newspapers "monarchs of industry," and indeed occupy within our Republic a position almost exactly analogous to that of feudal lords.

These heirs, owners only by virtue of the accident of birth, control the livelihood and have the power to dictate the happiness of more human beings than populated England in the Middle Ages. Their principalities, it is true, are scattered and, through the medium of stock-ownership, shared in part with others; but they are none the less real. In fact, such scattered, invisible industrial principalities are a greater menace to the welfare of the Nation than would be equal power consolidated into numerous petty kingdoms in different parts of the country. They might then be visualized and guarded against; now their influence invisibly permeates and controls every phase of life and industry.

Congress is here suggesting they must do something to quell these Dynasties. They later suggest an inheritance tax. Little do they suspect that, just like every other attempt to tax the elite, Mr. Rockefeller will be creating, through the compliance of the government, a little understood mechanism called the Dynasty Trust which will nip that little hindrance in the bud in perpetuity. They continue:

"The king can do no wrong" not only because he is above the law, but because every function is performed or responsibility assumed by his ministers and agents. Similarly our Rockefellers, Morgans, Fricks, Vanderbilts and Astors can do no industrial wrong, because all effective action and direct responsibility is shifted from them to the executive officials who manage American industry. As a basis for this conclusion we have the testimony of many, among which, however, the following statements stand out most clearly:

Mr. John D. Rockefeller, Jr.

* * * those of us who are in charge there elect the ablest and most upright and competent men whom we can find, in so far as our interests give us the opportunity to select, to have the responsibility for the conduct of the business in which we are interested as investors. We can not pretend to follow the business ourselves.

Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan.

Chairman Walsh. In your opinion, to what extent are the directors of corporations responsible for the labor - conditions existing in the industries in which they are the directing power?

Mr. Morgan. Not at all I should say.

All of the elite when questioned say the same thing, “We didn’t do any of these bad things. The people we hired did. We just move money around, nothing more” (paraphrased). Just like the corporation laws, which substantially improve a persons ability to hide behind a corporation for legal immunity from prosecution, these SuperTrusts allow an even greater indemnity by decreasing the apparent involvement.

Of course this is in opposition to the exposure of Ms. Tarbell, where the Standard Oil Trust board had gone to great lengths to have complete knowledge of all events through their Corporate Intelligence Agency (section 5.2.14). Not to mention the very design of the Trust itself; intended to have complete control at the top, leaving nothing to chance. I don’t mean to suggest they don’t leave some decisions to their agents, but on anything big, the evidence suggest The Trust absolutely knows and makes the big decisions. The general conditions in Colorado mining, and the intents of the Union organization against the CF&I were in thousands of newspapers for years (especially over the six months of the strike). They knew. Everybody knew.

There is a great deal more in the report; the abject conditions of the miners, the complete disdain of Rockefeller for the workers, the amount congress knew...

I’m going to skip most of that. I do want to give one more exposure of “an aside” however, so you can appreciate the amount of control Rockefeller really had.

With regards to the Colorado Governor and the State legislature, this particular book doesn’t have a ton on them. There were several other books in the Congressional Report which may have contained more information. This book does however, have an interesting footnote on a letter written by L. M. Bowers, who was Chairman of the Board of Directors of the CF&I ("The Company" AKA the Rockefeller Colorado company under investigation in this report). The contents of the letter are not irrelevant, but less pertinent than Congress’ footnote (page 44/69):

This statement of Mr. Bowers should be considered in conjunction with his testimony that the evil influences created by the Colorado Fuel & Iron Co. were still in power and his admission that the Company was deeply interested in the last State election and that 150 men were put into the field from his office alone to work for the candidates favored by the Company, which was deeply interested in the election of officials who would vigorously prosecute the strikers. His letters narrating how the Governor of Colorado was whipped into line should also be considered, as well as the testimony of Dr. B. S. Gaddis, former head of the Sociological Department of the Colorado Fuel & Iron Co., that officials openly influenced elections.

This is how you get the National Guard to be your bitch do your bidding. You put Governors and Legislatures in office. Just in case you were ever wanting to have the National Guard at your beck and call, I’m letting you know what you need to do.

What follows is a large part of two sections of Congress’ Report (sections IV and V). These are (partial) lists of conclusions to these particular sections of their investigation. They give a great deal of information regarding what Congress knew, and how little they could or did do about it. Specifically, in addition to exposing generational Corporate slavery, it introduces the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations, an exposition of which will make up no small part of upcoming sections.

Page 113/138:

IV. Industrial Conditions in Isolated Communities.

The investigations and hearings of the Commission are the basis for the following statements:

1. The conditions existing in typical industrial communities which are either wholly or in large part owned or controlled by a single corporation or individual employer, present every aspect of a state of feudalism except the recognition of specific duties on the part of the employer. The employees in such communities are dependent on a single corporation, or employer, for their livelihood. Furthermore, the employer in many cases controls the social and political life of such communities, either by the complete absorption of local political powers or by domination of the local authorities.

2. The fundamental rights of citizens in such communities are, as a general rule, seriously abridged if not actually denied. Among the rights most seriously violated are the right of free speech and assemblage and the right of public highways.

In some cases, as for example in Colorado, employers in such communities have assumed to usurp the functions of the Federal Government itself in the issuance of money orders, and have not only denied employees access to the post office when located in their company stores, but have opened and otherwise interfered with the mail directed to the employees.

Such feudalistic conditions tend to develop principally in connection with the private exploitation of natural resources, being most frequently found in mining camps, lumber camps (including turpentine camps) and large plantations. There are, however, striking examples even in the case of manufactures, as, for example, the textile towns and steel towns.

3. The most extreme form of domination and control exists in what are known as "closed camps", where the employer owns all the land upon which such camps are located and, because of this private ownership, not only exercises control over the local government, but dictates arbitrarily who shall be permitted to come into or pass through such communities. It has frequently been argued that such communities are simply the inevitable accompaniment of the development of new country and will be eliminated with time. This is not true, however, as the Commission's investigations have disclosed a large number of "closed camps" which have been in existence for more than a generation.

The conditions were slavery. No one could own the land. No one had the skills to leave. Even if they wanted to, their right to leave was often closed to them by Company Armed Guards. The vast majority were immigrants or children of immigrants who themselves were miners without other skills. It was generational slavery, or at least an indentured servitude so extreme that no one could ever save up enough to break free from. And often there was nothing to save up, because they weren’t paid in money, but in “scrip” which was only redeemable in Company Stores. The Company owned everything. They owned the land, the houses (you could only rent, never own), the buildings, the stores, the schools, the church, the dynamite that miners had to buy to blow up the rock with to get to the coal (for which work they were not payed)... It was completely controlled, down to the last penny. There was no obvious escape, because, as a miner, even if you were allowed to leave, where could you go? All mines were owned by that singular entity The Trust, and everyone knew it.

The previous section is followed by V. The Concentration of Wealth and Influence (page 116/142). I’ve highlighted a few parts, but it’s all worth reading.

1. The control of manufacturing, mining and transportation industries is to an increasing degree passing into the hands of great corporations through stock ownership, and control of credit is centralized in a comparatively small number of enormously powerful financial institutions. These financial institutions are in turn dominated by a very small number of powerful financiers.

2. The final control of American industry rests, therefore, in the hands of a small number of wealthy and powerful financiers.

3. The concentration of ownership and control is greatest in the basic industries upon which the welfare of the country must finally rest.

4. With few exceptions each of the great basic industries is dominated by a single large corporation, and where this is not true, the control of the industry through stock ownership in supposedly independent corporations and through credit is almost, if not quite, as potent.

5. In such corporations, in spite of the large number of stock-holders, the control through actual stock ownership rests with a very small number of persons. For example, in the United States Steel Corporation, which had in 1911 approximately 100,000 shareholders, 1.5 per cent of the stockholders held 57 per cent of the stock, while the final control rested with a single private banking house.

Similarly in the American Tobacco Co., before the dissolution, 10 stockholders owned 60 per cent of the stock.

6. Almost without exception the employees of the large corporations are unorganized, as a result of the active and aggressive "nonunion" policy of the corporation managements.

Furthermore, the labor policy of the large corporations almost inevitably determines the labor policy of the entire industry.

7. A careful and conservative study shows that the corporations controlled by six financial groups and affiliated interests employ 2,651,684 wage earners and have a total capitalization of $19,875,200,000.- These six financial groups control 28 per cent of the total number of wage earners engaged in the industries covered by the report of our investigation. The Morgan-First National Bank group alone controls corporations employing 785,499 wage earners...

8. The lives of millions of wage earners are, therefore, subject to the dictation of a relatively small number of men.

Here we see Congress was not ignorant of Megacorp in 1915, even though I think they are missing quite a bit of the scope of it. There is every indication, as will be shown, that they increased from the Moody exposition (at 80% of GDP in 1904), not decreased as they suggest here (even if they only suggest a slight decrease). Importantly, they were well aware that it had thrived in the “break up’s” of the previous decades.

9. These industrial dictators for the most part are totally ignorant of every aspect of the industries which they control, except the finances, and are totally unconcerned with regard to the working and living conditions of the employees in those industries. Even if they were deeply concerned, the position of the employees would be merely that of the subjects of benevolent industrial despots.

As I’ve suggested, just because they said they are ignorant of the workings of their companies (at a Congressional Investigative hearing about their potential complicity in a massacre of as many as 200 people) doesn’t mean they actually were ignorant.

10. Except, perhaps, for improvements in safety and sanitation, the labor conditions of these corporation-controlled industries are subject to grave criticism, and are a menace to the welfare of the Nation.

11. In order to prevent the organization of employees for the improvement of working conditions, elaborate systems of espionage are maintained by the large corporations which refuse to deal with labor unions, and employees suspected of union affiliation are discharged.

12. The domination by the men in whose hands the final control of a large part of American industry rests is not limited to their employees, but is being rapidly extended to control the education and "social service" of the Nation.

13. This control is being extended largely through the creation of enormous privately managed funds for indefinite purposes, hereinafter designated "foundations," by the endowment of colleges and universities, by the creation of funds for the pensioning of teachers, by contributions to private charities, as well as through controlling or influencing the public Dress.

14. Two groups of the "foundations", namely, the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations, together have funds amounting to at least $250,000,000, yielding an annual revenue of at least $13,500,000, which is at least twice as great as the appropriations of the Federal Government for similar purposes, namely, education and social service.

15. The funds of these foundations are exempt from taxation, yet during the lives of the founders are subject to their dictation for any purpose other than commercial profit. In the case of the Rockefeller group of foundations, the absolute control of the funds and of the activities of the institutions now and in perpetuity rests with Mr. Rockefeller, his son, and whomsoever they may appoint as their successors.

16. The control of these funds has been widely published as being in the hands of eminent educators and public-spirited citizens. In the case of the Rockefeller foundations, however, not only is the control in the hands of Mr. John D. Rockefeller, Jr., and two of the members of the personal staff of Mr. John D. Rockefeller, Sr., who constitute the finance committee, but the majority of the trustees of the funds are salaried employees of Mr. Rockefeller or the foundations, who are subject to personal dictation and may be removed at any moment.

19. The powers of these foundations are practically unlimited, except that they may not directly engage in business for profit. In the words of President Schurman of Cornell, himself a trustee of the Carnegie Foundation:

Consider this whole next paragraph highlighted. (Kinda like how I just highlight bombed the previous paragraphs. At this point “highlighting” is a farce. Just read the whole thing.) It shows that they clearly understood the potential extent of the power of Foundations in 1915, only a couple years after JD Sr. (and sons, and friends, etc.) founded theirs.

Under the terms of this broad charter there is scarcely anything which concerns the life and work of individuals or nations in which the Rockefeller Foundation would not be authorized to participate. As the safety of the State is the supreme condition of national civilization the foundation might in time of war use its income or its entire principal for the defense of the Republic. In time of peace it might use its funds to effect economic and political reforms which the trustees deem essential to the vitality and efficiency of the Republic. The foundation might become the champion of free trade or protection, of trusts or of the competing concerns out of which they grow, of socialism or individualism, of the program of the Republican Party or the program of the Democratic Party. It might endow the clergy of all religious denominations or it might subsidize any existing or any new religious denomination. Tomorrow it might be the champion of the Christian religion and a hundred years hence furnish an endowment for the introduction of Buddhism into the United States. It might build tenement houses for the poor in New York City or carry the results of science to enrich the exhausted soils of the East or the arid tracts of the West. It might set up an art gallery in every State of the United States or endow universities which would rival the great state universities of the West. With the consent of the legislature it might relieve any State of the care of its insane, pauper, and dependent classes or construct roads for the benefit of farmers and motorists. These may not be likely objects for the application of the funds of the Rockefeller Foundation. I am not, however, attempting to forecast its work but to understand its charter.

And so far as I can see, the proposed charter would authorize all these and a multitude of similar activities. If the object of the Rockefeller Foundation is to be coextensive with human civilization, then it may do anything and everything which its trustees think likely to effect reform or improvement in the material, economic, intellectual, artistic, religious, moral, and political conditions of the American people or of mankind.

In other words, a Foundation is a legal means to do anything they want, creating an absolute influence, which has the potential to be a complete control (of all aspects of the United States) if done properly. Being a private NGO (the ultimate misnomer) it also absolves its controllers from taxes, oversight, and indemnity.

20. The charters of these foundations, with their almost unlimited powers, were granted under conditions of such laxity that it has been testified by an eminent legal authority who made an extensive investigation that those granted by New York State are legally defective and unconstitutional. Furthermore, evidence developed by the hearings of the Commission showed that in increasing the number of its trustees without complying with the requirements of the law governing corporations, the Rockefeller Foundation has already been guilty of a breach of the law.

21. These foundations are subject to no public control, and their powers can be curbed only by the difficult process of amending or revoking their charters. Past experience, as, for example, in the case of the insurance companies, indicates that the public can be aroused only when the abuses have become so great as to constitute a scandal.

22. The entrance of the foundations into the field of industrial relations, through the creation of a special division by the Rockefeller Foundation, constitutes a menace to the national welfare to which the attention not only of Congress but of the entire country should be directed. Backed by the $100,000,000 of the Rockefeller Foundation, this movement has the power to influence the entire country in the determination of its most vital policy.

23. The documentary evidence in the possession of the Com- mission indicates:

a. That the so-called "investigation of industrial relations" has not, as is claimed, either a scientific or a social basis, but originated to promote the industrial interests of Mr. Rockefeller. The original letter inviting Mr. W. L. Mackenzie King to associate himself with the Rockefellers stated that Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. Greene in "their purely corporate capacity as owners and directors of large industries" desired his aid.

W. L. Mackenzie King was at the time the Canadian Labor Minister and propaganda public relations expert. The Rockefeller Foundation hired him to become the head of their Department of Industrial Research to help smooth things over after the massacre by running an “investigation of industrial relations.” I suggest it was all a show, since the only thing I could find that changed as a result of this “investigation” was a reduction in Rockefeller vilification in the media. A few years after this effort for Rockefeller, Mr. Mackenzie King became Prime Minister of Canada. A position he held for a very long time. He was in control of Canada during the same time as, and for even longer than FDR was President of America.

The info on Mackenzie King’s role is not as clearly stated in this document as I would like. I think the information is likely in another book that this investigation put out (there were 11 books that made up this report by the congressional committee, I didn’t read them all...). A search in old newspapers brings up quite a few references to the hiring of Mr. Mackenzie King by Rockefeller. Below is a snippet from this article from The Day Book, June 11, 1915:


We now have a clear view of Mr. W. L. Mackenzie King, imported from Canada by Rockefeller to deal with our social and industrial affairs in connection with the Rockefeller moneybags.

Says Mackenzie:

“The will and conscience of young Mr. Rockefeller is more powerful in Colorado than any other force that can be brought to bear at this time.”

It is a very fine exhibition of boot-licking, and shows that Mackenzie is up to his job. He took no chances by saying that it was the money-pull of young Mr. Rockefeller or that it was Mr. Rockefeller’s social and industrial influence. “The will and conscience” tickles the whole Rockefeller family. It pleases to discover that one has a conscience, even if one has to hire a foreigner to make the discovery.

We suggest the appropriateness of raising the pay of Mackenzie. His employers can afford it and their employee shows that he knows flunkeyism to fare-ye-well. Even the young Rockefeller laborer is worthy of his hire.

This article is quite scathing of both Mackenzie and Rockefeller, though it is difficult to find an article that is not to some extent. Mackenzie King was not the only propaganda artist hired by Rockefeller after the massive fallout from the Ludlow Massacre. He also hired JP Morgan’s publicist Mr. Ivy L. Lee, to help him make nice with the public. I’m sure The Trust’s numerous newspaper connections didn’t hurt either. Mr. Ivy Lee was so well liked by the Rockefellers he became one of the founding members of the Council on Foreign Relations (section 7.) and played a large part in several other The Trust issues that arose (some upcoming).

Rule number one of doing whatever the fuck you want; if no one says anything bad, that means there’s nothing bad to say. So just make sure no one says anything bad. How do you do that? Hire publicists (propagandists) and buy newspapers (owning a few reporters don’t hurt none either).

I am not posting the rest of (23) from the congressional document, not because it isn’t good, or damning, but because it’s longer than it is good or damning. Continuing with (24):

24. The purpose of Mr. Rockefeller to influence the public press is clearly shown by the employment of an experienced publicity expert as a member of his personal staff, and is indicated by his evident interest in the ownership or control of a number of publications, of which we have records dating from the inquiry of his secretary regarding the Pueblo Star Journal in May, 1913, to the extensive conferences regarding a loan of $125,000 to finance The Nation's Business, the organ of the National Chamber of Commerce, which was established and given a semi- official status through the instrumentalities of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor with the sanction of a former president of the United States.

25. The extent of the possible influence of these foundations and private endowments of institutions for education and public service is shown by a large amount of evidence in the possession of the Commission. The following examples may be cited:

a. The adoption of a definite line of policy by the Bureau of Municipal Research of New York to meet the conditions imposed by Mr. Rockefeller in connection with proposed contributions.

b. The abandonment by several colleges and universities of sectarian affiliations and charter clauses relating to religion in order to secure endowments from the Carnegie Corporation and pensions for professors from the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. It would seem conclusive that if an institution will willingly abandon its religious affiliations through the influence of these foundations, it will even more easily conform to their will any other part of its organization or teaching.

26. Apart from these foundations there is developing a degree of control over the teachings of professors in our colleges and universities which constitutes a most serious menace. In June of this year two professors, known throughout their professions as men of great talent and high character, were dropped from the positions they had occupied and no valid reason for such action was made public. Both were witnesses before the Commission, and made statements based upon their own expert knowledge and experience which were given wide publicity. One was a professor of law in a state university, who had acted as counsel for the strikers in Colorado; the other a professor of economics, who had not only been active in fights in behalf of child labor legislation and other progressive measures but had recently published a work com- paring the income paid for property ownership with the income paid for all classes of service.

In the case of the state university we know that the coal operators in conjunction with other business interests had gained the ascendancy and exercised a great degree of control over the former Governor of the State, that the coal operators were bitterly opposed to the professor in question, and that the dismissal of the professor had been publicly urged by the operators upon numerous occasions, and we have the uncontroverted statement of the professor that he had been warned that if he testified before the Commission he would not be reappointed. In the case of the professor in the other university (which, though privately endowed, receives large appropriations from the State) we know that its trustees are interested in corporations which have bitterly opposed progressive legislation, and are men whose incomes are derived from property ownership and not from service.

In addition to pointing out how much control The Company had over the Colorado State Governor, congress is explicitly stating that scholarship is being overly influenced by The Trust (the Rockefeller’s and Carnegie’s in this case). While it is probably coincidence, as these professors were likely culled because of their testimonies at the Congressional Hearing, I will be showing that both the Schools of Law and Economics are especially influenced by these Foundations in the following decades. In fact the evidence suggests that all schools of thought were subject to a remaking in alignment with these Foundations’ designs, but it is interesting that they call out these two areas specifically, even if it is only coincidental here. Think about how much fuckery you can do to an entire population if you dictate what is taught, what books get published, what research can be done, and who is allowed to teach in these two fields. After you think about that, throw History into the mix, then recalculate.

Under the design of their “philanthropic” system, schools get money as long as they conform to the will of those giving it out. They must not teach the “wrong things,” and they must not have teachers that teach the wrong things; where “wrong things” are defined by the Foundations, or rather, their Boards of Directors. Again, I’m not talking about what changes are being demanded here. At this point I don’t care. I am pointing out that the “philanthropy” came with a price tag of full compliance, and Congress knew about it full well all the way back in the beginning.

While closing out this section of the report they make this statement:

As regards the "foundations" created for unlimited general purposes and endowed with enormous resources, their ultimate possibilities are so grave a menace, not only as regards their own activities and influence but also the benumbing effect which they have on private citizens and public bodies, that if they could be clearly differentiated from other forms of voluntary altruistic effort, it would be desirable to recommend their abolition. It is not possible, however, at this time to devise any clear-cut definition upon which they can be differentiated.

“If only they weren’t associated with doing good we could get rid of them, because they have so much potential to do evil” (paraphrased).

Perhaps an association of Foundations with altruism was intentional fuckery. Where better to hide an enemy than in a giant wooden gifted horse?

I will return to Foundations in section 6. I suggest the details of that topic are very important. It's especially important to see what congress had to say about them over the years. I will also get back to the next generation of Rockefellers (Junior’s Juniors), David and Nelson (and minimally JD III, Winthrop, and Laurence) in sections 7, and 8. But first, I want to show what you can do if you own all of the industry, some of the media, and no small part of the legislature of a country like America. I have chosen the order of this report because I am trying very hard to keep this exposure a crescendo. It gets worse better as we go along. When you see how batshit crazy the next part gets by the time I fully peel the banana, keep that statement in mind. It gets worse better the further I go with this report, from beginning, to end (though there are some peaks and valleys). I again ask that you read it in order. It is laid out the way that it is because if you skip to the end, your brain will explode. (I’m not really joking.) But if you read it in sequence, it will all make sense.

Hang on to your hats, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.

Section 5.5: Stick Your Banana Where The Sun Don't Shine Shines

5.5.0 Let's Play Hide The Banana

Despite some of the “crazy” in a few of the things I will be saying in this section, I will be using many secondary (or tertiary) references instead of primary. There are quite a few links that are primary as well, but I do not specifically take note of them in many cases here. This section is a little fast and loose, because it is really intended to set up the context for the following section. I am doing this in the interest of time, and because all of the statements of fact made (though not my interwoven personal opinions about them) are GAT; even though I’m fairly certain none of this has ever been taught in school in any comprehensive way, or ever even seen at all by most people.

I would also like to state clearly; just because I am giving factual information to the best of my ability and am not trying to create context that doesn’t exist, or intentionally leave out important context, doesn’t mean that I have succeeded. In many cases my statements of opinion and usage of rhetoric are based on my larger investigation. A great deal of supporting information for the statements made here is contained within this larger body of work in future sections, but some of it is not. It is essential that you recognize what this section (and this report in general) is, and what it isn't.

This report is an attempt to bring you evidence in as complete a context as I can. It is not Truth. It is not even necessarily what I believe (besides, my beliefs are totally mutable, based on evidence). There will almost certainly be valid rebuttals to many of the things I say in this report. I can’t possibly address them all a priori. That is why the never-ending debate process is so essential in any investigation into the truth of a thing (section 6.). My words here are evidence, opinions, and analysis. In all cases they contain bias. That’s OK, bias is unavoidable, but it must be recognized (section 6.). In some cases I attempt a less biased approach in my rhetoric and/or attempt to address counter arguments before they are presented. In other cases I do not.

In the case of this section I don’t look at counter arguments too much, and perhaps I should. Such an effort takes a great deal more time however, and this section is intended to be an introduction into a body of evidence that is going to be a wild ride. Most of what I say in this section is not considered to be controversial, even though it may be surprising to many. Those few things for which I did find any level of controvery were minor controversies in the interpretation of the facts, not the facts themselves. What I say in the section that follows however, does have some level of controversy. That is why in that section I have gone to great lengths to elaborate my sources.

When considering the potential capacities of something like The Trust, and all the possible conflicts of interest, the sources are as much a part of the evidence as what they say.

Without further hemming and hawing, it's time to take the banana out from the deep, dark, smelly hole it was hidden in, and let it see the light of day.

In 1898 America began the Banana Wars. The pattern of this particular brand of American Interventionism really started many decades before. The Opium Wars is perhaps a better place to start, which includes an exposure of the slave trader and drug smuggler Warren Delano Jr., but there just isn’t enough time to do such a deep dive. I have to start somewhere, and I like bananas, so I’m starting here. Plus it directly involves Rockefeller and his interests. Since Rockefeller is my focus, that makes the Banana Wars a good place to concentrate my attention. These Banana Wars were effectively the taking over of the entire Western Hemisphere (North and South America and the Caribbean islands) by The Trust the United States Government. That these wars were done for the purpose of ensuring that these countries’ resources belonged to The Trust American Corporate Interests is GAT. It’s not (for the most part) controversial. For example, here is what Wikipedia has to say about the origins of the Banana Wars:

Most prominently, the US was advancing economic, political, and military interests in order to maintain its sphere of influence and to secure the Panama Canal (which opened in 1914). The United States had recently built the Panama Canal in order to promote global trade and to project its naval power. US companies, such as the United Fruit Company, had also had financial stakes in the production of bananas, tobacco, sugar cane, and other commodities throughout the Caribbean, Central America and northern South America.

This is what a GAT source says about the start of the Banana Wars. I disagree that the Banana Wars started in any way because of the Panama Canal (though this quote doesn’t say exactly that, it does imply it). The exact same brand of American Interventionism in the Western Hemisphere had a far broader scope, and started long before American Corporations decided to finish the Panama Canal (that’s a whole other can of fuckery worms, see below); nevertheless, I agree that the U.S. was advancing economic and political interests. I assert that all economic interests were The Trust interests, since there was no “economic interest” in the U.S. that was not a part of The Trust. All “political interests” are the interests of politicians, many of whom were members of, or otherwise beholden to The Trust (in addition to what I’ve shown, a great deal more evidence to support that statement will be forthcoming). Military interests? Well, when the military (any military) goes in and takes over a country and installs a new government, what is “the military” but a big huge mafia thug? It’s one thing to protect your home. It’s quite another to kill someone and take theirs, no matter how you justify it. Is that an extreme way of putting it? Well, let me show you some evidence, and hopefully entice you to do more independent research and engage in the debate process, and you can decide for yourself.

I’m not going to “dive too deeply” into the Panama Canal (more like dipping my toe in to check the water), because the Panama Canal is not that important and all of this is GAT. Long time investigative journalist and author Ken Silverstein wrote an article for Vice magazine in 2014 titled, The Law Firm That Works With Oligarchs, Money Launderers, and Dictators where he briefly mentions the origins of the Panama Canal:

Panama has been run by assholes for more than a century. In 1903, the administration of Theodore Roosevelt created the country after bullying Colombia to hand over what was then the province of Panama. Roosevelt acted at the behest of various banking groups, among them J. P. Morgan & Co., which was appointed as the country's official "fiscal agent," in charge of managing $10 million in aid that the US rushed down to the new nation.

American banks helped turn Panama into a financial center, and the country emerged as a tax and money-laundering haven in the 1970s after the government passed some of the world's strictest financial-secrecy rules.

Of course there is a great deal more to be said about this, but this gives an idea of how wet the water is in Panama.

As an aside, but since I’m here: in this same Vice article the author has another quote talking about the purpose of shell companies as money laundering organizations:

[Shell Companies] are "getaway vehicles," says former US Customs investigator Keith Prager, "for bank robbers."

This is important enough to dig deeper on, and I will get back to it in a future section (section 6.0.1).

Anywho, the United States performed these country takeovers under the auspices of installing “democratic” governments; freeing the citizens from the “unruly societies that existed,” and/or the Spanish, British and Portuguese governments that were there. The United States installed friendly “Republics” as governing bodies that were supposedly better for the people. These newly implanted Corporate America aligned governments, primarily in lands that grew banana’s and other tropical fruit, are the origins of the term “Banana Republic.” Yes, “Banana Republic” has an origin other than the place where you buy khaki’s. Surprised the fuck out of me too.

Were these new U. S. installed governments better for the people of the countries? Well, we had to kill many of the locals who wanted to govern themselves in the attempt to install those governments, so I don’t know. Without a doubt however, these freshly installed governments were certainly better for American Corporate interests. In this case, exclusively those corporations belonging to The Trust, who owned all the shipping boats, and all the fruit companies, and who, through these wars, established unhindered access to the shipping lanes and all that wonderful land where banana’s grew aplenty.

The particular Trust doors that initiated the Banana Wars and gained directly from them were the Corporations called The Standard Fruit Company (which became Dole) and The United Fruit Company (which became Chiquita). United Fruit was a subsidiary of the American International Company (AIC is a big player I will discuss later) which had Percy A. Rockefeller on the board (along with multiple other Standard Oil Trust members). They “joined forces” (according to GAT) with the Standard Fruit Company, of which Atlantic Fruit Company was a subsidiary (formerly a subsidiary of United Fruit, but sold because of “anti-trust” laws to another part of the same Fruit Trust), which also had Percy A. Rockefeller on the board. These together were a large part of the Fruit, Sugar, and Tobacco Trusts which were all married up nice and pretty Trust style (shared board members). By this time The Trust had become better hidden, with a more spread out sharing of directors and multiple layers of subsidiaries and shell companies. I suggest they were learning how to create our current Megacorp in lieu of the anti-trust happenings of the time. Because of America “installing democracies,” The Trust also owned, or ended up owning a whole lot of the land in these countries as well. For example, from the above Atlantic Fruit link (Moody’s 1918):


History: Incorporated in Delaware, December 27, 1912., taking over business and assets of Atlantic; Fruit; & Steamship Company. Owns 125,000 acres banana land in Nicaragua; 40,000 acres in Cuba; leased properties in Jamaica and operates in Mexico. Has branch offices in New York City, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Baltimore and agencies in Canada and a number of the Eastern States.

Subsidiaries: Kurringwas Fruit; Company; Escondido Planting Company; Caribbean Transportation Co., Tanamo Estates Co., Sarnia Steamship Corporation, Sibiria Steamship Corporation.

While these couple hundred thousand acres (about 260 sq miles) of land aren’t huge (125,000 acres is less than 0.5% of Nicaragua e.g.), this is just one subsidiary of the Fruit/Tobacco/Sugar Trust. Another substantially larger example of Fruit Trust land holdings, and the impact that such large holdings had on the country will be shown in another section of this report.

The countries America took over (“freed from tyranny”) during the Banana Wars were:

  • Cuba
  • Panama
  • Pueto Rico
  • Dominican Republic
  • Nicaragua
  • Mexico
  • Haiti
  • Honduras
  • Philippines (I know the Philippines aren’t part of “the America’s,” but it was still a part of the thing.)
  • China (sorta, see below)

This policy of American Interventionism was explicitly stated in the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 which said basically that Europe needed to stay out of the affairs of the America’s. All sorts of wars happened to “kick Europe out of our hemisphere,” under the auspices of “freeing the people from European colonial tyranny” (though in many cases it was actually “freeing the people from the tyranny of ruling themselves”). The effect of these wars was the installation of United States friendly governments and/or the increase of lands for the U.S.. That sounds great (or at least not “that bad”), until you read the fine print. The real effect was almost exclusively the increase of American Corporate (The Trust) lands and control. In other words, replace “United States” and “U.S.” in the sentence above with “United States Corporations” or “The Trust” and the sentence aligns with the evidence. The citizens of the countries were, as far as I can find, never better off for the effort. My minimal delving into their histories (a couple cases explored in a future section) has found mostly increased shittiness across the board because of what America did there. In some cases the countries were completely devastated, except of course on the massive swaths of land owned by The Trust. The large numbers of the countries denizens America's Navy and Marines had to kill to accomplish these numerous coups are barely a footnote in history.

In 1904, as the Banana wars were really taking off, Theodore Roosevelt, in his State of the Union address (SOTU) added an explicit statement of U. S. policy regarding an “upgrade” to the Monroe Doctrine. This article, published by Brown University, quotes the relevant part of the 1904 SOTU (found in complete form here). It says:

In 1904 Theodore Roosevelt crafted a substantial amendment to the Monroe Doctrine, asserting the right of the United States to interfere in the economic affairs of small states of Central America and the Caribbean if they were unable to pay their foreign debts. Designed to block European powers’ attempts to collect international debts through direct military intervention, the policy, which became known as “Dollar Diplomacy” under President William Howard Taft, led the U.S. government to intervene in Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama.

The rhetoric used in Roosevelt’s SOTU is, in my opinion, quite alarming. Granted, I am armed with a hindsight of a history that skews how I see the words to fit them into the evidence. YMMV. Nevertheless, his rhetoric is disturbing; especially given that, from all I have seen, Roosevelt was anything but a “Trust Buster” as official history proclaims him to be. In fact, just like Rockefeller’s tripling of assets immediately after his Trust was “busted,” every move made against The Trust seems to have made it stronger; including every one by Teddy (more examples coming). Regardless, let me break down a couple examples of what I consider to be disturbing rhetoric of Roosevelt’s Corollary from his SOTU:

If a nation shows that it knows how to act with reasonable efficiency and decency in social and political matters, if it keeps order and pays its obligations, it need fear no interference from the United States.

“If you can behave yourself, according to our definition, we won’t come in and kill you and install our own regime” (paraphrased). That’s not only what he’s saying, it’s what happened. It’s what the Banana Wars were. Also notice he speaks specifically about “paying their obligations.” Who do you think they were indebted to? (Hint, it wasn’t the government.)

I’ll give some examples of the specific “obligations” of some of these countries, and the conditions and sources of their loans in Part 3.

Chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society, may in America, as elsewhere, ultimately require intervention by some civilized nation, and in the Western Hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence, to the exercise of an international police power.

The U.S. is declaring itself an international police power, and it will determine, by itself, who needs policing. Who controls this international police power? I suggest the best way to answer that may be to ask; who benefits by every single one of their actions?

The above quote also states “wrongdoing or impotence.” This statement says explicitly, “If we don’t think you are a ‘good enough country,’ we won’t let you govern yourselves. We will instead install a government of our choosing.” I may be dramatizing it a little, but that is effectively exactly what it says. If the proclaimer of such a statement has good intentions, it’s not that bad. If they don’t, it’s nothing short of crimes against humanity. Regardless of the goodness or badness of the intentions, the point is, it is stating explicitly America’s “Right” to take over other countries if they aren’t good enough by the U.S. government’s estimation (or perhaps just Teddy's estimation, or perhaps those who influence him). We aren’t talking about defending ourselves here. No one is attacking us. No one is threatening us. This is straight up making judgments of a countries right to govern itself. When you look at the justifications for these wars with a lens that isn’t “they must have had a good reason,” an appalling story unfolds.

Our interests and those of our southern neighbors are in reality identical.

And if they aren’t, we will make sure they are. That’s not just rhetoric, that’s what happened.

They have great natural riches, and if within their borders the reign of law and justice obtains, prosperity is sure to come to them.

They have great natural riches, like banana’s. We like banana’s. We are coming for your banana’s. Just give us a reason. Any reason. If you don’t give us a reason, we will make one up. We really like banana’s. When we take it, we will hide that we took it. WE LOVE TO HIDE THE BANANA!

It’s not just rhetoric when I say “we will make [a reason] up.” It happens all the time. In the case of the Banana Wars and several other wars of the 20th century, such occurrences of contrived entry are GAT (as presented in several of the links I have provided above, and will be shown explicitly for other wars in upcoming sections).

In asserting the Monroe Doctrine, in taking such steps as we have taken in regard to Cuba, Venezuela, and Panama, and in endeavoring to circumscribe the theater of war in the Far East, and to secure the open door in China, we have acted in our own interest as well as in the interest of humanity at large.

Oh ya, I didn’t mention that time that America invaded China (to protect Rockefeller's interests to counter the Boxer Rebellion) and took control of Peking (AKA Beijing AKA the capitol of China), where a decade later Rockefeller started his Chinese “Americanized” education school and medical school, and...

I’ll finish that sentence later.

This Chinese invasion and the Opium Wars that preceded it (1840s to 1860s) weren’t really done by “America” per se. It was really the whole western world. I haven't done a deep dive into these wars yet, but at the least the Opium Wars were engaged by Great Britain, France, Russia and the United States against China, forcing China to buy these powers' opium. For the Boxer Rebellion in 1899ish they sent an Eight Nation Army against China (because a Seven Nation Army can't really hold anyone back). This ensured China remained under the control of American and European Corporate interests.

These wars in China in the 19th and 20th centuries were kinda really the first World Wars. I don’t think it counts as a “World War” because it was the whole western world invading China (is Russia really “western?”). I guess if there’s only one country defending itself against the rest of the world it’s not a real World War, no matter how many countries are involved or how many people are killed. In case you were wondering, China lost soundly every time; forced to give up it’s land and resources to The Trust. If one does consider these Chinese invasions as “World Wars,” this reckoning would put the suppression of the Boxer Rebellion as WWIII. In other words, by this reasoning, WWIII ended over a century ago. We have nothing to worry about!

"WWI" (AKA the First Opium War) occurred because the British East India Trading Company (an entryway into the European version of “The Trust”), aligned with American Corporate interests and declared war, through the British government, on China because China wanted to stop having a nation of drug addicts. The American/European SuperTrust insisted that opium was the greatest thing for China because they wanted to take all of China’s gold! it promoted “free trade!”

Crazy thought! Maybe all wars are about "free trade?"


I have to stop. There is just too much. Once you start digging into the British East India Trading Company, or worse, the Dutch East India Company (AKA the VOC) that preceded it, it starts to get real ugly. These organizations were basically corporate governments, which means they were corporations, had government decision powers (outside of their country at least, probably inside as well), and ran the armies/navy's. They basically took over the world. They were the Banks, the entire Merchant system, and the economic decision makers. They ran the slave trades, the drug trades, and all trade really, covering the entire planet. They claimed whatever land they wanted, and had the money and armies to back up their claims. They owned the world. The Dutch East India Company is declared to be the most valuable corporation to ever exist, estimated to be valued at over $8 Trillion dollars in 2020 dollars (during a stock manipulation bubble). They also created the first stock market, and a couple years later, the first stock market fuckery (short selling), determining which companies live, and which die in their "free market economy" experiment. I may get back to them in part three when I talk about that topic. For now, I’m going to stay focused on the small part I am disclosing; the Rockefeller-Morgan part of the Trust. I assert that everything I have stated in this section appears to be all GAT. Perhaps not always stated quite so dramatically, but GAT nonetheless. Corroborating evidence for some of the topics mentioned above will be stated more explicitly in the following sections, and some will be presented later in this report.

When the theme is both "crescendo" and "connectivity of interests" by necessity many topics will be revisted (in some cases numerous times).

Anyways, where was I?

Ah yes, I was hiding the banana.

5.5.1 Every Mega-Billionaire With A Plan To Take Over The World Needs A Good Butler

Batman and his butler, Alfred. Also trying to grab screen time in this photo is someone of absolutely no consequence whatsoever.

One of the major players in the Banana Wars was Major General Smedley Butler. I doubt you’ve ever heard his name before. He’s the youngest marine ever to attain the rank of Major General. He’s the only person to have been given both the Medal of Honor twice and the USMC Brevet Medal (along with at least 13 other medals including 5 for heroism). He was instrumental in our takeover of Oriental interests (the real “WWIII” mentioned above along with our taking of the Philippines), the Mexican Revolution, where we invaded Mexico to set up a government aligned with “our” interests, as well as being a leader in many of the Banana Wars. He was also instrumental in the follow up war in China in 1927 to again, protect American Corporate interests.

While he was kinda a big deal in like 10 different wars during the first 30+ years of the last century, that’s not really a reason you should have heard of him. You should have heard of him because, at least according to historical documents (Senate Investigation reports, as you will see), he did quite possibly the most important thing that’s ever been done in American history. He stopped an American Fascist Coup by The Trust in 1934, intended to be the parallel to similar occurrences (which The Trust also funded) in Germany (Hitler) and Italy (Mussolini).

At least that’s what the Dec. 1934 McCormack-Dickstein Senate Committee Report on Un-American Activities said (linked later).

In 1934 Gen. Smedley Butler, a “whistle blower,” came forward and told the Senate that the Morgan’s and other members of The Trust were plotting a coup to install a Fascist Government in the United States that would support their massive Eugenics campaign (section 6.), and be more friendly to their interests. This fantastic reveal was later called the Business Plot. The McCormack-Dickstein Commission followed directly on the heels of another very interesting investigation called the Pecora Commission, or The Senate Committee on Banking and Currency, which was at that time investigating the cause of the Wall Street Crash of 1929 (that particularly wonderful act of fuckery will be revisited in Part 3).

5.5.2 Welcome To The Machine: Part 1, Finkle Is Einhorn (1934 Edition)

Before I get to Gen. Butler let me briefly look closer at the Pecora investigation and expose Megacorp, 1934 style. (I know, big bomb, no explosion yet. Big Badda Boom coming soon, I promise.) Prior to Gen. Butler joining in the fray, the Pecora investigation had already turned up quite a few interesting things about The Trust. Like, it completely exposed Megacorp… again, because apparently when it was exposed 20 years before, the exposure didn’t take. Nor did it take the 10 years before that, or the 10 years before that, or the 10 years before that, or the 10 years before that.

Here is an example of the fallout from the Pecora Commission from Newspapers of the time:

From The Indianapolis Times, May 27, 1933.


He Has a Finger in Everything You Do, Everything You Buy.

This article goes on to tell a story of one fictitious person (“the visitor”) explaining to another (John Doe) how convoluted this spider web of ownership goes. It’s a longish story, because, you know, The Trust owns everything (in this case focusing on just the Morgans), but here are a few excerpts that show interesting connections:

When Mr. Doe had returned from the pay telephone out in the hall, the visitor smiled and said, “Another nickel for Mr. Morgan.”

“What do you mean?”

“Merely that the House of Morgan has an important interest in the American Telephone & Telegraph Co., which controls thirty-one operating companies, including the New York Telephone Co., Morgan partners have given up the seats on the A. T. & T. board.”

“Two of them still sit, however on the International Telephone & Telegraph Co. which controls operating companies in Spain, Austria, The Argentine, England, Poland, Chile, Turkey, Germany, China, Japan and a map of other countries.”

I just wanted to give another hint that this is not an “American” thing. While I have been focused on America, because it is low hanging fruit, I want to impress upon you that the evidence suggests The Trust is the whole world, and it has been for a very long time. There is more evidence in this report to support that, but I will put these connections under scrutiny in Part 3.

“...Come on and I’ll drive you down. You can tell me some more on the way.”

“What kind of a car?” asked the visitor.

“A 1925 Chevrolet,” grinned Mr. Doe, “but in rattling good condition.”

“When better cars are built,” grinned the visitor in turn, “Mr. Morgan will build them.”

“What, even my auto?”

“Why certainly. The House of Morgan has owned half of General Motors ever since W. C. Durant, the founder, was ousted in 1920. The Du Pont Corporation owns the other half.

Through associations with the Du Ponts the House of Morgan is in close touch with a vast array of specialized industries, including cellophane and gunpowder.”

I use this quote to show the clear, deep connection to the Du Ponts, a fundamental part of the Chemical and Pharmaceutical Trust.

“You mean they own that much money,” muttered Mr. Doe.

“Not at all,” said the visitor. “You don’t have to own much stock to be a director of a great corporation.

“Take the United States Steel Corporation, which J. P. Morgan the elder founded. Professors Berle and Means have shown that in 1927 Mr. Morgan sat on the board by owning only 901 shares of the stock. There was one director on the board – J. S. Phipps – who owned only one share.”

I want to make clear, that personal stock ownership was almost completely irrelevant by this point in time (1930s), after the clear and total establishment of The Trust. Remember, as Mr. Nelson Rockefeller said:

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

Once The Trust was fully established with its Corporate Chains, Trusts and Foundations (section 6.), as it had been by the 1910s, the person whose name was on the stock certificate was irrelevant (see Part 1 of this report on Megacorp). This is just one example of how they drew back from the public view. It seems that every time they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar, they got their newspapers to memory hole it, and they built better “cookie grabbing” remote controls (hiding behind what we call “regulatory laws”). As you really dig into the laws designed to stop The Trust, you see that they all actually help them achieve their goals. It’s a crazy ‘ole world. Of course I have only barely touched on some of these mechanisms so far, and I haven’t connected it to the present very much yet, but a) this isn’t really intended to be a full exposure and b) there is a whole lot more to come.

The picture below is a diagram from The Daily Worker, March 04, 1933. The real origins of this newspaper are interesting, but that gets into Voldemort territory (and I haven’t really dug into controlled opposition yet (section 8.)), so don’t worry about that right now. The important part is the diagram, which was created from information extracted from the Pecora Commission report.

Here once again, printed in these random newspapers is: Welcome To The Machine: Part 1, Finkle Is Einhorn. Note that it also implicates William H. Woodin, FDR’s Secretary of the Treasury at the time, as a key member of The Trust. Unfortunately Mr. Woodin took ill towards the end of this investigation and died the day before it completed.

5.5.3 Big Badda Boom

I tried to find the original source documents for the McCormack-Dickstein Committee hearings. On the government archives all of the document pages say:

This Series contains records, some of which may not be available online.

By which they mean, “all of which are not available online.”

It also gives a “content warning.”

Potentially Harmful Content Alert: See NARA’s Statement

Thank you for trying to protect me from that awful primary sourced evidence stuff. Apparently if I actually go there (in D.C.) I can maybe read them.

Not that I couldn’t find any documents, but finding the documents on official government websites may be impossible. Since this report is about what people say themselves (for the really important things), not finding the original source document for this section is very disappointing. However, since the existence and (most of the) content of these documents is all GAT (even though no one you know has ever heard of it), I will give myself a pass on this one. I will link and vet several of the solid secondary sources I have found.

One of the sources I used for this section is a book titled The Plot To Seize The White House, Jules Archer, 1973. I like this source because it is often cited, it uses numerous quotes and sources, and it (reportedly; page xi/11) includes the authors personal interviews with members of Gen. Butler’s family, John W. McCormack, who was the head of the Senate Investigation (Investigation of Un-American Activities) that looked into it in 1934-35, Gen. David M. Shoup who served under Gen. Butler in the Chinese Intervention (1927-1928), and John L. Spivak, who, it is reported, got access to the unaltered report and wrote articles about it in 1935. While I think Mr. Archer gets quite a few things wrong about the economics of the time, and specifically FDR’s policies (which will be discussed in Part 3), I consider this to be a solid source for the factual topics (not the speculative rhetoric) for the reasons listed above. Nevertheless, since I can’t find the original documents, take it for what it is. I will be using quotes from this book where the book quotes the original documents. I will also show where the quotes exist in this document, which states it is a transcript of the original preliminary report (which includes some testimonies). That document also links to what appear to be photocopies of the original senate preliminary report documents (1, 2, 3). I can’t find the final report, which came out (I think) in 1935 (or maybe 1939?). In either case, the quotes of all of those sources agree as far as I have looked, so it is sufficient for now.

Note that some of the testimony is from the report by John L. Spivak. It is reportedly removed testimony from the official version released by the Senate Committee. Archer signifies this testimony with a dagger symbol (†). The evidence to justify it’s inclusion will be shown towards the end. It's inclusion is validated to me, beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e. after investigation, I have no reason left to doubt it). YMMV.

5.5.3.a The Legion Of Boom

I will begin this mess of (completely not taught) history with the American Legion. Prior to the final edit this American Legion intro had been just a couple paragraphs. As I was putting it into the website I had to fill in a detail (an insufficiently sourced claim I had made). That detail became an entire section. That’s how this investigation goes. It doesn’t end. The amount of supporting evidence is overwhelming. So much more than I am showing you here. As it is, “The Legion” is placed as a subsection that kinda interrupts the flow of my Boomie. In the interest of time, I decided to just interject it into the middle of Big Badda Boom, which will continue below.

The American Legion was a group of veterans who banded together to create a corporation. Though in actuality, the "rank and file" veterans became members of a corporation that was created for them. They joined the Legion, reportedly, because they were being treated like shit by the government with regards to pay and reintegration into society after the numerous Banana Wars (and others, like WWI, etc.). I read many instances of The Trust’s influences over (and largely the creation of) the American Legion in my investigation (some corroborating evidence in this and later sections), and indeed most of the lead in to Mr. Archer’s story is about that, but what he says about them on page 13/24 is sufficient as an intro to his take on it:

The average veteran who joined the Legion in the 1920’s had been unaware that big-business men were backing it to use it as a strikebreaking agency. When workers struck against wage cuts, Legion posts were informed that the strikers were Communists trying to create national chaos so that the Reds could take over. Legionnaires were given baseball bats to break up strikes and civil rights demonstrations. The American Civil Liberties Union later reported, “Of the forces most active in attacking civil rights, the American Legion led the field.”

He says the American Legion was created to break strikes?!? For sure The Trust had a long history of doing whatever they could to break the unions and bust organized strikes (by any means necessary, as shown previously). Breaking strikes was very important. Previously they kept getting into trouble for using hired thugs (deputized “detective agencies”). I only elaborated the one. There were many such instances. I guess using war veterans was better for PR. Thanks Mr. Ivy! It also has the added benefit of looking like it's not the corporations doing it.

Because I thought it was an important assertion, I looked for evidence to support the idea that one of the Legions main functions was to break unions and bust strikes. I found an article written by Arthur Warner in 1921 titled The Truth About The American Legion. It names the Legion as a strictly "anti-Communist" movement, designed to be "the fourth branch of government" as he states in his introduction:

By the Constitution of the United States three branches of government were established: the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. In the last two years a fourth has been setup: the American Legion. Organized ostensibly to continue the friendships that developed in the fighting forces and to advance the legitimate interests of former service men, the Legion has grown away from that into a super-government. It gives orders to public officers and is fearfully consulted by them; it is accorded quasi-official standing through the privilege of occupying government buildings, as in New York City where it enjoys commodious offices in the Hall of Records, or in Arkansas where the old State House at Little Rock was turned over to it; it has received from the War Department in advance of publication the so-called “slacker lists,’’ ostensibly to rectify errors, but with possibilities of abuse that can readily be imagined; it has established a censorship of public meetings and by actual or threatened violence suppresses freedom of speech; it is attempting o dictate the instruction in our public schools and pass upon the qualifications of the teachers although nominally non-political, it has actually sponsored a host of bigoted and repressive laws and policies, impeding the return of the rest of the community to a more normal existence. Elsewhere, we are slowly yet noticeably demobilizing our intolerant 100 per centism, deflating our hysterical super-patriotism. Not so the American Legion, which is attempting to perpetuate the war psychology as its contribution to peace.

The author then goes on to describe some pretty heinous crimes committed by the Legion, including a great deal of anti-Communist, and anti-Socialist violence (destruction of property, criminal assault, murders, etc.). On the second page he mentions union busting:

Interference with socialist meetings reached such a stage toward the end of 1919 that in December a letter was sent from the national office in Chicago to Franklin D’Olier, then national commander of the Legion, in which it was said:

In city after city, delegations from the local Legion post would wait on the mayor and tell him that if the meeting scheduled for that town were not called off there would be bloodshed and murder…. In other instances Legion posts have banded themselves together to prevent the organization of labor unions, such as in the case of the steel workers in Waukegan, Illinois, and the case of Bogalusa, Louisiana where Legionaries murdered four union men for crimes of wanting to organize a labor union.

There is a fair bit of evidence that the American Legion was designed to be an “anti-Communist” group from the beginning. For example, from For God & Country: The American Legion, 1919-1941 by William Pencak, 1989 (cover page):

Opposing Communism was a major focus for the group, which played a central role in the red scare of 1919 and 1920. Legionnaires routinely raided Communist party headquarters around the nation and thwarted those who would speak for the American Socialist party. The Legion’s anti-communist activity continued unabated into the thirties.

The link above shows 69 statements of “Communism” found within the book. Looking over a few briefly they are all strictly supportive of the Legion being purposefully anti-Communist. I don’t really want to get into that further, because everything I look at supports the assertion. The Legion was designed to “fight the commies by any means necessary” starting in 1919. Mr. Pencak also corroborates the anti-Union actions as a substantial portion of the Legion’s activities (one of several examples). The Unions at the time were painted as Communist. Thus if you are anti-Communist, being anti-Union follows naturally. I assert there is some truth to the Unions being pro-Communist; however, that’s not yet a place I want to go.

There were, at the time, according to my research, two main schools of thought percolating on the world stage at the time. There were the Communists and the “anti-Communists,” which counted among their top leadership, the Fascists. Both Communism and Fascism have their roots in Socialism (the fine print is virtually identical in both). Obviously that’s a statement that requires a great deal of evidential support to even suggest, since the common belief is something so much different. I’ll be getting back to that one later.

I’m not trying to suggest that all people were on the Communist or Fascist train (i.e. not everyone, or even a majority, wanted some form of Socialism). I’m not saying that at all. People thought whatever they thought, and I have found every possible color of views in my research, as would be expected. My research suggests “the best path for society as a whole” was a very hot topic at the time, all across the world; I think due in no small part to the scars left by World War I. However, Communist vs. Fascist was prevalent among the schools of thought. I think the reason that these two held so much weight is much more interesting (and connected) than it may appear to be, but again, I’ll get back to that later.

In Mussolini and Fascism: The View from America, authored by John Patrick Diggins, he states that the National Commander of the American Legion at the time (1923 in this case), Alvin Owsley...

invited Mussolini to attend the San Francisco Legionnaire convention in 1923. Il Duce cordially declined, but Owsley, unrebuffed, proudly pronounced:

“If ever needed, the American Legion stands ready to protect our country’s institutions and ideals as the Fascisti dealt with the destructionists who menaced Italy.”

“By taking over the government?” he was asked.

“Exactly that,” he replied. “The American Legion is fighting every element that threatens our democratic governement – soviets, anarchists, I.W.W., revolutionary socialists and every other ‘red.’... Do not forget that the Fascisti are to Italy what the American Legion is to the United States.”

Note: Mr. Diggins cites “Norman Hapgood, Professional Patriots (New York, 1928), pp. 61-62.” Mr. Hapgood cites “an interview with the Newspaper Enterprise Association,” Jan 1923. I have not spent the time necessary to track down Mr. Hapgood’s source to the original to corroborate context. It seems to be GAT, and not that important.

Of note, Mr. Owsley was married to Lucy Ball, daughter of Frank Ball, one of five Ball brothers, creators of “Ball Mason Jars” (still made today) who were, I will assert without further proof (though there is plenty in the “Ball brothers” link provided if you dig), purely The Trust; with direct ties to Rockefeller/Morgan et al. Mr. Owsley was also a campaign speaker for FDR, and served as his diplomat to Romania, Ireland, and Denmark during the 1930s. He was later VP for Daddy-in-law’s Glass Corp. I’m not going to dig further on Owsley, it’s not important. I just want to show connections. There will be many.

I’m not suggesting that everyone who was part of the American Legion was pro-Fascist, or even anti-Communist. I think it is likely the people, the Veterans, who made up the membership of the Legion, the rank and file, were likely there because the Legion was intended to help them. That’s what it said on the brochure, and they needed the help. The government did seem to be treating them like dirty laundry that was better burned than cleaned.

Similarly, with regard to my statement above about “pro-Communist attitudes in Unions,” again, I think most people who joined the Unions just wanted better working conditions. I think the members of both of these organizations just wanted to make their own particular corner of the world a better place. When I make these statements about these organizations I am speaking strictly about the leadership. The evidence I am showing is about the leadership. If I show evidence that the American Legion had pro-Fascist leadership and numerous ties to The Trust (money and people), or, if I were to, hypothetically speaking, later in this report, show evidence that the Unions had pro-Communist leadership and ties to The Trust (money and people), that in no way should suggest anything about the members of either of those groups and their intentions. I am looking at the people who run the show. I’m following their money trails. I’m looking at who benefits. While occasionally the Veterans at large benefited from actions by the Legion, or union members occasionally benefited from AFL-CIO activity, the members are not the main beneficiaries of these groups respective activities. In all of my research, I always find only one true beneficiary. In the end, The House Always Wins (section 5.3.8).

The primary purpose of this subsection is to provide evidence that supports the assertions that there existed, at the top level, and from the beginning, both anti-Communist and pro-Fascists attitudes in the Legion. I also wanted to show the link between the leadership of the Legion, the pro-Facists, and The Trust (via Mr. Owsley). It’s not really what I would consider a “big deal” connection. It’s more like, I was looking at this tree, I saw the low hanging fruit, and I picked it. There are bigger banana’s in that bunch, don’t worry.

5.5.3 (cont): Bigger and Badda’er Boomier Booms.

Now back to your regularly scheduled mind blown.

Going back to the previous section, most of the story told here comes from the book I linked above (and here again) The Plot To Seize The White House, by Jules Archer. Unless otherwise noted, the quotes in this section come from that book. The quotes that are also found in the Committee Report will have the page number from that document listed along side it’s book citing page number.

Gerald (Jerry) MacGuire wrote a manifesto about corporate corruption in the sports industry was a bond salesman for Grayson Murphy & Company and a member of the Connecticut American Legion. He was the primary interface between the Legion leadership, and our soon to be favorite Butler (that no one has ever heard of), Steve Rogers Smedley. Mr. MacGuire persistently attempted to persuade Gen. Butler to assist in this Business Plot (Fascist Coup); playing on his work with veteran affairs, and his consistent speaking out against the corporate leadership of the American Legion. His “angle” was to get Butler to convince the veteran’s to support a return to the Gold Standard, because the lack of monies for the solders was a major sticking point between the government and the veterans (how that would help will make more sense when I cover the details of FDR's policies to remove the Gold Standard in Part 3). In addition, Gen. Butler was, by popular account, a very stand up guy. Archer’s book suggests he was not a corruptible person, and it should have been obvious, however MacGuire was apparently quite persistent. For over a year he was attempting to persuade Gen. Butler to take part in this plan.

If Gen. Butler was so incorruptible however, why would they approach him so persistently? Archer says (page 26/38):

MacGuire again urged Butler to head the paramilitary army. The scale of the plot, as it was unfolding to him, took Butler's breath away. It occurred to him now that MacGuire's backers had been contemplating the creation of a Fascist veterans' army at the time MacGuire had first approached him to "get the soldiers together" behind their gold-standard campaign. That explained why MacGuire had wooed him so persistently, despite the general's obvious reluctance and outbursts of temper when patriotic indignation overcame his attempts to play along and learn what the plotters were up to.

No false modesty prevented Butler from recognizing that he was perhaps the best-known, and certainly the most popular and charismatic, military figure in the United States. He also suited the plotters' plans perfectly because he was noted for a brilliant, hardhitting style of oratory that, they undoubtedly reasoned, could be put to the service of demagoguery in the same spell binding way Hitler and Mussolini had magnetized millions into following them. His rasping voice and fiery spirit captured audiences and held them hypnotized.

His reputation for fearless honesty, for speaking his mind bluntly no matter whose corns he trod on, also made him the ideal candidate to sell the plotters' propaganda to the nation's veterans, if he could be persuaded to view their scheme as ultrapatriotic. A combination of these reasons had unquestionably inspired Jerry MacGuire's insistent campaign to win him as the head of the putsch. It explained why MacGuire had refused to lake No for an answer, counting on his persuasive powers as a bond salesman to break down Butler's sales resistance by camouflaging the raw nature of the conspiracy, and tempting him into the plot with the biggest bribe ever offered to any American. The opportunity to become the first dictator of the United States. In a word, MacGuire was convinced that with Smedley Butler as their Man on the White Horse, the plotters would have their greatest chance of success.

Smedley’s popularity is no idle boast. A search of Smedley Butler (a rather unique name) gets quite a few hits when limiting the search from 1898 (when he joined the marines) to 1933 (the year before any of this SHTF). A search from 1934 (SHTF) to 1940 (when he died) gets a fair number of hits as well though, substantially fewer than previously when he was a perpetual military hero. Looking through the hits above, he seems to be incredibly popular; photographed with every President, etc.. Reading about him in the reports, I get the feeling that if there is a real life person who inspired the Captain America character, it was probably Smedley Butler.

He also was a major force in the Banana War regime changes, and the protection of corporate interests for 30 years. At the time when he was approached in 1933/34, his primary efforts were aimed at helping veterans get their fair shake. He was the voice for them. Even though he was apparently reluctant about any activity that harmed America (such as a Fascist coup), he really was an ideal choice if they could corrupt, coerce, convince him. The PTB were offering him millions of dollars and King of the United States (not really, that job was taken, but the Front Man (Dictator) position was on the table), and all he had to do was put the world back on the gold standard so the veterans could get real money with their bonds... It’s all about the veterans!

Even better, if he led them in a coup to install a Fascist Government, he would be working to save Democracy and the Constitution!

Page 27/39:

Convinced that at last he was on the verge of winning the general's support, [Jerry] MacGuire eagerly sought to impress him with the caliber of the influential movers and shakers of America who were involved in the plot. He revealed that in Paris he had made his headquarters at the offices of Morgan and Hodges. Butler tried to conceal his astonishment. There was only one Morgan in the financial world-J. P. Morgan and Company. MacGuire left no doubt in his mind that the nation's biggest financiers were, indeed, involved. According to the bond salesman, there had been a meeting in Paris to decide upon the selection of the man to head the superorganization. MacGuire and his group had held out for Butler, but the Morgan interests distrusted the general as "too radical," preferring Douglas MacArthur instead.

MacArthur's term as Chief of Staff expired in November, and the Morgan interests felt that if Roosevelt failed to reappoint him, he would be bitter enough to accept their offer. Butler observed that MacArthur would be likely to have difficulty in lining up veterans behind him, because his dispersion of the Bonus Army had made him highly unpopular.

MacGuire indicated that the Morgan coterie's second choice was Hanford MacNider, an Iowa manufacturer who was a former commander of the American Legion. But MacGuire emphasized that his own group was still insisting that Butler was the only military leader in the country capable of rallying the veterans behind him. The Morgan interests had acknowledged Butler's immense prestige and popularity, he revealed, but were apprehensive that as head of the paramilitary force Butler might lead it in the "wrong direction."

Butler observed that MacNider would have no more popular appeal than MacArthur because he had gone on record as opposing the bonus. MacGuire then revealed that MacNider would be cued to change his stand, and would do so. Butler remembered this prediction when, three weeks later, MacNider suddenly reversed his position and came out in support of the bonus.

If Butler could not be persuaded to head the new superorganization, MacGuire said, the offer would definitely be made to MacArthur, whether or not the latter was reappointed Chief of Staff. He confided that there would be an administration fight over MacArthur's reappointment, but he would get it because he was the son-in-law of Philadelphian Edward T. Stotesbury, a Morgan partner.

It was a bold prediction, since never before in American history had a Chief of Staff been allowed to succeed himself. Butler was all the more startled and impressed with MacGuire's sources of information when his prediction came true several months later...

Pressed for more information about the new superorganization, MacGuire told Butler that it would be described publicly as a society "to maintain the Constitution." Butler observed dryly that the Constitution did not seem to be in any grave danger, then he bluntly asked what MacGuire's stake was in the enterprise. MacGuire shrugged that he was a businessman, and besides, he, his wife, and his children had enjoyed a long, expensive stay in Europe, courtesy of his backers.

Taking his leave, MacGuire said that he was going to Miami to agitate again for the gold standard, as well as to get the new paramilitary organization rolling. He promised to contact Butler again after the Legion convention.

After he had gone, the bemused general was almost tempted to dismiss the whole plot as the product of a disordered imagination-his or MacGuire's. But a grim sense of foreboding told him that he was in the eye of a gathering storm.

There were too many things that MacGuire had told him that rang true, and could not possibly have been invented. Even as Butler brooded over the affair and wondered what to do about it, another of MacGuire's uncannily accurate predictions materialized two weeks after their talk.

In September, 1934, the press announced the formation of a new organization, the American Liberty League, by discontented captains of industry and finance. They announced their objectives as "to combat radicalism, to teach the necessity of respect for the rights of persons and property, and generally to foster free private enterprise."

Denouncing the New Deal, they attacked Roosevelt for "fomenting class hatred" by using such terms as "unscrupulous money changers," "economic royalists," and "the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties."

Butler's eyes widened when he read that the treasurer of the American Liberty League was none other than MacGuire's own boss, Grayson M.-P. Murphy, and one of its financiers was Robert S. Clark. Heading and directing the organization were Du Pont and J. P. Morgan and Company men. Morgan attorney John W. Davis was a member of the National Executive Committee-the same Davis that Clark had identified as author of the gold-standard speech MacGuire had tried to get Butler to make to the American Legion convention in Chicago.

Heavy contributors to the American Liberty League included the Pitcairn family (Pittsburgh Plate Glass), Andrew W. Mellon Associates, Rockefeller Associates, E. F. Hutton Associates, William S. Knudsen (General Motors), and the Pew family (Sun Oil Associates). J. Howard Pew, longtime friend and supporter of Robert Welch, who later founded the John Birch Society, was a generous patron, along with other members of the Pew family, of extremist right-wing causes. Other directors of the league included A1 Smith and John J. Raskob.

Butler was stunned by this fulfillment of MacGuire's prediction. As he later testified, just at the time MacGuire had said it would, the American Liberty League had appeared and was all that MacGuire had said it would be. And it was obviously no coincidence that Grayson M.-P. Murphy, Robert S. Clark, and the Morgan interests were deeply involved.

Even yet another of MacGuire's predictions came true a fortnight later, when A1 Smith published a scathing attack on the New Deal in the New Outlook, breaking publicly with the President over economic policies.

If Butler had had any lingering doubts about the authenticity of MacGuire's claim to have inside knowledge of what American big-business leaders were up to, the appearance of the American Liberty League on schedule, and A1 Smith's break with the White House, convinced him that MacGuire's revelations of a plot to seize the White House were no crackpot's fantasy. MacGuire had called the shots every time.

Butler was now genuinely alarmed. For the first time it dawned upon him that if the American Liberty League was, indeed, the "superorganization" behind the plot that it seemed to be, the country's freedom was in genuine peril. Such money and power as the men behind the League possessed could easily mobilize a thinly disguised Fascist army from the ranks of jobless, embittered veterans and do what Mussolini had done in Italy with the financial support of the Italian plutocracy.

In 1927 Gen. Butler had gone back to China in the Peking (Beijing)/Tientsin area. Like the previous time, he went to protect American Corporate interests from those pesky Chinese that tried to throw them out of their country. Again. Like the Boxer Rebellion nearly 30 years earlier, many of the same European countries had also sent their armies to protect their corporate interests as well. One big happy International Trusting family; can’t let the Chinese have China. That would be bad for business.

Page 101/112:

The author questioned General Shoup about the Marines' mission in China in 1927-1928 "I would say it was pretty hard to say who we were supporting there," he replied. "It was just our presence there that was the thing. I heard no solid reason for why we were being sent; we were just told we were going to fight the Chinese. We didn't know what the mission was. But we landed at the Standard Oil docks and lived in Standard Oil compounds and were ready to protect Standard Oil's investment. I wondered at the time if our government would put all these Marines in a position of danger, where they might sacrifice their lives in defense of Standard Oil. Later I discovered that of course it would, and did. It was only some years later that I learned that General Butler had been thinking the same way. I thought I had been alone in suspecting it."

Towards the end of his career, Gen. Butler had become an advocate for peace (i.e. not going to fight someone else’s war), but he felt that forced disarmament of the population and the nation in a hostile world was foolish. However, there were those who were advocating for American disarmament. This push for disarmament was occurring in the propaganda after Hitler and Mussolini had already established their respective dictatorships and were gaining in power. This disarmament was being pushed by the League of Nations, which as will be shown later was an organization started and run by The Trust.

On page 118/130 Archer quotes Gen. Butler in his first (but far from the last) speech that makes clear his disgust with the Corporate Wars; given at an American Legion convention in Connecticut in 1931:

I spent 33 years... being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism... I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1916. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City [Bank] boys to collect revenue in. I helped in the rape of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street...

In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested... I had... a swell racket. I was rewarded with honors, medals, promotions... 1 might have given A1 Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate a racket in three cities. The Marines operated on three continents...

We don't want any more wars, but a man is a damn fool to think there won't be any more of them. I am a peaceloving Quaker, but when war breaks out every damn man in my family goes. If we're ready, nobody will tackle us. Give us a club and we will face them all...

There is no use talking about abolishing war; that's damn foolishness. Take the guns away from men and they will fight just the same... In the Spanish-American War we didn't have any bullets to shoot, and if we had not had a war with a nation that was already licked and looking for an excuse to quit, we would have had hell licked out of us...

No pacifists or Communists are going to govern this country. If they try it there will be seven million men like you rise up and strangle them. Pacifists? Hell, I'm a pacifist, but I always have a club behind my back!

He lays it all out on the table. He states he was The Man. The man on the front lines, doing all the deeds, following orders. He states clearly his position; that the Banana Wars, the wars in China, etc. were all done for The Trust (though he didn’t make any claims that he realized they were all the same Trust).

In 1933 he made a speech in Atlanta to the Veterans of Foreign Wars. It was printed in the New York Times under the title Gen. Butler Lays War To Bankers (page 130/141):

War was "largely a matter of money," he told the veterans who had gathered to hear him. "Bankers lend money to foreign countries and when they cannot repay the President sends Marines to get it. I know I've been in eleven of these expeditions." The world was not yet through with war, he warned, but we can help get rid of it when we conscript capital along with men."

Bankers lend money to foreign countries. When they can’t repay, they send in the Marines to install regime change governments. Well, ‘ole Teddy did warn them. This activity was not restricted to Gen. Butler’s time period. There will be explicit (modern) examples of this exact same behavior by the exact same people (or lineage of people) in Part 3.

To appreciate the scope of the power to go to war that The Trust had, here is what Archer says about America going to war in WWI:

[Gen. Butler] was gratified to read on April 12, 1934, that the Senate had voted an inquiry into the manufacture of and traffic in arms. Senator Gerald P. Nye, of North Dakota, as chairman of the Senate Munitions Investigating Committee, began holding public hearings stressing the heavy profits made by American financiers and armament-makers during World War I.

The Nye Committee produced shock waves by exposing the pressures exerted by the armament industry on the government to take America into that war. Oswald Garrison Villard, editor-publisher of The Nation, wrote, "I never dreamed that I should live to see the time when public opinion in the United States would be practically united in recognizing that we were lied to and deceived into going to war... and when Congress would actually put a stop to those processes by which Wilson, House, Lansing and J. P. Morgan and Company brought us into the war." The Nye investigation, continuing until 1936, strengthened isolationist sentiment in the United States and inspired a series of neutrality acts during 1935-1937.

Following the hearings closely, Butler was tremendously impressed and influenced by their disclosures. They also confirmed his suspicions that big business-Standard Oil, United Fruit, the sugar trust, the big banks-had been behind most of the military interventions he had been ordered to lead. In a broadcast over Philadelphia radio station WCAU he described his experiences.

I will not be going into the Nye Committee Investigations, nor other evidences regarding WWI and our involvement in it, except what comes up as part of other pieces of this report. There is just too much.

I feel that this next part is important because it shows the powers in play, and the possibility of factions within The Trust. Not necessarily working against each other, but not necessarily on the same page either. I don’t have any idea if that “faction hypothesis” is true, it’s just a thought I have for a few other reasons, and some evidence to support it here.

Page 157/184, Archer; page 24 Committee Report:

Seeking to persuade him to change his mind, Butler testified, MacGuire had sought to impress him with the importance of the interests who were involved in the plot.

BUTLER: He [MacGuire] said, "When I was in Paris, my headquarters were Morgan & Hodges. We had a meeting over there. I might as well tell you that our group is for you, for the head of this organization. Morgan & Hodges are against you. The Morgan interests say that you cannot be trusted, that you will he too radical, and so forth, that you are too much on the side of the little fellow; you cannot be trusted. They do not want you. But our group tells them that you are the only fellow in America who can get the soldiers together. They say, `Yes, but he will get them together and go in the wrong way.' That is what they say if you take charge of them."

According to MacGuire, Butler testified, the Morgan interests preferred other noted military figures as head of the projected veterans' army. Discussion of these choices was also eliminated from the published version of the hearings.

† BUTLER: [MacGuire said,] "They are for Douglas MacArthur as the head of it. Douglas MacArthur's term expires in November, and if he is not reappointed it is to be presumed that he will be disappointed and sore and they are for getting him to head it."

I said, "I do not think that you will get the soldiers to follow him, Jerry... He is in bad odor, because he put on a uniform with medals to march down the street in Washington, I know the soldiers."

"Well, then, we will get Hanford MacNider. They want either MacArthur or MacNider..."

I said, "MacNider won't do either. He will not get the soldiers to follow him, because he has been opposed to the bonus."

"Yes, but we will have him in change [charge?]."

And it is interesting to note that three weeks later after this conversation 'MacNider changed and turned around for the bonus. It is interesting to note that.

He [MacGuire] said, "There is going to be a big quarrel over the reappointment of MacArthur... you watch the President reappoint him. He is going to go right and if he does not reappoint him, he is going to go left."

I have been watching with a great deal of interest this quarrel over his reappointment to see how it comes out. He [MacGuire] said, "You know as well as I do that MacArthur is Stotesbury's son in law in Philadelphia-[Stotesbury being] Morgan's representative in Philadelphia. You just see how it goes and if I am not telling the truth."

I noticed that MacNider turned around for the bonus, and that there is a row over the reappointment of MacArthur.

This may be evidence of potential factions within The Trust, or it may be evidence of Controlled Opposition (section 8.), but it is more importantly evidence of the level of knowledge MacGuire had, and the level of control The Trust had (according to Butler’s testimony, corroborated by Paul Comly French). The Trust had foreknowledge of the actions of these Generals and the Presidents cabinet decisions. This suggests either precognition, or control.

Mr. Paul Comly French was a reporter for the Philadelphia newspaper. Butler had spoken with the owner of that paper, since he knew him from when Butler had been assigned to oust the mob from Philly a few years before. The papers owner had asked Mr. French, his employee, to investigate the allegations, acting as an agent of Gen. Butler to dupe MacGuire and his cabal into giving up information. Butler felt this corroboration was a necessary step before he headed to the Senate to inform them of this “Crazy Conspiracy Theory.”

Page 159/186, Archer; page 25 Committee Report:

Convinced by now of the seriousness of the plot, and its magnitude, Butler had endeavored to learn how far along the conspirators were in the creation of the new superorganization that would control the proposed veterans' army. MacGuire gave him some tips on recognizing its appearance.

BUTLER: Now, there is one point... which I think is the most important of all. I said, "What are you going to call this organization?"

He said, "Well, I do not know."

I said, "Is there anything stirring about it yet?"

"Yes," he says; "you watch; in two or three weeks you will see it come out in the paper. There will be big fellows in it. This is to be the background of it. These are to be the villagers in the opera. The papers will come out with it." He did not give me the name of it, but he said that it would all be made public; a society to maintain the Constitution, and so forth. They had a lot of talk this time about maintaining the Constitution. I said, "I do not see that the Constitution is in any danger."

Butler's next observation, possibly the most significant in all his testimony, was missing from the published version of his testimony. It was the link between the conspiracy and the powerful interests Butler had good reason to believe were the "big fellows" in the background.

† BUTLER:... and in about two weeks the American Liberty League appeared, which was just about what he described it to be.

The American Liberty League, which had brokerage head Grayson M.-P. Murphy as its treasurer and Robert S. Clark as one of its financiers, also had John W. Davis, alleged writer of the gold-standard speech for Clark, as a member of the National Executive Committee. Its contributors included representatives of the Morgan, Du Pont, Rockefeller, Pew, and Mellon interests. Directors of the League included A1 Smith and John J. Raskob. League later formed affiliations with pro-Fascist, antilabor, and anti-Semitic organizations.

It astonished Butler that former New York Governor A1 Smith, who had lost the 1928 presidential race to Hoover as the Democratic candidate, could be involved in a Fascist plot backed by wealthy men. But the "happy warrior" who had grown up on New York's East Side had traded his brown derby for a black one. He was now a business associate of the powerful Du Pont family, who had cultivated him through Du Pont official John J. Raskob, former chairman of the Democratic party. Under their influence Smith had grown more and more politically conservative following his defeat.

This last part shows, at least potentially, how easy it is to corrupt a politician (or anyone really) if you have the machinery in place to do so. I have not exposed the corruption machinery (section 8.), and I won’t really be diving into the political machinery at all. Not because there is no fuckery there (LOL), but because that’s one of the forbidden topics.

I want to introduce a few of the actor’s mentioned (and highlighted) above.

Robert Sterling Clark served under Butler in several wars, and was the heir to the Singer Sewing Machine fortune. He was “the millionaire soldier.” He was not obviously a member of The Trust as I have so far described it, though he was certainly a member of the American Elite. There are also plenty of connections between him and The Trust, but they will not be apparent until I expose other parts of it. He doesn’t appear to be a major player in any case. Other than his part here, I wouldn’t have mentioned him.

John W. Davis on the other hand is a major player; tip top of the heap. Perhaps not quite “a Rockefeller,” but as an agent, his influence and effects were massive. Not just here, but on a much broader scope. I will return to him later for a better exposure. To give an idea, Archer says this (page 15/26):

Clark would see to it, he told the general, that Butler was calling for a resolution demanding restoration of the gold standard. In discussing the speech, the millionaire was induced to reveal that the author was none other than John W. Davis, the 1924 Democratic candidate for President, and now chief attorney for J. P. Morgan and Company.

Archer has this to say about Grayson M.-P. Murphy:

Butler brooded over the implication of MacGuire's revelation that his employer, key founder and sponsor of the American Legion, was involved. Tall, heavyset, Grayson Mallot-Prevost Murphy* not only operated one of Wall Street's leading brokerage houses but was also a director of Guaranty Trust, a Morgan bank, and had extensive industrial and financial interests as a director of Anaconda Copper, Goodyear Tire, and Bethlehem Steel. A West Point graduate, Murphy was a veteran of the Spanish- American War and World War I with the rank of colonel. Butler' s bushy eyebrows rose when he also learned that the financier had been decorated by Benito Mussolini, who had made him a Command of the Crown of Italy.

Butler found out that he had been one of twenty American officers who had met in Paris in February, 1919, reportedly on orders from the commanders of the A.E.F., to counter revolutionary unrest in Europe following the end of World War I, by forming a veterans' organization with the alleged purpose of looking after veterans' welfare and uniting them to defend America at home as they had abroad.

Murphy had put up $125,000 to get the American Legion going, and it had been organized in the spring with a caucus of about a thousand officers and men. The Legion had then solicited funds and support from industrialists. Swift and Company executives had written other firms, "We are all Legion, the results it will obtain, and the ultimate effect in helping to offset radicalism."

The average veteran who joined the Legion in the 1920's had been unaware that big-business men were backing it to use it as a strikebreaking agency. When workers struck against wage cuts, Legion posts were informed that the strikers were Communists trying to create national chaos so that the Reds could take over. Legionnaires were given baseball bats to break up strikes and civil rights demonstrations....

The rank and file, however, had grown increasingly restless and impatient with the "Royal Family" that ran the Legion, especially after the Depression had left so many jobless....

Adding up the facts, Butler was struck by a startling contradiction. MacGuire had claimed to speak for rank-and-file discontent with the Legion's bosses and professed to want to oust them, yet he was an agent for a top founder of the Legion who was obviously one of the powers behind the throne. MacGuire had revealed that the Legion still owed Murphy part of the $125,000 foundation money he had provided and had tacitly acknowledged that Murphy "makes the kings."

Grayson M. P. Murphy was the founder of GMP Murphy & Co. (an asset manager), was Senior VP and on the BoD of Guaranty Trust Company (Rockefeller-Morgan), on the BoD for Anaconda Mining Co. (Rockefeller), New York Trust Co. (Rockefeller), Bethlehem Steel (Rockefeller-Morgan), Goodyear Tire & Rubber (not sure, though Goodyear has many ties to Rockefeller and Morgan.), New York Railways (Rockefeller), Fifth Avenue Coach Company, and Chicago Motor Coach Company (both Coach companies were started by Hertz, but Hertz, like Goodyear, has many ties to Rockefeller, so who knows).

He was also chief commissioner of the American Red Cross (Rockefeller, see section 7.), and treasurer of the American Liberty League (as shown above).

I think it’s fairly safe to assume Mr. Murphy was a Rockefeller agent.

From Wikipedia on the American Liberty League:

The creation of the League was announced in Washington, D.C., on August 22, 1934, by a group of Democrats and a smaller number of Republicans. Jouett Shouse, who had been prominent in Democratic politics and the anti-Prohibition movement, became the group's first chairman. The makeup of the League's executive committee was designed to demonstrate its bipartisan nature. It included: John W. Davis and Al Smith, former Democratic candidates for president; wealthy businessman Irénée du Pont, who left the Republicans to support Al Smith in 1928 and Roosevelt in 1932; and two New York Republicans, Nathan L. Miller, the state's former governor, and Representative James W. Wadsworth.[2] The moving spirit behind the launch of the organization was John Jacob Raskob, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee and the foremost opponent of Prohibition, former director of General Motors and a board member of DuPont.[3]

All of this stuff I am telling you (so far) is GAT, with the only exception being one dagger (†) quote above about Douglas McArthur's reappointment from Butler's "hidden testimony," which I will justify shortly. Again, that doesn’t make it true, it certainly doesn’t make it a complete story. On the contrary, there is a whole other side of this story I will get to in Part 3 when I revisit the economic policies of FDR. I just want to impress upon you (repeatedly) that just because you have never heard of it, or it sounds like a “conspiracy theory” doesn’t mean it isn’t part of “official history."

Continuing with Mr. French’s testimony (page 161/188, Archer; page 26 Committee Report):

In testimony that was also censored, Paul Comly French revealed that MacGuire had implicated the Du Ponts to him, indicating the role they would play in equipping the superarmy being planned by the plotters.

† FRENCH: We discussed the question of arms and equipment, and he suggested that they could be obtained from the Remington Arms Co., on credit through the Du Ponts. I do not think at that time he mentioned the connections of Du Pouts with the American Liberty League... but he skirted all around the idea that that was the back door; one of the Du Pouts is on the board of directors of the American Liberty League and they own a controlling interest in the Remington Arms Co.... He said the General would not have any trouble enlisting 500,000 men.

Page 165/192 (26 Committee):

Censored in French's testimony was his revelation of the sources to which MacGuire had said that he could turn for the funds to finance the veterans' army.

† FRENCH: He said he could go to John W. Davis [attorney for J. P. Morgan and Company] or Perkins of the National City Bank [Rockefeller Bank], and any number of persons to get it.

Of course, that may or may not mean anything. That is, his reference to John W. Davis and Perkins of the National City Bank.

French testified that MacGuire had sought to impress him by indicating high-level support for the conspiracy from important movers and shakers of the American Legion.

FRENCH: He then pushed a letter across the desk and said that it was from Louis Johnson, a former national commander of the American Legion.

CHAIRMAN: Did he show you the letter?

FRENCH: I did not read it. He just passed it over so I could see it, but he did not show it to me. He said that he had discussed the matter with him along the lines of what we were now discussing, and I took it to mean that he had talked of this Fascist proposition with Johnson, and Johnson was in sympathy with it.

In addition to other connections, this directly implicates the Morgan and Rockefeller banks as the means to fund the coup, and the Du Ponts as the means to arm it. They would do this through their company Remington Arms, which was a wholly owned subsidiary of Midvale Steel & Ordnance Company which had Percy Rockefeller on the board. (Note that that link is from over a decade prior to the time in question, so I don’t know if there is evidence of that statement of “Percy on the Board” at this later time, though I suggest that would be a technicality at this point. Unfortunately I can’t find the Moody’s reports in any accessible format for anything after the early 1920’s, much to my chagrin).

During the investigation, while MacGuire was testifying, one of the many things he was asked about, was a report he had given to his peers. This report, found by the McCormack-Dickstein Committee, regarded Mr. MacGuire’s European exploration; where he scoured the great European Fascists countries to find out how to use veterans to create Fascist Government Takeover machines.

Page 182/208 Archer, page 11 Committee Report:

MCCORMACK: And in this report you also said: "I was informed that there is a Fascist Party springing up in Holland under the leadership of a man named Mussait who is an engineer by profession, and who has approximately 50,000 followers at the present time, ranging in age from 18 to 25 years. It is said that this man is in close touch with Berlin and is modeling his entire program along the lines followed by Hitler in Germany..." So you studied this Fascist Party when you were in Holland, did you?

MACGUIRE: No, sir; I did not. It was a matter of public information in the press and was reported so in the letter...

Holland was also setting up a Fascist regime! Apparently in the 1930’s you couldn’t throw a stone without hitting an attempted (or successful) Fascist coup. It was apparently all the rage after the Great Depression. I guess regime change is a really good idea after huge (completely coincidental) world wide economic catastrophes.

To give you an indication of how well MacGuire’s testimony went, here is what Mr. Dickstein had to say about it (page 183/209, Archer):

On November 26, 1934, referring to MacGuire's testimony, Representative Dickstein declared, "You can't get away from it, somebody is trying to shield somebody on something that looks rotten, and honest people don't do that."

The New York Times called the Business Plot a hoax (before the final report came out). It was quite vehement about it’s “hoaxness.” (Sorry, I have no way of getting to the actual NYT archived article from that primary source, but the rhetoric in the synopsis is clear enough):

A Washington correspondent asked: "What can we believe?" Apparently anything, to judge by the number of people who lend a credulous ear to the story of General BUTLER'S 500,000 Fascists in buckram marching on Washington to seize the Government. Details are lacking to lend verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative.

There are some interesting facts regarding the New York Times. It’s beginnings in 1851 included major investments from Mr. Christopher Morgan, a lawyer, politician for New York State, and U.S. Congressman (from New York), and his brother Edwin B. Morgan, the first President of Wells Fargo, Director of American Express, Founder of the United States Express Company, on the Board of Trustees for Cornell University, Wells College, and Auburn Theological Seminary, and ALSO a U.S. Congressman from New York. In 1871 the NYT was subject to a hostile takeover attempt, but Edwin B. Morgan spent another $350,000 to ensure it remained under their control. In 1891, when the Founding editor George Jones died, other NYT editors bought out his interest. However, two years later the Panic of 1893 effectively destroyed the NYT. A couple years after that Adolph Ochs, editor for The Chattanooga Times picked up controlling interest for a substantially reduced $75,000 (still a fair chunk of change at the time, but quite a bit less than its former value). He was very fortunate to have secured that $75,000 from a Mr. J.P. Morgan, cousin of Edward B. Morgan and Christopher Morgan. J.P. and Ed/Chris are not the closest cousins. I had to go back quite a few generations to find the link, but that was only through the direct line of fathers. However, I assert that the surnames and lineage are very important to these people, i.e. A Morgan is A Morgan. In addition, given how many intermarriages there are (Morgan-Morgan and Morgan-Avery marriages especially (section 5.5.5)), it is really difficult to figure out how closely related the Morgans are. Perhaps someday I will build a graph of that web. For all I know, they could be as close (genetically) as first cousins. Or actually first cousins. The interconnections really get ridiculous once you start looking at the family web trees for what I will call “the American Aristocracy.”

Regardless, after this nice loan from J.P. the NYT became a dominant voice in news again, even bigger than before. Not that I am suggesting the scathing NYT “Hoax” narrative about the investigation into Mr. J.P. Morgan, is in any way related to the fact that the NYT was brought to prominence by Morgan money (multiple times). That would suggest some level of control of the company you fund, and that would be a conspiracy, because the news is always impartial and only tells the truth. I do think it’s an interesting coincidence however. Most newspapers at the time of the Business Coup exposure were running excerpts from the congressional investigation, and not jumping on the hoax bandwagon, though a few were. It may be interesting to note which ones were, though other than the next noteworthy example, I will not be looking into that.

The other example of note was Time magazine, which Archer points out was also particularly scathing to Butler’s testimony; attempting to completely discredit him without actually addressing anything he had to say except in parody format. I won’t go into it, it’s three pages long. It can be found on page 184/213.

I just want to mention that the owner and creator of Time magazine (along with Life, Fortune, Sports Illustrated and other media) was Henry Luce. I haven’t yet mentioned the Council on Foreign Relations, nor delved into Foundations, but they will end up being no small part in this report (especially Foundations). I will be getting to them in section 7. and section 6. respectively. Mr. Henry Luce was one of the first members of the CFR (possibly a founding member, I’m not sure). He was also a part of the CFR’s European and Chinese siblings which were created at the same time. He also sat on the Board of Directors for the Rockefeller Brother’s Fund. When you get to the exposure of the origins and controllers of the CFR and Foundations, it will become apparent that the Time Magazine guy, Mr. Henry Luce was blatant “The Trust.” Most of his money went into the Henry Luce Foundation, which is just another door into MegaFoundation, which is up on deck for exposure.

While I have not shown all of them (that’s what the Committee Report link is for), the testimonies ended abruptly, even though many of the people indicated as complicit had not yet testified (page 183/210, Archer):

When the committee called no further witnesses from among those named in the testimony, gossip swept Washington that the uncalled witnesses were simply too powerful to be subpoenaed.

Investigating, reporter John Spivak learned that the only one known to have been called to testify was California banker Frank N. Belgrano, commander of the American Legion. Checking into why he had not testified, Spivak found that he had been informed he could return home without having to answer a single question. The reporter could not verify a rumor that Belgrano had met with President Roosevelt at the White House, after which he had been taken off the committee's hook.

When Spivak tried to learn more about this from the committee itself, Dickstein revealed that he didn't know why Belgrano had been sent home without being questioned, and McCormack declined to answer any questions on the subject.

It is in the exposure of the stuff left out where John Spivak becomes a player. He was an investigative journalist. He did a bunch of stuff (laid out in the book) and reportedly finally got his hands on the full transcript (page 196/223, Archer):

Excited by this accidental stroke of luck, he compared it with the official extract of the hearings and found a number of startling omissions made from the testimony of both Butler and French, some of which could not be justified on grounds of hearsay evidence. Spivak copied down the censored material...

Omissions from the official record of some revelations from the testimony of Butler and French gave the American press, with a few minor exceptions, a legitimate excuse to keep silent about them. It was significant that none of the biggest newspaper chains or wire services saw fit to assign crack reporters to dig into what was obviously one of the biggest news stories of the decade.

John L. Spivak could not help wondering why MacGuire, the key to the plot, had not been compelled to testify on where and how he had obtained his advance inside information about AI Smith's plans, Hugh Johnson's firing, and the appearance of the American Liberty League; or why he had not been asked to reveal the sources of his information about the Morgan and Du Pont interests' involvement in the plot.

Worst of all, no one involved in the plot had been prosecuted. Spivak went to the Department of justice and pointed out that MacGuire had denied essential parts of Butler's testimony, which the committee itself reported it had proved by documents, bank records, and letters. Did the department intend to file a criminal prosecution against MacGuire for perjury or involvement in the plot?

"I was told," Spivak reported, "it had no plans to prosecute." Roger Baldwin, director of the American Civil Liberties Union, issued an angry statement on the curious apathy of the justice Department in punishing any of the miscreants:

“The Congressional Committee investigating un-American activities has just reported that the Fascist plot to seize the government... was proved; yet not a single participant will be prosecuted under the perfectly plain language of the federal conspiracy act making this a high crime. Imagine the action if such a plot were discovered among Communists!

Which is, of course, only to emphasize the nature of our government as representative of the interests of the controllers of property. Violence, even to the seizure of government, is excusable on the part of those whose lofty motive is to preserve the profit system...”

According to Spivak, he saw the original documents (the story of how is compelling, with good evidence). It appears the original documents omitted all The Trust references. The investigative committee never further pursued obvious lines of inquiry, and the DOJ never punished a single person. Spivak’s interviews with both McCormack and Dickstein got the runaround. Maybe “they” (whoever “they” might be) got to the Committee leaders?

Spivak’s interview with Gen. Butler went better (page 207/232):

"I think you're the man I've been hoping to run into to help me do an autobiography," [Butler] told Spivak. "There are things I've seen, things I've learned that should not be left unsaid. War is a racket to protect economic interests, not our country, and our soldiers are sent to die on foreign soil to protect investments by big business."

Spivak said regretfully that he felt compelled to continue investigating and exposing a more urgent and dangerous situation -Nazi activities in the United States. Butler agreed at once that this activity was more important and offered to help by opening any doors he could for Spivak.

During their discussion Spivak learned "things about big business and politics, sometimes in earthy, four-letter words, the like of which I had never heard." Butler spilled over with anger at the hypocrisy that had marked American interference in the internal affairs of other governments, behind a smoke screen of pious expressions of high-sounding purpose.

When you say your actions are for one thing (“high-sounding purpose”), people will believe it, no matter what the evidence is, or what it’s actually for. This is an exploit of trust (in this case trust in the government). This is another pattern that keeps repeating in my investigation, which I will elaborate later.

"We supervised elections in Haiti," he said wryly, "and wherever we supervised them our candidate always won."

The House always wins.

...Butler was shocked when Spivak showed him copies of the portions of his and French's testimony that had been deleted from the official report of the hearings. His scowl deepened as Spivak revealed that Belgrano had been dismissed without being asked a single question about what had happened at the "gold-standard resolution" Legion convention in Chicago.

"I'll be goddammed!" he roared. "You can be sure I'm going to say something about this!"

Spivak asked him to hold off long enough to let the tiny circulation New Masses break the story first. Butler agreed. When the Masses appeared with the expose, it was a sensational news scoop, but none of the Washington correspondents dared touch it or follow it up.

"Several expressed regret," Spivak related, "that the exposes were appearing in the New Masses; when they quoted from one of my stories solely on its news value-their editors cut the material out and advised them that quotes from `that magazine' might make readers say the paper was spreading Red propaganda. So great had the fear of communism and `Red propaganda' become that even editors who did not swallow all of it themselves went along because it was the popular attitude."

When a story gets published in a “bad source” (i.e. not “main-stream” enough) it doesn’t matter what the evidence is, it gets ignored, because that is what we have been trained to do. In fact publishing it in this magazine first likely hurt all endeavors to expose the evidence.

We seem to, in our efforts to get information about the outside world, generally care less about the argument presented, or the quality of the evidence than we do about sources; who is speaking. We are always looking for “sources we can trust.” Why do we so often care about sources over the actual evidence they provide? That is a difficult question to even approach, but I'll give it a go.

I suggest it is possible we may have been trained to trust sources over evidence. I will provide some evidence for that suggestion later. Another idea for why we might do that is, if evidence makes us feel uncomfortable, or substantially challenges our world view, it seems we will ignore it if there is any excuse at all to do so (section 6.). In this way “credentials,” or a lack of credentials, or anything negative we can find about an argumentor (pro hominem or ad hominem) will be what we look for first so we can “find the good evidence,” or “weed out the bad evidence.” In this way we can praise or shun the evidence before we actually look at the evidence, or give it its due diligence. It saves us time to look first at the source rather than what they say. Really digging in is hard. I mean, I used do this "sources first" approach all the time. I was trained to do that all throughout my schooling. And it makes sense to do it from a time perspective. But it isn’t looking at the evidence, and that’s an important thing to realize.

I have since changed my approach a great deal. Now I look for evidence. If it is well sourced, I don't give a fuck who is saying it, I will look at it. I want sources, so I can look, and think for myself. On the other side of that coin, if it isn't sourced (preferably with primary links), I don't care who it is, I won't even look at what they have to say. It is a whole new paradigm shift in "getting the news," or "reading history."

"Primary sources or it didn't happen."

I think this manner of using sources we "trust" helps make us feel more safe. We also don't really have to think too hard. We can just "upload the latest news program." Generally we also only choose sources that justify our current beliefs. I suggest this proclivity is exploitable. I will get back to these idea when I return to the media towards the end of this report (Section 8).

Continuing with Archer (page 209/235):

In his broadcast over WCAU on February 17, 1935, Butler revealed that some of the "most important" portions of his testimony had been suppressed in the McCormack-Dickstein report to Congress. The committee, he growled, had "stopped dead in its tracks when it got near the top." He added angrily:

“Like most committees, it has slaughtered the little and allowed the big to escape. The big shots weren't even called to testify. Why wasn't Colonel Grayson M.-P. Murphy, New York broker... called? Why wasn't Louis Howe, Secretary to the President of the United States, called?... Why wasn't A1 Smith called? And why wasn't Gen. Douglas MacArthur, Chief of Staff of the United States Army, called? And why wasn't Hanford MacNider, former American Legion commander, called? They were all mentioned in the testimony. And why was all mention of these names suppressed from the committee report?

“This was no piker set-up. MacGuire, who was the agent of the Wall Street bankers and brokers who proposed this organization, told me that $3,000,000 was "on the line" and that $300,000,000-and that's a lot of money even today-was in view to put over this plot to bluff the government.”

In another broadcast he lashed out at the American Legion with no holds barred:

Do you think it could be hard to buy the American Legion for un-American activities? You know, the average veteran thinks the Legion is a patriotic organization to perpetuate the memories of the last war, an organization to promote peace, to take care of the wounded and to keep green the graves of those who gave their lives.

But is the American Legion that? No sir, not while it is controlled by the bankers. For years the bankers, by buying big club houses for various posts, by financing its beginning, and otherwise, have tried to make a strikebreaking organization of the Legion. The groups-the so-called Royal Family of the Legion-which have picked its officers for years, aren't interested in patriotism, in peace, in wounded veterans, in those who gave their lives... No, they are interested only in using the veterans, through their officers.

Why, even now, the commander of the American Legion is a banker-a banker who must have known what MacGuire's money was going to be used for. His name was mentioned in the testimony. Why didn't they call Belgrano and ask him why he contributed?

I use this quote for two reasons. First I want to point out that Gen. Butler is quoted as having corroborated that the Committee Report removed the parts that implicated The Trust members, and that the Committee did not pursue justice in the matter, instead letting it go. But I also wanted to point out another example of naming a thing, and promoting a thing for “peace” or “justice,” and using it for purposes that have little to nothing (or even the opposite) to do with its name.

The American Legion, according to Gen. Butler (and others), was not designed to promote peace, but to wage war on those who would strike. It is, according to testimony in the McCormack-Dickstein Investigation, a group intended to be motivated to enact a Fascist Coup. It was not intended to bring justice, but to be an effective force against any pursuit of justice by We The People (e.g. strikes AKA attempts to fight against abuses of The Trust). I’m not saying it is still that way today, I have no idea what may or may not have changed over the years. I am looking at this point in time, and its origins, as relayed in this story and testimonies. I am looking at the relationship between its name and its original intent.

As I’ve mentioned, sometimes the name of a thing is the exact opposite of what it actually is; designed to confuse the issue, and make people believe one thing, while pulling a scam. This is not an uncommon tactic. It’s part of every con. What’s difficult to wrap the head around is the potential scale. It is scale that changes our beliefs of “that happens all the time” to “that’s nothing but a conspiracy theory” in our brains. In this case Gen. Butler is explicitly naming the The Trust in such a scam, involving hundreds of thousands of people.

The congressional committee put out their final report on their investigation which said (page 192/219):

In the last few weeks of the committee's official life it received evidence showing that certain persons had made an attempt to establish a fascist organization in this country.

No evidence was presented and this committee had none to show a connection between this effort and any fascist activity of any European country.

There is no question that these attempts were discussed, were planned, and might have been placed in execution when and if the financial backers deemed it expedient.

This committee received evidence from Maj. Gen Smedley D. Butler (retired), twice decorated by the Congress of the United States. He testified before the committee as to conversations with one Gerald C. MacGuire in which the latter is alleged to have suggested the formation of a fascist army under the leadership of General Butler (p. 9-114 D.C. 6 II).

MacGuire denied these allegations under oath, but your committee was able to verify all the pertinent statements made by General Butler,* with the exception of the direct statement suggesting the creation of the organization. This, however, was corroborated in the correspondence of MacGuire with his principal, Robert Sterling Clark, of New York City, while MacGuire was abroad studying the various forms of veterans organizations of Fascist character (p. 111 D.C. 611).

To repeat the committee’s final analysis above:

There is no question that these attempts were discussed, were planned, and might have been placed in execution when and if the financial backers deemed it expedient.

No question about it. MacGuire and his cohorts did in fact discuss all the things with Gen. Butler that Gen. Butler said he did. MacGuire also did all the things that Gen. Butler said he did (go to Europe to study the other fascist movements, have the money, interact with and work for The Trust, etc.).

While I didn’t highlight it, this was stated in their conclusion as well:

No evidence was presented and this committee had none to show a connection between this effort and any fascist activity of any European country.

I will be showing a fair bit of evidence later that suggests they may not have looked very hard.

The final report also said this:

In making public the foregoing evidence, which was taken in executive session in New York City from November 20 to 24, inclusive, the committee has ordered stricken there-from certain immaterial and incompetent evidence, or evidence which was not pertinent to the inquiry, and which would not have been received during a public hearing.

“We are leaving a bunch of stuff out of the final report.” – The McCormack-Dickstein Committee

The stuff left out was labeled as “hearsay,” which is to say, they heard someone say it was the American Elite who did it, and everything that pointed to specific people at the highest echelons was left out. There was also no follow up investigation on those people.

Mr. Spivak in his 1967 book A Man In His Time, suggests Roosevelt himself may have suppressed the full transcripts of the Committee hearings (page 321):

It was possible, of course, that the deletions were not due to pressures by any of those named by Butler, but to a policy decision on the highest level. What would be the public gain from delving deeper into a plot which was already exposed and whose principals could be kept under surveillance? Roosevelt had enough headaches in those troubled days without having to make a face-to-face confrontation with men of great wealth and power. Was it avoidance of such a confrontation? Was it a desire by the head of the Democratic Party to avoid going into matters which could split the party down the middle, what with Davis and Smith, two former party heads, among those named by Butler?

I didn’t read all of Mr. Spivak’s book. I don’t know what evidence he has that supports this assertion (if any), but I suggest Mr. Spivak may not have appreciated the real reason FDR suppressed this testimony if he did. However, excepting a few more brief exposures, I won’t really be getting into FDR’s role in the events of the time period until Part 3.

Just to show that the Business Plot has been reported on before, even if maybe only this one time, here is a BBC radio show from 2007 that reported on these events. I suggest their exposition is not as comprehensive as mine, but it at least shows that maybe someone (in the UK) may have heard of the Fascist Coup in America in 1934.

Because I certainly never had before.

In a speech in July 1937, Gen. Butler made the following statement about what he believed war really was (page 233/259):

Wars do not occur. They are made by men.... There will never be a congressional investigation into the steps taken or the methods adopted which saves us from a war.... Lying propaganda is almost certainly necessary to bring nations to the pitch where men kill and women give their men and boys to be killed...

Is this true? Was it only true about the Banana Wars? Are any other wars contrived for the accumulation of resources and/or control by The Trust? All valid questions to ask, though it takes a fair bit to find evidence to answer them. Perhaps I will revisit some of these questions later.

5.5.4 After Math

In the final section of Archer’s book titled Fallout, he goes over some of the repercussions of the exposure to the Business Plot and some of the results of the Nye Commission Investigations on Un-American activities, which was an ongoing series of investigations throughout the 1930s. It is, I believe, these hearings from which he makes some of the statements about other The Trust activities as regards the Nazi’s and pre-WWII, a couple of which are shown below. He also looks at Gen. Butler’s post investigation activities, and some of the world events that occurred during the pre-war period.

As example, he gives a further exposure on the Du Ponts from the Nye Commission (page 231/256):

The Du Ponts supplied more grist for Butler's antiwar mill in September, when the Senate Munitions Investigating Committee revealed that the munitions industry, led by the Du Ponts, had sabotaged a League of Nations disarmament conference held at Geneva.

"After the whole conference was over and the munitions people of the world had made the treaty a satisfactory one to themselves," reported Chairman Gerald Nye, "we find that Colonel Simons [of the Du Ponts] is reporting that even the State Department realized, in effect, who controlled the Nation”

I should probably delve into this particular Nye Committee Investigation a bit (there is so much to do!). It would be interesting to see if there is any evidence to suggest why the Du Ponts (I’m guessing more likely a representative of Remington Arms) sabotaged a League of Nations disarmament conference; considering the role The Trust played in the League’s creation and ongoing activities (section 7.).

In Archer’s interview with Senator McCormack in 1971, he asked him what he thought might have happened if Butler had not come forward (page 214/240):

“Well, if General Butler had not been the patriot he was, and if they had been able to maintain secrecy, the plot certainly might very well have succeeded, having in mind the conditions existing at that time. No one can say for sure, of course, but when times are desperate and people are frustrated, anything like that could happen."

"And we might have gone Fascist?"

"If the plotters had got rid of Roosevelt, there's no telling what might have taken place. They wouldn't have told the people what they were doing, of course. They were going to make it all sound constitutional, of course, with a high-sounding name for the dictator and a plan to make it all sound like a good American program. A well-organized minority can always outmaneuver an unorganized majority, as Adolf Hitler did. He failed with his beer-hall putsch, but he succeeded when he was better organized. The same thing could have happened here.

...Finally I asked him, "Then in your opinion America could definitely have become a Fascist power had it not been for General Butler's patriotism in exploding the plot?" "It certainly could have," McCormack acknowledged. "The people were in a very confused state of mind, making the nation weak and ripe for some drastic kind of extremist reaction. Mass frustration could bring about anything."

McCormack appears to genuinely believe, 40 years after the fact, that if Butler hadn’t come forward, we may very well have been the American counterpart to Hitler’s Germany, and Mussolini's Italy; and they would have made it “sound constitutional... with a high-sounding name for the dictator, and a plan to make it all sound like a good American program.”

It doesn’t take much to sell anything you want to a population when you control all the media and are masters of propaganda. If you have enough control to cause fear and panic, you put the populace into a “very confused state of mind, making the nation weak and ripe for drastic kind of extremist reaction. Mass frustration could bring about anything.”

Such a “very confused state of mind... weak and ripe for drastic [change]” could come about from say, food shortages, or maybe a biological contagion scare that makes us afraid of each other, economic shutdowns, or even a total destruction of the economy, subsequent “Depression,” a terrorist attack, war, or threats of war, or really anything that causes extreme fear. Bonus points if you do them all in the right order.

Not that I'm in any way talking about anything except the Fascist coup to take over America.

In 1934.

Relating to this McCormack interview Archer says (page 215/241):

He reminded me that the international smell of fascism had been very much in the air during the hectic days of the plot and that much undercover Fascist activity had been going on in the United States that the American people knew nothing about. The McCormack-Dickstein Committee had exposed Ivy Lee, the noted public relations expert ostensibly employed by the German dye trust, but actually on the payroll of the Nazi Government to help them win favorable publicity in the American press.

This is the same Ivy Lee that was the Rockefellers personal PR guy. He was, according to the Nye Committee (I think), caught pushing pro-Nazi propaganda on the American people, under the employ of the Nazi government. While this is not good evidence of a connection (since I don’t even know the original source), I suggest there may be a few more connections between The Trust and the Nazis. I will continue with a couple more from Archer, but future sections will use better sources (page 233/258):

With Japanese troops sweeping through China and seizing the coastal cities, Butler addressed the V.F.W. convention in September urging that all American forces be withdrawn from China. Three months later Japanese airmen sank the U.S. gunboat Panay in Chinese waters. A poll showed that 53 percent of Americans agreed with Butler's demand for withdrawal of all United States forces. But instead Washington demanded indemnity from Tokyo.

Butler was convinced that a continued American presence in Asia could only lead to eventual war with an aggressive Japan bent on becoming the dominant power in the Orient. He saw confirmation of his belief that war was a business racket when Washington continued to permit American corporations to sell scrap iron and oil to Tokyo for its war machine. He also knew that there were over two billion dollars in American investments in Germany, which was being goaded by British diplomacy into attacking the Soviet Union.

If these facts seemed to him more immediately menacing than the steadily escalating aggression of the Axis powers, he was not alone among liberal and left-wing Americans in this myopia. In January, 1938, John Chamberlain, Alfred M. Bingham, Dwight MacDonald, Bertrand Wolfe, and Sidney Hook were among those who opposed any strong action against Japan, or any of the other Axis powers, arguing, "We believe that the first result of another War to Make the World Safe for Democracy will be the establishment of virtual fascism in this country."

According to this we were giving resources to the Japanese, and had $2 Billion invested into the Nazi’s (3% of GDP in 1935).

It is curious why we (where by “we” I mean Corporate America AKA The Trust) have all these funding and arming allegations. Which side did we join again? I wonder why we would join with the British as “Allies”.

Well, the British (AKA The EuroTrust) were also funding the Nazi’s, so there is that.

While the following example is not direct evidence of anything per se, it is given as a part of Archer’s summation of Butler in the time right before the start of WWII (page 238/263):

[Butler’s] suspicions were not eased [about the fraud of war] by observing industrialists and bankers entering trade cartels with America's potential enemies, Germany, Italy, and Japan, while U.S. arms manufacturers made huge profits selling munitions to both sides and pressed Congress to spend new billions on "defense" to keep up with the "arms race" they themselves had promoted.

There are many other corroborations and quotes which paint WWII in quite the “fuckery” light, but using Archer as a source for WWII fuckery is not really going to give the type of primary source information I am looking for. While there is supporting evidence within his book, that wasn’t really what his investigation was about.

On an unrelated note:

According to reports, Mr. MacGuire “died suddenly” five weeks after the Committee submitted its report by falling down an elevator shaft, onto some bullets a sudden case of pneumonia at the ripe old age of 37.

The lead investigator, Senator John McCormack fared much better. At the beginning of the Commission he was a relatively new congressman. Afterwards, he enjoyed another 37 years of many Congressional Committee appointments, 21 of those years as Majority/Minority leader, and 10 of them as Speaker of the House. He played important supporting roles in America’s war efforts in WWII and Vietnam. He even introduced the bill that became NASA, which as we will see, has a very interesting story to tell (section 8.).

I am sure that the quick closing of the commission, no calling of implicated parties to testify, the removal of damning information from the report, and complete lack of further pursuit on the apparent Fascist Coup to take over America by The Trust had absolutely nothing to do with his amazing success.

And now for something completely different.

5.5.5 Finkle Is Einhorn Avery Large Apple Orchard

It’s a Big Club, and you ain’t in it. – George Carlin

During my investigation I came across many connections between the people involved in what became The Trust, beyond just their shared business interests. One interesting connection is, they all seem to be related, even if not necessarily the closest relations. Being distant cousins isn’t really evidence of anything meaningful, but what’s interesting is that they keep marrying each other. Their family reunions have more than their fair share of sister-cousins, and father-uncles. OK, that’s an exaggeration (although not always), but cousin-cousins seems to be very common. In other words, their “family tree” is more of a “family web.”

I found the family tree below from this source. That website is just a random source on the internet I found accidentally while searching for Moody’s “Family Tree” image shown previously. Notice how many Avery’s there are on the spouse side of the Rockefeller’s and especially the Morgan’s. It’s pretty crazy.

The same person put up an even larger tree here. I don’t know how accurate this tree is. I didn’t check all of the connections. I only looked up the Rockefeller-Avery and Morgan-Avery connections because those are easy to look up and pertinent to this report. Not only did they all turn out to be accurate according to the map linked above, but I found a few more just on accident in their verification and from other investigations. I have listed below links to all the verifications of these unions. What’s remarkable is not that both the Rockefeller’s and Morgan’s are married to the Avery family, but how many times such a union happened.

Note that there are a lot of repeat names. They are not the same people, but are all related according to the tree (sons, nephews, etc.). Specifically there are a metric fuckton of William Morgans, so don’t think that these repeats are the same people; only one person is repeated and it’s noted specifically.

It's Avery Merry Christmas in Rockefeller Center when the Morgans come to visit!

Honorable Mentions*** (because it shows important connections for later):

This inestigation only looked at the surnames, and didn’t look very hard. This would leave out all marriages of daughters of daughters (or further removed). Given the potential, with daughters seeming to be some sort of "bloodline reward" or something, the list could easily be twice as many or more interwoven marriages between these three families.

* Godfrey Rockefeller and Lucy Avery are the parents of William Avery Rockefeller Sr.. William Avery Rockefeller Sr. sired John D. Rockefeller Sr. and his brothers, William Avery Rockefeller Jr., and Frank Rockefeller (as well as a couple daughters). Lucy Avery (their mother) is descended from the Morgans; although you can throw a stone and hit ten Avery’s descended from a Morgan, usually by multiple lines, so that’s not surprising.

** This Jonas Rockefeller is the same as the one above it. He married two of his Avery cousins. But they weren’t just Avery’s. In both cases they were double cousins (Rockefeller-Avery), one his first-second(?) cousin, and the other, the first one’s niece. Why go to bars to pick up chicks when you can go to a family reunion! Hell, he might have gotten his second wife at the first ones funeral for all I know.

*** Percy and William Rockefeller were both the sons of William Avery Rockefeller Jr., i.e. they were both the nephews of JD Sr., the Big Apple. Percy Avery Rockefeller married Isabel Goodrich Stillman (yes those Goodrich’s) and Percy’s brother, William Goodsell Rockefeller, married Isabel’s sister, Sarah Elizabeth Stillman. I will get to the Stillman’s later (maybe).

Percy Avery Rockefeller was the head of National City Bank of New York, W. A Harriman & Co., Brown Brothers Harriman Co., Atlantic Fruit Company, Remington Arms (which sold arms and ammo to both sides of both world wars (and all other wars before, during, and after)), Anaconda Copper, Bethlehem Steel, Bitlmore Hotels Company, Consolidated Gas, Greenwich Green Trust, New York Edison, Provident Loan Society, National Surety Company, American Reassurance Company, United Electric Light and Power, Western Union and 10+ other corps I got tired of typing and looking at. He was also a trustee of Yale University. Most notable (imo) was that he started American International Corporation which is reported to be a “failed” International Organization. AIC lasted from 1915-1959, so, you know, 45 years of business, so not that much of a “failure,” but I’ll touch on AIC later, because it’s potentially kinda a big player, despite Wikipedia’s completely false narrative about it. I mention AIC not only because it shows substantial international interests, but because there are some hints that AIC may actually be the honest to goodness Umbrella Corp AKA Sauron AKA the One Corp That Rules Them All. I don’t have enough primary evidence to support that statement yet, I need to do some more research to verify its real scope.

I could go on all day about Percy’s business control and interests. His nephew, William Goodsell Rockefeller’s son, James Stillman Rockefeller ran Brown Brothers Harriman and National City Bank of New York after Percy. James also ran Citigroup after his uncle on the other side, James A. Stillman.

Sarah Elizabeth Stillman Rockefeller and Isabel Goodrich Stillman Rockefeller have a brother named James A. Stillman (after their father). This brother James Stillman was a director of Citigroup (the President at the time was Frank Vanderlip). He became President of Citigroup just like his father before him and his nephew after him. Citigroup has been one of the largest banking conglomerates and asset managers on the planet for all that time. Of note Bank of America is a part of Citigroup, along with Wells Fargo, Citibank (formerly City Bank of New York) and JPMorgan Chase (obv.). And as we saw in Part 1, Bank of America has no small holding in BlackRock at around 48%. Of course that’s not the only share of BlackRock held by a Citigroup entity, but it is the largest. Citigroup also has nearly $24 Trillion in assets under custody (a term I will explore in Part 3).

Isabel, Sarah, and James’ father James J. Stillman was one of J.D. Sr.’s original crew. Like all the rest, his name is on many of the boards of directors that make up The Trust, including the original Standard Oil Trust (as seen in both Tarbell and Moody).

The Dulles – Avery connection is interesting, as we will see when i get to the Dulles Brothers; though the actual relation is not all that close to the Rockefeller’s or Morgan’s (a descendant, i.e. great great granddaughter of Lt. Col. Ebenezer Avery III, not “first cousins” or anything).

There are so many connections in the larger family tree group linked above, it’s almost like it’s a…



At this point I’d like to revise:

“It’s a big club, and you’re not in it,” to:

“It’s a big club, and you’re not in it unless you are born into it, or marry into it." (Bonus points for both!)

That seems remarkably accurate according to my research.

It’s almost like an Aristocracy.

On an unrelated note:

In Part 2 of my report, I try to avoid speaking much on the specifics of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who was President during a time of more fuckery than you can shake a family tree branch stick at. While I mention him in many of the sections, I don’t get into his specific actions. I will speak on specific fuckery of his in Part 3 when I dig into his Executive Orders and some specific laws he passed, but for now, let me give you a taste of the fruit from his orchard. Please note that this section is not a “deep dive” into primary evidence. Instead, most of this stuff comes from GAT sources.

FDR’s whole ancestry is full of very wealthy businessmen. He is even a direct decedent of Wilhelmus Beekman, who was the Treasurer of the Dutch East India Trading Company during its heyday. Other distinctions for Mr. Beekman include being one of the first Mayor’s of New York, and Governors of both Delaware and Pennsylvania. He was even responsible for building Wall Street (the actual wall along the street, see below). There is so much in FDR’s ancestry... each one of his ancestors is nothing but incredibly rich and powerful people. All of the people in FDR’s ancestry that I’ve looked at so far, started or ran companies that later became part of The Trust and/or were Politicians (mostly both).

Because an extended genealogy is really not all that pertinent to my Rockefeller focused investigation (and can get quite boring), I will look at the beginning, then skip to the end of FDR’s ancestry; his immediate family and his namesake. There are many interesting things in between, I’m just not going there. FDR’s cousin, ole’ Teddy was also a President for example, and was responsible for “Busting The Trust” (when in fact he aided in both hiding it and strengthening it’s position, which I expose a little bit here, and will do more of in Part 3).

I should also mention that many people in America are descended from such stock. The ancestry of people is not necessarily telling. However, when people retain the family name, i.e. the line of inheritance, that is often quite revealing. It is traditional for both the name, and the money/power/opportunity to flow through the male descendants. This seems to be especially true among those in The Trust.

Going one step back; FDR’s father was James Roosevelt. James Roosevelt’s first wife was his cousin (of course) Rebecca Brien Howland, daughter of one of the founder's of the Pacific Mail Steamship Company (part of The Trust). James was himself a founding board member of the Consolidated Coal Company, which was the largest coal producer on the East Coast (monopoly). It was a Coal Trust even before the Rockefeller Oil Trust (albeit less “complete” of a Trust). It merged with the Rockefeller interests at the latest by 1915, but perhaps much sooner (I only spent a couple minutes looking). According to GAT, in 1966 this company became part of Conoco (one of the Standard Oil spinoffs), then DuPont, and is now called Consol Energy Inc. As I have been trying to show for a few hundred pages or so, such “transfer’s of ownership” have little to do with anything in reality since the board members stay basically the same, the assets stay basically the same, and they all come from a single pool of board members anyways. Looking at someone else’s dig into their history (the 1915 link above) there are other mergers that link into the Standard Oil Trust going back to the 1870’s through the Railroads. It has likely always been part of The Trust to one extent or another.

FDR’s brother, James Roosevelt Roosevelt married Helen Astor. I think he was a double Roosevelt because his mother was also a Roosevelt; middle names, seem to come from the maternal bloodlilne sometimes. The Astor’s are more famous for their wealth than the Roosevelts because of John Jacob Astor, who is considered one of the richest men of all time. Helen was his great grandaughter. Like the Avery-Morgan-Rockefeller family web, there seem to be several instances of intermarriage between the Astors, the Roosevelts, and the Delanos (I found a few, just by accident; I don’t know how many there are). The Roosevelts themselves are old money. Old, old money.

The first Roosevelt in America was Claes van Rosenvelt. He was from Holland, and he moved to New Amsterdam after it was founded by the Dutch. The land (along with a large chunk of the northeast North American continent) was claimed by Henry Hudson in the name of the Dutch East India Trading Company (despite the millions of natives living there). As mentioned, the Dutch East India Company ruled a large part of the world for a couple centuries.

The Rosenvelt’s were one of the first families to move to New Amsterdam, moving there before it was even officially a settlement. New Amsterdam later became a little town called New York City; specifically Manhattan, specifically lower Manhattan, specifically Wall St. area. In fact “Wall St.” is named after the street that ran along the wall on the border of New Amsterdam. Claes van Rosenvelt, some years after coming to New Amsterdam purchased a 50 acre parcel of land which is now quaintly called “Midtown Manhattan.” While not certain, it is possible that Claes van Rosenvelt was a Dutch Lord, or the named decendent/relative of the van Rosevelt Lords of Holland.

Claes’ son, Nicholas changed the family name to Roosevelt. Nicholas was one of the first Mayor’s (alderman) of New York (New Amsterdam). Nicholas was also the 4th great grandfather of both Pres. Theodore Roosevelt and Pres. FDR.

Skipping to the end(ish), FDR’s mother was Sarah Ann Delano. Ms. Delano was the daughter of Catherine Lyman. Catherine’s father, one of FDR’s great-grandfathers, was Joseph Lyman III. Joseph Lyman III’s sister was Mary (née Lyman) Lord. Ms. Lord was the birthing parent of Mary Sheldon (née Lord) Pierpont. Ms. Mary Poppins Pierpont popped out Juliet Pierpont Morgan, who was the mammy of Mr. JD Rockefeller’s partner in crime, a Mr. J.P. Morgan.

In other words, JP Morgan and FDR were third cousins (they have other lines of relation as well, so not “just” third cousins, this is just the closest). Third cousins however is not really a very close relationship. It’s pretty much the limit of what I consider even slightly meaningful, unless they have the same last name. At third cousins, you’re probably gonna know you’re cousins. You might even be invited to a shared family reunion. Similarly if you’ve got the same last name, and you are a member of the aristocracy one of the American power families, like “Roosevelt,” “Morgan,” “Rockefeller,” “Astor,” “Vanderbilt,” etc., you’re gonna know you are related. I suggest in those cases it is reasonable to say, “It’s a family thing.”

Speaking of “family things,” FDR married Eleanor Roosevelt. Her name was Roosevelt before she married FDR. She didn’t have to change her name. They were fifth(?) cousins. Eleanor Roosevelt was the niece of Pres. Theodore Roosevelt (4th cousin once removed from FDR). Ole’ Teddy was himself married to Edith Kermit Carrow who was also cousins with JP Morgan (by God alone knows how many lines). Teddy’s grandson (FDR’s first cousin once removed by marriage, or fifth(ish) cousin by blood) was Kermit Roosevelt Jr. who FDR assigned to the OSS (precursor to the CIA during WWII) and who was the person who later led the CIA coup in Iran so that the Rockefellers could take over Iran’s Oil reserves (section 8.).

FDR’s son, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jr. married both Ethel Du Pont, and later Felicia Schiff Warburg, who was the daughter of Paul Felix Solomon Warburg... that one is a TON to unpack, which I won’t do now. I will however get to the Schiffs, the Warburgs, and the Rothschilds (three more families with multiple intermarriages) in Part 3. They are all three fundamental (foundational) to both The Trust (as I have described it) and The Euro-Trust. They are three of the main links between the two groups. (I should say the low hanging Euro-fruit, there are many other links).

FDR’s other son, James Roosevelt married Betsy Cushing. Who is Betsy Cushing? I’m not sure (there is only so much time!), but her sister, Mary Cushing married William Vincent Astor, and her other sister Barbara Cushing married Stanley Mortimer Jr., who was the inheritor of a “Standard Oil fortune”. That was because Stanley’s grandfather was Henry Morgan Tillford who was BFF’s with the Morgans (and a cousin), and a founding member of the “second” Standard Oil Trust (a founding partner of the one created after the first “broke up” in 1892). I could go into who Henry Morgan Tillford is, but that is getting too far afield. Barbara Cushing later married William S. Paley, who was the founder of CBS which is located at 30 Rockefeller Center, which immediately put out Nelson Rockefeller’s propaganda (their word, not mine, see page two of that link) under the direction of his Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs division (CIAA), a branch of the government created by FDR specifically for Nelson Rockefeller (section 8.).

Deeeeep breath.

Regardless, in this case, the three Cushing sister’s are married to a Roosevelt, an Astor, a Standard Oil baron, and the founder of CBS. My bet is the Cushing’s are someone too. In this game of “connect the cousins,” everyone is multiply connected to everyone else. These people in general do not marry below their station; and the station doesn’t have that many train lines to choose from. At least by who they marry, these families act exactly like an Aristocracy (preserving the "bloodlines").

But wait, there's more! FDR’s maternal grandfather (Warren Delano Jr., married to Catherine Lyman), was an especially colorful character. I will get back to him later.

It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it.

None of these relationships are crimes. It’s not a crime to marry your cousin (or your cousin-cousin, or your cousin-cousin-cousin (I’m not even kidding!)). It’s not a crime to be cousins with someone who commits a crime. But when that crime (like a Fascist coup to take over America in congruence with Hitler and Mussolini) gets swept under the rug, silenced in the Congressional Investigation, never to be heard from again, nor ever taught in history class, and one of the main someone's who is named as having committed the crime (Morgan) is cousins with the President (and no small number of Senators, Congressmen and Judges), and that President's son married into the family of the other named culprit (Du Pont), and that President's father's business was part of another potential culprit, implied by numerous Board of Directors connections (Rockefeller), it at least allows you to entertain the idea that there might have been even more fuckery there.

These connections don’t in any way prove that J.P. Morgan et al were let off the hook by FDR. FDR's deep familial ties to other members of The Trust do not do so either. They are, at best, small pieces of circumstantial evidence. Their purpose is to present context. This context, when added up, allows you to get over the cognitive dissonance and look at evidence that supports the idea. I’m not saying there is any more evidence (at this time), this is just an example. I don't really care about the Fascist coup. Compared to other stuff to come, this is trivial, even if I have taken the time to present it with some level of detail. The point is, without presenting the context of connections, i.e. conflicts of interest, the mind will often simply ignore the good evidence; dismiss it out of hand. The brain screams, “that’s just not possible!” The hump is getting over the “that’s impossible” part. Before evidence of something “crazy” can even be presented, you first have to give a whole bunch of smaller, easier to swallow evidence that shows that it’s not impossible. It’s not necessarily done to support the evidence of the impossible (although it does that too). If there is evidence of a crime, the evidence is the evidence itself. It is used just to get over the hump, because seriously, people will completely dismiss the evidence no matter how primary, no matter how "smoking gun"ish, or how completely damning the evidence is, if that evidence makes them feel like the world is not a safe place, or is other than what they were taught in school, or by history books, or by the media. These "gatekeeper's of truth" are trusted far more than what is right in front of our face. That is the power of Cognitive Dissonance (section 6.). And again, I’m not talking about believing that any piece of evidence is “true.” I suggest that is always foolish (section 6.). I’m only talking about looking at it in earnest, and not immediately dismissing it as impossible, or forcing it, twisting it, to fit your current world views.

Thus Part 1 and Part 2 of this report. All so I can get to Part 3. God, it’s a long road to show evidence of something “impossible.” Fortunately it can be kinda fun along the way. I particularly enjoy playing Connect Four (cousins).

Section 5.6: The Pieces On The (Mega)Board

5.6.0 Welcome To The Machine: Part 1, Finkle Is Einhorn (1974 Edition)

In 1974, when Nelson Rockefeller was assigned the Vice Presidency (with nary a vote) congress investigated his business holdings, since he had told the public... (as quoted from the report linked below):

that his family does not own more than "one or two percent of any company", and thus has "no controlling interest of any substance except in Rockefeller Center.

To take on this investigation Congress asked author and professor G. William Domhoff, from UCSC and professor Charles L. Schwartz, Cal Berkeley, to write up a report on the validity of Mr. Rockefeller’s statements.

In their “Index to Significant Findings” they state:

  • The Rockefeller Family fortune is managed out of the headquarters on the 56th floor of 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York City. (page 14)
  • Fifteen employees of the Family, working out of this office, have been identified on the boards of directors of nearly 100 corporations over a number of years. (pages 15-18)
  • These include many of the advanced technology ventures usually associated with brother Laurance, but there are also many large, well established corporations. Their combined assets add up to 70 billion dollars. (page 20)
  • Nelson Rockefeller is personally associated with this Family office and he has participated as a partner in Laurance's investments. (pages 21-23)
  • Nelson Rockefeller's own investment portfolio is managed by the same employee who manages other Rockefeller Family investments; and his trust funds are held at the Chase Manhattan Bank, on whose board of directors sit both his brother David and also this same chief money manager for the Family. (page 25)
  • Trust funds set up for Nelson's children are under the control of these same intimate Family employees and money managers. (pages 26, 27)
  • Some of these Family employees serve both as advisers on the Family's business investments and also as officers of its tax-exempt philanthropies. Some evidence points toward a coordination of investments between these separate reservoirs of capital. (pages 29-31)
  • Further evidence suggests that investments of Yale University's endowment funds (supervised by the Rockefeller Family's chief investment manager) may have been coordinated with the Family's private investments. (page 32)
  • A tabulation of corporate director interlocks has been carried out, yielding a staggering image of the Family's deep penetration into the whole of the country's corporate economy. (pages 35-37)

The highlighted entries are of particular interest (though all are pertinent). Of the 15 members on the Rockefeller’s Board of Directors, they were on the board of 97 different companies. All of those companies are big players, and they hit all the important industries; chemicals, nuclear, communications, banks, insurance, computers, airplanes, autos, bio, pharma, transportation, mining, oil, numerous other high tech, etc., etc. The list has some impressive names on it. At the end of their extensive list of shared directorships they make the following statement:

This list adds up to 118 Directorships in 97 different companies. There may of course be other people and other companies tied to RF&A which were not discovered in this search; there are indications that at least some of the Family's representatives keep their "Rockefeller" label obscured from general view.

Thus, T.F. Walkowicz is listed on the Board of The Mitre Corp. as President of National Aviation Corp. M. Frederick Smith is listed as a Director in the annual reports of American Motors Corp., with only the identification, "Business Consultant, New York, New York." George L. Hinman joined the Board of Directors of IBM Corp. in 1963 and the company's annual report for that year contains the statement that he is "special counsel to the Rockefeller brothers"; however, ever since that year he is listed in the company's annual reports simply as being with the law firm of Hinman, Howard & Kattall in Binghamton, New York. This appears to be especially disingenuous in view of Mr. Hinman's recent disclosure that in 1960 he "closed his law practice to become Rockefeller family counsel, which remains his sole source of livelihood today." (Article published in the San Francisco Chronicle, October 28, 1974 page 8.)

In the course of this research a number of other people, not on the above list, were found who could plausibly be guessed to have acted as Rockefeller representatives on some corporate Boards. These people were members of law firms, investment houses, and individuals with a history of close association with Rockefeller affairs. However, lacking any documentary evidence that these people were in fact representatives or employees of the Family, they have not been listed here.

“There are indications that at least some of the families representative keep… obscured from general view.” I share this guys pain. Investigating the true extent of Rockefeller holdings is like trying to count the teeth of a Great White Shark while it is trying to swallow you. It’s extremely difficult because there so many layers, there are new teeth growing all the time, there is no small amount of pain the process, there are quite a few other things to worry about, you may find other very unpleasant things in there, and you are unlikely to survive the attempt.

This is only the people on one Rockefeller board (Rockefeller Family and Associates). They have numerous Trusts all over the place. They allude to that in the report, mentioning the dearth of information on Trusts held by Chase Manhattan (with Nelson’s brother David Rockefeller as CEO at the time). They quote a Newsweek article from 1974 (the year of this report) that claims that “much of the Family fortune is distributed in ‘well over 100, and perhaps 200 individual Rockefeller trusts.’” The only thing that has changed from Mr. Moody’s 1904 Finkle Is Einhorn exposition is more obfuscation of wealth, and less traceable control. Even within this one Trust they suggest they haven’t fully grasped the real scope of Rockefeller control. From their Scope of Activities of RF&A section:

The letter received from Mr, Burdick of RF&A, reproduced earlier, stated that the office in Room 5600 at 30 Rockefeller Plaza had been established "to provide personal services and advice" to members of the Family. The information presented above gives some indication of the scope of those personal services; but we do not know what fraction of the whole picture we have so far succeeded in uncovering. Just how big is Room 5600 and how broad is the scope of its financial management on behalf of the Family?

With respect to some Rockefeller Foundation holdings in Chase Manhattan, they discuss S. Menshikov who wrote “Managers and Millionaires” where he claims:

...in addition to there being a Finance Committee of the Foundation's Trustees, the Foundation's holdings are administered by the Chase Manhattan Bank, and "Rockefeller lawyers - Eli W. Debevoise and others - have the final say on stock voting.”

To this the authors of this report say:

If this claim is proved to be true, it will have extraordinary implications. It will mean that the Rockefeller's were able to give away hundreds of millions of dollars into tax-exempt institutions without losing the economic power which ownership of that money implies.

To which I say:

No shit.

Of course I haven't gotten there yet. That is what section 6 is about (titled Foundation).

In general this report shows that in 1974 the Rockefellers are hiding substantial influence, if not complete control of nearly a hundred major corporations behind Boards of Directors, from just one of their Dynasty Trusts. It implies they control a great deal more than merely a hundred. As has been shown previously, there are multiple layers of Boards of Directors. Boards of Directors under Boards of Directors, where Rockefeller is the Natural Person who is the Benefactor of this Russian Doll Entity.

They do manage to put together a reasonable list, though I suggest it is missing a great deal. In particular it is missing one incredibly important corporation I will get to in Part 3. Regardless, the list is at the end of their report and it has everyone who is anyone on there, in all areas of industry. E.g. it has all the American auto makers, food companies, oil/gas (obv.), electricity, banks, insurance companies, tech companies, investment firms, blah, blah, blah. Same story, different decade.

There is more to be said about this report, but I will stop here. I feel I am beating a dead horse at this point. I only wanted to show evidence of a continuity of MegaCorp control by The Trust through time. In this case, like previously, it focuses on the Rockefellers. But this really extends to the entirety of The Trust, of which Rockefellers are only one (major) player. This of course is not all of the evidence of the continuity. It’s not even a smidge of the total evidence. It is me picking low hanging fruit to condense all of the evidence (that I have seen) into digestible morsels. I will give only one more example of this Russian Doll Entity of Boards of Directors to bring it into the modern era, and give you an idea of what it looks like today (hint: it looks exactly the same).

5.6.1 Oh What A Tangled Web We Weave, When First We Practice To... You Know, The Thing

In addition to creating asset manager corporations to buy up all company stock, keeping even potential power away from "the little guy," The Trust became The Trust through the creation of a web of Boards of Directors. Just like many of their members' families, these Boards are completely incestuous. I think it’s probably more appropriate to think of them as just one Board; MegaBoard. As I’ve shown in numerous previous sections (and will again with specific examples), the Members of the Boards almost always (possibly always) sit on many Boards. Just like with the stock ownership maps, the connectivity map of Board members makes a dark web of tendrils that spreads through all of Corporatedom.

There is no such thing as “BlackRock” for example, it is, by leadership, stock and purpose, only one door into a much (much) larger singular corporation.

I’ve shown the present day “stock” situation already (Part 1), let's now look closer at modern Leadership. Below are all the members of the Board of Directors of BlackRock. These are all taken from an SEC filing of the 2021 BlackRock Proxy Statement of its Annual Meeting. Listed below are their associations that are not part of BlackRock. So in addition to everything listed below, everyone below is also on the Board of Directors for BlackRock, and in a few cases also a part of its corporate structure (VP’s, CEO’s, etc.), i.e. in addition to running the place, some of them also work there. That BlackRock specific information is not included below. There are also several pieces of information I've included that were not included in the SEC report. That information has linkage within the descriptions.

Note: BoT stands for Board of Trustees. In addition to saving repetitive typing time, I liked the acronym and felt it poetically appropriate.

Edit note: This section was intended to go after sections 6 and 7. Because I am releasing this before it's as done as I wanted it to be, and because I realized I need at least some connection to the present on intial realease, I am putting this at the end of section 5. I will very likely move it later.

This will make connections to Foundations (the title of Section 6), Schools (one of the main topics of Section 6) and NGO's (Council on Foreign Relations, United Nations, World Economic Forum, Trilateral Commission, etc.) which will be discussed in Section 7. What is below was written with the assumption that you understood these entities; who built them, how they are constructed, and what they have done. Since I haven't gotten there yet, please appreciate that any inuendo has no context, but it will make more sense later.

Badar M. Al Saad: On the board of Kuwait Investment Authority (KIA, former Chairman), Kuwait Financial Center (former CEO), Daimler AG, Global Advisory Council of Bank of America, Kuwait Fund for Economic Development. Founder of the International Forum of Sovereign Wealth Funds (the Kings Fund. Sovereign Wealth Funds are a huge deep dive. I will touch on some of this in Part 3 (IMF e.g.)).

Pamela Daley: also on the board of BP p.l.c. (British Petroleum), SecureWorks Corp, Pantheon N.V., General Electric, GE Capital Services, the GE Foundation, and the World Wildlife Fund, Inc. (an International Sovereign Entity “NGO” and sibling of the United Nations). BoT of UPenn, UPenn Law School, and The Juliard School.

Jessica P. Einhorn: Dean at John’s Hopkins, 20 years at the World Bank, also worked at International Monetary Fund (sister corp to World Bank, functions as the Lending Bank for the United Nations), U.S. Treasury, U. S. State Department, U. S. International Development Cooperation Agency. Director of National Bureau of Economic Research, member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and on the Executive Committee of the Trilateral Commission. She is also on the board of Rock Creek Group (Global investment firm), and Time Warner.

Laurence D. Fink(le): BoT for New York University, BoT (Co-Chair) for the NYU Langone Medical Center, Mount Sinai Hospital. “Agenda Contributor” for the World Economic Forum. On the board of directors for the Council on Foreign Relations, MoMA, International Rescue Committee (this one is such a deep dive; among other things it was a front for the CIA). Also BoT for Tsinghua University (China) and Executive Committee for the Partnership for New York City. Everything in this list is a Rockefeller started and funded organizations. That statement will be put into better context in section 6.

Author’s Note: Mr. Fink(le) and Ms. Einhorn are right next to each other in this filing. I didn’t do that, they did. They also look remarkably similar. Is that purely coincidental?

(Please note, I’m totally kidding.)



William E. Ford: CEO and Chairman of General Atlantic, Executive Committee for the Partnership for New York City, Emerging Markets Private Equity Association, Endeavor, McKinsey Advisory Council, New York State Life Science Advisory Board, National Committee on the United States-China Relations, member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Also on the board of ByteDance, Royalty Pharma, IHS Markit, Axel Springer, and TBG Limited. He’s the current Chair of Rockefeller University, BoT for Tsinghua University, Amhert College, Memorial Sloan Kettering, Lincoln Center, New York Genome Center, and the Advisory Board for Stanford Business school. He is a former board member of eviCore, First Republic Bank, NYSE Euronext, E-Trade, Priceline, NYMEX, and Zagat Survey.

Fabrizio Freda: President, CEO and board member of Estee Lauder Companies. Former CEO and Board member for Proctor and Gamble, and Gucci SpA. On the Advisory Board of the Global Business Initiative at Georgetown University. Member of the Council for Inclusive Capitalism with the Vatican. (There is so much to unpack in that one. It’s members list is... wow. Let’s just say, “All roads lead to Rome.”)

Murry S. Gerber: Executive Chairman of EQT Corp. (former President and CEO) and Former CEO of Coral Energy (Shell Oil). On the board of U.S. Steel Corp, Halliburton Corp. BoT of Augustana College, Pittsburgh Cultural Trust, Allegheny Conference on Community Development, Pennsylvania Business Council, United Way (another Rockefeller enterprise), Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra, and Carnegie Mellon University. Chairman of the Education Policy and Issues Center (I think this manages all of Pittsburgh’s School Boards?). Formerly or currently (didn’t dig deep enough) on the boards of the American Gas Association and the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America. Formerly or currently Chairman of the “Governor’s Task Force on Early Childhood Care and Education” (same link as above).

Margeret (Peggy) L. Johnson: CEO of Magic Leap, Inc. Formerly VP of Microsoft, Qualcomm, and Live Nation Entertainment. Advisor to Huntington’s Disease Society of America (a 501(c)(3), AKA a Foundation).

Robert S. Kapito: On the board of iShares Inc. BoT at UPenn, and a member of the Harvard Kennedy School Executive Education Faculty. Also President of the Board for the Hope & Heroes Children’s Cancer Fund and the Periwinkle Theatre for Youth, both of which are Foundations.

Cheryl D. Mills: Currently on the board of iHeartMedia, Inc. CEO of BlackIvy Group. VP and General Council for the BoT of New York University. Previously on board of Avis Budget Group, Orion Power. Former Chief of Staff for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Counselor to the U.S. State Department. Former deputy White House Counsel for Bill Clinton. The "shining star" for the Defense for Bill at his 1999 Impeachment Trial. She also testified for Hillary at the House Select Committee on Benghazi. She was the Former VP of Oxygen Media (part of NBC). On the board for the Clinton Foundation (forever, but at the time when she was Chief of Staff for Hillary it was illegal). Big part of Clinton’s Haiti shenanigan’s (which will likely be coming out in the news soon). She has been on the board of the See Forever Foundation, National Partnership for Women and Families, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund, Jackie Robinson Foundation, Center for American Progress, and William J. Clinton Presidential Library Foundation (all Foundations, and every one a deep dive).

Ms. Mills is an Agent for the Clinton’s. I don’t want to predict things, I’m the world’s worst prognosticator, but I have a feeling quite a bit will be coming out about both of the Clinton’s and their Foundations in the near future, and it ain’t gonna be pretty.

Gordon M. Nixon: Former President and CEO of the Royal Bank of Canada (currently on the board) and CEO and on the board of BCE Inc (Bell Canada). Also on the board of Kingsett Capital, George Weston Limited, and MaRS (an NPO that controls corporate and academic science funding).

Charles H. Robbins: Chairman and CEO of Cisco Systems, Inc. Chairman of the U.S.-Japan Business Council. Member of the International Business Council for the World Economic Forum. On the board for the Business Roundtable (a CEO exclusive lobbying organization; this one’s a serious deep dive) and BoT for the Ford Foundation.

Marco Antonio Slim Domit: Chairman of the board of Grupo Financiero Inbursa. Also on the board of Grupo Carso, Carso Global Telecom, and Inversora Carso. He is chairman of the Carlos Slim Health Institute, and Impulsora del Desarollo y el Empleo en America Latina (two of his father’s Foundations). Formerly on the board of Telefonos de Mexico.

Note: I had wanted to link all of the BlackRock board to their parents. I have a feeling that would provide a lot of insight; however, none of them have parents apparently. I don’t have access to a good database that would provide that information, and none of them have any familial information listed anywhere that I can find. Mr. Slim Domit is the exception. He is the son of Carlos Slim Helu from Mexico who was named the richest person in the world by Forbes between 2010 and 2013. Mr. Carlos Slim’s business interests are interesting (from the Wikipedia entry):

His corporate conglomerate spans numerous industries across the Mexican economy, of which includes education, health care, industrial manufacturing, transportation, real estate, media, energy, hospitality, entertainment, high-technology, retail, sports and financial services. He accounts for 40% of the listings on the Mexican Stock Exchange, while his net worth is equivalent to about 6 percent of Mexico's gross domestic product. As of 2016, he is the largest single shareholder of The New York Times Company.

Education, Health Care… Media… According to that entry, Carlos’ brother worked for “one of Mexico's top intelligence agencies”. He also has three foundations, one for “the arts, education, and health care.” Color me sorprende.

Hans E. Vestberg: CEO and Chairman of Verizon. Formerly CEO of Ericsson and on the board of Hexagon AB. Currently on the board of the UN Foundation (marriage of the UN and a Foundation. Use your imagination.) Also on the board of the Whitaker Peace and Development Initiative (a United Nations partner). Chairman of the World Economic Forum’s EDISON Alliance. Commissioner on the Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development (a UN initiative).

Susan L. Wagner: Currently on the board of Apple Inc, Swiss Re, Color Health, Samsara. Also BoT of Hackley School, and Wellesley College.

Mark Wilson: Chairman and CEO of Abacai. Former CEO of Aviva (UK). Former CEO of AXA (France). Former CEO of AIA Group (China, formerly AIG). All of these are “insurance” groups, which means they are also asset managers (like BlackRock). Member of the UN Business and Sustainable Development Commission. A leader of the World Benchmark Alliance, which is a fundamental part of World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset.” On the board of the EAT Foundation and the Royal Foundation (England). Chairman of the Geneva Association (an international Think-Tank, just like all the rest of these NGO’s).

Of the sixteen members of the BlackRock Board of Directors there are 42 distinct and direct current corporate connections. (Note: It was occasionally confusing on what was current and what was past. I also often found additional connections with more digging, so please take these numbers with a grain of salt.)

If we include former CEO’ships, board seats, etc. this total increases to 63. I suggest these are non-trivial connections, and probably almost as influential as current board of director seats, even if my idea of “The Trust” is not correct. When you are the former CEO, or started the business, or served on the board for twenty years it’s a little bit more influence than, “I used to work there.”

These corporate connections include some of the biggest names in the biz; Microsoft, Apple, AIG, Time Warner, World Bank, Verizon, etc.

There are 41 current and 43 total connections to Foundations or other NGO’s (not counting the ones listed below, i.e. World Economic Forum, CFR, etc.). Again these are not necessarily correct as “current,” but both the current and the total connections are likely close enough. It seems that once you are a director of a Foundation, you tend to stay a director for a while no matter how the musical chairs game in the corporate world plays out.

Of these 16 people, there are 25 connections to schools or school research facilities. This includes some of the biggest schools: NYU, Georgetown, John’s Hopkins, Tsinghua University, Rockefeller University, etc.

There are 8 current and 3 former government connections. This is not the number of people connected, but the number of total government organization connections. The number of people is 6 of 16, but I think only 10 are American, so 6 of 10 have, or are, working as part of the U.S. Government.

Of these 16 people, there are 3 that are members of the Council on Foreign Relations, 4 that are members of the World Economic Forum, 1 that is a member of the Trilateral Commission, and 3 that are working for the United Nations. There is some overlap in there, thus 7 of 16 are working for one of those Rockefeller founded One World Government organizations.

This is one company I chose (kinda not really) at random. I assert they all look exactly the same. Hell, no small part of some of the biggest corporate players are already here in this tiny sample.

This looks a whole lot like The Trust of Mr. Moody’s 1904 exposition of it to me. (And Tarbell, and the Senate in 1911, and 1934, and 1974...)

Edit: After having written this section, I came across a whole new possible line of Board of Directors connections for all of these people. This website looks for these connections specifically. It may be a great potential resource to make a “Director’s Web” map, but at the moment, I just don’t have the time. The site made the claim that Mr. Fink, who according to BlackRock (and all other GAT resources) has no other “board of directors” connections (or at least doesn’t list any), is also on the board of Anthracite Capital, Innovir Laboratories (a Pharma Company), the New York Stock Exchange, VIMRx Pharmaceuticals Inc., and a BoT for the Mount Sinai Hospital. Since it wasn’t in the GAT sources, I looked for primary evidence to support these assertions. I found VIMRx Pharmaceuticals Inc., New York Stock Exchange, Anthracite capital. For Innovir Laboratories I found this website, which then made claims of even more directorships!

Just to make sure it wasn’t a fluke, specific to Mr. Fink(le), I decided to look up Ms. Einhorn as well. Sure enough, this site adds BoD duties for Pitney Bowes, Center for Global Development, Institute for International Economics, and BoT duties for the German Marshall Fund, and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

I’m giving up. Who the fuck knows how many Board of Director/School/Foundation Trustee connections there are!?

These entangled Boards of Directors for all these corporations are never changed by “shareholders” because there is no majority shareholder. The vast majority of these companies have greater than 50% institutional holdings, so even if the public wanted to speak as a singular voice, they couldn’t oust the board from the company they are invested in. These boards remain in perpetuity, nominating themselves or their cronies forever. Control of Corporatedom never leaves the MegaBoard.