Conspiracy 1. An agreement to perform together and illegal, treacherous, or evil act. 2. A combining or acting together as if by evil designed: a conspiracy of natural forces. 3. Law. An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or to accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
In the criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more natural persons to break the law at some time in the future, and, in some cases, with at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement. There is no limit on the number participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect (compare attempts which require proximity to the full offense). For the purposes of concurrence, the actus reus is a continuing one and parties may join "the plot" later and incur joint liability and conspiracy can be charged where the co-conspirators have been acquitted and/or cannot be traced. Finally, repentance by one or more parties does not affect liability but may reduce their sentence.
OK, so maybe it is not "an agreement" per se' between parties, it
just happens that for the last 200 years it evolved, it
natural outcome. People have a tendency to listen to their "ID"1
there is nothing to distract that. A "symbiotic"
company markets a product to the public that they advertise as:
'tasting good', 'makes you look better', 'improves this',
that', and all along it makes you sick. Than another company
product to help you with the problems that were (unknowing to you)
caused by the first. The only catch in this has been the
You Remember your government? That organization
supposed to be; by the people, for the
The government who's major purpose is to protect its citizens? If
were truly for the people, then industry wouldn't be able to
products that poison you. Our public officials started out with
ideals but over the last two centuries greed has over taken the
semblance of ethical behavior. e.g. The tax code is riddled
with breaks for the different corporations all for kick backs,
campaign contributions, and gifts.
I/We would like to think it pretty ridiculous, of Americans
against Americans. It is anti-christian, anti-American, it goes
against our feeling of security and national
unity. We believe what we want to believe. But the fact is, it is
cut-throat world out there and Americans, usually
corporations, are plotting against Americans
every day of the week. Enron is/was a good example of
conspiring to take advantage of others. Remember the Alar
scare? Probably not. Alar wa
s a preservative Washington apple growers were putting on their apples. One or more of the Congressmen from Washington came into disfavor with the "establishment" and a rumor was started that Alar was doing bad things to people. It virtually devastated the Washington apple industry for one one year and why? It was political slap in the face, there is/was nothing wrong with Alar. The media must have broadcast the story a hundred times about how bad it was for you but when the truth was finally known it was broadcast about once. Technically they are partially responsible for the lie. You have undoubtedly considered a course of action to better yourself at the expense of others and considered it just, "getting ahead." Even the stock market is a form of bettering yourself at the expense of someone else, it is just legal and anonymous. You just have to be smarter and/or have better judgment or maybe have some inside information and makes money at somebody else's expense. Taking advantage or the ignorant or unlucky it might be called. It kinda gives; "Do unto others," a whole new meaning.
I think Enron is more the norm than the exception. People want to believe that everything is fine and safe and their future is secure because our "system" has so many safe guards it would be impossible for anything to go wrong. Then something like Enron happens and we get so stupid we think "how did that slip through the cracks?" It didn't slip through any cracks, it is our system that failed. It is our system designed to do just that. Did you see the movie Erwin Brockavich? Based on fact, PP&G jumped through lots of hoops to keep from being blamed for poisoning its' own employees and the local populace including children. Yeah, it wasn't intentional but the only effort they made before being caught was to cover up the problem. It is money, it is greed.
Fell through a crack my butt! There must have been over a dozen different government agencies that head oversight to prevent something like Enron and others from happening. Just as in the movie "Erin Brockavich" government is easily bought or they really don't want to put out the effort. It didn't fall through any crack. It probably stumbled over or pushed through a dozen agencies before it got so out of hand. The answer, I believe, is a lot simpler than it sounds. Simple yet immense. So many government agencies do so very little beyond collecting their weekly government paychecks. They get complacent, they watch small companies that are "safer" to prosecute and some of them even get wined and dined by the likes of Enron or maybe even a favor or two was passed under the table to look the other way and they don't care. It happens everyday. Enron executives were simply too greedy and couldn't control their greed. Government and industry have a common thread and it is people. Training starts at a young age on how to shift blame and duck responsibility. Government & industry i.e. people; need to be made accountable.
Do you use "Nutra Sweet" in your food? You better check this site
out first. http://www.mayoclinic.com and search for aspartame.
you will probably never use it again. also check
You've heard the story about the programmer that robbed the bank by programming the computers to take all change less than a nickel from every transaction and put it into his account. It was a brilliant plan in that each theft was small enough to be overlooked or considered too insignificant to bother with. But when you consider the tens of thousands of transactions in a large bank it turned out to be quite a large sum of money. Who knows how long he would have got a way with it hadn't it been for a chance accident and he was caught.
They found that putting ground up used tires in asphalt makes paving last 20 to 30% longer. Doesn't that sound wonderful? We can get rid of these mountains of used tires and save money on our highways. So why aren't we doing it? Because the asphalt industry has 'lobbied' our government to stop it saying it will put all these asphalt workers out of work. And it works! Same with the tobacco industry. They lobby that the tobacco farmers will be out of work and the addicts are definitely not going to vote for somebody raising tobacco prices. What about the rest of the Public? They just don't think. If it doesn't hit them in the face they think it doesn't affect them.
Lobby: A group of private persons engaged in influencing the legislature i.e. the art of giving riches to an individual in such a way as the public doesn't realize it for the purpose of swaying, insuring a vote.
The same game is being worked a thousand times over on the American public, an increment here and an increment there and the nobody seems to have caught on. People don't want to catch on. They want things to be nice and will ignore so much to protect that belief, that feeling of security.
For example and this is only an example, companies like General Motors, Monsanto, Dow Chemical, etc. have carefully conspired to twist the truth around and make their work appear benevolent when in reality they are scamming the public and fashioning future positions so they will dominate the market. Think about this: who sponsors the annual Breast Cancer drives throughout America? Did you realize that by sponsoring the Cancer drive they can also control what it does? Conspicuously absent from their platform is prevention! Wouldn't you think it would be simpler and more important to prevent a disease than just find it? Actually, besides smoking you almost never hear the word anywhere. Prevention might start the finger pointing at industry so better they control a fight against cancer where they can control its direction than be at the receiving end of some finger pointing. Insidious and brilliant.
Keep an open mind and I'll tell you one of the many many ways it is done. As late as the 1950's, soy was used only in crop rotation as a nitrogen fixer. That means that certain bacteria on the rootlets of the soybean plant are able to restore nitrogen to the soil. Soy was planted in fields for this purpose, because most crops use up the nitrogen in the soil in time. Nitrogen depletion = soil depletion. Originally soy wasn't a food crop itself. This was before Baron von Leibig came up with the idea of adding NPK (Nitrogen-Phosphorus -Potassium) to the soil instead of rotating the crops.
After the harvest, the soybeans were sometimes fed to the domestic animals although it wasn't that great for them, or else just turned under for the next crop. The Chinese found out long ago that if soybeans were fermented , were then digestible. Examples are tempeh and soy sauce. Later still, the farmers learned that if the fermented soy were precipitated into curd form, the result was edible tofu. The point is, soybeans alone are not a natural food. Unlike other vegetables, soybeans nutritionally sound great but are accompanied by many toxins indigestible by humans. It would be like a trip in the Titanic. It is only through mass advertising and marketing that we have forgotten that before modern processing methods, soybeans were never a staple food. The big corporations put a lot of time and money into perfecting soybean seeds and didn't want to lose that investment. With the advent and availability of modern fertilizers it was no longer necessary to grow soybean to restore nitrogen to the soil. So now they sell the fertilizer that replaces soybean but they have a huge investment and infrastructure built up around soybeans. So do you think they are just going to throw it away? Soybean already had a almost mystical aura about it. Tofu was big with the "in crowd" so instead of holding on to a fringe market, why not push it and advertise it as the next great discovery?
It is interesting the new genetically altered soybean made herbicide resistant ('roundup proof' by Monsanto) also doesn't replace the nitrogen in the soil hence the farmers still need to buy fertilizer (from Monsanto of course). One more bonus, (for Monsanto) the farmers can't re-plant the seed from their own crop, they are sterile. So now the farmer has to buy the new seed every year from, who else?
It is all here and links to what many scholars say and reputable documentation. Check out www.TruthAboutSoy.com. Unfortunately this site was shut down. Try searching the web for "Truth about Soy", there are lots of sites our government and Monsanto, GM etc. haven't gotten to yet.
Remember: this is just one thing. Example, I was just reading USA Today "The FDA softened its warning to pregnant women about the dangers of mercury in some fish, notably tuna, under industry pressure." The danger didn't go away, some wallets at the FDA just got a little fatter or the promise of a job after politics sitting on a board with a fat paycheck.
The power companies, the people responsible for putting 60 tons of mercury into the atmosphere a year (in just the U.S.) request exemptions, extensions and changes in the laws every year.
Monsanto requested they not be checked so often by the regulators; and they complied. Was that with a pat and a wink? Sugar is a another example. Sugar today costs more than twice what it should but the cartel that controls it also gives our public servants i.e. the politicians, their due in the form of millions in political contributions and monopoly is insured. Don't believe me? The "Life Saver" company is moving to socialists Canada because the price of sugar is so much cheaper there.
Check the internet for a substance called "Estevia." You will find lots of foreign sites talking about it, praising its benefits. You will also find some US Government sites telling you not to use it and trying to scare the hell out of you, but they lie. Estevia has been safely used since pre-Colombian times with no reports of side affects. Stevia has withstood years of research that has proven Stevia to be safe for human consumption. Stevia also has many therapeutic uses in other countries. In Brazil, it has been found to lower sugar levels in diabetics. In China, it is used to aid digestion, lose weight and even to stimulate the appetite. As a dietary supplement Estevia shows promise for supporting proper metabolic function and it may facilitate natural weight loss.
So why would they lie? You didn't read my WEB page on sugar then. Estevia or stevia would wreck the sugar market and we all know who is getting huge kickbacks from the 'illegal' sugar monopoly.
That is not a 'crack' in the system, it is a system in desperate need of overhaul. We, the public are being bilked by hundreds of schemes that are scamming us one way or the other. So why doesn't this come out? It was on TV, they did a whole story on it; 20/20 or 60 minutes or somebody and then everybody just forgot about it. The media has us programmed until if we only hear it once, we don't pay it any attention. We are bombarded by it so much we have to hear something 20 times before we react to it. Peanuts, a similar thing. They cost double what they would on the open market. Our market is 'closed.' Jimmy Carter can grows peanuts and sell them on the U.S. market but if you started growing peanuts today, you would have to sell your crop to a foreign market, it is law.
It is just people, greedy people.
Hot off the WEB:
Domestic sugar prices are at least twice as high as foreign sugar prices due to the federal government’s sugar policies. A combination of government price supports and restrictions on foreign imports forces consumers to pay up to an extra $1.9 billion annually, according to the non-partisan General Accounting Office (GAO).
This program primarily benefits big sugar tycoons, with less than 1 percent of the producers gobbling up 58 percent of the benefits. Originally enacted during the Depression, the sugar program was eliminated in 1974 but resurrected by proponents in 1981. It then narrowly escaped the 1996 Farm Bill reforms that attempted to phase out subsidies for most other crops. In 2000, a glut in the sugar market prompted the USDA to pay producers directly in order to reduce production of surplus sugar. These forfeitures and paid cutbacks cost taxpayers $465 million in fiscal year 2000.