Corporate Directorate Interlocking

I just found out about this site, the website of a sociology professor at UCSC. The site is interesting, I’ve just started exploring it. But the context in which I learned about it was the article on corporate directorate interlocking, that is, the extent to which corporations share board members. Conspiracy anyone? Perhaps not sinister enough for the real buffs, but there’s clearly extensive conflict of interest in the corporate world.
There are apparently laws against companies in the same sector sharing directors (which makes a lot of sense), but there doesn’t seem to be a problem with two people from competing companies sitting on another board together. The diagrams are interesting, in particular the corporate interlock diagrams (there’s more than one, that one’s for Citigroup), and the more web-like version that includes links between companies that have links to Citigroup.
I intend to explore this site more, but I thought I’d share it here because it seems to be the kind of thing that’s up our collective alley.
There might be a case to be made that the interconnections are so widespread that the conflicts balance out, but it still seems like there are enough qualified people out there that this isn’t likely unless interlocking gives corporations strategic advantage. It almost makes a sort of meta-corporation, a web of control that subsumes a measly industry-leading corporation.

I think it’s creepy.

EDIT: added words I inadvertently left out. . . yeah.

That’s really interesting.

Have you seen this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texaco_Inc._v._Dagher

I thought that that decision made it pretty clear that corporate cooperation is allowed.

Not really, because they ain’t working in secret. We know who these people are, we know that they sit on numerous boards of numerous corporate entities, we can find out this much from Wikipedia or any other basic biographical website.

It’s the secretive aspect that’s key (at least to me, other conspiracy theorists disagree). If you find that some of these people are also members of the CFR, and the Trilateral Commission, and the Bilderberg group or the Order of Skull and Bones or some other masonic-derived grouping then you’ve got a conspiracy. But not all of these people are members of such groupings. Only some of them are. And even then, one could argue that since membership of at least the CFR and the Trilateral Commission are as public as the names of corporate board members or government officials then you still don’t have a group of people acting in secret, so you still don’t have a conspiracy. On the other hand, when these same people also control the major media, and the major media doesn’t put this story together, I think you’ve got the most telling sign of all - a group trying to keep itself secret.

Bear in mind who ultimately founded and owns Citigroup. And look up whether they have any connections with secret societies and international government. I’ll give you a clue - yes they both founded and have been members of secret societies, and they are central to various institutions devoted to international government.

Precisely. And it is through this web of control that one can set standards and precedents aped by the rest of the industry as they try to ‘get a bit of that too’.

I think it’s worse than creepy. What you’ve got to understand (and maybe already do) is that this sort of argument is not a political one. It’s one of a philosophy of history. The typical division is between those believe history to be an essentially arbitrary series of events, for whom no conspiracy could ever wield any significant power, and those who believe history to be a directed series of events, for whom conspiracy is the very means by which important things happen. Obviously there are other possibilities and options, but for the most part people fall into one of those two categories, and from that argue their case for or against conspiracy. It is a divisive word, but only because we’ve made it such. Conspiracy is a part of everyday life - spouses cheating on their significant others, bank robbers, muggers, drug dealers, pimps and prostitutes and all manner of other things. Then there are historical examples - Watergate, Iran Contra, Gladio, Pearl Harbour, the freeing of Black September, the creation of Al Qaeda, the attack on the USS Liberty, the assassinations of any number of heads of state (including Kennedy, according to one government Committee report, though it’s another 9 years before they release the files. And even then, like the CIA’s crown jewels, they’ll hold back the most damning information. And more recently, the intelligence on Iraq’s WMD, reported by the head of MI6 to be ‘being fixed to the policy’. And the information about foreign government involvement in 9/11 is (and they’ve explicitly told us this) being kept secret. And then there’s the US and UK special forces in Iraq who’ve been caught running around dressed as Arabs attempting terrorist attacks. Then there’s the KLA, Clinton’s buddies in the Balkans, which was only a decade back.

I could go on at great length about this, but the point is there are enough firm examples of conspiracy, both in recent and older history, for people like me to see things the way we do. Yet the vast majority of authoritative types (academic or otherwise) seek only to ridicule such views. This is an argument from ignorance, but one lapped up by a lot of people who don’t know any better.