Why would TPTB/corporations release documents that expose them?

[HowToBe]

I'm in the process of reading this article about Dr. Tyrone Hayes: http://www.sott.net/article/273250-Dr-Tyrone-Hayes-The-scientist-who-took-on-a-leading-herbicide-manufacturer

The question occurred to me as I read this:

Liu and several other former students said that they had remained skeptical of Hayes's accusations until last summer, when an article appeared in Environmental Health News that drew on Syngenta's internal records. Hundreds of Syngenta's memos, notes, and e-mails have been unsealed following the settlement, in 2012, of two class-action suits brought by twenty-three Midwestern cities and towns that accused Syngenta of "concealing atrazine's true dangerous nature" and contaminating their drinking water. Stephen Tillery, the lawyer who argued the cases, said, "Tyrone's work gave us the scientific basis for the lawsuit."

Now, I'm ignorant when it comes to politics and the processes by which society operates. (I really hope to develop an understanding, though!) I just realized that a number of revelations have come through lawsuits like this, or applying the Freedom of Information Act, however that works. So, how does this even work? How is it that these companies/governments "fail" to defend against this, as surely having their documents exposed is an obvious threat, and the legal channels might be more readily defended against than the occasional whistleblower, due to being predictable.

Part of the answer might be that there is some intentional reason to release some information (like the idea that maybe some factions of government want to gradually open awareness to UFO-type issues), although in this case that doesn't seem likely. Another thought is that of course these companies are large and the whole infrastructure can't be 100% controlled since there will be a mixture of different types of people involved in the organization.

For instance, why can't they just go, "Uh, we don't have any such papers." and make them disappear? I'm sure this has been done many times. I realize that thoroughly destroying all trace of something is difficult if not impossible, but these companies have a lot of resources.

Just curious.

 

[Anthony]

I think it's important to note the context in which the documents are released.
I guess most of those that threaten the PTB don't get released.
While those that do, tend to be disinformation or are whitewashed, and are for distraction purposes.
Some can be used to test the reaction people have, so further actions can be taken.

 

[Cosmos]

I think think it is mostly an effort on control on the part of the PTB.

They realize that a certain topic gets to much exposure from normal people so they realease "truthful stuff" about it themself to direct, control and misguide the information flow into a certain direction.

Further I think it is sometimes used on purpose by the PTB, to set an example to the public "See we are not that bad, we expose ourselves!". And sometimes to use that epose to find out who in the population are "terrorists" respectively dangerous for the PTB. It also can be used as a tool to tell certain people or a society something like: "See we are that evil, do not dare to stand up against us, otherwise you will end up very badly yourself"

 

[Thor]

As I see it, the PTB think in monetary and power terms. So in order to understand their thinking it makes sense to take an economic perspective.

If you look at it from the perspective of PTB it's not such big a deal. If a corporation has made hundreds of millions or billions of dollars on something and destroyed the planet as a consequence they probably look at it as a lifetime cash flow from a given activity. And since it's unlikely that they can control everything all of the time I would suppose they set aside money for different expenses within a products life cycle. One such expense could be legal cost or settlement cost if they get caught red-handed. This would be the perspective of an individual company.

And while an individual company may go down if the exposure is too great or what they've done is too atrocious, it matters little to the PTB as they control so many other big companies. OK - one billion dollar conglomerate went bust (like Lehman Brothers for instance) but that doesn't matter for a new billion dollar conglomerate in another field that is also controlled by the PTB grows up. And while the poor consumers celebrate a marginal victory in one area the PTB just make their profits somewhere else.

So basically, by letting some companies get caught from time to time the masses are led to believe that justice can be had and that the system is fair. From the PTB's perspective it's more like an insurance policy: you pay a little sum (the premium) on a regular basis to offset economic risk of an undesirable outcome (being broke if your house burns down). Similarly, the PTB lets's a scandal be revealed and the "responsible" managers are sacrificed (the premium) in order to get reduce the risk of the undesirable outcome that people find out that the game is rigged and equality before the law is an illusion which could lead to revolutions and potentially the loss of privileges to the PTB.

Can't say that this is what's going on but it makes sense if all you think about is money and power...

 

[Joe]

I'm in the process of reading this article about Dr. Tyrone Hayes: http://www.sott.net/article/273250-Dr-Tyrone-Hayes-The-scientist-who-took-on-a-leading-herbicide-manufacturer

The question occurred to me as I read this:

Liu and several other former students said that they had remained skeptical of Hayes's accusations until last summer, when an article appeared in Environmental Health News that drew on Syngenta's internal records. Hundreds of Syngenta's memos, notes, and e-mails have been unsealed following the settlement, in 2012, of two class-action suits brought by twenty-three Midwestern cities and towns that accused Syngenta of "concealing atrazine's true dangerous nature" and contaminating their drinking water. Stephen Tillery, the lawyer who argued the cases, said, "Tyrone's work gave us the scientific basis for the lawsuit."

Now, I'm ignorant when it comes to politics and the processes by which society operates. (I really hope to develop an understanding, though!) I just realized that a number of revelations have come through lawsuits like this, or applying the Freedom of Information Act, however that works. So, how does this even work? How is it that these companies/governments "fail" to defend against this, as surely having their documents exposed is an obvious threat, and the legal channels might be more readily defended against than the occasional whistleblower, due to being predictable.

Part of the answer might be that there is some intentional reason to release some information (like the idea that maybe some factions of government want to gradually open awareness to UFO-type issues), although in this case that doesn't seem likely. Another thought is that of course these companies are large and the whole infrastructure can't be 100% controlled since there will be a mixture of different types of people involved in the organization.

For instance, why can't they just go, "Uh, we don't have any such papers." and make them disappear? I'm sure this has been done many times. I realize that thoroughly destroying all trace of something is difficult if not impossible, but these companies have a lot of resources.

Just curious.

depends who released them and how, they can't stop all employees from spilling the beans. But in general, in cases like this that concern evidence of big corporations breaking the law, abusing people, endangering health, the environment etc. they probably don't worry too much about being exposed because they know from past experience and the experience of others that, if they are punished at all, they are "punished" with a chump change fine and asked not to do it again, or if it involves a law suit, they'll have their insurance company handle the payouts. In short, corrupt corporate psychos do what they like with impunity, and they know it.

 

[davey72]

As I see it, the PTB think in monetary and power terms. So in order to understand their thinking it makes sense to take an economic perspective.

If you look at it from the perspective of PTB it's not such big a deal. If a corporation has made hundreds of millions or billions of dollars on something and destroyed the planet as a consequence they probably look at it as a lifetime cash flow from a given activity. And since it's unlikely that they can control everything all of the time I would suppose they set aside money for different expenses within a products life cycle. One such expense could be legal cost or settlement cost if they get caught red-handed. This would be the perspective of an individual company.

And while an individual company may go down if the exposure is too great or what they've done is too atrocious, it matters little to the PTB as they control so many other big companies. OK - one billion dollar conglomerate went bust (like Lehman Brothers for instance) but that doesn't matter for a new billion dollar conglomerate in another field that is also controlled by the PTB grows up. And while the poor consumers celebrate a marginal victory in one area the PTB just make their profits somewhere else.

So basically, by letting some companies get caught from time to time the masses are led to believe that justice can be had and that the system is fair. From the PTB's perspective it's more like an insurance policy: you pay a little sum (the premium) on a regular basis to offset economic risk of an undesirable outcome (being broke if your house burns down). Similarly, the PTB lets's a scandal be revealed and the "responsible" managers are sacrificed (the premium) in order to get reduce the risk of the undesirable outcome that people find out that the game is rigged and equality before the law is an illusion which could lead to revolutions and potentially the loss of privileges to the PTB.

Can't say that this is what's going on but it makes sense if all you think about is money and power...

I tend to agree with THOR's reasoning here. If you were the PTB that basically owns everything, then looking at it with the economic, and business mindset it would make sense to make way for new opportunities, less competition in the sector maybe, etc. With an added bonus being to placate the public while it is still something within their control. It would seem to restore faith that the average person has in the government. OSIT.

 

[Voyageur]

As I see it, the PTB think in monetary and power terms. So in order to understand their thinking it makes sense to take an economic perspective.

[...]

I tend to agree with THOR's reasoning here. If you were the PTB that basically owns everything, then looking at it with the economic, and business mindset it would make sense to make way for new opportunities, less competition in the sector maybe, etc. With an added bonus being to placate the public while it is still something within their control. It would seem to restore faith that the average person has in the government. OSIT.

I agree with what Thor said here in terms of what Joe states "In short, corrupt corporate psychos do what they like with impunity, and they know it."

In Alberta, Canada for instance, you have the Tar Sands on the one hand ruining peoples lives (a minority on the surface) along with local and down stream environmental conditions, while enriching many many others. Then there are the folks representing other energy companies in direct competition (east coast, fracking or middle east energy), or the same companies playing both sides of the fence; who fund the campaigns for or against (often driving up the spot price). They care nothing for anyone, for anything except profit; unless it is within their corporate governance to do so, and then only as a very thin veneer, osit. If they fall from public grace, a few million dollars and a crafted PR mask change might then align them with say an influential environmental group to help "greenwash" their image further. What has PB done since the Gulf, we're so sorry, here is some loose change and we will do better - and they have moved on to their next energy fix. Big finance, agriculture, mining, forestry, it is the same, there are always useful politicians at their backs to help pave their way, even if it is right over the backs of the people who elected them.

Unless directly affected by some issue; asbestos, uranium, toxins, gross negligence for instance, people and investors have short memories and will give all again once the perception of grey clouds has cleared.

Hearkening back to prior endeavors of "public trusts" when people came together to create something for all in society, hiring skills, sorting out funding - sharing etc. is one thing, what it has become now is far removed. In thinking about how they "get away with it", it seems that the PTB have inculcated us at an early age to accept the corporation as the drivers in ones economy, of ones life, and to also accept the fear instilled that they must not fail, they must succeed, and as many work directly or indirectly for them. It seems now, they can do a great deal of ill and get away with it, they also now have the ultimate corporate welfare state to thrive within and protect them. Without knowing exactly the inner workings of corporate governance, it seems that this weakness in governance terms (the legalese) has allowed the corporate ranks to become infested. Without a moral compass to guild them, they have became drunk on money and power.

 

[HowToBe]

That concept of psychopaths/corporations being on a sort of wellfare is a really striking one. And the mismatch between the "welfare" for the rich and the "wellfare" for the poor is quite clear. The amazing thing is how every person works, and a percentage of that that just filters up and concentrates to benefit a few.

I suppose that to be as "successful" as they are TPTB have to be very "realistic", at least in certain ways (like the economical reasoning). So I suppose they must know they can't prevent everything, like you say. It's just a variable in their "program". A number of factors seem to be at play.

The thought also occurs to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that psychopaths (or some of them) have this need to display their power, and this has the side effect of revealing their nature to those who have the awareness to see it. But clearly situations like this tend not to enter into mainstream knowledge, maybe partly because of all the programming designed to make people rationalize away psychopathic behavior.

Anyhow, thinking about this topic and trying to say something substantial about it just shows me how little I really know.