Charlie Bell schreef:
<snipped>
> OK, I see nothing wrong with a corporation adopting a person. Say they want
> to groom someone to be the head of the company in the future, so the
> corporation adopts a number of babies, and raises them in a special
> nursery/school/college, with the aim of picking the most able to run the
> company in the future. There is nothing wrong here (odd maybe, but not
> wrong), as long as all those kids know who they are, why they're there, and
> have the freedom to opt out and leave once they're free entities (16 in the
> States, or 18?) if they so choose.
>
> This is where the producers of Truman stepped over the line. They kept
> Truman in the dark about his origins, and they manipulated him all along,
> and actively tried to prevent him leaving on more than one occasion.
One thought that occured to me was the second Reich and their 'adoption' of
children into all kinds of semi military organisations. They were turned into
perfect idiological machines. And they went there perfectly willingly, even were
proud to be part of it all. It was only after the war that many of them realised
how misled they were even if at the time they were perfectly willing and
believed every word of the idiology that was presented to them. Children are so
very easy to influence.
As I gathered from a documentary yesterday this is still done to create perfect
officers for the russian army. Introduce boys young enough to the military and
the resident ideology and they become totally commited even fanatical.
So what would prevent a company from doing the same?
Sonja
