Henry Ford was producing ethanol compatible cars, and supplied 25% of the mid-western fuel market, until John. D. Rockefeller, the founder of Standard oil had prohibition enacted. Was this the real reason behind the prohibition of alcohol?

submitted by HibikiBlackCaudillo from (youtube.com)

all 17 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Canbot 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Industrial ethanol was exempt from prohibition. There were chemicals added to it that would cause blindness when ingested. That is why there exists a myth that moonshine causes blindness. Moonshiners would add industrial ethanol to their spirits.

[–]CarlDung 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

industrial ethanol = denaturated ethanol or methanol?

[–]Canbot 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It was simply ethanol that was produced not for consumption but to be used in industry. There was a special exemption allowing it to be produced. The blinding additive was added on purpose so that it could not be consumed. The point is if anyone was building a car that runs on ethanol prohibition would not have stopped them. The fact is ethanol burn extremely hot, is expensive to produce, and unless oil goes back to $150 per barrel it won't be economical to use. Also, Standard Oil was broken up in 1911. Making this entire theory extremely unlikely.

[–]Rah 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

In the end that turned out well. Ethanol is very inefficient as a primary energy source and damages internal combustion parts much faster.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

the thing is, it should be used anyway, as it is easier to get than oil

[–]Rah 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Maybe, but hear out from someone who lives with experience on the matter.

Alcohol suffers too much fluctuation in prices. The most economical and environmental friendly fuel for cars is natural gas. It takes a huge amount of plants to make enough fuel to fill a tank.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

lol fluctuation of prices compared to oil as an excuse not to use it

[–]Rah 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Its not an excuse. Oil is the cheapest and most cost-efficient energy generator in our entire human species. A gas engine is the simplest, most energy-generating device ever created. When you advocate for alcohol, you want to downgrade this. No one is against alcohol, but rather forced replacement the same way tyrants want to abolish gas-powered cars under the excuse of "saving the environment", when an electric car emits more polluants than four gas cars as it leaves the factory because of its extremely expensive and dirty batteries.

But go ahead and tell me how alcohol is great and how every farmer needs to stop growing your food to fuel a car that could be fuelled by fracking.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

cheapest and most cost effective?

these paid shills getting lazier and lazier.

[–]Rah 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes. Gas engines are the most cost-effective energy generators for humans. Prove me wrong in anyway you can, i dont have anything for or against it.

If it helps your case, im against the ban, but it ended up being beneficial for the US, the country with the cleanest and cheapest gas in the entire world.

[–]HibikiBlackCaudillo[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I think It's important we catch up to how corporations seek to take control of the oil and fuel industry. I think this is an interesting historical record.

It talks a little about Ethanol being used to fuel cars. It makes me wonder how powerful the Rockefellers really are and how they are related to the other groups. Could the Rockefellers themselves be more powerful than the Roths, for example?

[–]Jesus 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Both are very powerful, both are two famiies among thousands who have much wealth and control in this fallen world.

[–]Orangutan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Any clue on what documentary the original clip is taken from?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

One of the reasons. Giving women the vote didn't help none either...and not to be forgotten, their banner was 'Women's Christian Temperance Union'

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

yeah as they are much more easily malleable by propaganda due to lower IQs.

[–]Rah 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Theres an org called "Catholics for the Right of Say" that says they are.... pro-abortion. The insidiousness goes a long way.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Huh, I might be interested in that. My main problem with Catholicism, besides the pedophilia, was they just weren't into murdering unborn kids.