If you are currently happy, and everything will remain as it seems, if you want to continue to trust the experts to the media and universities, and interested in, not to ask too many questions, and sleep well at night, please do not read this report. Buy a couple of cans of beer and watch football on TV or "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire."
If you are one of the few people who suggest that something can not be true, and certainly would like to know more, and are willing and able to live in isolation, with the philosophy that has very little in common with what you are treated in school, university and in the media every day, this report is for you. He will open doors for you that you can no longer be closed …
The monopoly of the media? It does not exist — probably want to argue the majority. After all, the proof of this is any newsstand with the most diverse range of as more than 100 channels of modern satellite. Everyone will find something for themselves. Each opinion is presented.
Is this true? Or actually variety — is just well hidden forcible introduction of unanimity? And this can be done? Already implemented a media monopoly? In this text, I would like to clarify the following question:
Is the media have so much power?
For most people, there is a sphere of life in which they shine or not, but either way, their knowledge is too small to self life. They need the installation of third parties (mainly the media), you can follow. They almost did not make their own decisions and, strictly speaking, this is why they are not suitable for democracy.
At present (and therefore utopian) democracy every choice, every decision should be taken after checking all the facts. (!) In reality, it is hardly possible (and desirable) to examine all the facts and separate them from the propaganda. Not enough time, motivation and abilities. Who among us (and I'm no exception) would not prefer to stare at the narrow strips of swimsuit Pamela Sue Anderson in "Baywatch" than watch the third meeting of the Bundestag Rita Süssmuth (Deputy Chairman of the OSCE, the President of the Bundestag, retired — Approx. Ed.)? Therefore no accident as an intermediary in the game include "knowledgeable" intermediary Bundestag. Clearly, he — a professional politician, I would like to continue to be an official, to win the next election and make a career. Therefore, it needs the support of the media (and, therefore, can not afford the "scandal").
The rapid change of "Nazi-Communist federal republic" in the "new" federal states shows that for the majority there is no difference, who will run the show. The difference between the Nazis and the Communists are not so great. In both cases, there is no freedom of decision, but only orders from above. All "adjusted." In the end, ordnung muss sein ("Order should be" — a commonplace phrase — Approx. per.) … You just need to adapt. Now there is the possibility of a democratic, under its influence all subjects (from politics to guest worker) and, if necessary, to suck all the juice from them (at first we collect from you to the needs of democracy taxes, and then, under various pretexts redistribute them in our pockets), as subterranean Morlocks subordinate "living in paradise" eloev blonde in the classic film "The Time Machine", and the subjects are free to cooperate, why not? In principle, it is only a modern colonial policy: media manipulation replaces the sword and torture.
All you have to do this in today's world — a constant presence in the media. And it can be rapidly achieved in the worldwide with a couple of news agencies, television stations, satellite communications and film, as well as reputable newspapers, as the rest, for example, the German press in reporting on events in the United States or the world, or simply reprint information of American press agencies ("Reuters", "Associated" Press, "Yu-Pee-Ay", "New York Times Service," "Washington Post", "CNN, NBC," and so on.), or their " inspired "(compare article in any daily newspaper and international news on television).
More effective and efficient distribution of secretive "correct" understanding of the values and the "correct" worldview worldwide with movies and entertainment shows, almost all of which were either produced in the U.S., or woven on the American model of success. One who, in all probability, controls in this way are, respectively, can form their own desires and past. In feature films the story is the way it is "convenient", emotions are released in the "right" direction. If required, any event can make a movie in which in an interesting way to be "explained" the root cause. The boundary between fiction and reality is often deliberately erased. Particularly strong the impact on children. And not in vain entire school classes are driving to the movies on "valuable in the education for" movies.
Movies have a much better handling impact than news reports. Reports are reading and watching consciously, while the film is always targets the subconscious. The event is mixed with emotions, so etched in my memory. Then you do not know "where it is, but I saw it with my own eyes", such as in a James Bond film.
There we learn that only the State or its agents will be able to protect the "civilized world" and the "evil", and, of course, assumes that the only other — always "evil", and the state and its agents — always "good". More we realize that even for poorly paid Major (equivalent to the rank of commander in the Navy of Great Britain) heroism, first class (first class — Approx. per.) and truly jetsetie (Chosen — Approx. per.) — to be a killer in the public service, although as a talented freelance artist can earn much more, but without the state-guaranteed pension rights. The risk of being killed or convicted ("enemy"), as a terrorist or a murderer for killers in public service and independent artists the same. Our hero, stun "Vodka Martini" "good" killer, freedom, of course, is not interesting. He likes to be an instrument of the state (and, at the same time, the tool of conductors), and, thus, it becomes the perfect man for every woman and a role model, the dream of every 12-year-old. The enemy, "evil" killer — it's always terribly rich, uncontrolled tycoon who uses his wealth and talent "for the benefit of the public" (as a state), and put everything at stake to greedily zahapat ourselves more power (world domination).
But since this power is distributed democratically, "for the good of all" (a select few), and this situation must remain in the future, the enemy is always "evil" and deserves to eventually explode or die in terrible agony. "Good" and rewarded with wins in sex, champagne and a call from the Center. However, good sex is in any major city for $ 3,000 a night — suite in a five star hotel, off the phone and a couple of bottles of "Dom Perignon" are included. But every man has his price … or all the same right to a pension and beautiful uniforms?
And, of course, James Bond movies — not the exception but the rule. Almost all of the films — in particular, TV movies and TV series — "show", as we need a strong state, and as we are dependent on him. The state regulates our lives and solve our problems. No state would be nothing but chaos and anarchy, and it is scary — even though no one was living in anarchy. Only the state (and its employees, heroes and experts) can protect us from danger and save us from disaster situations. Loyal only can enjoy the security. We ourselves are powerless. Victims who need to be protected. Without government protection, we would not be able to live. Therefore, too much independence, self-initiative and the knowledge that what you want (and can!) Itself be responsible for their own lives and decisions, only harm. Of course, there's "own initiative" — you're not a communist — but please, only in approved limits. Someone who can actually think independently and want to act independently, in 99% of all the movies, or doomed to failure, or the offender. Attitude citizen are manipulated every evening, when again and again in the head is driven fear of any uncertainty. As long as he does not ever "understand" that everything that is not explicitly approved in writing, shall be prohibited … Nothing is impossible, is to "technical reasons" … the walls and chains are unnecessary if the prison in the head determines dimensions of the freedom that still want — and true freedom is inconceivable.
(If you do not want to believe it, check out the above thesis, and look in the next few days to complete the program and informed television and feature films.)
All that we know, we know from our parents, teachers, friends,
friends, from books, from television, from scientists
and, above all, from journalists …
Ourselves, we know very little, it was all we
introduced, and we take all without rethinking.
Today, television defines our world. Fashion, taste, political views — all we know, we know from the media … all defined TV. From "MC Tee Vee" to news programs, from "CN CN" to "Black Forest Clinic" (German TV series — Approx. per.). The United States for 10 years from a country free romance "Lucky Strike", "Camel" and "Marlboro" in the nation's fascist aggression smoking. Those who are able to take away with impunity daily favorite toy — a cigarette — nikotinozavisimyh millions of smokers that are able to meet at any time and to carry out any political activity. If a television message rightly or wrongly can destroy entire industries, the targeted shooting of an individual — only a mild workout. So the politician becomes a slave to the media.
Without the support of the media is not no election will work out (or a political career), because those who control the media, control the opinion of the masses, and in the end — the popular vote. The political facts are secondary. Excellent reputation and career politician, judge or official can quickly turn into ruins, for example, if all of a sudden there is a former secretary who wants to start a criminal prosecution because of alleged sexual harassment because she shines million contract with a book publisher, and her lawyers promise it is a good chance for compensation. Do not be a million promised for the book and as compensation, the secretary, for sure, and have not thought about "sexual harassment» (sexual harrasment). But what millions of book contract, if they can be used to replace the "disaffected" policy compliant, which is not crossing the road at the forthcoming billion deal?
In 2003, Arnold Schwarzenegger decided to run for governor of California. Suddenly appears in the media ("AP", 25/07/03), the father of Arnold was not just a Nazi, and attack aircraft NSDAP (National Socialist Workers Party of Germany — Approx. per.). Arnold donates 750,000 U.S. dollars of the Simon Wiesenthal Center (independent organization with its headquarters in Los Angeles, working to preserve the memory of Holocaust victims, promote tolerance and combat anti-Semitism — Approx. per.) and helps raise millions more as a donation. Arnold fights against anti-Semitism. The media have a choice: they can either forget about the Nazi past of Arnold's father, or a hysterical fan of this fact, denying Arnold's chance of winning the election. Another journalist slug dug somewhere interview from the seventies, where Arnold went around homosexuals, reported sex scams in the fitness center and boasted of his potency. Recklessness in the politically correct and the U.S. hypocritically prudish. What will decide the media? — Now it just depends on the behavior of Arnold in the future … the legal fact that his son can not be responsible for the actions of his father, and that the interview nearly 30 years ago nothing says (none effect after so many years), is ignored.
Even if a person goes into politics from idealistic reasons (and not just because it can not find any other work), then progressing through the ranks, fighting for the votes of a majority of voters to win elections, to increase the influence and gain both financial and political support, he was forced at times to go to the dirty compromises, to make promises that can not do — in other words, to lie and cheat. As even the nature of their existence can not be honest and successful (influential) policy, with each step on the way to a career is growing and due to his moral and, under certain circumstances, and criminal guilt (decisions contrary to their own beliefs, or better awareness of not for the benefit of their constituents, corruption, abuse of power, betrayal, and so on). If he suddenly deviate from the set course, this debt can instantly claim.
You can always either found or made to disappear "evidence" to organize evidence, in the end, political competitors are not sleeping. But since when is the mass of citizens willing to seek and verify evidence when headlines, photos, and comments in the media has uncovered "the truth"?
Since the policy in any case would still retain their power and authority, he habitually goes further "compromises" and follow the instructions. As recently said a taxi driver on the way from Manhattan to the Airport. John F. Kennedy: "What is different policies from a prostitute? — Prostitutes do not need so much to lie. " And if a politician suddenly, as an exception, does not allow itself to blackmail his own lust for power and vanity, it can still fall victim to assassination "crazy eccentric" or "terrorist group" to have an accident or commit "suicide" …
The voter is also becoming a slave to the media, because they believe that in order to select the desired information. Media supply him with such information — filtered and processed according to the needs. Thus, they make decisions about retirement or re-election. Media will determine the success or failure. Media decide what is right and what is wrong, and everything else without facts. Because it is the media themselves create (apply) the facts. Media contribute to the fears and concerns. Media know what to do. Media defines life, and thus the action.
Specifically: the masses are manipulated to make them believe that
— Politics — it is their representatives and act solely in the interests of the voters ("otherwise they would not have re-elected").
It is forgotten that the voters actually can neither control nor evaluate a policy decision as to the quality of information they receive and assimilate only interpret media and prescribed their views.
— Media control the politicians, and thus ensure that the policy were "in the public interest." As evidence of present various scandals (Watergate, Iran / Contra, Whitewater, donations to political parties, the visa scandal, etc.).
It is forgotten that these scandals hardly have an impact on the behavior of politicians in the future, and are used only to return at any time dependent policy to reality, if he suddenly knocks out the rows of slender, which can sometimes happen. Media control the politicians, but not in the interests of voters, and as directed by conductors.
— "Equality, Liberty and Fraternity" — this is the reality, and not based on the illusions of propaganda, which is contrary to any law of nature, therefore, each is automatically entitled to something more than the mere act of making existence (social assistance) regardless of the diligence, skill and talent. Take, job requirements, and so the claim can be at any time, "according to law" (such as "right to work") to present to those who have "more" ("it's just be honest, we're all equal ").
Now, with the passage of time can be reduced to a common denominator of the pole ("nationalization" = USSR) ("Taxes" = U.S.). Although today the action was based on the fact that the West won the "Cold War", in fact, there was only crossing between East and West. East officially opened, while the West, referring to the threats of drugs, terrorism, child porn, money laundering, and political correctness, takes away from its citizens more freedoms. On the "necessary" measures citizen learns from media reports. "We must also do something about it …".
Unpopular word "socialism" is replaced by "justice." Who may have something against "justice"? So filled with cash. More power is redistributed from the independent business people, entrepreneurs and professionals (who, because of their creativity, competence and autonomy is difficult to control) to entrepreneurs obedient puppets (nobodies in pinstriped suits) or are on public service dependent bureaucrats are often none short of frustrated unemployed teachers, professional politicians and other "values" that are not able to achieve anything in real life, and therefore create their own, at best — your own world of illusion, and at worst — to blindly promote ideas of their masters, not to lose the right on bureaucratic pension.
Voice like a bureaucrat / politician decides now how will clean out cash-filled and used the new command posts, in short, will be distributed as property and taxes. In other words: the politician gains power and gets used to his power. He learns to enjoy the privileges, of which he is in no way wish to lose. Since he was not due to their own competence and creativity, and only with the help of the "system", it is always aware of this relationship. For this reason it is highly corrupt: nothing but a puppet.
From this point of view, it is not surprising that the officials, singing in unison, provides more power and freedom of citizen under the pretext of "terrorist threat", "fight the drug cartels," "money laundering", "child porn", "virus", and other relevant horror stories more limited. When the laws were passed, the money received, the war has begun, often find that hard propagandized media "scary" and "dangerous threat" — just bubbles.
In any case, officials receive more power. Led policy officials are (in Germany — different ministers), in short, "the government, democratically elected." Policy controlled media.
Freedom of decisions under the guise of "good cause" shifts from the individual to the official policy = ("You have the same things do against it …"), and sends it to a real politician owners. The more government officials have, the more control in the real masters.
As they control policy? At first glance, a career politician in our democratic systems decide elections. On the second — well connected with the conductors. Whom to choose — decide to mass. A decision "stupid" masses defined media. If a politician is out of step, at any time the media may be overblown hysterical scandal (not interested in the facts), it will be forced to resign.
He who controls the media, controls the politicians. He who controls the policy controls "our democratic decision" solution, and thus, the power. And in this way and (tax) money. And he who controls the money, controls the world.
Media provide criteria for decision-making. Media forced to take off and crumble stock prices. Media to determine who unfairly discriminated against, and who are looking for sympathy, without any reason. Media decide who can make money without interference (eg, conductors), and who have to share with the "needy." Media manipulate the masses. In a democracy, the masses decide through elections, which will be the policy (every 4 years) and daily (an opinion, the decision to purchase).
Between the media there is a "competition" for "Best Story (story — Approx. per.) ", the latest scandal, etc. (" Spiegel "-" Focus "). And the different political hues and prints allowed ("Frankfurter Rundschau» — «FAZ»). However, when it comes to the really important questions of principle, all one. But it is precisely the fundamental questions ("Zeitgeist") govern the mindset of the masses. In the U.S., it's not different than in Germany.
Perhaps, there is one exception (so far) — the Internet, which can be freely published and distributed around the world innovative ideas sprains individuals. But more and more disputed domain names and websites, or seized or blocked by ISPs and search engines (more on that later).
Conclusion: the one who wants to own the world, we need the media. He who controls the media controls public opinion, and with it the popular vote, and at the same time, democratic elections, and with it the politicians, tax distribution, the spirit of the time, people's courts and the decision makers, and thus, with "relevant experts" and the content of textbooks, the past, and therefore the future.
All you need is money — capital in sufficient quantities, concentrated in the hands of the tight-knit group — conductors.
As unobtrusively as possible to create a structure of the global media monopolies.
Who wants to control the decisions of the masses, must monitor their knowledge.
Only information available may influence the decision.
This ensures the existence of a monopoly that "in general, no."
Gullible argue that media monopolies can not be only because the laws of cartels would prevent such a concentration of power. That's right, if the monopolist would want to control the world market and officially opened (for example, "Microsoft"), and the claim to the monopoly of knowledge.
However, the intention to create a monopoly, you can easily disguise or delicately using various legal details, create a structure that national regulatory authorities may not accept the violation of the law.
In a pinch, you can substitute too intrusive bureaucrats in government obedient puppets, that is, to control the control authorities in the same way as politicians legislators (see above).
The only prerequisites are needed to secure a monopoly of the global media, they are:
— enough money (and)
— lust for power.
All the rest — only the usual strategy game, which is owned, in principle, any trader used cars or tavern owner who rewrites his property to his wife, and thus, no longer is the official "owner", therefore, no more responsible for anything. Nothing new, and is easy!
Anyone who would like to establish a monopoly of the media, like to go through. Instead of investing in the media on their own behalf or on behalf of its holding, it is done at various levels through nominees, agents, partners, banks, investment funds, foreign firms, charities, lawyers, and so on so that the eventually work out who owns this capital, is no longer possible or whether it belongs to a puppet, a front face, which prove a link to the true owner is not possible.
Capital is made available or is officially, by some unknown, especially international, firms with IPO (issue of shares) (to acquire the majority of shares), or secretly through a loan or a "quiet" part (for example, masquerading as an anonymous fund of Liechtenstein ).
Since autumn 2003, the official control of the media "civilized nations" of the "international community", obtained by buying a majority shareholding, is concentrated in the hands of just five media giants:
— "AOL Time Warner"
— "NBC Universal Art"
— "Murdoch's News Corp."
Internet search words «Media Giants» helps to know the current status and inform what specific companies (film, news, television, radio, internet, music, etc.) are controlled by media giants. And this is (almost) everything that is on the market.
Thus, only five giants dictate what the masses should think and how they need to be entertained. Should not a cause for concern is that very fact? Is it really so impossible that the main shareholders and decision makers in the five media giants, a common goal / ideology or are one and the same owners?
Given anyone a question, who actually runs the affairs of these media giants? Who really wants to know whether the competing companies (as content) with each other or do they work together? Of course, many. But critical voices do not sit in the media holding, therefore, can not be heard by the masses. The masses are taught the idea of competition.
As an official "major" shareholders appear to work (if at all) viewed, market-oriented large-scale enterprises, some families, banks, charities and funds, speculators, foreign companies and so on. From time to time comes to fights for takeover and bickering, which, however, is always limited by shares and never deal with the issues in content. The trend is clear: more and more shares in the hands of the media focuses all less media holdings.
Is it possible that these "owners" — if they have a face, and they are not just faceless holding companies — just (super-rich) zitspredsedateli, that conceal the true masters, or if they really are independent financially, they share goals and beliefs hosts and act accordingly?
Official reports on the participation in the equity of media companies are not particularly informative. After all, the stakes can be distributed among the various proxies to hide the large capital investment.
If someone suggests, for example, that the media giant "Bertelsmann GmbH" — a typical German firm of peaceful provincial Gütersloh, he forgets that at least one of its most influential members (25%) is an international investment company "Group Bruxelles Lambert" which invests either on their own behalf, or secretly, on behalf of the client.
In short, the one who would like to remain anonymous, can afford to buy to start with, say, one or more small banks or investment firms that then through them as neutral third parties to invest in the media giant, and thus remain in the shadows.
To know it is an old Rothschild for about 150 years ago. He made investments in the U.S. in its own name, and puts forward his "secret partner" — Rockefeller and JP Morgan. Its officials were then bankers Warburg and Jacob Schiff — of investment bank Kuhn, Loeb & Co.. (. Why is this should be any different? Today, Sir Evelyn de Rothschild (in the UK), his brother David de Rothschild (France) and other family members do not invest on their own behalf, and, above all, by holding a secret "Concordia". "Concordia" is controlled by the holding "Rothschild kontinueyshn holding". "Kontinueyshn" — the main shareholder of the popular bank "NM Rothschild." stakes that are held on behalf of the trustees or other secret holding companies, remain unknown.
The situation is similar at the Bertelsmann: 57.3% of Bertelsmann Bertelsmann holds charity. 17.3% owned by the family of Mont. The right to vote is 75% owned by the management company, and 25% — "Brussels Lambert."
Decent people see only the active support provided by the charitable foundation Bertelsmann Israel. But this is the least that should be a major German company holy land … And can this debt be paid in full one day? Or it can be requested again and again at any time?
Agents, surrogates and secret companion
Each group that wished to remain anonymous, using the services of zitspredsedateley (proxies and puppets) to hide their own interests in the monopoly and eliminate risks. Equipped with the necessary capital, they are activated: official — on their own behalf and in their interests, informally — in the interests of the owners. One who goes beyond what is permitted, can fatally ill or experience so depressed that suicide seems the only option.
A good example — British medialord Robert Maxwell, born Ludvik Hoch. Its capital is derived from the legendary off-shore source of money — anonymous Liechtenstein foundations. Several years ago, the media boss allegedly fell from his boat and drowned.
Quick career magnate secured and Chef "Vayekom" majority shareholder "Sumner Redstone", nee Murray Rotstayn. During the Second World War, the work is in military intelligence, an American, a former lawyer, frantically bought shares media. Today, he, along with Rupert Murdoch, one of the "bosses" in the media business.
Very interesting and Australian magnate Rupert Murdoch satellite television with its registered on the stock exchange in Sydney, "News Corp". What was the reason for his success? Fast and steep ascent was made possible thanks to the financial assistance Harry Oppenheimer * (cartel production and sale of gold and diamonds, "Anglo-American" and "DeBirs"), Edgar Bronfman, Sr. ** (media concern "Sigrem", Chairman of the Jewish World Congress) Armand Hammer and the Rothschild, or only through the establishment of programs at the low cultural level (cf. the "Bild") ("Bild" — the mass newspaper in Germany, the outstanding representative of German-language tabloid — Approx. per.)? "Rothschild Investment Trust" is officially a major shareholder "News Corp. 'With its own director on the board of media giant.
And as the king of the media thinks Rupert Murdoch? Independent and politically neutral as a journalist require evidence? Needless to say, he willingly talks about «my faith and News Corporation's faith in the integrity and worthiness of the Zionist undertaking» («Kiss boots Media Goliath", Norman Solomon, "Krieytors Syndicate"). Translation: "My faith and belief" News Korporeyshnz "(" his "firm) in the integrity and dignity of the Zionist project."
The official founder and main shareholder of the private Federal Bank USA (FEDERAL RESERVE, FED) in 1913 were "Rothschild Bank" (London, Paris), "Bank Lazard Brothers" (Paris), "Safe Bank Yisrael Moses" (Italy), " Warburg Bank "(Amsterdam, Hamburg)," Bank Lehmann "(New York)," Bank of Kuhn Loeb & Co.. "(New York)," Rockefeller's Chase Manhattan Bank "(New York) and" Bank Goldman Sachs' (New York). See "Hands off the book" (Jan van Gelsing) and "Banks, bread and bombs II» (Stefan Erdmann), both books from www.amadeus-verlag.com.
Other sources give only seven bankers Rothschild, Warburg, Rockefeller, Schiff, Harriman, Vanderlip and Morgan. Do not be embarrassed. Banks merge, change the name, but the family — the original owners who are behind the scenes — do not change. Jacob Schiff was, for example, the president of "Kuhn Loeb & Co..", And since 1916 — and the chairman of the "Zionist movement in Russia."
JP Morgan and Rockefeller were and are trustees of the Rothschild in the U.S.. Their descendants today secretly and detached, hiding under the names of large U.S. banks "Chase Manhattan" and "Citibank", controls 52.86% of the shares of the New York Federal Reserve Bank FED, which governs the other 11 branches in the U.S. FED (1997, Eric Samuelson) , today banks are better known as "G-JP Morgan Chase" and "City Group".
IMPORTANT: The Fed is not owned by the U.S. government or the U.S. government, and a number of private owners, the above banks and individuals behind them. No way in other countries, for example, the German Federal Bank and Bank of England are privately owned. If the state is in debt, it should not himself, and, as a rule, their national / central banks, but at the same time, and the owners of the central bank. And that they are paid interest on tax billion each year. Someone who would like to have clarification of the circumstances (business schools and universities either did not know or kept secret), often immediately put in an anti-Semitic angle. American presidents who tried to free from the control of the U.S. bankers — for example, Kennedy, or would like to give up their credits — such as Lincoln, were killed "crazy." Both presidents wanted to introduce a state-free monetary system with providing treatment and freeing from bondage interest of private banks. When Lincoln called the money "Green Bucks", with Kennedy also were printed billions of free dollars. The first official act of the next President Lyndon B. Johnson was the immediate withdrawal of the money from the market.
Bronfman-law, Baron Alain de Guntsburg — comes from a Jewish banking family, which in 1830 ennobled Habsburgs. Baron de Guntsburg is related to the Paris Rothschilds, as well as associated general Gesheft through "their" banks — "Bank of Louis Dreyfus" and "Banking House of Worms." Since 1976, de Guntsburg was a board member in bronfmanovskom "Sigreme."
Almost unknown, but a classic — its influence, and now his son, Edgar Bronfman, Jr., to or on behalf of his father-in-Loeb and banking and investment partners, the media company through "Sigrem" and "Kemp Investments" (among many other things, " Em-Gee-Em "," Paramount Pictures "). Since the seventies began investing in raw materials (especially oil).
Originally Bronfmans made a fortune on booze "Whiskey" a two-day delay (normally 6 — 12 years), were smuggled from Canada to the United States during the "dry law" called "Johnny Walker" and "Glenlivet". If you believe Peter C. Newman, monthly thus earning $ 500,000. Average for 1920 — 1930 period. These gains, of course, have become possible due to the "dry law", which cost the lives of 34,000 Americans, to poison bad quality smuggled goods, as well as 2,500 gangsters, shoot each other in the struggle for the monopoly of sales, plus 500 policemen shot dead by criminals. The one who suddenly finds parallels here with the "war on drugs" or, God forbid, have suggested that such restrictive laws made by the politicians, puppets in the media hysteria mist to ensure high monopoly profits a few insiders — a bad man.
Canadian company producing alcoholic beverages "Sigrem" controlled Bronfman, with favorable financing secretly bought shares media for as long as the "innocent" shops selling intoxicating not to become the second-largest media concern of the world (the most influential in the world enjoys the media group " AOL Time Warner "(" CNN, NBC, "" Warner Brothers "," Time Magazine "and so on — which was a major shareholder and" Sigrem "). secret for investing answered bronfmanovskaya 'Camp Investments."
At the same time, on behalf of the company with a cheerful, fresh priyatstvenno-called "Vivendi Universal" frantically buying up all over the world share the media. [Among other things, Universal -] French recovery of waste water. Manager Jean Marie Messer media feted as a genius of entrepreneurship. The stock price, "Vivendi" skyrocketed. The high cost of own shares allowed "Vivendi Universal" to buy most of the shares of "Sigrem" and oust Bronfman with huge profits from the sale of shares at the exchange rate of the stamp in 2000.
Since then, as you know, the case "Vivendi Universal (Sigrem)" dramatically weakened. Falling stock prices (and the sudden contraction of credit by banks?) Caused a liquidity crisis. In 2002, after the stock fell more than 80%, Jean Marie Messer was fired, and a major shareholder of Bronfman with several banks organized a "rescue package", which, among other things, provides for the sale of shares of "Vivendi Universal ( Sigrem) "nezadorogo American media companies. To top it off, "Vivendi Universal (Sigrem)" (or its successor) was required to register on the New York Stock Exchange, to the media, U.S. investors could enter into it directly.
Bronfman has been able to provide on the cheap yourself and your friends over "Vivendi Universal (Sigrem)." Here, of course, were expensive and sold it two years earlier packages "Sigrem." Outcome at 2 years: as before, the control of old media belonging "Sigrem" but now control of the media belonging to the "Vivendi Universal" plus a huge profit. Not bad for a couple of phone calls and trips to Paris.
In 2003, most of the "Vivendi Universal (Sigrem)" was bought up by the American media giant "En-BBC", which is now called the "NBC Universal C" and, according to official data, 80% controlled by the transnational corporation "General Electric ". However, for the World Jewish Congress, it was not too painful, because since the sale in 1996 in the U.S. media holding Ted Turner ("CNN, NBC," and so on) of "Time Warner" is no longer any influential media groups that would not be controlled by puppets or by members of the World Congress. Those who do not want to believe it, he should find at least one and name it for me.
Although Bronfman seems interested not only in the media and alcohol: in 1981 they bought around the world for much of the Church of Scientology. Reason: Ron Hubbard achieved by the method described in his best-selling book «Dianetics» technique for relief from psychological blockades and manipulation great success. Success that could be a threat in the future sale of alcohol and the influence of the media? Or was it the fear of knowledge dedicated to that open with the help of technology to come back? Anyway, after purchasing Bronfman, it was over. Hubbard lost control, numerous members left the church, the media have stated Scientology a "dangerous cult", and it is no longer be of a danger. Stultification of mass media manipulation and regular alcohol nausea could quietly go on as before.
And we had to endure from Edgar Bronfman Lothar de Maiziere (German politician, the last chairman of the Council of Ministers of the GDR — Approx. per.), when he was in September 1990, visited New York City? Quote: "For the Germans will come a horrible end if future generations will stop payments to Israel (…). Then the German people will disappear from the face of the earth. "(Joachim Kolno," The Legacy of Moses ", page 3, Harold Cecil Robinson," Damn anti-Semitism, "page 119). Now even the last fool knows what goals and intentions are Bronfmans and their "independent" media …
Another interesting player in the media Gesheft — Haim Saban, a citizen of Israel and the U.S., who helped Rupert Murdoch become influential media ("Fox", "News Corp.," Etc.), but he always kept a low profile. In Germany, his name hit the headlines the front pages of major newspapers in February 2003, when he decided to get on the verge of bankruptcy media concern "Kirch." Among other things, he bought the "Pro Sieben" and "SAT 1", the biggest private TV channels in Germany. In some German newspapers about Saban, oddly enough, wrote that he was "the Egyptian." "Der Spiegel" (2003, No. 7) described it as a harmless millionaire who started a bass guitarist. Well, well, if it does not guarantee sympathy … How can you not love this?
Saban is not very fond of the Germans. In the "New York Times", he described Germany as "too critical pertaining to Israel" ("Spiegel Online" 08/06/05). However, this did not prevent him to shoot here cream. In the summer of 2005, he sold his shares at inflated prices "Pro Sieben", "Sat 1", "Cable 1" and "H24" media companies "Springer." As a result of this transaction the people behind it, were not only fast 3 billion profit, but also confident that the new owner, "the largest newspaper and television empire of Germany" will not only be slightly privskakivat at will, and really jump («Springer» in German "jumper" — Approx. per.) … (next). Saban, of course, went into the "Springer" as a major shareholder …
We should not lose sight of the Italian Silvio Berlusconi, the small figure which, in my opinion, has caused a huge inferiority complex and a giant uncontrollable lust for power. Lust of power and vanity — are prerequisites for the perfect puppet … his friendship with Murdoch, the U.S. government and Israel (blind support for the Iraq war: in his view, Israel must be a member of the EU, and the EU do not have to negotiate with the Palestine Liberation Organization) opens all doors . By the way, the kid with the allegedly earned by their own labor billionaire effectively controls 90% of the Italian media, and thus, the Italian masses. Where actually had money to put under its control and management of the media? From the same source as that of Rupert Murdoch? Certainly not often attributed to him by contact with the "mafia." The influence of the media guaranteed him a choice head of government in Italy, although many educated Italians, rather, are embarrassed, looking at him, and numerous accusations from various economic offenses are not very conducive to building confidence. However, until now it has never condemned.
Much more important than the names of all possible partners or puppets, which you can change at any time, the principle itself. The aforementioned media magnates, who seems to always have the billions of dollars in liquidity, the question of the origin of which is unlikely to be raised (in the media), and, therefore, it is likely to remain unknown, allegedly bought in his own name media holdings and shares media. Also evident, that all media magnates extremely friendly attitude toward Israel. All truly successful people have in common is that, is not it?
Relatively independent media conglomerates that do not want to sell, you can consciously bring restrictive funding policy to the liquidity crisis to provoke them for placing on the stock exchange (and thus enable the impact to everyone who buys the shares), sale (dummy persons conductors) or bankruptcy (and with it the loss of influence or take control of and control over the property of an insolvent debtor's inexpensive).
In the end, the money tap is always fast spin. In practice, the person concerned simply buying from creditor banks media concern debt (or 50.1% of the lending bank) and in a short time makes them for payment. If there is no money to pay, media concern is on the verge of bankruptcy. Often, the only alternative in this case is the conversion of debt into shares in the company, ie interested person is a partner with the right to vote or control. Such media concern and independent external secretly becomes part monopoly on content.
Without a favorable financing today is not able any billionth expansion. Where do these finances? What other conditions, except the loan and interest are to be made, because the repayment and interest can be achieved and with the help of reliable government loans? Who always had money, and gave them into debt at high interest rates? Where the focus today is the large amount of capital? That have to do with Wall Street and the U.S. policy?
Meanwhile, the ownership of 10,000 small, once-independent U.S. radio stations distributed among the few major media groups.
The strategy of the most successful (and therefore most powerful) filmmakers — to focus on one media companies and financial control it. No one will risk their own millions, producing movies that if he can not, without risk to himself to take the capital. Current example — studio "Drimvorks" cooperation Jeffrey Katzenberg (friend Eisner, the former chief of Disney) with David Geffen and Steven Spielberg.
Actually, it is enough to fully inspect the only film distribution internationally to avoid in film, television and video library only movies that manipulate the desired direction. But why would not immediately control and all production film production as a whole?
Conclusion: those who have money can legitimately and democratically correct way to buy the media and, thus, dexterity, and ultimately, the power, and secretly accumulate in the hands of a small group of influential.
Experts now argue that Hollywood is largely financed not there some kind of secret "conductors" and the German film funds "industry write off '(100% write-off losses) (in German law, the money invested in intangible assets, including the movies, 100% written off and is not subject to tax — Approx. per.), therefore, the German tax. Correct, but the film funds have no influence on the content of products. Funded by all that is good and hopefully it sounds. A couple of old "stars" — and has already transferred millions. At the same time, not a single cent is allocated to the production of German films. He (German cinema) is supported in life only by meager public support (so there can be no deviation from the party line, and at it again spend tax).
Of course, no one admits that the Hollywood elite, simply use its influence on the German legislator and supportive to Hollywood tax laws to quickly and legitimately regard to finance, shoot foam. No, especially when you consider that the production of 50% of all funded films are expensive, but they never get to the viewer. Hollywood luminaries do not care — they are paid millions in fees from the budget immediately, regardless of the success (if the movie is a success unexpected, paid bonuses). Because, most likely, no one will see the finished product, and its artistic value — just a matter of interpretation of all this is not even ashamed of.
In fact, the one who has good relations with the Film Foundation, knocks himself, say, 50-million budget for the film. 10 million paid for the script (which is written by hand or a Hollywood insider bought for cheap a taxi driver, and then for expensive "remade." Quality of care, because this movie is no one will ever see.) The next 10 million are directed (the big names guaranteed funding, and the director — a good friend). Another 10 million employed couple served their old "stars" (the names that everyone knows, but which are no longer shot in any successful film, such as Burt Reynolds, Jane Fonda, Grace Jones, Jessica Lange, Mickey Rourke, and so on ). For the remaining 20 million in a friendly studio in haste slyapyvaetsya film, the process remains absolutely legal and film funds in Germany have been prerequisites for write-offs. All the budget completely drank. So a few Hollywood insiders with German taxpayers can earn millions for each other. Again and again. Great stuff — to be his own man in Hollywood.
The new German tax laws supposedly prevent such abuse: according to these laws, those who finance films, can write off losses only if they had a significant influence on the film. No problem: Film Foundation creates a commission that oversees the production. Is it allowed filmmakers to make all the decisions themselves before the shooting or from time to time will actively use its influence — does not matter. Since the film and so never will be released, absolutely does not matter if some rich amateurs will want to see their ideas embodied. A promulgate ideas that are contrary to the party line of Hollywood, the Hollywood environment, and without no one dares. In the end, because [everyone] wants to allow more to come, but to continue to be invited to the party …)
Control through participation in companies
As mentioned earlier, no one can be absolutely sure that he knows who controls the U.S. stock companies and medagiganty with billions in capital (as well as banks, industry, raw materials, pharmaceuticals, food, weapons, etc.) In fact, although clear trend can not be ignored. Of course, there is a name (eg Murdoch, Redstone, Bronfman, Saban Goldenzon ("Hey TBC"), Paley ("C-CBS"), Sarnoff ("NBC C") Sulzberger ("New York Times"), Meyer-Graham ("The Washington Post," "Newsweek"), and so on), but no one can be sure whether registered, the official owner of the right words in reality or is he — just clever puppet that either share the views of the real owners, or faithfully implement them.
Today, the majority of shares distributed to the media by transnational media conglomerates and holding companies, which are very difficult to control legally. In addition, the U.S. information on the percentage of ownership in publicly listed companies can not be revealed until then, until in the hands of one person does not concentrate for more than 5% of the shares. That means, in theory at least, that only 11 people (eg family) can together control 11 majoritarian Private companies (such as media conglomerates), if each of these people is limited to a maximum packet 4.99% stake in each AO. In other words, each of them legally owns share 4.99% of the shares in 11 media companies. These packages depending on the needs or remain in the "family" and / or can legally and anonymously control the little group.
(Further, the author cites other circuits for covert control over banks, charities and investment funds, offshore, etc. — Approx. per.)
Concentration and control of the media may be a small group, and it can be masked without any costs.
Who owns the major media outlets?
The agency "Reuters" was founded in 1851 by Samuel Joseph Levi, the third son of Rabbi Kassel. Later, Joseph was baptized, he took the name of Paul Julius Reuter (and Reuters, as heard on the German name and agency name — Approx. per.) and married to the daughter of a banker. He first tried his hand with the financial support of his father as a bookseller, publisher and journalist, without much success, and then in 1848 he suddenly moved to Paris and began working there a translator in the Telegraph Agency of Charles Hawara. Self again attempt failed, and he returned to Germany in Aachen. Reuters organizes the delivery of information about exchange rates from Brussels to Aachen using carrier pigeons. When a former employee of the agency Hawar Bernhard Wolff supported Werner Siemens opens Telegraphic Agency in Berlin, Reuters, on the advice of Siemens opened its agency in London. He begins to transmit telegraph stock prices in Paris and Berlin.
Official major shareholders Reuters at his own data (www.reuters.com):
— "Reuters Faunders Sheyr Company" 30% with the right to veto (veto should prevent "hostile" takeover. Other words, can only be taken by a friendly disposed to the heirs of Paul Julius Reuter's largest shareholder.)
— "Faydeliti Investments" 9%
— "Legal & General Investment" 4%
— "Barclays Bank" 3.75%
— "Merrill Lynch" 3.48%
According to the structure of 28.100 Reuters shareholders to judge the possibilities of concealment of participation:
— investment funds, trusts, foundations 34%
— pension funds (private pension insurance) 24%
— ADS (American depositary receipts of the bank JP Morgan in New York) 9%
— banks (not the UK) 4%
— insurance companies 4%
— private shareholders 2%
— 1% non-profit society
— Government 1%
64% of the shareholders in the UK, 19% from the U.S., 11% from Europe (not the UK) and 5% are not identified. Shares "Reuters Faunders Sheyrs" and shares belonging to employees 'Reuters', were not considered.
AP — Associated Press
«Associated Press» (www.ap.org) officially registered as a non-profit society, which brings together 1,500 U.S. dailies. He who controls the majoritarian dailies, controls at the same AP.
Since the U.S. is unlikely to exist independent daily newspapers, and often in a big city there is only one local newspaper (If an exception in the city has two daily newspapers, they are often owned by the same publishing house, for example, "Bild "(a newspaper for workers) and" Die Welt "(newspaper for employees) belong to the publisher Springer.). Most of the U.S. daily newspapers, and through them, the AP is controlled by major publishers media giants.
AP reported 1,700 th U.S. newspapers and 5,000-m radio and television stations in the U.S., what happened in the world. Globally, that need to know their readers and viewers, AP informs 8,500 newspapers, radio and television stations in 121 countries.
"The New York Times Service» (NYT)
Post messages, articles and photographs in 506 other newspapers. News agency belongs to the "New York Times" newspaper, which insiders believe mouthpiece "conductors" and therefore the information agency can (and should) be no risk to yourself and do not think twice to repeat all the "decent" journalists, and it promotes career.
(Check out somehow how high the proportion of articles of the three agencies in the international part of your daily newspaper …)
* In addition, conspiracy theorists know that Oppenheimer studied banking at the Frankfurt banker's house in the old Rothschild and up to the base of his own bank, where he worked as a partner. Both banking house and now have friendships and business relationships.
** Many know Edgar Bronfman as chairman of the Jewish World Congress.
Many well-known and its strong commercial and family ties with the Rothschilds: first wife Margaret Ann Loeb Bronfman — the daughter of the senior partner of one of the most powerful banks on Wall Street (formerly known as "Loeb, Rhoads & Co."), the German-Jewish origin. Entitled Kuhh, Loeb & Co.. Leba with the Rothschilds were responsible for the foundation of the Central Bank of the Federal Reserve System. All the children and heirs of the old Bronfman (eg, his son, the current media mogul Edgar Jr.) come from this marriage, which broke up in 1973.