A Brain Tumor Derived From Neuroglia

How a global media monopoly can be structured well camouflaged

Each interest group that wishes to remain anonymous, makes use of accepted Vorturner (frontmen, trustees, puppets) to cover its own monopoly interests and avoid danger. Equipped with the necessary capital they are officially in its own name and interest, but unofficially referred to the mastermind active. Who gets out of hand, may be sick or die so depressed that suicide seems the only solution.

The British media Lord Robert Maxwell, birth name: Ludvik Hoch, is a good example. Its capital comes from a legendary source of money via anonymous offshore Liechtenstein foundations. Several years ago, the media boss then allegedly fell off his yacht and drowned.

Fast Tycoon career also guaranteed Viacom CEO and controlling shareholder Sumner Redstone, maiden name: Murray Rothstein. During World War II still a member of the military intelligence of Americans accumulated, the former attorney soon as a savage media ownership. He is now next to Rupert Murdoch one of the "team" in the Media business.

is very interesting, the Australian and satellite TV tycoon Rupert Murdoch and his on the Stock Exchange-listed Sydney, News Corp.. For example, was Murdoch's faster and possible steep climb only with financial help from Harry Oppenheimer * (Anglo-American and DeBeers gold and diamond cartel), Edgar Bronfman Sr. (Seagram Media Group and chairman of the World Jewish Congress), Armand Hammer and the Rothschilds, or is only the programming at the lowest common denominator of mass (see FIG) responsible for its success? Officially, the Rothschild Investment Trust as a major shareholder News Corp.. represented with its own director on the board of media giant.

And like Rubert Murdoch thinks media king? Independent and politically neutral, as Newsman very committed to the facts? Of course, he likes to talk of "My faith and News Corporation's faith in the integrity and worthiness of the Zionist undertaking" (Kissing The Boots Of A Media Goliath by Norman Solomon, Creators Syndicate). Translation: "My faith and the faith of the News Corporation (" his "company) to the integrity and worthiness of the Zionist project."

conspiracy theorists also know: Oppenheimer was the Frankfurt-based bank, which completed Old Rothschild, first as a bank clerk, and up to his own bank was a founding shareholder. Both banks are now operating more amicably and professionally.

Most Edgar Bronfman know as chairman of the World Jewish Congress.

Also known is that many good business and family links to the Rothschilds: Bronfman's first wife, Ann Margaret Loeb, the daughter of German-Jewish main shareholder of one of the most influential Wall Street banks (then known as Loeb, Roads & Co.). Under the name of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. were responsible for the Loeb with the Rothschilds for the founding of the U.S. Federal Reserve. All children and heirs of Old Bronfman (eg, his son and current media artist Edgar Jr.) came from that marriage, which ended in divorce 1973rd

The official founder and principal shareholders of the private U.S. Federal Bank (Federal Reserve, FED) were 1913, the Rothschild Bank (London, Paris), Lazard Brothers Bank (Paris), Israel Moses Seif Bank (Italy), Warburg Bank (Amsterdam, Hamburg), Lehmann Bank (New York), Kuhn Loeb & Co. Bank (New York), Rockefeller's Chase Manhattan (New York) and Goldman Sachs Bank (New York). See "Hands off this book" (Jan van Helsing) and "banks, bread and bombs II" (Stefan Erdmann), both of

• www.amadeus-verlag.com

• Other sources mention only the seven bankers, Rothschild, Warburg, Rockefeller, marine, Harriman, Vanderlip and Morgan. Do not be confused themselves. Banks merge or change their name, the mastermind behind Family in the discrete background remain the same. Jacob Schiff was as president of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. and since 1916 chairman of the Zionist movement in Russia. "

• JP Morgan and Rockefeller, and Rothschild were trustees in the United States. Their descendants still control discreet and neutral after the names of U.S. banks Chase Manhattan and Citibank concealed 52.86% of shares of the New York Federal Reserve Federal Reserve, which in turn in the remaining 11 stores in the U.S. Federal Reserve saying has (1997, Eric Samuelson), now known as JP Morgan Chase and Citi Group.

IMPORTANT: The U.S. Federal Bank is not about the U.S. government or the government, but some private owners, the above-mentioned banks and their backers. This is no different in other countries, such as the German Bundesbank and the Bank of England is privately owned. If a state is in debt, it is not in himself, but his rule with Bundes-/Zentralbank, and thus by the owners of the Central Bank. And just this year, tax-billion paid in interest. Who wants to explain here (business schools and universities know or give anything away), is often very fast into the corner made anti-Semitic. U.S. President the credit offered by the private bankers, and thus refused to release the U.S. from the control of the bankers wanted to, for example, Kennedy and Lincoln were assassinated. Allegedly by lunatics. Both presidents wanted to introduce a national interest-free money system with a current backup to free himself from that bondage of the interest of private banks. In Lincoln said this money, "Green Bucks" and Kennedy had already printed a few billion dollars free. The first official act of the next President Lyndon B. Johnson was to let this money disappear immediately from the market.

Bronfman's brother-Baron Alain de Gunzburg comes from a Jewish banking family who was knighted in 1830 by the Habsburgs. Baron de Gunzburg is related to the Parisian Rothschilds and about "his" bank and banking house Louis Dreyfus Worms linked in business (eg Club Med). Since 1976, de Gunzburg was sitting on the board at Bronfman's Seagram.

Hardly known, but a classic, is also his influence, and now his son, Edgar Bronfman Jr. to the mass media about their company and Seagram Cemp Investments, and together with or on behalf of law Daddy Loeb and its banking and investment contacts (including MGM, Paramount Pictures). Since the seventies was also in raw materials (especially Oil investments).

The Bronfman made their fortune originally with a two-day-old "whiskey mixture (normal 6-12), which during the U.S. prohibition under the name Johnny Walker (original Johnnie Walker) and Glen Levitt (original Glenlivet) of Canada has been smuggled into the United States. If you believe Peter C. Newman 's "Bronfman Dynasty (the Rothschilds of the New World)", ISBN 0-7710-6758-5, have been worth USD 500 000 per month. Not bad for 1920 -1930.

These profits were of course only because of restrictive U.S. laws (alcohol prohibition) possible to guarantee the death of 34,000 Americans, with low-quality contraband poisoned, and 2,500 thugs who abknallten each other in order to secure distribution monopolies, plus 500 police officers who were shot in the fight against crime. An evil man who wants to see parallels here to "fight drugs" or even assumed that such control laws of puppet politicians in the fog of media hysteria be adopted in order to guarantee some insiders high monopoly profits.

On behalf of the Canadian Bronfman-controlled liquor company "Seagram" are using cheaper finance as long as discrete media interests bought up the "harmless" fuel loading was the second-largest media company in the world (the biggest impact has the world's media group AOL Time Warner (CNN, Warner Brothers, Time magazine, etc.-see above, in the Seagram course also involved as a major shareholder was). For discrete investments Bronfman Cemp Investments was responsible.

same time, a French waste disposal company bought the world as wild media interests including (Universal) is in the lively, friendly, fresh company with Vivendi Universal. Manager Jean Marie Messier ( of the media) as an entrepreneurial genius celebrated. Vivendi shares exploded in the course. The high value of treasury shares enabled Vivendi Universal to buy a large part of the Seagram shares, which repelled the Bronfman at top market prices of 2000 with huge profits.

Since then, it was then-known-as with Vivendi Universal (Seagram) steep downhill. Falling stock prices (and suddenly restrictive banks?) Triggered a liquidity crisis. After more than 80% price decline was in 2002, Jean Marie Messier fired and major shareholder of Bronfman with the help of some banks' rescue package organized, among other things, the cheap sale of Vivendi Universal (Seagram) Investments provided to U.S. media companies. Also to Vivendi Universal (Seagram) (or a successor) on the New York Stock Exchange shall be recorded for U.S. media investors may start directly.

Bronfman and his friends could be more favorable financing using very inexpensive back up again the control of Vivendi Universal (Seagram), the course also included the two years before selling expensive Seagramanteile. Possible end result after about two years ago: As previously control of the old Seagram media, but now the control of Vivendi Universal media plus a huge profit. Not bad for a couple of phone calls and trips to Paris.

A large part of Vivendi Universal (Seagram) in 2003 was finally bought by U.S. media giant NBC, which is now called NBC Universal, and 80% officially by the Multi National GE General Electric controlled. That should not hurt the World Jewish Congress, however, because as of the sale of Ted Turner's media holding companies (CNN, etc.) to Time Warner in the U.S. is 1996 is not influential media group everything that is not controlled by puppets or by members of Congress. Those who believe it would investigate, himself and me a call.

The Bronfman, however, are apparently not interested only in media and alcohol: 1981 bought much of the worldwide Church of Scientology. The reason: L. Ron Hubbard had achieved with the described in his book "Dianetics," "relocation" technique for relief from psychological blocks and manipulation with great success. Successes that could endanger the long-term alcohol sales and the influence of mass media? Or was it fear of insider knowledge that laid the feedback techniques open? With two it was over since its purchase by Bronfman, however. Hubbard lost control, many members got out of Scientology was from the media to a "dangerous cult" explains was thus no great danger. The dumbing down of the masses through media manipulation was stunning and regular alcohol continue undisturbed as before.

And what had to listen to Lothar de Maizier at his New York visit in September 1990 by Edgar Bronfman? Quote: ". It will set a terrible ending for the Germans, should future generations payments to Israel (...) Then the German people will disappear from the earth." ("The legacy of Moses" by Joachim S. Kohln, 3, Harold Cecil Robinson, "Damn anti-Semitism ', p. 119). As white then even the dumbest which Aims and intentions of the Bronfman and their "independent" media is ...

Another interesting player in the media business is the Israeli-American Haim Saban, who along with Rupert Murdoch's media influence (Fox, News Corp.. Etc.) set up there but always discreetly in the background held. In Germany, he made headlines in February 2003, when he wanted to buy the bankrupt Kirch media group. He eventually bought and Others Pro Sieben Sat 1, the largest commercial broadcaster in Germany. In some German newspapers Saban was comically portrayed as "Egyptians". The "mirror" (No. 7, 2003) knew him as a harmless millionaire who had started as a bass guitar player. Well, if that guarantees no sympathy ... such a One must like it.

Saban like the Germans did not so much. In the New York Times, he looked to Germany as a "critical of Israel" (Spiegel Online 06:08:05). But this was no reason to suspect this is not correct. In the summer of 2005

14

he sold his shares in ProSieben, Sat.1, Kabel 1 and N24 plenty overpriced to Springer Verlag. The deal secured his backers not just a quick three billion profit, but also the assurance that the new owner, now "Germany's largest newspaper and TV empire," not only intended as hops, but even jumps ... (To follow). Saban naturally rises with Springer as a major shareholder ...

should also keep in mind one might be the Italian Silvio Berlusconi, whose small stature, in my opinion, cause an extreme inferiority complex and so huge hunger for power.

power lust and vanity are the conditions for a perfect puppet, ... His friendship with Murdoch, the U.S. government and Israel (blind support for the Iraq war, Israel is in his opinion, EU-member EU will no longer negotiate with PLO) opens doors.

the way the little controlled by the supposedly self-made billionaire wealth de facto 90% of the Italian media, and so the Italian masses. Where does the money really came to the media takeovers? -From the same source as for Rupert Murdoch? -Probably not the often assumed "Mafia" contacts. His media impact guaranteed his election as head of government in Italy, although many educated Italians is rather embarrassing, and the numerous charges of various economic crimes are not very confidence building. He has been convicted but not once ..

much more important than the names of possible partners or puppets that are so necessary at any time be replaced, is the principle. The above media sizes that seem to always have sufficient liquidity billion, the origin of normal people (in the media!) Questions will and should remain so seemingly unknown to buy, in what appears to own media houses and media ownership. It is also striking that all Media sizes are very Israel-friendly. All really successful people have in common that just is not it?

relatively independent media companies that sell not want to be able, by restrictive funding deliberately driven into liquidity problems so as an IPO (and thus influence for anyone who can back up the shares), a sale provoke (at straw men of the perpetrators) or bankruptcy (and thus loss of influence and cheap acquisition of the bankrupt estate).

The money supply can ultimately turn more quickly. In practice, a prospective customer just buys from the creditor banks of the media company that claims (or 50.1% of the creditor bank shares) and makes these short-term. If the cash is missing, the media company faces bankruptcy. The only alternative is then often only the conversion of receivables into equity, that the prospect will become shareholders with a say-or. Control law. The seemingly independent media company will be integrated into the secret contents of monopoly.

succeed without suitable financing today, no billion expansion. Where does the funding? What conditions must be met, except principal and interest, for principal and interest also offer secure government bonds? -Who has always had money and lent at high interest? - Where is focusing today most capital? -What does this have in common with Wall Street and from the United States policy?

distribute the meantime, the ownership of the 10,000 former small independent U.S. radio stations on a few large media groups.

The most successful (and influential) film-makers can strategically focus on a media Company and so financial control. No one risked their own millions in a film production when he can borrow the capital risk. A current example is the studio "Dreamworks", a collaboration of (Ex-Disney boss Eisner friend) Jeffrey Katzenberg, David Geffen and Steven Spielberg.

Actually, it would already inadequate to control only the international distribution of films and to complete only the movies in the cinemas, on television and video stores, to manipulate in the desired direction. But why not check the same and the entire production?

Conclusion: Who has the money, can the media so that it now potential for manipulation, and so ultimately power, legal and legitimate democratic process and discrete focus on a small power group.

connoisseurs will argue now that Hollywood is financed mostly not from any secret "masterminds", but from the film fund of the German depreciation sector (100% loss of allocation), that of German tax money. True, but the film fund will not affect the content of the production. Financing for everything that sounds good and promising. A couple of old stars and even the millions paid. At the same time is not a cent for German films provided. These are on the State Film Fund held at the makeshift life (so do not allow deviations from the party line and cost additional tax money).

course will assume no one that the Hollywood elite here impact on the German legislature and its Hollywood-friendly tax laws has made claims that the more quickly and to skim over again financially correct. are not, particularly since 50% of all financed movies though expensive production is finished, but never released. This can be creatively involved in the matter may be Hollywood stars, as they select their Million fee to cash out immediately successful regardless of the budget (the film was actually expected to be a success, there is a bonus). Because most likely no one see the finished product gets artistic quality and so is a question of interpretation anyway, then the whole thing did not even embarrassing.

To the point: who has good contacts with film funds, for example, has secured a 50 million budget for a film. 10 million paid for the screenplay (written, the Hollywood-insider himself or almost bought a taxi driver and then expensive, "revised". Any quality, because no one see the movie ever will). Another 10 million receive the director (because good names of funding, and the director is a good friend). And for another 10 million are a few worn-out veterans committed (names familiar to everyone, but that have long been no more successful film turned, as Burt Reynolds, Jane Fonda, Grace Jones, Jessica Lang, Mickey Rourke, etc.). For the remaining 20 million will be fast in a friendly studio cobbled together the film, so everything is quite legal and film funds in Germany do not lose their depreciation requirements. Sure, the budget has been completely overdone. All true to the principle of "The Producers". A small number of Hollywood insiders can so with the help of the German tax payer millions to push each other. And again and again. Fantastic if you're Hollywood insider.

New German tax laws to prevent this abuse now alleged: It is required that the financier can only write off the loss if they also have significant influence on the film project. No problem: The film production fund can be monitored by an Advisory Board. Whether these are the producers in advance all decision approving or blank back and active again influence claims is irrelevant. If a film is never released anyway, is no matter, if any rich like to see implemented lay their ideas. And ideas that contradict the party line in Hollywood dares in the Hollywood atmosphere in any case no one to speak. One wants to finally allowed to come back and mess not the invitations to the parties ...)