Car Stuffed Toy Pattern

Also, the selector is a slave to the media,

Who wants to control the decisions of the masses, must check their knowledge. Only information that is available and can influence decisions.

Such a monopoly is assured that there is "not at all"

object will, to believe that there could be no media monopoly as antitrust laws, such a prevent concentration of power would. True, if a monopolist control the world market and officially open wants (eg Microsoft) and the monopoly ambitions are well known.

monopoly intentions are obscure, but also easily and structure of various discrete areas of law so that national supervisory authorities do not see any violation of the law.

can in extreme cases, critical, officials in authorities exchange through obedient puppets

ie control inspection authorities as well as the legislative leaders (see above).

The only requirements are necessary in order to secure a global media monopoly, are

-sufficient funds (and) greed for power.

Everything else is just a strategy game that dominated in principle, any used car dealer and pub owner who transfers his assets to his wife and not so official "owner", thus no longer responsible for an accident. Nothing new and not complicated at all!

Who wants to establish a media monopoly, it must make just like that. interposed to keep instead of stakes in media companies on their own behalf or on behalf of Holding, nominees, trustees, partners, banks, mutual funds, foreign companies, foundations, attorneys, etc., so different levels, that ultimately no allocation of investments possible or this one puppet, a straw man are standing in no detectable connection to the perpetrators.

The capital is available over several discrete and particularly international investment firms in an IPO (share issue) officially made available (sold by the majority) or discretely as a loan or silent partnership (eg camouflaged on an anonymous foundation in Liechtenstein).

concentrated Since autumn 2003, the official control of most media interests in the "civilized nations" of the "international community" to only five media giants

-AOL Time Warner

-Viacom

-NBC Universal

-Bertelsmann

Murdoch (News Corp.)..

the international Internet-Keyword "Media Giants" gives the current status and information, what specific companies (film, news, television, radio, Internet, music, etc.) are controlled by the media giant. And that's (almost) everything on the market. See also: www.cjr.org

www.pbs.org

www.freepress.net

www.mediachannel.org

Suchwörter "Media Giant", "

I want media", "Media Owner"

Googel-Videos:

Who owns the Media?

1. 
   (If you take five minutes, you will also find interesting German-language articles and information under the search word "media monopoly")
2. whole FIVE Giant so dictate what the masses think and how they may be entertained. Should not that already arouse suspicion? Does it really so impossible that track the major shareholders or decision of these five media giants a common goal / ideology and serve the same masterminds?
3. asks who already know who these media giants ultimately effectively controlled the majority? Who really wants to know whether the houses (and content) are competing with each other or are brought into line? Certainly not a few. But the critics do not sit in the media worldwide, can therefore not be heard from the crowd. The mass is suggested competition.
4. as the official "main" shareholders can be found (if any) that may seem incomprehensible, internationally-oriented corporations, some families, banks, foundations, mutual funds, speculators, foreign companies, etc. .. Hin and again it also comes to takeover battles and quarrels, but they are always limited to blocks of shares or touch matters of substance. The trend is clear: more and more media holdings are concentrated in fewer and fewer media companies.

Is it possible that these "owners" if they have a face and not just profile-free Holdings are

only are (super rich) Vorturner to disguise the real mastermind or, if they do financially independent, confident of the aims of the perpetrators are and act accordingly? The official, financial
investments in media companies and stock majorities are not particularly meaningful. These can be finally distributed to different structure or trustee, so as to hide a majority.

If one assumes, for example, the media giant Bertelsmann GmbH is a typical German company from harmless provincial Gütersloh, forgetting that at least an influential shareholder (25%) is the international investment firm Groupe Bruxelles Lambert, the the involvement either in its own name or hold discreet on behalf of a client. say

Will: If you want to remain anonymous, buys first, one or more small banks or investment companies in order to then be talking about a neutral third party participation in the media giant, and so were behind such to appear.

The Old Rothschild knew already about 150 years. Finally, he invested in his own name in the United States, but Rockefeller and JP Morgan slid in front of a "discreet partner." His official representatives were then the bank Warburg and Jacob Schiff as head of investment banking Kuhn, Loeb & Co. Why should today be any different?

Today invest Sir Evelyn de Rothschild (in Britain), his brother David de Rothschild (France) and other family members not in their own names, but among other things Holding the discrete Concordia. Concordia controls the Rothschild Continuation Holdings. Continuation is the majority shareholder of the well-known bank NM Rothschild. Shares in the name of trustees or other discrete Holdings are held, remain unknown. Bertelsmann is similar: 57.3% of Bertelsmann held by the Bertelsmann Foundation.

The Mohn family are 17.3%. The right to vote is 75% with a management company and 25% at Bruxelles Lambert.

Decent people see only the dedicated support of the Bertelsmann Stiftung Israel. But that was the least we owe the large companies, a German holy land ... And can this debt be paid ever really complete? Or is claimable at any time again?