Tag Archives: General Electric

Six Corporations Control over 90% of Media Content | Aug 2016

The Illusion of Choice: 90% of American Media Controlled by Six Corporations

– Waking Times

media2

“It is worth repeating again and again that the bulk of America’s mainline media is owned and controlled by a mere 6 corporations. This, of course, means that unless you’re already consciously avoiding these mainline media sources, then most of the news and entertainment that makes it onto your screen and into your mind comes from a small pool of corporate sources, all of which play important roles in delivering propaganda, social programming and perpetual crisis narratives to the public.

The conglomerates are: General Electric, News Corp., Disney, Viacom, Time Warner and CBS. 

All are corporations that have their own shady histories, dealings and suspicious actors. Disney being widely regarded as an occult enterprise aimed at warping the minds of children with disturbing subliminal imagery. One of these companies is also the 12th largest US military defense contractor, so it’s no surprise that so much of our entertainment centers around the glorification of war and violence.

By surveying what is available for consumption in the mass media, it is easy to see what type of society these six corporations are helping to construct….

The promotion of shallow, materialistic, ego-centric values, and the obvious dumbing down of the American population is coming from these six corporations. Think about that. These are the companies that glorify consumption, obedience, ignorance, the hyper-sexualization of youth, the glorification of war and government surveillance, and so on. The advertisers that support these media companies have tremendous sway over what makes it on the airwaves. They help to control public perception.

The bottom line is that corporate media is a behemoth of special interests and mind controllers. So much of the human story is omitted in this capitalistic, for-profit environment scheme like this, which is why now more than ever the independent, alternative media is such a gem for human kind.”

See the rest of the story by Vic Bishop @ WakingTimes

 

 

 

Consuming Images (Bill Moyers documentary from 1990 about the public mind and the media culture)

– Bill Moyers PBS

– Herbert Schiller talks about ‘Culture Inc.’

…More @ Youtube

 

Read This If You Still Think Political Polls Mean Anything

– ZeroHedge

“As a species, humans tend to behave as a herd, following one another in opinion and action — whether or not the consequences for doing so are dire. Of course, politicians and others holding seats of power, fully cognizant of the opportunities provided by this herd mentality, deftly manipulate the masses — particularly through public polls during the lead-up to presidential elections.

Most everyone comprehends how bias-infused political polling can be; however, the extent such polls play in the outcome of elections — and, conversely, how their artfully constructed questions and population samples often miss the mark — makes polling an essentially needless, if not dangerous, facet of the American electoral season.

Polls, to put it plainly, are propaganda — and have been for decades — but one particular election handily evidences this, and offers chilling insight into this year’s presidential race: the 1980 election between incumbent President Jimmy Carter and challenger Ronald Reagan.

Polls, for months, predicted either Carter’s win or declared the race anyone’s guess; but when Reagan managed a landslide victory — veritably crushing his opponent — politicians and the public, alike, revisited polls to parse out how pollsters managed such skewed and inaccurate forecasts.

“For weeks before the presidential election, the gurus of public opinion polling were nearly unanimous in their findings,” wrote John F. Stacks for TIME in April 1980. “In survey after survey, they agreed that the coming choice between President Jimmy Carter and challenger Ronald Reagan was ‘too close to call.’ A few points at most, they said, separated the two major contenders.

“But when the votes were counted, the former California Governor had defeated Carter by a margin of 51% to 41% in the popular vote — a rout for a U.S. presidential race. In the electoral college, the Reagan victory was a 10-to-1 avalanche that left the President holding only six states and the District of Columbia.”

In countless analyses of Carter’s staggering defeat in the face of opinion polling, several issues emerged just as relevant now as they were at the beginning of the 80s.

Noting that in the 30 years prior to the 1980 discrepancy, election results had largely concurred with pre-election polling, Stacks explained, the “spreading use of polls by the press and television has an important, if unmeasurable, effect on how voters perceive the candidates and the campaign, creating a kind of synergistic effect: the more a candidate rises in the polls, the more voters seem to take him seriously.”

Déjà vu, much?

Add the Internet’s undeniably critical role to the press and TV Stacks describes, when examining Donald Trump’s astronomically successful, albeit darkly negative, campaign — which had, at first, been taken less seriously than if Donald Duck had announced joining the race — and the demonstrative importance of polling in elections becomes markedly clear.

But even further, a parallel drawn by Victor Davis Hanson for Real Clear Politics between the 1980 and 2012 elections more closely – if not uncannily – relates to this year’s dogfight for the White House. Using the examples of Carter’s highly contentious economic policies and the Iran hostage crisis as a backdrop, Hanson noted, with emphasis added:

 “Without a record to defend, Carter instead pounded Reagan as too ill-informed and too dangerous to be president.”

If you’ve even set foot in the United States over the past few months, that statement sounds like strategy ripped straight from the Hillary Clinton campaign playbook in its no holds barred assault on the character of the erratic demagogue, Trump.

Notably, in Carter’s case, that strategy cum character assassination — all comments on validity aside —didn’t exactly work out so well.

Hanson also aptly surmised Reagan’s bevy of gaffes — ordinarily the cause of a candidate’s downfall — were a moot point in conjunction with tepid support for Carter in the national vote. In fact, describing the incumbent’s support base as “divided and indifferent” certainly echoes the country’s ambivalence to Hillary Clinton’s scandal-plagued campaign — not to mention widespread rumors of electoral fraud, proven media complicity, and multiple ongoing criminal and corruption investigations.

Even recent opinion polls seem to mimic the period prior to the 1980 election, both in inexplicable public support for Clinton — how many of you have met actual Hillary fans? — and in discrepancies surrounding what her actual lead might be.”

….Continue reading more @ ZeroHedge.com

Clinton Foundation Donations Tied to Big Middle East Arms Deals | June 2016

Hillary Clinton Foundation is the Nexus of Evil for Murderous Middle East Arms Deals including Qatar

– International Business Times

EDIT2-Hill-051216-AP-768x432

“…..The monarchy in Qatar had similarly been chastised by the State Department for a raft of human rights abuses. But that country donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was running the State Department. During the three full budgetary years of her tenure, Qatar saw a 14-fold increase in State Department authorizations for direct commercial sales of military equipment and services, as compared to the same time period in Bush’s second term. The department also approved the Pentagon’s separate $750 million sale of multi-mission helicopters to Qatar. That deal would additionally employ as contractors three companies that have all supported the Clinton Foundation over the years: United Technologies, Lockheed Martin and General Electric.

Clinton foundation donor countries that the State Department criticized for human rights violations and that received weapons export authorizations did not respond to IBTimes’ questions.

That group of arms manufacturers — along with Clinton Foundation donors Boeing, Honeywell, Hawker Beechcraft and their affiliates — were together listed as contractors in 114 such deals while Clinton was secretary of state. NBC put Chelsea Clinton on its payroll as a network correspondent in November 2011, when it was still 49 percent owned by General Electric. A spokesperson for General Electric did not respond to questions from IBTimes.

The other companies all asserted that their donations had nothing to do with the arms export deals.

“Our contributions have aligned with our longstanding philanthropic commitments,” said Honeywell spokesperson Rob Ferris.

“Even The Appearance Of A Conflict”

During her Senate confirmation proceedings in 2009, Hillary Clinton declared that she and her husband were “committed to ensuring that his work does not present a conflict of interest with the duties of Secretary of State.” She pledged “to protect against even the appearance of a conflict of interest between his work and the duties of the Secretary of State” and said that “in many, if not most cases, it is likely that the Foundation or President Clinton will not pursue an opportunity that presents a conflict.”

Even so, Bill Clinton took in speaking fees reaching $625,000 at events sponsored by entities that were dealing with Hillary Clinton’s State Department on weapons issues.

In 2011, for example, the former president was paid $175,000 by the Kuwait America Foundation to be the guest of honor and keynote speaker at its annual awards gala, which was held at the home of the Kuwaiti ambassador. Ben Affleck spoke at the event, which featured a musical performance by Grammy-award winner Michael Bolton. The gala was emceed by Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, hosts of MSNBC’s Morning Joe show. Boeing was listed as a sponsor of the event, as were the embassies of the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar — the latter two of which had donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state.”

…Continue reading the whole article @ International Business Times

 

 

Report: 60 Percent of Qatar’s Population Lives in ‘Labor Camps’

– Breitbart

qatar-labor-camps-migrants-ap-640x480

“Statistics recently released by the government of Qatar indicate 58 percent of people in the country live in government-designated “labor camps,” highly-monitored neighborhoods designed to control the movement of migrant workers.

The Agence-France Presse (AFP) cites Qatar’s Ministry of Development Planning and Statistics, which recently released numerous infographics and a longer report on the nation’s population. The report notes that 1.4 million people, most male, in Qatar live in labor camps — or government-designated worker housing complexes — as of April 2015. The population of Qatar has since increased by about 100,000 largely due to its recruitment of foreign workers.

Qatar boasts one of the largest per capita foreign laborer populations in the world and was recently ranked fifth by the Global Slavery Index due to the harrowing conditions many of the nation’s laborers must face upon arriving in the country. According to Qatar’s profile in the index, a population of 30,300 people can be confirmed to be living in slavery in Qatar, most foreign workers from southeast Asia, particularly India.

Foreign workers looking to get jobs in Qatar often must pay “recruiters” to help them find a job to begin with, typically needing to borrow money to pay off the recruiter. Once they are hired, they spend most, if not all, of their salaries trying to repay this debt at high interest rates. “Between the recruitment fees, the interest rates and the fact that their wages, even when paid in full, are often substantially lower than the level misrepresented to them when accepting the job, many workers are completely unable to escape the cycle of debt,” the Global Slavery Index notes.”

…Continue reading @ Breitbart

 

Is Hillary Clinton World’s Evilest Arms Dealer Ever? Maybe!

– Wonkette

hc28

“At last, a Hillary Clinton ZOMGgate story that might actually be a thing! (Or might not. You never know with those wily Clintons, which is why it’s generally best to assume guilty until proven otherwise.) According to an exhaustive trillion-word report by the International Business Times, the Clinton State Department authorized approximately eleventeen metric fucktons of defense contracts between corporations and countries that, coincidentally uh huh sure right, happened to donate a whole bunch of money to the Clinton Foundation and to Bill Clinton (that’s her husband) for doing his high-priced speechifying thing:

In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton’s State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records.

It just so happens that some of those countries who were allowed to get their hands on some sweet, sweet weapons were also on the official United States Naughty List of Countries That Are Naughty, like Algeria and Qatar, who were condemned by the State Department while Clinton was secretary of it, for sucking super hard at human rights, and for things like “widespread corruption” and “arbitrary killing.” And yet they were allowed to buy all kinds of military hardware and chemical agents and other goodies. Plus there was a $29 billion — yes, with a “b” — deal to sell fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, which is supposed to be our pal in the Middle East even though its human rights abuses are pretty bad too, but the Saudis give us all that oil we need, so we just sort of ignore their naughty stuff. And yet all of those countries, who happened to have given money to the Clinton Foundation, were permitted to buy stuff from defense contractors who also happened to give money to the Clinton Foundation, HMMMMMMMMMM. Coincidence? Maybe. Or maybe not. But maybe?

Just before Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State, the Clinton Foundation signed an agreement generally obligating it to disclose to the State Department increases in contributions from its existing foreign government donors and any new foreign government donors. Those increases were to be reviewed by an official at the State Department and “as appropriate” the White House counsel’s office. According to available disclosures, officials at the State Department and White House raised no issues about potential conflicts related to arms sales.

IBT has long lists of names and dollar figures, if you wanna get super nerdy about it, to see just how many millions of dollars flowed to the Clinton Foundation from the same corporations that then got to sell their war-making wares to countries we maybe don’t want to arm, like Algeria and Qatar and Australia. Wait, do we care if Australia has weapons? Unclear.

And then there are some law professors and ethics experts who say that OK,maybe Billary did not technically do anything bad or wrong, but it sure looks suspicious, and that’s kind of a problem, because you don’t want your secretary of state or your madam president (ahem) getting super rich off deals that look suspicious, even if they are technically kosher. Which is, as always, the problem with the Clintons, SIGH. Even if there’s no there there, they sure do a heckuva job making it look like there’s a there there, and then the entire U.S. government has to stop dead in its tracks to do investigations and subpoenas and hearings, forever and ever and EVER, to look at the there thatmight be there, to figure out whether the there that might be there is there after all. SIGH again.”

….More @ Wonkette

 

Hillary Wears $12,000 Suit During Income Inequality Speech

– PJ Media

hillary-12000-suit.sized-770x415xb

In progressive circles, it’s always been fashionable to lash out at the rich. Progressives try to paint themselves as men and women of the people. The thing is, most of the time, they’re not. Especially when they can drop more on an article of clothing than most can afford to spend on a car.

Hillary Clinton wore a jacket that costs more than $12,000 when she discussed income inequality and other economic issues following her victory in the New York Primary earlier this year.

According to the New York PostClinton sported the $12,495 Giorgio Armani jacket when delivering remarks in New York City in April after defeating competitor Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) in her home-state primary.

The price of the jacket constitutes roughly 40 percent of what the average American worker makes in a year.”

….Continue reading @ PJ Media