The bullshit just comes out thick and fast from upworthy.com

 84 seconds of proof that Upworthy.com and Unilever think you might be dumb enough to believe they give a shit about anything other than their profits

By F.F Nicholson

 

Upworthy.com have just decided after diligent and careful consideration, to allow for the sponsored “they gave us money” video to don its site, currently being featured on the front page. The small humble little company, they so cautiously allowed to run a “paid for” video is Uniliver “. It is the world’s third-largest consumer goods company measured by 2012 revenue, after Procter & Gamble as well as Nestlé”.

That revenue is 47 billion dollars as of 2012.These sweet hearted guys from Uniliver know fully well that most of us know they are corporate sociopaths that have every inch of their business model driven for profit at any cost, whatever the cost. Hey, they have to do so by law motherfuckers, it’s not their fault. They also know that in the “global brand image” thing, the knowledge of this requires that they dilute or distract “us”, the public, from the total extent of their unscrupulous amorality. So they invest a minuscule aspect of their advertising budgets to create foundations or charities so they can show

“Hey common person, despite being low wage paying, third world raping, fuck the earth, greedy super rich cunts we really are, we are actually caring and here is our project with the word “ Sunlight” making it sound all happy and the cute video that shows things like, people smiling, kids on the beach hugging, sharing stuff, all across a cynical contrived rich array of age, race and gender types, so we all feel it’s about us”.

How this works, is illustrated in the documentary of “The Corporation” and this link here explains how sociopathic corporations use perception management. The actual title of this nauseating headline should be

“84 seconds of unworthy proof is willing to suspend, pretending its imaginary principles of making the world a better place, just to make money”

Final thought: Go fuck yourself upworthy.com and change your domain to unworthy.com. Being a little under the weather, when I get time, I am going to make my own sunlight foundation video, peppered with spicy truth, watch out for it. Hopefully, it will go so well, I will get served some legal letter.

My interpretation of what this really means.. 

 

Links to look at… Some choice stuff on Unilver past check this google book Corn and Capitalism: How a Botanical Bastard Grew to Global Dominance

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cRnjAQAAQBAJ&dq=why+unilever+area+bastards&source=gbs_navlinks_s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unilever

13 thoughts on “The bullshit just comes out thick and fast from upworthy.com

  1. The Corporation. With Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky? That’s where I should go to get the facts?

    Obama doesn’t use ‘perception management’? Should the government control corporations?

    Like

    • I think Republicans and Democrats are cut of the same cloth, just different version of the same bought government. Have you watched the doco the corporation? I don’t recall if either those two featured in it, as i saw it some time ago.The basic message was when you look at a corporation as person, and test its personality type they often come out sociopathic or psychopathic.So promo videos like this from Uniliver are trite and disingenuous as they “care” to the extent they need to perceived to “care”, yet the moment caring impinges on their bottom line, all care will cease.Not because they are evil , just because that structure of the corporation demands it to be so. The question of government control over corporations is answered when you considered what is in theory meant to be function of government. Corporations, like small business and individual should be accountable to the laws government make and treated equally to average citizens.Yet the reality is due to the money needed now to get into government, governments answer first to larger corporate interests first.Then if your Comcast and you spend 18 million on lobbying US congress, then you wants and needs will always supersede that of the average citizen.So we are a long , long way from having to worry about government controlling corporation, what we do in reality have something to worry about is the fact corporation now control government. Illustrated Obama new appointment of the FCC, the watchdog that’s meant to keep and eye on the communications industry was a former lobbyist for the communications industry, go figure.

      Like

      • Thanks for replying.

        I haven’t watched it yet, but I’m going to. Chomsky and Moore are in it among others. I suspect its message pretty slanted.

        It’s true that corporations can be harmful, but I don’t think it’s necessarily the truth. But I haven’t watched the docu, so I don’t know how they make their case. I do know that Moore and Chomsky make their careers out of attacking capitalism. They distort things. They sell disinformation. They are probably psychopaths themselves.

        You have to be very careful who and what you listen to because everyone is trying to get you to think the way they want you to. Trying to use you. It isn’t easy to get to the bottom of many issues in politics. In fact in seems to take years to work through a lot of it. You to have watch what is happening closely and filter out all the spin.

        You have the government, the news media and Hollywood blasting their propaganda into people’s minds. The public education system is very involved in promoting Leftist ideas and values. Many churches are deeply involved in promoting Leftist politics. Much of the Catholic church leadership is involved in Leftist projects. And you have politicians lying. Lying, to me, is a truly wicked thing.

        Every organization is hiding their real agenda behind the facade of a religious, environmental, educational, or nationalistic purpose.

        I look into many of these movements. Where does their funding come from? What are their agendas? What is their rhetoric? Who is their rhetoric tailored to? In the case of upworthy.com the rhetoric is clearly tailored to young people with a public education background who have been given all the special interest messages and no other information.

        The Unilever promo is clearly designed to appeal to people’s warm and fuzzy feelings. That whole website is totally slanted to the left. Totally one-sided. Totally dishonest. Totally psychopathic. Just warm, fuzzy feelings. No way to comment on their information. No meaningful content whatsoever. It sets off your bullshit alarm.

        All these groups and politicians have image consultants that tell them how to tailor their message to every specific audience.

        The government still has a lot of power over corporations. The EPA is very powerful. It mandates emmision levels for cars and industry. California and other Democrat controlled states are trying to raise more taxes by making unfounded and unreasonable claims about emmisions.

        California has succeeded in pushing through many of these regulations with no voter approval whatsover. This makes it too expensive for many businesses to stay in California. And the government body that has done this in not answerable to anyone. And the data they used to make their case was proved to be utterly phony. And California’s air is cleaner that it has been for forty years.

        And no corporation prevented this, although it’s clearly against corporate interests. Lowering CO2 emissions is controversial, of course. But it certainly is against corporate interests. Yet the governments are all in favor of it. This is a case where the govt, schools and media are all waging a war together. All to save the planet, right? Or only to get more power?

        Government regulations and taxes make it too expensive for many corps to operate in the US, so they go overseas. If they were so powerful wouldn’t they make government give them more favorable laws? Of course they would. So what it is is a struggle for power between government and corps.

        The Moores and Chomskys are anti-capitalism. I’d be very surprised if they ever gave more than one side of the argument.

        I don’t know how many of Obama’s appointments are corporatists. The FCC for sure. Many of the appointments are very far Left types. His Supreme Court appointments are just ideologues like Obama is.
        Governments and corporations both have pros and cons.

        But be very careful who and what you listen to. Keep learning.

        I don’t take sides with a political party or social philosophy. I’m a moderate who wants to do what is best for everyone. I guess that makes me radical.

        Like

  2. Happy to reply and engage in some form of discussion. I understand the view you taking but from my end I don’t see Obama being a leftist and much of what you’re saying I find hard to wrap my head around. A re you saying you think the republican/tea party candidates are any better? They both are funded and fuelled by the same donors and large cooperate interests, YES? Not living in the US I don’t have full grasp of the experience but I know enough to enough other than Bernie Sanders and Denis Kruginich are the only one I think of any really on the Left. Come to Europe and see that in France and Spain were you still have communist and Trotsky wings of the socialist party winning local election and you get a better sense of what “left” really is. Obama has stacked this political appointments in the same way every US government has, with those who’s contributions put them into power, banking , defence, insurance ect… Not one Wall Street crook has gone to Jail.Choosing the republicans and democrats,is choosing a whooper or big mac. Obama care was built straight of the heritage foundation proposal, that is right wing think tank. He has increased troops in Afghanistan, put away more whistle-blowers combined of all former presidents ect..Increased and expanded surveillance state, and codified the right to indefinitely detainee any citizen they choose. What so pathetic about the so called “left” in the USA is once their guy was in they suddenly had double standards. Obama is the Right, please name me one “left policy” he has implemented. He is just not Far Right say like Romney or other born again Christian crazies Koch funded nuts.

    Regarding Chomsky, he is first an academic and I encourage you to read one of his books, before you dismiss his perspective. Every fact he states, or argument he makes is back up with footnotes and references .He is very meticulous about the way he present his argument and it can make at times for dry reading, as he is very through. I would honestly challenges you to point out an argument he is making about whatever and fact check it ,or put forward a concise rebuttal. Unlike Glen Beck of Bill O’Reilly he doesn’t just spit out what he believes, independent of the facts. I encounter these kind of dismissal of Chomsky view , which just seemed to be repeating of what other critics of said, rather than robust and well thought counter points .If you take this time watch this interview with Famous BBC report Andre Marr

    , look and see every argument Marrs makes against his theory (that most of western media function as propaganda for the established state and corporate power) he just knocks them down point by point, Marr just blankly moves on to the next point .So I don’t view government as some baddie, as the separation between corporate power and state power is relatively seamless. Of course there limits and yes the EPA may be forced to take action and do at time what they voter expect them to do ie “Protect the environment” but look at the SCC and FDA the regulators of banking and food, they , like the FCC are stacked with former lobbyist and lawyer from the companies they are meant to be watching over, it’s a serious joke. This happens with Bush, Clinton, Jr Bush jr,Obama ect..I just don’t get your anti-Obama isn’t just anti corrupt politician on both side of the fence. Why do you honest think Romney would have been any different? The question is how do republican or democrat who represent the interests of about 1% of the population, get the votes of the 99%?How under Bush and Obama 60% of all new income has gone to the “1% of the 1% “and most people wages have remained stagnant, with inflation added actual mean they have gone down. Anyone outside of that small wealth bracket is being fucked, by both parties. In my opinion how they get away with it come down to the art of bullshit, stoking fears, hitting emotional hot spots, but the main thing is just straight our lying , control the message in the media and just keeping people away from the fact, they don’t make a choice .Like thinking you making a choice when the beverage you are offered are Pepsi or Coke .Look forward to your reply
    EF
    PS: is isntlam, meant to be “not Islam”?

    Like

    • “A re you saying you think the republican/tea party candidates are any better?”

      You always have to choose the lesser of two evils. I would certainly rather have a Republican administration than Obama’s. The tea party is about limiting government. Most republicans are for limiting government. They don’t want a nanny state where the government is controlling everything in peoples’ lives. That’s like totalitarianism whether it’s communism or Islam.

      I would rather see a country where people are employed and making money. I would rather see a country where people can afford to own their homes and have a good standard of living.

      There are people who simply want to have power and tell other people how they have to live their lives. That isn’t what America is about.

      “They both are funded and fuelled by the same donors and large cooperate interests, YES? ”

      They get some funding from corps, yes. But I hope you don’t think that’s where they get all their funding. With Obama it’s unclear where much of his money came from.

      Why do large corporate interests want to pay high taxes and have a stagnant economy? Because that’s what Democrat policies do. Why do these corporations not have everything their way? Are they really as powerful as you believe?

      Let’s have a discussion. If these corporations have so much influence, then why do they still get high taxes and too many unreasonable regulations? You have to respond to that in order to have a discussion. It’s a very important question because it tends to disprove your claims about the influence of corporations.

      “Not one Wall Street crook has gone to Jail.”

      Bernie Madoff went to prison. Others have been fined. Not every misconduct has a prison sentence.

      Tell me which ‘Wall Street crooks’ you’re referring to so I can investigate it.

      “Choosing the republicans and democrats,is choosing a whooper or big mac. ”

      Not that simple at all. Obama’s policies are terrible for the economy. He has made thousands of new regulations. He uses the IRS to attack groups that don’t share his ideology. The Democrat party is being run by the Left. George Soros, for example, has a lot of influence.

      “Obama care was built straight of the heritage foundation proposal,”

      This is why I say you need to be careful who and what you believe. Your claim is false, although the Heritage Foundation may have put forward some version of an individual mandate in health care, Obamacare certainly does not come from the Heritage Foundation.

      Government run health care is a wet dream for the Democrats. It’s what they’ve always wanted. You probably don’t remember Hillarycare.

      ” I don’t see Obama being a leftist”

      He makes things hard for private industry. He doesn’t like free market ideas at all. He uses government agencies to attack conservative interests. He sucks up to Islamists. What is Obamacare except a power grab? It isn’t going to provide health care to more people or save the taxpayers a lot of money. Everything he said about it is a lie.

      He made law requiring all non-profits to provide birth control for their employees. Even churches and religious orgs that are against birth control. That’s some pretty heavy-handed government control. Where do Republicans do things like that?

      “Obama is the Right, please name me one “left policy” he has implemented. ”

      Do you mean that unless Obama implements ‘left policies’ that he is not a Leftist? Do you think that he can just implement any policy that he wants to? Doesn’t Congress have something to say about it? Don’t the courts have something to say about it?

      Look at his actions, though, and you’re not paying attention if you don’t see a Leftist at work. It’s all about Obama. Just like with a psychopath. He disregards the Constitution and makes some shocking actions without consulting Congress.

      He’s the Right? Do you not know he just released five al-qaeda commanders from Gitmo in exchange for a deserter and a probable traitor?

      He’s the Right? No. In fact he’s never worked one day in private industry. He grew up with friends and associates who were socialists and communists. He’s not the Right.

      “Regarding Chomsky, he is first an academic”

      That doesn’t exactly speak well of anyone in the US. The universities are citadels of Leftist thought and political correctness. Nowhere is there more intolerance to disagreement and discussion than in our universities. Chomsky is an anti-capitalist. I don’t care how many good footnotes he has. That doesn’t prove anything. He’s only giving you one side of the story.

      “theory (that most of western media function as propaganda for the established state and corporate power)”

      I amazed that anyone DOESN’T think western media favors the liberal establishment. The media here filter out many if not most stories that contradict their biases. They love Obama in general. They rarely criticize him. They try to cover up his most egregious actions. Republicans don’t get the same treatment. Double standard.

      If you have some specific point about Chomsky you want to discuss then name it. But an academic who only does advocacy research is pretty low in his usefulness to any discussion.

      “Of course there limits and yes the EPA may be forced to take action and do at time what they voter expect them to do ie “Protect the environment” ”

      LOL. That’s very naive and uninformed.

      Just because they’re supposed to protect the environment, it doesn’t mean that they don’t overstep their authority and act to hurt people and businesses and corporations for political reasons. Any government agency can bring all kinds of lawsuits against corporations, or make unrealistic regulations that overburden them to the point they have to go overseas to do business.

      Didn’t you say this “Obama has stacked this political appointments in the same way every US government has, with those who’s contributions put them into power, banking , defence, insurance ect…” ?

      But somehow the EPA is different. The EPA is doing God’s work.

      When you say something vague and nebulous like “protecting the environment”, it shows that you’re unaware of how such a thing is used to massively oppress people. This makes me think you might be a Kool-aid drinker. Maybe you don’t think
      Obama’s a Leftist and you think the EPA is “protecting the environment” because your own ideas are way to the Left and you really are not well informed.

      The Leftists are the ones making all the hysterical claims. The oceans are going to rise two hundred feet. The ice caps are melting. Hurricanes are caused by global warming. Maybe you believe those things.

      And I think the reason you’re not well informed is that you’re listening to the media propaganda. The global warming or man-made climate change story is one of their favorite and most successful propaganda tools.

      “Why do you honest think Romney would have been any different?”

      Clearly Romney would be different. Romney isn’t trying to take control of the economy with excessive taxes and regulations.

      Romney is more friendly towards business. Romney is in favor of more free market policies.

      That’s a big difference. You may still not like it. You don’t have to like it. But that’s the difference. Big difference.

      Obama doesn’t like business. His policies only create unemployment. The US economy is in the toilet and the only thing Obama can think about is taking more money from people in the name of redistribution of wealth.

      There’s a huge difference. I say you have to be careful who and what you listen to. You’re missing this huge difference in the ideas of the Republicans and the Democrats.

      You don’t like lies. I don’t either. Be careful what you listen to. Like I said every group is lying and making false claims and distorting things to cover for their real agenda.

      At least the free market ideas give people the hope of making a good living.

      “Anyone outside of that small wealth bracket is being fucked, by both parties. ”
      Not true. Obama’s ideas create only misery. The Free Market idea has always benefitted people.
      Isntlam means I don’t like the Islamic way of doing things because they’re a threat to all mankind.

      Like

      • I appreciate you detailed and in-depth reply, though your final sentence “the Islamic way of doing things because they’re a threat to all mankind” i think just affirms we are living in two different universes, that not matter how much we respond and reply, we will not find common ground.I wish you all the best. Thanks EF

        Like

      • So any disagreement just ruins everything?

        You can’t respond to any points I made about corporations or politics?

        Are you actually aware of what Islam is and what Muslim culture consists of?

        You can only find common ground if I agree with you about Islam?

        You think corporations are bad…wait until you learn about Islam.

        Like

      • To be honest i find your whole Islamaphobia really sad.Have you ever lived in Muslim country? Do you have any Muslim friends?Have you studied Islam in any depth? Are the fears you have based your experience or just Fox news? So when you come out with these remarks i think its pointless continuing , although i do implore you to examine why you believe what you believe and don’t demonize 1 billion of the worlds population based on groundless fears.Turning a whole group of people into “baddies” be it based on the race, religion or culture, is what makes it easy to bomb them, kill their children and commit all kind of horrors. I assume you live in the USA? Do you have passport? Have you traveled the world? Good luck in your crusade and god bless america!!

        Like

      • “demonize 1 billion of the worlds population based on groundless fears”

        Someone isn’t reading wrote. I haven’t attacked Muslims. I have attacked Islam.

        Islam is a totalitarian system of social control. I have studied the matter more than you have ever studied anything.

        Good luck with your reading comprehension.

        Like

  3. That’s like saying I haven’t attacked Jews, I have just attacked Judaism or I didn’t attack Christians, just Christianity. I think you need to go back to some basic in your intensive study and look up the word “Muslim” in the dictionary and see that it is defined as “a follower of Islam” and Islam is not defined as system of totalitarian control, rather a religion with a certain sets of belief , prayers and rituals , like every other religion. When you say “studied the matter” you mean you have read lots of stuff online, not you have master or doctorate in Islamic studies.Good luck with your understanding words comprehension

    Like

  4. Upworthy is full of misleading and factually inaccurate B.S. (that’s marked “Fact checked” to boot), but this claim:

    > they are corporate sociopaths that have every inch of their business model driven for profit at any cost, whatever the cost. Hey, they have to do so by law motherfuckers, it’s not their fault.

    Is no better. Directors of corporations have a fiduciary duty to the shareholders and the corporation itself, but this does not mean they are required to pursue profits at any cost. See: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits

    Like

    • Thanks Mark for the clarification. Re-reading I think it was said more sarcastically, rather than justification of what goes on. “We have responsibility to shareholders” is often stated as a way to justify what consequence of “externalities” a corporations cost have on society. The fact that it is legally false just makes it even more disingenuousness. I could correct with ” they are corporate sociopaths that have every inch of their business model driven for profit at any cost, whatever the cost. Not that they have to, as there is no law that forces them to be assholes, the asshole choice is just a preferred option of how to do business”

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s