William Randolph Hearst

[MaryL]

Gotta give credit where its due, A huge media mogul pushing a cause. Pushed us into a war with Spain. Kinda like how liberals do now with race issues, race baiting for profit, it sells headlines.

 

[fncceo]

Also responsible for criminalizing marijuana and creating one of the worst propaganda films ever made in America, "Gabriel in the White House".

 

[MaryL]

CNN a year ago Eric Sandman and their forgotten agenda. Why do they push anti white agendas do much? People with agendas need whipping boys. And white people are their whipping boys.

 

[fncceo]

And white people are their whipping boys.

Historically speaking, whites haven't ALWAYS been the whipping boys. Traditionally, they've been the ones doing the whipping.

 

[MaryL]

Liberals are taking a page from a turn of the century media mogul, he bashed Spain, it was profitable then. Now liberals bash white male Americans, with their "splendid" toxic war against whites. because its "profitable".

 

[there4eyeM]

So, essentially, it isn't that media have changed, it is that the public hasn't learned.

 

[there4eyeM]

It was "Gabriel Over the White House", and what would be so wrong with a Hebrew archangel protecting the U.S.?
Hearst was quite a citizen, it can surely be said.

 

[fncceo]

It was "Gabriel Over the White House", and what would be so wrong with a Hebrew archangel protecting the U.S.?
Hearst was quite a citizen, it can surely be said.

'Gabriel Over the White House' was a Hearst-backed film that is absolutely a love-note to totalitarianism.

To be released at the time of FDR's inauguration, it is the story of a corrupt partisan President who enters a coma from a traffic accident. When he suddenly awakes, he is changed. The implication is his corporeal body is possessed by the Angel Gabriel. He forms a private army of the unemployed (the 'workers army'), dissolves Congress and the Courts to establish 'military tribunals' so he can tackle those who oppose his reforms. Finally, he threatens the nations of the world with total destruction from his superweapon (bombing aircraft) if they don't immediately disarm and repay their debts to America. Which they agree to do.

His work done, he dies.

Studio execs labeled the film 'wildly reactionary and radical to the Nth degree', but the head of MGM, Louis Meyer first saw the film at the premiere and is quoted as saying, "'Put that picture back in its can, take it back to the studio, and lock it up!"

The film was criticized as a popular appeal to an American Totalitarianism and was clearly supposed to inspire people to urge FDR to take the same path.

It wasn't until after World War II when the world experienced such a popular Totalitarian movement that the film faded into obscurity.

 

[gipper]

Gotta give credit where its due, A huge media mogul pushing a cause. Pushed us into a war with Spain. Kinda like how liberals do now with race issues, race baiting for profit, it sells headlines.

Nothing’s change from Hearst’s time. In fact, our mainstream media is worse now. It’s controlled by six billionaires. They have enormous power and use it, as did Hearst.

BTW, we visited Hearst Castle in San Simeon CA last year. Unbelievable place.

Tidbit...he was the first to get electricity on the central coast, due to his political power (he owned many politicians, just as the rich do today). The castle is on a hilltop with beautiful views of the ocean. At night he would have every light on. The place could be seen for miles around by the peons who didn’t have electricity. I imagine they must have been rather bitter about it.
Home - Hearst Castle

 

[fncceo]

I imagine they must have been rather bitter about it.

Class hatred isn't really an American vice.

Most decent Americans will applaud those who obtain success through their own efforts.

 

[sparky]

Most decent Americans will applaud those who obtain success through their own efforts.

true, but then most of the bright one's will point out those who obtain success at their expense

so which is Hearst?

~S~

 

[fncceo]

Most decent Americans will applaud those who obtain success through their own efforts.

true, but then most of the bright one's will point out those who obtain success at their expense

so which is Hearst?

~S~

Hearst was a reprehensible rumor monger and manipulator of public opinion ... but, no one was forced to buy his papers or watch his films. His wealth was honestly made.

 

[there4eyeM]

To be honest, his wealth was made.

 

[gipper]

I imagine they must have been rather bitter about it.

Class hatred isn't really an American vice.

Most decent Americans will applaud those who obtain success through their own efforts.

Yes, the operative phrase is through their own efforts. This is almost never the case with extremely wealthy people. They bought their position via buying off politicians and bureaucrats. Thus obtaining special deals and protection from competition. It’s much worse today.

In Hearst’s case he essentially became a monopoly, as the government allowed him to acquire an enormous percentage of the American media.

 

[gipper]

To be honest, his wealth was made.

It wasn’t.

 

[sparky]

propagandists make an honest living ?.....takes a bit to get one's head around....but i guess all one needs do is look at today's media.....~S~

 

[gipper]

Most decent Americans will applaud those who obtain success through their own efforts.

true, but then most of the bright one's will point out those who obtain success at their expense

so which is Hearst?

~S~

Hearst was a reprehensible rumor monger and manipulator of public opinion ... but, no one was forced to buy his papers or watch his films. His wealth was honestly made.

Most Americans had no idea the asshole owned newspapers all over the country. Saying they weren’t forced to buy a monopoly, is laughable and an excuse.

 

[there4eyeM]

I imagine they must have been rather bitter about it.

Class hatred isn't really an American vice.

Most decent Americans will applaud those who obtain success through their own efforts.

Yes, the operative phrase is through their own efforts. This is almost never the case with extremely wealthy people. They bought their position via buying off politicians and bureaucrats. Thus obtaining special deals and protection from competition. It’s much worse today.

In Hearst’s case he essentially became a monopoly, as the government allowed him to acquire an enormous percentage of the American media.

People do seem to forget that the logical extension of capitalism is monopoly, and monopoly is not humanity's friend.

 

[fncceo]

They bought their position via buying off politicians and bureaucrats.

You can hate the game, but you can't hate the player.

Who is the guilty party, the business man who pays the politician for the right to ply his trade, or the politician who requires he be bought to receive his permission to do business?

"When buying and selling are legislated, the first thing to be bought and sold are legislators"

That is the system we have allowed our elected officials to create. We can't complain if we keep electing them over and over again.

 

[fncceo]

Only government has the power to created a true monopoly.

Any savvy businessman can corner a market ... only legislators can prevent another businessman from competing with him.