Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Gentile Journalists, Jewish Media Bosses and Canadians

I am republishing the following article knowing full well that it may excite the usual anti-semites, who may be motivated to think that they are getting a foothold. They aren't. Republication is motivated by what the author had to say about journalists. 

For the record I still maintain the thesis that Jewish superiority is determined by their higher relative IQ. I, personally, am indifferent regarding Jews and believe that it is probably natural that a persecuted group would seek to protect their own; or is it, if we observe European behaviour?

Perhaps it is natural for Jews to espouse theories like egalitarianism, when the evidence so obviously contradicts the theory. Perhaps it is an effort to keep us drinking from the utopian koolaid, so as to afford them the space to survive, much like their "inventing" religion. Perhaps it is nothing more than coincidence.

There is no doubt that Jewish contributions have been astonishing, but it is equally astonishing that the majority of media outlets are Jewish controlled, yet we know that the MSM is largely complicit in the unsettling demographic shifts that we are witnessing today. Is this merely an unassociated correlate? Related thereto is the lemming like behaviour of journalists. Surely they can't all be part of an organised conspiracy?

The following article, written by a Dr. William Pierce, a self-confessed white supremacist, sheds some light on these questions. It is unfortunate, however, that the man has been vilified for his beliefs, rather than judged on the strength of his arguments. He makes some very interesting observations, particulary regarding journalists. The article was first published in 2002, but is just as relevant today.

A few years ago, when I first began describing the lemming phenomenon, I had the naïve idea that lemmings were mostly a pretty dull bunch: grossly overweight couch potatoes who munched snacks while they watched television and believed everything they were told. I thought that intelligence was a reasonably good guarantee that a person wasn't a lemming. Since then I've learned that isn't true. I believe there probably is some correlation between intelligence and the ability to think independently, on the average, but there certainly are many, many intelligent men and women who are just as much lemmings as the dullest couch potato or baseball fan.

Talking to journalists helped me understand that. Many of the journalists with whom I've spoken in the past few years have been at least a little more intelligent, quicker witted, better educated, and generally more knowledgeable than the average member of the population. My estimate is that, on the average, the journalists for the more important mass media are a bit brighter than bus drivers and retail clerks, but I've met many more independent-minded bus drivers and retail clerks than journalists who could think for themselves. As a class, journalists are the most lemming-like professionals I've encountered. Virtually all of them march in ideological lockstep. There may be an independent-minded journalist somewhere, but I haven't yet met him.

When I first began to realize the uniform nature of journalistic thinking I wondered whether it was crookedness instead of lemming behavior I was seeing. I wondered whether journalists are simply a corrupt, mercenary, amoral bunch, who tell whatever lies they are paid to tell and follow whatever party line the owner of their newspaper or television network lays down for them. I suspected that there might be some editorial directive I hadn't seen that instructs newspaper writers and editors that in any story they publish about me the word "hate" must be used at least once in the headline and at least twice in every paragraph of text. There are certain buzzwords that are used so consistently and predictably, "hate" or its derivatives being the most common, that it seems unlikely that every journalist would have hit on them independently and begun using them of his own volition.

Well, to make a long story short, I'm sure that there are plenty of corrupt journalists, but the more experience I have with journalists generally the more I'm inclined to believe that in most cases they really are lemmings. They really believe the nonsense they say on television or write for their newspapers. It's not just that they're paid to do that; they really are incapable of believing anything except the party line. Maybe so many journalists, even bright ones, are lemmings because journalism departments at universities deliberately weed out the independent thinkers.

Well, maybe, but I'm not much of a believer in giant conspiracies, involving many people and crossing ethnic boundaries. If journalism students are selected for their lemming-like characteristics, I suspect that the selection is unconscious rather than calculated. Which is to say, journalism professors are lemmings themselves and they favor the more lemming-like students. More likely, it is the fundamental nature of the profession that guarantees that nearly all of them will think alike. Journalism, after all, is a fundamentally extroverted profession. Journalists spend all their lives talking with other people and writing about other people. They are less private and more highly socialized than the people in most other lines of work.

I've tried to talk about this and related subjects with journalists, but usually I haven't had much luck. So my own writing about the mass media has focused less on what makes Gentile reporters tick so uniformly than on what motivates their employers, the Jewish media bosses. With more than 3,000 years of Jewish history to provide examples, the motivation of the media bosses is easier to understand and to explain.

Last month, however, something came to light that I found very interesting in this regard. As you may be aware, the mass media in Canada are as much under Jewish control as in the United States. The undisputed top media mogul in Canada is Israel Asper, who is commonly known by his nickname "Izzy." With his sons Leonard and David and other family members, Izzy Asper owns CanWest Global Communications Corporation.

A Gentile, Conrad Black, also used to be a major player in the Canadian media, but a little over a year ago Black's Southam News, Inc., was bought out by Izzy. CanWest now owns more than 60 per cent of Canada's newspapers and other media outlets. That's more than 60 per cent of all of Canada's mass media in the hands of one Jew. Included are 14 metropolitan dailies and 128 local newspapers across the country, including the Vancouver Sun, the Vancouver Province, the Calgary Herald, and the Montreal Gazette. CanWest also owns the National Post, which is distributed throughout Canada. In addition Izzy owns media in the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and Northern Ireland.

Last month Izzy issued a written directive to his newspapers, instructing them that from now on they must print nothing critical of Israel or of Israeli actions or policies. This is a rare thing. Usually directives of this sort are oral only, and great care is taken to keep them from coming to the attention of the public. But Izzy, with even more brass than is customary for his tribe, made his directive public. He announced that, beginning three weeks ago, December 12, the editorial content of all of his newspapers would be homogenized, and they all would be pro-Israel.

Now here's the interesting part: if all of Izzy's Gentile underlings were simply corrupt -- were simply paid mercenaries who wrote what they were told to write -- then there would be no controversy; all of the local editors and reporters and columnists simply would follow orders. But there is a controversy. A group of reporters and writers at the Montreal Gazette have rebelled, at least for the moment. One of them, Bill Marsden, an investigative reporter, revealed on a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation radio program called "As It Happens" that his editor at the Gazette had instructed him never to report anything that might reflect badly on Israel. Paraphrasing Izzy's directive, Marsden said:

We do not run in our newspaper op-ed pieces that express criticism of Israel and what it is doing in the Middle East.

Marsden and 54 other reporters at the Montreal Gazette went on strike in protest at what they describe as undue corporate interference with freedom of the press.

Their strike has infuriated Izzy. Izzy's son David characterized the striking reporters as "childish" and "self-righteous." He said:

Why don't they just quit and have the courage of their convictions? Maybe they should go out and, for the first time in their lives, take a risk, put their money where their mouth is, and start their own newspaper.

How's that for chutzpah, as the Jews like to call it? One can read in David Asper's reaction to the reporters the thought, "How dare these mere Gentiles, these mere goyim, question what we, God's Chosen People, decide should be the party line for Canada's newspapers! How dare they!" I mean it's not just that Izzy owns the Montreal Gazette, and so he is entitled to set the editorial policy, and other newspapers can set different policies. Izzy thinks that he is entitled to set the editorial policy for all of Canada's newspapers and determine what all Canadians think.

The man chosen by the Aspers to write the editorials for all of their newspapers is Murdoch Davis. When asked by "As It Happens" whether or not one of CanWest's newspapers would be permitted to buck the party line on Israel, Davis replied:

No. It is clearly the intent that the newspapers will speak with one voice on certain issues of overarching national or international importance.

When asked specifically whether or not one of the Asper newspapers would be permitted to raise the question of Israel's long-standing violation of international law and its defiance of UN resolutions calling for withdrawal from illegally occupied Palestinian territory, Davis again responded in the negative.

So that's the present situation with freedom of the press in Canada: not really very different from the situation in the United States. So what about the mentality of journalists? The fact that the reporters at the Montreal Gazette are protesting Izzy's directive that they can report nothing negative about Israel indicates that they are not entirely mercenary. To me, however, it does not indicate that they are independent thinkers. I believe that they are as much lemmings as the dullest couch potato or sports fan. What caused their protest was the arrogant and contemptuous way in which the Aspers went about reconciling two conflicting elements in the Jewish party line.

On the one hand journalists have been taught that the United Nations is a splendid and admirable organization, whose resolutions should be obeyed. They also have been taught that all races and ethnic groups are equal -- in fact, essentially the same -- but that racial minorities and underdogs generally deserve our special sympathy, and that in any conflict with a ruling group the underdogs are in the right. That's standard liberal dogma. You have to believe that in order to be a journalist. On the other hand, journalists have been taught that Jews are wonderful people who can do no wrong, and that to think otherwise is anti-Semitism, which is as bad as or worse than racism.

It's hard enough reconciling the elevated status of Jews with the concept of racial and ethnic equality, but most journalists by working at it are able to do it -- except where the conflict between Jews and Palestinians is concerned. That requires a special effort and really careful handling by their Jewish bosses.

How do you explain to a journalist who already believes all of the liberal dogma that if Iraq ignores a UN resolution it should be bombed into the Stone Age and then starved into submission with a rigid trade embargo, but if Israel ignores 14 UN resolutions we should respond by sending the Israelis more military and economic aid?

How do you explain to a journalist who has been taught that when South Africa used to be a White country and practiced apartheid, and the South African police sometimes beat information out of captured Black terrorists, it was a terrible thing and had to be condemned in the strongest terms, but when Israel practices apartheid, assassinates Palestinian leaders, and tortures Palestinian prisoners, nothing should be said about it?

How do you explain to a journalist that it is an intolerable threat to the security of the world if some Muslim country develops weapons of mass destruction, and the United States is justified in a preemptive strike to destroy the weapons production facilities, but when a psychotic little country like Israel builds an arsenal of chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons, using materials and technology stolen from us, it's OK, and we should ignore it?

How do you explain to a journalist steeped in the tenets of feminism that he shouldn't say anything about Israel's booming slave trade in girls and women kidnapped from eastern Europe and forced to work as sex slaves?

How do you explain to a journalist who believes wholeheartedly in egalitarianism that it's perhaps regrettable but certainly excusable when Jews rocket Palestinian villages and use Palestinian children for target practice, but it's "terrorism" and completely unjustifiable when the Palestinians hit back?

Believe me, explaining these things is tricky, but it can be done, if it's done with patience and care. It can be done, because when it comes to matters of faith, a lemming really isn't rational. He's quite capable of believing two mutually contradictory things at the same time. The problem that brought on the mini-rebellion at the Montreal Gazette is that Izzy wasn't patient and careful. He was arrogant and contemptuous of his Gentile reporters. But they'll get over it, I'm sure. They always do. They're lemmings.

But, as I said, what is happening now in Canada is interesting. It gives us insight into the workings of journalists' minds, and it also brings out into the open not only the monopoly Jewish control of the Canadian mass media but also the way in which that control is used to slant the news and Canadian public opinion so as to serve Jewish interests to the detriment of Canadian interests.

Do you think that any of these revelations will be of benefit to Canadians? Will the average Canadian say, "Oh, my goodness! I didn't realize that one man, and a Jew at that, controls more than 60 per cent of all the mass media in Canada and is using that control to deceive Canadians as to what is happening in the Middle East. That's terrible! We'd better have our lawmakers do something to break up this media monopoly, so that we will have a better chance to learn the truth about what's happening in the world when we read a newspaper or watch a television news program."

What do you think? I think that about 98 per cent of Canadians won't even look up from their ball games. I think that there's not a politician in Canada who will dare go up against Izzy Asper. This whole tempest at the Montreal Gazette will blow over in a few days, and all of Izzy's newspapers and other media will toe the party line as if nothing had happened.

And now I'm talking only to the two or three or four per cent of Canadians -- and also to the two or three or four per cent of Americans -- who aren't so absorbed in their ball games that they don't notice things like this and don't really care either. I'm talking to the small portion of the White population in both countries -- and in fact, in countries around the world -- who do notice and do care. I want you to understand that this is the way nations lose their freedom. More than that, this is the way races become extinct.

The majority of the population in Canada and the United States and in every country in Europe consists of lemmings, who always have been manipulated by whoever is in power. For approximately the last 100 years the power to manipulate the thinking of the lemmings -- of the masses, if you prefer -- has been shifting from the authority figures in the government and in the churches to the people who control the mass media. These days the people who control the media also control the government for all practical purposes, and the churches have become irrelevant, which is why the Canadian government won't try to break up Izzy's media monopoly and why the politicians in the United States will never go beyond pretending to be concerned about too much sex and violence on television when they have a mock fight with the media.

Controlling a country's mass media doesn't mean just being able to exert a decisive influence on a country's foreign policy, as Izzy Asper is doing in Canada, and as his fellow Jews long have done in the United States. It doesn't mean just getting a country involved in unnecessary wars and subjecting its citizens to retaliatory terrorist attacks. It means influencing immigration policy. It means influencing educational policy. It means influencing social policy. It means being able to control the way most of a country's people think about everything: about race and morality and lifestyles and other countries and freedom and the meaning of life. Most of the degenerative changes that have taken place in America and in Canada since the Second World War have been consequences of Jewish media influence. As that influence continues to grow, the chances of our people being able to throw off the yoke and regain control of our own destiny become smaller and smaller.

In Canada at the moment, Izzy Asper's surfeit of chutzpah has brought to the attention of the public -- that is to the attention of that small portion of the public that cares about such things -- his monopoly control of Canada's mass media and his intent to use those media for Jewish propaganda purposes. Light has been cast on this grave situation because most journalists are lemmings, and a few of them are chattering excitedly now about things such as "freedom of the press." Really, the whole debate is silly. Canada had no freedom of the press even before Izzy got his greedy hands on most of Canada's newspapers. For years it has been illegal in Canada to publish anything considered "racist" or "anti-Semitic" or even Politically Incorrect. When a Canadian buys copies of any of my books and they are mailed to him, the Canadian secret police confiscate them at the border. Publicly challenging the details of the Jewish "Holocaust" story can result in a prison term for a Canadian. Canada's journalists thought all of that -- stopping "hate," as they called it -- was just fine. Pretty soon they will realize that requiring all mass media to say only nice things about what the Jews are doing to the Palestinians is also part of the noble effort to stop "hate," and that also will be just fine with them.

We can't change the nature of lemmings. Someone always will manipulate them. What is of the utmost importance is who it is that manipulates them, because whoever that is will determine the course taken by the whole society, by the nation, by the race. In the past, when it was a king or a pope or a dictator who set the party line, many mistakes were made, sometimes due to selfishness or irresponsibility, sometimes due to ignorance or carelessness or stupidity or prejudice. But at least the people setting the party line for the masses were our people, members of our own race. Now, increasingly, the arbiters of the party line are Jews or people wholly under Jewish influence. And the Jews, as always, are looking out only for their own interests, not for ours. To them we are merely tools to be used in advancing their interests.

And that's at best. At worst they are pursuing policies intended not only to advance their interests, but also to destroy us. Don't try to debate this matter with the Jews; they will, of course, deny it. Just look at the policies they have been pushing for the past 50 years and where those policies have been taking us. Just consider the facts, not their specious arguments designed to keep you demoralized and non-resisting.

My fellow Americans and my fellow Canadians: we are in a bad situation. Let us stop ignoring it. Let us begin deciding what we're going to do about it. I'm doing what I can do in speaking out about it and getting others to speak out. You must decide what you are able and willing to do and then begin doing it.

14 Opinion(s):

Anonymous said...

Newspapers are there to make money while they educate and entertain the public. The last study done on readership in South Africa showed that each time they ran a headline about Racism, Hate Crimes anything to do with racial disharmony they sell more papers as more people but it. So the news becomes more entertainment than educational as there is more profit in it.

It is however worrying when you consider that a disproportionate amount of newspaper buyers per capita are Whites. What makes this really worrying is that one could deduce that Whites in South Africa are living in fear and are awaiting the "Big One" hence they buy the papers based on wanting to know how bad it is and when could they expect a full blown racial war.

On the flip side of journalism if one could call it that in South Africa. There might not be many bright journalists around but much like the newpapers they too want thier salaries at month end. So even though they might not like it they write what needs to be written as it is clear as daylight that if you do not self censor, you are unemployed.

A good example was Bullard. The moment you do not self censor what it is that you really think and it is not in line with PC guidelines, you will find yourself out in the cold.

Anonymous said...

@Jim. That is the most intuitive explanation, that Jews are singularly focussed on profits, as long as it isn't at the expense of Israel perhaps.

Donatello said...

Although I fully agree and in fact think it is a great analogy to call journalists "lemmings" (because that is indeed what they are) I have to say that I found the opposite to what Dr. William Pierce is saying. I mean the western media only ever reports bad things about Israelis, in the Israeli vs Palestinian conflicts there are seldom any leniency shown towards the Israeli side as they are nearly always depicted as absolute monsters. Am I missing something?

Anonymous said...

You have your fair share of lemmings on this site, so I wouldn't talk too much.

Anonymous said...

@Anon 18.58. Not sure what you mean. We neither have a Jewish boss, nor do we earn a salary. So, by your definition, we could only be naive or stupid. The fact that we use the internet means we have at least a 90 IQ. I don't know, take your pick. Are you religious Anon? Let's establish whether you have a bias.

FishEagle said...

".... but there certainly are many, many intelligent men and women who are just as much lemmings as the dullest couch potato or baseball fan."

It's because they don't acknowledge the importance of spirituality. I sometimes get confused between spirituality and emotional intelligence. Emotional intelligence includes finding the balance between spirituality and reasoning. But in itself it is still a form of intelligence and can't be used as a substitute for spirituality. Politics or discussions about religion can't be used as a substitute for spirituality. Journalists apparently have no spirituality.

Anonymous said...

Strange to insinuate that anyone who doesn't like your ramblings must be religious and therefore biased. But now that you mention it, I bet the Jews, Christians, Muslims and Hindus get a lot more action between the sheets than you lot.

Atheists have always struck me as morose because of being sexually deprived. All that talk of there being no god and why there's no purpose to anything other than staying alive interspersed with the occasional loveless sexual encounter until you inevitably drop dead is not exactly a turn on.

Islandshark said...

@ anon 20:01 - We are actually a mixed bunch - some do have a religious background and others don't.

The difference is this - we don't attempt to impose our religious beliefs on fellow contributors, neither do they try to convert us.

Unfortunately for the religious amongst us, it is a fact of life that many religious folk on this planet lead lives quite contrary to the religion they supposedly subscribe to - just look at certain churches in SA unashamedly using their pulpits for advancing political agendas. This was so prevalent in a certain denomination even under the previous government that I vowed never to set my foot in those churches again.

A clever man once told me the major problem with Christianity is religion. You figure it out...

FishEagle said...

@Islandshark, I like your response, regarding your stand against churches using pulpits for their political purposes.

Anonymous said...

The article mentions "buzz words"

A buzz word is a specific word that when used gives instant bias.

Favourites are racists, truthers, conspirators etc.

Now what is interesting is that the bias of the buzz word is created by the media.

eduard said...

The following will explain the role of the press:

Asked to give a toast before the New York Press Club in 1953, John Swinton, the former Chief of Staff at the New York Times, made this candid confession:
"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, as an independant press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions in one issue of my paper, before twenty four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell the country for his daily bread. You know it and I know it and what folly is this toasting an independant press. We are the tools and the vassals of the rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."

Note that John Swinton was called 'The Dean of his Profession" by othe newsmen, who admired him greatly.

And who ownes the press and dictates the policy? We are held in bondage by these same men, so why can we not make a noise?

Anonymous said...

I agree that nobody should shove their religion down anyone else's throat, but that doesn't give atheists permission to try to discredit other people's arguments because they are not atheists.

Just as there is no independent press, there is no such thing as an independent blog. You are embracing a set of beliefs on this site yourselves, whether you wish to admit it or not.

Anonymous said...

@Anon 2.18. I think Islandshark effectively answered your question. We do not have a set of beliefs, we are a mixed bunch.

Anonymous said...

@Anon. Apologies, although you didn't write anything of substance, I hit the reject button in error.