Journalists and Canadians
by Dr. William Pierce
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 lemminglike 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 lemminglike 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 lemminglike 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
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, and I quote: "We do not run in our newspaper op-ed pieces that
express criticism of Israel and what it is doing in the Middle East." --
end of quote -- 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, and I
quote: "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." -- end of quote --
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
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, and I quote: "No. It is clearly the
intent that the newspapers will speak with one voice on certain issues
of overarching national or international importance." -- end of quote --
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
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
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
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.
Thanks for being with me again today.
DR. WILLIAM PIERCE