|
If you are interested in what's going on
in this vale of tears, say a little
prayer of thanks for the Internet. It's
true, of course, that it carries a lot
of garbage, but so do the regular media.
Without the Net I would never have
seen the downing of Conrad Black in the
Taki affair by Britain's Lord Gilmour.
"Taki" as I mentioned in a
previous piece, writes a column in The
[London] Spectator and caused Black to
start chewing carpets. He had written
that thanks to the Jewish penetration of
Washington the Israelis knew more about
U.S. Air Force activities than the
Pentagon did, but that America.was
"not yet territory occupied by
those nice guys [in Israel] who attack
rock-throwing youths with armour-piercing
missiles".
Black's carpet-chewing took the form
of a vicious article in the magazine,
which he owns, unfortunately. He claimed
that Taki was a racist and an
anti-Semite (where have I heard that
before?!) and that what he had written
was "almost worthy of Dr. Goebbels".
Black also vilified Robert Fisk, the
Independent's Middle East correspondent,
the BBC, The Guardian, The Evening
Standard, and the British Foreign
Office, all of whom were "rabidly
anti-Israel". Never fear, though.
Justice would be done in Black's
publications. In other words, the
editors of his empire had better be nice
to Israel.
Lord Gilmour is a former owner of The
Spectator and was also a minister in the
Thatcher government.Taki's column, he
declared in The Independent, was
"wholly innocuous". If Black
didn't like it he could have picked up
the phone and expressed his displeasure,
or have written Taki a note.
"Unfortunately," he stated,
"Black fancies himself as writer
— mistakenly, as his writing is
ponderous and bombastic."
From his "bizarre, childish and
unethical" attack on Taki, Gilmour
continued, "it can be gathered that
Mr. Black is not a very good judge of
these matters. Both he and his wife
[Barbara Amiel] are almost fanatical, if
under-informed, Zionists, whose credo is
‘My Israel right or wrong', and they
regard any criticism of that country as
a demonstration of fierce anti-Israel
bias."
He also pointed out that Black owns
hundreds of papers including the Daily
Telegraph, the Sunday Telegraph and the
Jerusalem Post, which latter paper,
"to the great detriment of Israel,
he has converted into one of the most
rabid Jewish publications in the English
language".
|
The
carpet-chewer has sold most of his
Canadian holdings to Izzy Asper of
CanWest-Global, but retains a half-share
in the National Post, which is every bit
as biased as the Jerusalem Post. Asper
has already shown in which direction his
empire should steer. The result is that
Zionist control of the media in this
country is now pretty well on a par with
that in the U.S. Needless to say, no one
in our weak-kneed mainstream media has
pointed that out.
What does Jewish control mean? Lord
Gilmour quotes the Independent's Robert
Fisk:
"No newspaper in America, except
for some very small ones, now dares to
put the Palestinian side of the
case.They are all in thrall to Israel,
and the chief reason why they are in
such an ignominious position is that the
Israeli lobby has succeeded in equating
criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.
And that, of course, is pernicious
nonsense."
There is more enlightened comment on
the Palestinians' plight in the Israeli
press, says Gilmour, than there is in
the American, and "even though the
pretence that critics of Israel are
anti-Semites is a transparent fraud, it
has proved to be an enormously
successful blackmailing tool." The
most sinister feature of Black's recent
activity, he adds, is that Black is
seeking to achieve the same situation in
Britain.
Locally, an example of Black's bias
was shown in his refusal to back the
North Shore News here in Vancouver when
he owned it. He never lifted a finger to
fight the Jewish "human
rights" attacks on free speech that
I and the paper had to face. Neither
financially nor editorially. He and his
cohort David Radler let the paper
struggle against the Jewish pressure
groups and the provincial government on
our own. It was only because we had a
brave publisher — Mr. Peter Speck —
plus concerned members of the public,
that the human rights maniacs could be
taken on.
The Aspers have now fired both Mr.
Speck and the executive editor. But the
fight for free expression is continuing.
No thanks to Izzy Asper. Nor to Black,
Amiel, and Radler. |
