The election of Derek Beackon – a candidate for the openly fascist British National Party – as a local councillor in the September 1993 Millwall bye-election, sent shock waves the length and breadth of the country. The BNP has the reputation of being Britain’s premier race-hate organisation. As a result of this, it has been subjected to a campaign of unconditional hatred by “anti-fascist” and similar groups, including violence, intimidation, denial of its democratic rights and the persecution of its members, who, in some cases have been hounded from their jobs. That notwithstanding, the BNP’s reputation is not entirely undeserved. Many members of white “nationalist” groups in Britain and abroad have indeed been convicted of serious acts of violence against non-whites – including reds! Their literature is often racially offensive, or just plain offensive; their members are often uncouth and thuggish; they espouse anti-black and anti-Asian rhetoric, often violently so, and rabid anti-Semitism.
The BNP, like other white nationalist groups, seldom gets a good press. It is in fact not too strong to suggest that there is an open conspiracy operating against the party and its fellow travellers. The media, trades unions, and many other groups, have a declared policy of never saying anything good about them, never giving them any favourable publicity, never extending any cooperation to them in any field or any way. There have been constant cries by powerful pressure groups, often bordering on the hysterical, to ban them, to suppress their literature, to deny them every foot of pavement, usually on the grounds that they are Nazis, and that Nazism is such an unspeakable evil that it must be suppressed by whatever means necessary. It is never made quite clear if that extends to murdering fascists and their fellow travellers, but the option shouldn’t be ruled out.
In spite of all this, the BNP was still able to win an election. Albeit a bye-election, and even then only on a recount and by a paltry seven votes. How then, did Britain’s premier race-hate organisation triumph over such adversity?
The answer is that it didn’t. The BNP is not Britain’s premier race-hate organisation; that privilege belongs to a somewhat lesser known, but far more influential body, and one which most journalists, out of fear, ignorance or spinelessness, seldom if ever say anything deprecatory about. Even though this organisation has over the years given its virtually unqualified support to one of the most brutal régimes on the face of this planet, a régime which has oppressed, tortured and murdered thousands of innocent men, women and children, while at the same time hypocritically condemning the British National Party for inciting hatred against non-white citizens of the UK.
Although this organisation and most of its members and representatives have an almost pathological hatred of the British National Party and would never knowingly do anything to promote it, it is almost certainly true that without its unwitting help, Derek Beackon would never have won the Millwall bye-election, and, but for the hate campaign against the BNP and its fellow travellers, of which this organisation was a major initiator, right wing extremism in Britain would never have made any headway at all. This organisation is called the Board of Deputies of British Jews. More specifically, the Board’s “defence committee”, has been and continues to be, responsible for the propagation of repressive “race relations” legislation, for the destruction of individual rights, and, unwittingly or otherwise, for the fermentation and growth of anti-Semitic propaganda.
The British National Party is based in Welling, Kent. Its headquarters cum book shop is heavily fortified, and with good reason. Such premises are often subject to attack by political opponents. On October 16th for example, a march on the BNP headquarters by the Anti-Nazi League – hereafter referred to as ANAL – ended in a riot. The headquarters of the Board of Deputies of British Jews is based at Woburn House, Upper Woburn Place, in Central London. And this building is far more secure than the British National Party’s HQ. If you visit New Scotland Yard, you can walk straight into the building and report to the security officer on the reception desk. To enter Woburn House on the other hand, you must press an entryphone, wait until the buzzer sounds and the outer door of the building opens, then wait until the outer door closes behind you before the inner door is opened.
There have of course been terrorist attacks in Britain, though very few of them have ever been directed against Jews.
First and foremost of course there is the world’s premier terrorist organisation, the IRA. With regard to Jewish targets, in the sixties a series of arson attacks were committed against synagogues, which resulted in a number of jail sentences for neo-Nazi “nutcases” including the former wife of the National Socialist Movement leader Colin Jordan. In 1982, the Israeli ambassador to Britain was gunned down in London. (More about this anon). However, there is no evidence that Jews are more likely to be attacked either by terrorists or by lunatics than any other ethnic minority. Indeed, they are probably no more likely to be attacked than other whites. The paranoid security precautions in place at the UK headquarters of Imperial Zion amounts to a conscious admission by Jewish leaders of how much they believe they deserve to be hated.
“Contrary to the opinion of the National Socialists that the Jews were a highly organized group, the appalling fact was that they had no organization whatsoever. The mass of the Jewish people were taken completely by surprise. They did not know at all what to do; they had no directives or slogans as to how they should act. That is the greatest lie of anti-Semitism because it gives the lie to the old slogan that the Jews are conspiring to dominate the world and that they are so highly organized...”
These words, quoted here from Raul Hilberg’s standard work on the Holocaust, were put into the mouth of a high-ranking SS officer. (1) They constitute one of the biggest lies and one of the greatest whitewashes the Western media has ever perpetrated on the public. The Nazis, and other anti-Semites before them, created a repulsive stereotype of the Jew as grasping, evil, mendacious...It would take several encyclopaedias to catalogue all the anti-Semitic imagery spewed out by the anti-Semitic presses of the world over the past hundred and more years. Jewish libraries are crammed full of such poison.
To take just one example, during the First World War, a number of prominent Jews were involved in the peace movement.
These Jews were represented by the Britons (2) and other anti-Semitic outfits as agents of German Imperialism. One of their slogans was “Scratch a Jew and find a German.” (3) Later, this was altered to “Scratch a Bolshie and find a Jew.”
In the winter of 1915, the American industrialist Henry Ford chartered a ship and sailed to Europe in a well-meaning but ill-fated mission to stop the war. Ford, (1863-1947), believed that the “International Jews” were responsible for the war. Heads the anti-Semites win, tails the Jews lose. (4)
Obscene and absurd as this imagery is, there is another equally absurd imagery, but because of constant pressure by Jewish organisations, this has become the accepted paradigm: the Jew as scapegoat. Now it is a fact that some people do indeed blame the Jews for every evil in the world since the snake tempted Eve. The Jews on the other hand would have us believe that they are totally without sin. Not only this, but that anyone who ever attacks any Jew is attacking him “as a Jew”, whatever that is supposed to mean.
Any reference to the ethnic origins of certain media moguls, financiers, terrorists, or a great many gangsters, and the shrill cry of anti-Semitism goes up. Not only is the Jew always the innocent victim, but the Jews as a group, are always poor, helpless people in need of special protection by the law from a world which has nothing better to do than hate, persecute and murder them. Garbage.
The truth is that the Jews are better organised than any other ethnic group barring none, and better organised by far than most groups per se. There exists a worldwide, loose knit network of Jewish and Zionist organisations who lobby incessantly for special privileges for their race. And whenever they don’t get what they want, the cry of persecution goes up.
Nobody put it better than American anti-Semite Frank Britton, who in 1952, wrote the following words: “Through all Jewish thinking and all Jewish history the refrain of persecution has sounded with shrill insistence. Thus we find every accident of fortune being chronicled, enhanced, and passed on to succeeding generations as another example of gentile cruelty to the chosen race. And almost inevitably we find opposition to Jewish aspirations and ambitions being translated into these same terms of persecution, and all Jewish shortcomings being excused on the same basis...it is a fact that the Jewish people have suffered numerous hardships in the course of their history, but this is true of other peoples too. The chief difference is that the Jews have kept score – they have made a tradition of persecution...and they tell their woes not only to themselves, but to a sympathetic world as well...” (5)
Jewry is both organised and extremely powerful. No, not every single Jew, not even most of them. The police are organised, the trades unions are organised, so are many other groups. An individual police officer may not have much clout, but the police lobby usually gets its way. Ditto the Jews. Organised Jewry in the UK is represented primarily by the Board of Deputies. And Heaven help anyone who incurs their wrath.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews was founded in 1760 as the the London Committee of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. The Board does PR work, both for Jewry and for the State of Israel, to which some people would claim with more than a little justification that it owes its principal or indeed its only allegiance. It also does a great deal of work totally unrelated to politics, it is concerned with Jewish education and shechita, (6) for example.
It is a sad fact but a fact nonetheless that anti-Semitic propaganda is one of the most persistent forms of disinformation in our society. Publication of anti-Jewish literature has mushroomed since the Nazi era, (7) but even before Hitler was born there were veritable libraries of it in existence. Anti-Semitic propaganda takes many forms, from the blood libel legend, which grew out of the misrepresentation of Catholic ritual, (8) to the Jewish world conspiracy, the most notorious “proof” of which is the Tsarist-inspired Protocols of Zion. (9) In 1919, the Board of Deputies set up a press committee to refute anti-Semitic calumnies. (10) The following year a Board member, the anti-Zionist journalist and historian Lucien Wolf (1857-1930), published The Jewish Bogey... (11)
Wolf’s book was originally published as a series of articles in the Manchester Guardian, Spectator and Daily Telegraph. In their revised form they dealt very substantially with the two most persistent anti-Jewish myths of the era, the Protocols and the Jewish Bolshevik menace. (12) This method of combatting anti-Semitism is very responsible, indeed, it is the only legitimate method. If people hold erroneous beliefs, tell them the truth, give them the evidence of their being misled, and, if they are honest, they will most likely see the light.
This applies to other forms of bigotry, and indeed to all erroneous beliefs. Those who cannot be convinced by reason will never be convinced by force. The tendency nowadays however is to abandon reason and to use not only force, but intimidation, threats, deceit, even violence to “suppress” not only anti-Semitic propaganda and anti-Semites – real and imagined – but to apply this methodology to racism, sexism, homophobia, and indeed, to every belief system, perceived instance of bigotry or non-egalitarian dogma which some arbitrary and totally unrepresentative body of “public opinion” thinks should be made taboo.
Jewish organisations the world over have been engaged in this campaign of “tolerance by compulsion” far longer than any other group. They have used the anti-Semite smear with gay abandon not only to kick all their enemies into line, but to extract special privileges for their race, in particular, to “justify” the oppression, torture and murder of the Palestinian people, to silence all opposition to their mendacity, and to instil fear, and in many cases, loathing, in the goyim. Ironically, their efforts to suppress the anti-Semitic conspiracy theory of history has itself amounted to a conspiracy, and, rather than combatting anti-Semitism, they have sought it, and found it, in every cranny, cleft and nook, until they have succeeded in doing what the anti-Semitic international never had a prayer of doing. They have made the Jews universally despised.
Although the aims of the Board of Deputies Press Committee were laudable, some of the other activities of the Board were not. In his 1939 book Jewish Rights And Jewish Wrongs, Neville Laski, who was both President of the Board and a KC, stated that:
“The work of the Board in counteracting anti-Semitic development has been conducted quietly, without advertisement or publicity.”
He claimed further that such advertisement and publicity would have entailed disadvantages which would have been “obvious”. (13) Mr Laski’s statement is a candid admission that, even then, Organised Jewry in Britain was busy pulling wires behind the scenes. (14) If the reader manages to fathom what these “obvious” disadvantages are, we would be most grateful if he could advise us, because we cannot see what disadvantages publicity and advertisement could possibly entail. Indeed, the only way to refute calumnies is by advertising and publicising their refutation. Working “quietly” behind the scenes can mean only one thing, suppressing rather than refuting lies. Too often though, it is the truth which has been suppressed rather than lies. I do not intend to discuss the thorny subject of Holocaust Revisionism in this work, but the most elementary critical examination of Holocaust literature soon reveals that Organised Jewry and many survivors have lied through their teeth about the full extent of Jewish suffering both in the Second World War and more generally under the Nazi régime. (15) Yet to even suggest this is to risk being hysterically denounced as anti-Semitic. (16) The Board of Deputies is the representative body of Organised Jewry in Britain. There follows but a few examples of its proven mendacity.
Newsam’s Law states that “The incidence of alleged racism in a given society will vary in a direct proportion to the number of people handsomely paid to find it.”
This quote is taken from an excellent book on “Anti-racism” by Russell Lewis. (17) Newsam’s Law is named after Sir Peter Anthony Newsam, Chairman of the so-called Commission for Racial Equality from 1982 to 1987, a body with Draconian powers which was set up to destroy individual rights on the pretext of combatting the non-existent disease of racism. It goes without saying that what is true of racism is true also of anti-Semitism.
The same author says of the Race Relations Act that “The incitement to racial hatred part of the bill was not controversial. As a matter of fact it was due less to racist propaganda against coloured people than to anti-Semitic speeches at public meetings in the early 1960s. This change in the law was strongly urged by the Board of Deputies of British Jews.” (18)
Mr Lewis is of course totally wrong about the “incitement to racial hatred” part of the bill being non-controversial.
As we shall soon see, Organised Jewry has very different ideas from the rest of us as to what constitutes incitement to racial hatred. The idea that this change in the law was “strongly urged” by the Board of Deputies is, to put it mildly, an understatement. Writing as long ago as 1965, George Thayer said of the Board that “it backed the passage of the Public Order Act of 1936 that subsequently curbed Fascist activities in Britain; and it is, among other things, currently helping to promote the passage of a bill to make incitement to racial hatred a criminal offence.” (19) In other words, pulling wires, whining and wailing.
Mr Lewis’s reference to anti-Semitic speeches also refers to fascist organisations. It is widely believed that fascism is synonymous with anti-Semitism; that is not so, at least, it was not always so. The father of fascism, the Italian socialist Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) was anything but an anti-Semite. He founded the Italian Fascist Party at the end of World War One, and, after he took power, several Jews served in his government. For example, Aldo Finzi was appointed Assistant Minister of the Interior. Mussolini was also a Zionist sympathiser, and although a Nazi sympathiser too, he detested Hitler. (20)
Neither was British fascism inherently anti-Semitic. Although there were a number of cranky and totally insignificant anti-Semitic fascist groups in this country, (21) Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists was not one of them. Mosley, who is generally regarded as the father of British fascism, was totally non-anti-Semitic, and for the first two years of the BUF’s existence, its membership was open to Jews. (22) It was only after Jews had repeatedly attacked the BUF – including unprovoked physical assaults on its members – that the grass roots, and possibly Mosley himself, developed anti-Semitic tendencies. (23)
The Board of Zionist Deputies has never made any secret of its desire to destroy free speech in this country, at least on the subject of race. And the Jewish Question. Nor has it ever made any secret of its desire to destroy the character of the British people by supporting large scale immigration of unassimilable aliens. This desire is shared by a plethora of left wing “anti-racist” and “anti-fascist” organisations who routinely denounce all opposition to immigration and forced race-mixing as fascist, racist, and, of course, Nazi. One must not be deceived by their rhetoric of “racial harmony” ad nauseum. Although most such organisations are probably made up overwhelmingly of sincere people who genuinely do want to improve race relations, the driving force behind this powerful lobby is the Marxist-inspired hatred of white skin. (24)
The Board of Deputies was the “original inspiration and impetus for the formation of the ’Anti Nazi League’...” (25) an organisation from which it later distanced itself, probably as much for ANAL’s violent activities as for its being highjacked by the rabidly anti-Zionist Socialist Workers’ Party. As stated, Board members much prefer to pull wires behind the scenes.
The almost unqualified support for the quasi-fascist state of Israel which both the Board of Deputies and the mainstream Anglo-Jewish Establishment has long espoused can only be described as crass hypocrisy. On the one hand, any manifestation of race consciousness in the white British public has been vociferously condemned, on the other, the Israelis have been given carte blanche to treat the Palestinian people like most people wouldn’t treat their dogs. For decades, an entirely one-sided picture was presented by the Western media to the public of gallant little Israel, an island of democracy surrounded by a sea of Arab tyranny. The PLO in particular was condemned as a fanatically anti-Jewish terrorist organisation which wanted to push the Israelis into the sea, or even to finish the job Hitler started.
In July 1981, a forty to fifty thousand strong crowd of Zionist Jews and their supporters gathered in London’s Trafalgar Square to protest against the British government recognising the PLO. Posters of Yasser Arafat bearing the legends WANTED FOR MURDER and WANTED FOR CHILD MURDER were displayed by angry protesters. Greville Janner, then President of the Board of Deputies, who was one of the speakers at this rally, whined that it was not “in the interests of Britain to encourage terrorism.” (26)
Of course, the last thing on Mr Janner’s mind at that moment was the interests of Britain. Earlier, in November 1975, the United Nations had condemned Zionism as a form of racism, a pronouncement which had caused much wailing and gnashing of teeth by Jewish and Zionist groups worldwide. (27) Only in the past few months have the powerful Zionist lobbies been kicked into line, particularly in the United States. One can only speculate as to why, but probably someone somewhere has told the servants of Imperial Zion that, contrary to what their enemies believe, they do not control the United States, and the American taxpayer cannot continue to bankroll a bankrupt administration. Over the past couple of decades also the truth about Zionism has been slowly leaking out, in spite of the massive campaign of smears, disinformation and outright censorship effected by the Zionists, their powerful friends and their paid dupes. (28)
The double standard of the Zionist lobby on race has also led to the proliferation of the most absurd conspiracy theories. The Nation Wreckers, a National Front pamphlet published in 1975, is typical of this. (29) On page 4, Lord Fisher is identified as Chairman of the Board of Deputies Race Relations Working Party: “His interests embrace Zionism, Socialism, race-mixing for non-Jews and diamonds.” The classic conspiracy theory is that the Jew is the arch-race polluter and that the Jews per se are involved in a worldwide conspiracy to destroy the Aryan race by the promotion of miscegenation while at the same time striving to preserve their own racial identity so that they may lord it over a mulatto world. (30)
Only a fool or an ignoramus would deny the reality of anti-Semitism. Equally, it is clear that anti-Semites are among the first to condemn Zionist atrocities and mendacity, but “anti-Semitic” has become one of the most overused words in the English language. It is now no longer possible to dismiss all critics of Zionism as anti-Semitic. The September 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacres and the shocking treatment of Palestinians broadcast to the world during the intifada have put paid to that forever. (31) Things were different in the 1970s though. In August 1979, the Jewish Chronicle reported that Auschwitz survivor Fania Fenelon had accused the actress Vanessa Redgrave of anti-Semitism. (32) This undoubtedly came as a shock to Miss Redgrave, who was often referred to as “Red Vanessa”, less for her hair than for her politics. Miss Redgrave, an outspoken “anti-racist” and anti-Zionist, was due to play Miss Fenelon in a dramatised (and undoubtedly fictional) adaptation of her life story.
If Miss Redgrave’s condemnation of Zionist atrocities was avant guarde for 1979, the advertisment reproduced here was even more avant guarde for 1974. On December 11th of that year, an organisation calling itself the Committee for Justice in the Middle East placed this advertisement in the Times. In the following issue of Patterns of Prejudice, a wailing and gnashing of teeth article Challenge to the Press, revealed that the leaders of British Jewry had referred it to the Race Relations Board. (33)
The ad was of course branded anti-Semitic, by, among others, the then President of the Board, Lord Fisher, whom we have already met. A similar ad was run by the politically correct Labour paper Tribune; the Guardian refused to carry it though, obviously mindful of the “terrible power of the purse” which Organised Jewry forever insist does not really exist. (34)
It would be difficult to imagine a more moderately worded advertisement. It should be remember that it was a Prime Minister of Israel who asked, “What Palestinians?” (35) All the Committee for Justice in the Middle East was saying was: “Please don’t keep sending money to Israel where these thugs, torturers and murderers who dare to call themselves Jews will use it to buy bullets to shoot Palestinians.” What’s wrong with that? What’s anti-Semitic about it? Needless to say, Lord Fisher took a slightly more partisan approach. He wrote, “For the Jewish community, the protection of its good name is of infinitely greater worth than the goods and services included in the Trade Description Act. If the Race Relations Act does not cover the case of the scurrilous, racialist advertisement, it must be amended...” (36) Obviously, the government heard and obeyed; the following year the Race Relations Act was tightened up. Coincidence?
The point Lord Fisher missed is that people who give aid and comfort to the oppressors of a nation, the torturers of its people and the murderers of its children have no good name to protect. If this sounds harsh, or, perish the thought, anti-Semitic, the reader is welcome to contact Amnesty International or to study the relevant press and human rights reports. Per head of population, Israel has a far worse record of human rights abuses than South Africa, the other “civilised” – read white – country in the Dark Continent.
It should be added that if the peoples of the West have been kept in the dark generally about the true nature of Zionism and the barbaric treatment meted out to the Palestinians, this applies equally to the majority of Jews. In spite of its enthusiastic endorsement by Jewry as a whole, Zionism remains very much a minority movement. (37) And, within Israel, there is a great deal of organised Jewish opposition to this quasi-fascistic régime.
Fortunately, the Board of Deputies’ wailing and whining fell on deaf ears. It was not illegal then to protest against the oppression and murder of a nation. (38) Eighteen years on, the current writer was referred to the Attorney General by the Board’s “defence committee” for committing a similar heresy. In the summer of 1993 I published Charity Begins At Home, an anti-Zionist pamphlet which was mailed out to a number of Orthodox Jews. (39) An article in a September issue of the Jewish Chronicle referred to this publication as a “violently anti-Israel pamphlet” and said that, together with an accompanying leaflet, it had been forwarded by the “defence director” (40) of the Board of Deputies to the Attorney General, presumably with a view to prosecution. (41)
The content of this pamphlet was similar to that of the 1974 advertisement, though perhaps a little more diplomatically worded. The essence of it is a plea to Orthodox Jews not to send money to Israel where it can – and very likely will – be used to buy bullets for the murderers of Palestinian children. We will return to this subject later. One can only assume from this that the Board of Deputies thinks it a perfectly splendid idea for Jews to send money to Israel to buy bullets for the murderers of Palestinian children. Obviously, to them, the life of an Arab, if taken by a Jew, is of no consequence.
The swastika is a very ancient symbol; it was adopted by Adolf Hitler as the symbol of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. In less parochial terms it came to symbolise Germany, the German or Teutonic race, the Aryan race, (42) or more generally, Western Man. Since the end of World War Two, the swastika has been anathema throughout the West, unless it appears on the cover of a pulp fiction book, a film poster etc. The purging of the swastika has been brought about primarily by pressure from Organised Jewry, groups and individuals. In Germany, you can be sent to prison for displaying Nazi regalia.
Why this should be so remains to be seen. That the Nazis committed many crimes against the Jewish people, including mass murder, as they unquestionably did, is hardly justification. (43) The Zionists too have committed mass murder; morover, their record of atrocities and crimes against humanity since the end of the Second World War is a great deal blacker than those of the Nazis between 1933 and 1939, even taking into account the longer time span. (44) To take just one well-known example, in 1948, some two hundred and fifty innocent men, women and children in the Arab village of Deir Yassin were massacred by the Zionists. In 1978, the mass murderer responsible for this outrage against humanity was jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize with President Sadat of Egypt. His name was Menachem Begin, and he was the Prime Minister of Israel.
We have established then that in the post-war era the Star of David has become more a symbol of inhumanity and shame than the swastika. Yet in 1981 the Board of Deputies, an organisation which displays this symbol with pride, and which interprets a plea to stop murdering Palestinian children as an incitement to hatred against Jews, remember, this august organisation petitioned the publication Exchange & Mart to stop displaying swastikas in display advertisements. (45) Furthermore, the Board was given an undertaking that the paper would indeed reject display ads containing illustrations of swastikas. The then so-called “defence director”, Dr Jacob Gewirtz, was said to have stressed that “...the banning of swastikas in display advertising was an important first step, which I appreciate.” (46)
What does that mean, first step? Classified ads, it was announced, would not be censored. For the moment? Until the servants of Imperial Zion decide that they too constitute an incitement? Gewirtz was said to have accepted that a small number of genuine collectors existed, “but many of the people who buy this material are National Front and British Movement supporters.” (47) So aren’t they genuine collectors? The arrogance of Organised Jewry knows no bounds.
One final point, the servants of Imperial Zion might bear in mind. In Nazi Germany, Jews were forbidden from displaying the swastika, but in 1935, (48) the Jewish Chronicle reported that the three German-Jewish shipping companies in Hamburg had all hoisted the swastika flag on their vessels. (49) Proudly, it seems.
Along with the rest of Organised Jewry, the Board of Deputies has lobbied for the continuance of war crimes trials long after the end of the Second World War. The usual argument employed here is that the crimes of the Nazis were so enormous that the perpetrators should be remorselessly hunted down thirty, forty, and now, fifty and more years after these crimes were allegedly committed, and brought to book. It is not only Organised Jewry which has been guilty of hypocrisy here; Allied war crimes, including the fire-bombing of Dresden and those most terrible atrocities against the Japanese people, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, have not only gone unpunished, but there has never been any serious suggestion that they ever should have been punished.
What is conveniently forgotten though is that at the very time the Allies were saving European Jewry from the Nazi slaughter, Zionists in Palestine were waging a terrorist war against the British. We have already mentioned mass murderer Menachem Begin, who died a natural death in 1992, but what about Yitzhak Shamir?
Shamir was the leader of the LEHI terrorist gang. His hands were even redder than Begin’s, and, like Begin, he went on to become Prime Minister of Israel. Earlier this year we witnessed the totally outrageous treatment of John Demjanjuk, who, after being acquitted of war crimes in Israel, was held in custody while it was seriously mooted that he be kept in jail anyway, guilty or not, on the grounds that whatever the court decided, he was surely a war criminal, and Jewry must be avenged for the Holocaust. All this time there was not a squeak of protest from the Board of Deputies. For them, as for many other Zionist organisations their motto is clearly Jewry über alles.
The Dowager Lady Jane Birdwood is a veteran anti-immigration campaigner. She has been branded by the Jewish and non-Jewish press as a bigot, a racist, a fascist and many other things besides. In reality, it would be difficult to find a more unbigoted person than Lady Birdwood. She simply believes multi-racialism and the resultant inevitable miscegenation to be an evil and is not afraid to say so. People who believe in speaking their minds right or wrong are not bigots. For many years, Lady Birdwood has published an occasional campaigning newspaper called Choice. Up until fairly recently she had not taken much notice of the Jewish question, (50) but when someone sent her a batch of leaflets proclaiming the immorality of the Talmud, she saw red, and, taking their calumnies at face value, like the brave but sorely misguided idealist she is, she ordered a batch of them from her own printer, appended her own name and ad- dress, and mailed them out to her fellow Christians to warn them of the international Jewish conspiracy which, even now, is destroying white, Christian civilisation at the behest of the Elders of Zion. (51)
Lady Birdwood not only believes the Talmud to be the source of all immorality, she believes that Jews practice ritual murder, that the Jews are behind communism, that they control the banks, and the media, and that the Protocols of Zion is a genuine document. She believes all this passionately, and, one might be tempted to think, hates the Jews just as passionately on account of it. In fact, Lady Birdwood doesn’t hate anyone, least of all the Jews. She is a woman with a mission, not only is she determined to save Britain and the rest of white, Christian civilisation from Jewish-inspired miscegenation, but she is determined to save the Jews from themselves too. She believes they are due for another Holocaust, and “They need a Holocaust every fifty years.” Not that she believes there ever was one in the first place, but, unlike some of the “anti-fascist” creeps who are forever putting her down, she was at Belsen after the Second World War, with the Red Cross.
This so-called anti-Jewish bigot does have – or had – a number of Jewish friends over the years. Unfortunately, most if not all of them are fellow travellers. One, the late Albert Elder, was an anti-Semitic propagandist of some repute. (52) This supposedly, viciously racist, evil old woman also has a number of black friends; over the years she has collected a substantial petition of black people who have wanted to be repatriated to the Caribbean. She receives all persons of all races at her East Acton flat with the same courtesy and respect that she would extend to a member of the Royal Family. She is certainly not evil, not a Jew-hater, not a bigot. She is simply terribly wrong, misled, misguided, and certainly the victim of evil men. In fact, Lady Birdwood is the victim of two conspiracies: of the evil men who have been feeding her this Jewish conspiracy garbage, and of the grubby little Jewish fascists of the Board of Deputies “defence committee” who have now, on two occasions, called successfully for her prosecution.
After mailing out thousands of these anti-Jewish leaflets to her fellow Christians, the conspiracy which we all know doesn’t really exist, moved into action. The Board of Deputies and the Anglo-Jewish Establishment with all the wailing and gnashing of teeth we have come to expect of a people who have made a religion out of paranoia, went running to the Attorney General and demanded that this latter day Streicher be dragged into court. And, sure enough, she was.
In October 1991, the brave, principled, and, I stress again, sorely misguided Dowager, pleaded not guilty to ten charges under the Draconian – and largely Jewish-inspired – Public Order Act 1986. Lady Birdwood defended herself, was convicted on all ten charges, conditionally discharged for two years and fined £500 with costs. And given a warning that if she dared ever to do such a terrible thing again, she would be sent to jail. The leaflets were ordered to be destroyed. The Jewish Chronicle reported that the well-known black MP Bernie Grant had himself forwarded two of her “anti-black leaflets” to the DPP. (53) Not having seen these particular leaflets myself I am unable to comment on whether or not they are anti-black. One thing of which I am certain though, if they are anti-black, they were published in good faith without the intention of inciting hatred against anyone. With regard to repatriation, as Bernie Grant has himself recently called for disillusioned blacks to be voluntarily repatriated by the British government, he now has no ground whatsoever for levelling charges of racism at white organisations and individuals who do the same.
Also featured in this article was Board of Deputies “defence director Mike Whine”, who was quoted thus “...The leaflets she has distributed have contributed to the rise in racist violence.” (54) I won’t charge Mr Whine with lying as he obviously believes this rubbish; he is a fool as much as a whiner, and I challenge him to name one case in which any Jew or Jewish property has been attacked on account of either these leaflets, or indeed anything else Lady Birdwood has published. On the other hand, by dragging this – again – sorely misguided idealist into court, the Board of Deputies and Organised Jewry generally will have raised the question again in the minds of even the less paranoid conspiracy theorists: who really controls Britain?
At the time Lady Birdwood was waiting to go to trial, a three part TV series called The Longest Hatred was screened. It was about anti-Semitism, naturally, and, much to the surprise of the current writer, it was reasonably objective in places. At least, it was a far cry from the forever wailing and gnashing of teeth Jewish Chronicle or fawningly philo-Semitic chutzpah churned out by certain leftist and “Christian” organisations, and certain academics who appear to have sold their souls to the Jews in return for their lucrative sinecures. Lady Birdwood didn’t see it that way though. “They preempted my trial,” she told me. So, when another of her anti-Semitic manipulators – or perhaps it was the same one – sent her the manuscript of an anti-Jewish publication which definitively exposed the perfidy of international Jewry for all to see, the courageous but foolish Dowager published it with an introduction by her good self and began posting it out to persons in high places. The title chosen for this piece of anti-Jewish non- sense was The Longest Hatred: An Examination of Anti-Gentilism, mocking the tone of the TV documentary series.
More wailing and gnashing of teeth followed, and subsequently Lady Birdwood received a letter from the Attorney General telling her to desist. She didn’t, and was summoned to appear in court again. There appears to be some confusion over the interpretation of the aforementioned letter. In court on November 5th 1993, she claimed that it exonerated her and gave the green light for continued distribution. The prosecution convinced the stipendiary magistrate otherwise, the prosecution’s case was upheld, and the Dowager was sent for trial by way of a full committal.
I have read The Longest Hatred cover to cover and it is pure garbage, a Jew-is-the-root-of-all-evil type book. Lady Birdwood believes everything it says from its validation of the Protocols to its claim that there is no evidence for evolution. She has been ill-advised, particularly by her McKenzie friend, Dr Kitty Little. Who is Dr Little? In its October 1985 issue, the spurious “anti-fascist” magazine Searchlight reported that “LOONY racist and anti-semite Dr Kitty Little” had been fined £20 for refusing to wear a seatbelt in her car. (55)
I have written elsewhere of this so-called loony anti-Semite that: “Dr Little, a retired biochemist, Doctor of Philosophy and extremely erudite woman, believes that the Rothschild family control the world.” (56)
It pains me to have to admit it, because although I still don’t agree with Searchlight that Dr Little is a Jew-hater, after some of the things she told me in earnest after the Bow Street hearing, I have to agree with part of its assessment of her. Kitty Little is not just a loony, she is completely mad. At least, as far as the Jewish/Rothschild/world conspiracy question is concerned.
In 1973, Dr Kitty Little published Bone Behaviour, an incredibly complex textbook. She claims that this book was suppressed by the publishers because of certain revelations it makes about radiation. In particular, she says it proves that low doses of radiation cannot cause cancer. (57) This may be true. I wrote to the publishers, Academic Press, and asked them why the book was withdrawn; they replied that it had sold only ten copies in the previous six years. I must confess that I find Little’s arguments here persuasive; there has been and continues to be, dirty work afoot. (58) Certainly she is spot on in her analysis of the drivel of Professor Doll and his smoking-is-the-root-of-all-cancer nonsense. (59)
However, she goes much further than claiming the existence of a mind-set or vested interests wilfully distorting the truth, and postulates the existence of an enormous, all-pervasive conspiracy. In the 1950s, she says, censors were put in all the medical journals. The Rothschilds control all this, somehow, and this is all part of their Machiavelian scheme, in cahoots with the French government, to achieve a total monopoly of energy and banking after wiping out the nuclear industry, which of course is totally blameless for all pollution.
Now it is a fact that the Rothschilds are extremely powerful and influential, far more so than they let on. It is also a fact that the opponents of nuclear power often overstate the case against it. And it is a fact that the doomsayers have made grossly pessimistic prophesies about the way we are trashing the planet. One such person is Edward Goldsmith, founder of the Ecologist, the world’s most prestigious environmentalist journal. I know Goldsmith reasonably well and have interviewed him a couple of times. (60) Goldsmith has devoted the greater part of his life to campaigning against the rape of Gaia. In my opinion, some of his ideas, deindustrialising Britain and the world for example, are not tenable. A post-industrialised world couldn’t support five billion people. Goldsmith has overstated the case for Doomsday. But not by much. There can be no doubt at all that he is a man with a message, and that this message needs to be heeded. We cannot continue to treat the oceans like a dustbin, we cannot keep tearing down the forests, and so on. Little’s reaction to this is that Goldsmith is all part of the plot, because, apparently, some of his family are inter-married with the French Rothschilds. This is not so much anti-Semitic ravings (61) as calumny against a man who has, as stated, devoted the greater part of his life to warning the world of impending disaster unless we change our ways. (62)
In 1993, Lady Birdwood published Dr Little’s latest insane ravings as MAMMON VERSUS GOD THE BANKERS’ “NEW WORLD” DISORDER. (63) She has also published two other pamphlets by Little. (64) MAMMON VERSUS GOD was duly mailed out to persons of influence, and was condemned by Sebastian Coe as anti-Semitic filth. (65) Lady Birdwood’s reaction was that Sebastian Coe is in reality Sebastian Cohen. She even thinks I’m working for Israel Finestein! (66)
When I told Little that MAMMON VERSUS GOD was complete rubbish and that she shouldn’t make extraordinary claims without extraordinary proof she said that to do that would require a thick, meticulously referenced academic book. Go ahead and write that book, I said. Well, I’d like to, but I haven’t got time, she replied, although she insists that much of the “evidence” for this can be found in various biographies of the Rothschild family. She has since told me that the real culprit is not the Rothschild family at all, but Satan. Yes, Satan, the man with the pointed tail, horns and trident. Satan, the Devil in person. When I told her she was talking garbage, she accused me of working for the other side. As someone who has suffered at the hands of the Zionists myself, and as a strong advocate of financial reform, I found this doubly insulting. Little’s ravings do incalculable harm to the cause of fighting the cancer of Zionism, the abolition of usury and the struggle for free speech, and I told her so in no uncertain terms.
This is Lady Birdwood’s McKenzie friend never let it be forgotten. It was stated in court that Lady Birdwood had distributed nearly 15,000 copies of this booklet. Yes, a one and a five followed by a comma and three zeros. (67) She had sent copies to every Member of Parliament, every Member of the European Parliament, and God knows who else. And all this had been paid for out of her own pocket. Is this hatred or misplaced idealism? I venture to say it is the latter. And what happened to them? One day when I was at her flat she showed me a couple that had been returned in disgust. If my memory serves me correctly one had been torn in half, and another had been stapled right through. She was quite unperturbed. About half a dozen had come back like that altogether. That’s not bad, is it? she said. A number of orders had come in too. (68)
I took a few copies for friends and contacts; in particular I donated this and some of her other publications to the Wiener Library. (69) I showed my Rabbi friend The Longest Hatred and some of the more vitriolic anti-Jewish poison; he thought it was a right laugh and said he would be more inclined to pity such people than to hate them. He certainly agreed with me that Lady Birdwood was a victim rather than a perpetrator.
At the beginning of November I interviewed an MP, Piers Merchant, at the House of Commons in connection with a different political matter. (70) At the end of the interview as we were talking generally he remarked that he regularly received anti-Semitic literature through the post from a mad major or someone of that nature. This guy has been bombarding MPs for years. It all goes straight in the bin. All MPs, politicians generally, academics, editors et al receive tons of this stuff, literally tons of it. It comes from anti-Semitic propagandists, conspiracy cranks, Christian fundamentalists, UFO cultists, you name it, there’s some nut or other out there preaching it. It all goes straight in the bin. The only people who ever make any noise about this sort of thing, who even pay the slightest attention to it, are Zionist Jews.
All this stuff should go straight into the bin where it belongs, with one or two copies saved for the archive. The Board of Deputies, however, will have none of it. Take Neville Nagler, for instance, who is the Board’s Chief Executive. I heard him on the LBC Radio programme You Don’t Have To be Jewish, on Halloween. I didn’t catch the entire programme but I would presume that along with its usual obsession with anti-Semitism and the Holocaust it covered the “rise” of the British National Party. Towards the end of the interview, Nagler said something like: “We need stronger legislation against incitement.” Who’s we?
Let’s put this into perspective. I have in one of my files an Amnesty International press release embargoed for 27 May 1993. I have quoted from this document a lot in recent months. It reveals that between December 1992 and the release date, more than a hundred Palestinians had been shot and killed (read murdered in cold blood) by the Israeli security forces, thirty of them under the age of seventeen. Among these were Rana Abu Tuyur, an 11 year old girl, who was mur- dered on her way to buy milk on 19th December 1992. Maher al-Maja’ idah, aged 8, was murdered on 20th March 1993. And Ra’ edah al-Qarra, a 13 year old girl who was murdered on 8th April 1993.
Have Mr Nagler and his co-racialists raised their voices against this monstrosity? Isn’t this likely to incite hatred against Jews? Isn’t the silence of the Board over such obscenities and its failure to condemn Zionist tyranny and child murder likely to make people think less well of Jews in general than they might? Or should? Apart from Sabra and Shatila – when even they daren’t have remained silent – has the Board of Deputies ever raised its voice over Zionist atrocities? (71) And doesn’t this constitute an incitement to hatred against Palestinians? Oh, I forgot. What Palestinians?
At the time Nagler was whining about stronger laws against incitement, there were genuine outrages happening in Northern Ireland. In the space of ten days, twenty-seven people were left dead. This included the Shankill Road IRA bombing – where one of the bombers was killed – and a massacre in a public house by “Loyalists”. Twenty-seven dead. And all this creature can say is that “We need stronger legislation against incitement.” Never mind about the Palestinians, they’re only filthy Arabs anyway. Stuff the Catholics, they started it, and who cares about the Protestants either? A hundred dead Palestinians? Pah! Twenty-seven goyim? So what? The important thing is that WE MUST STOP THESE WICKED PEOPLE SENDING ANTI-SEMITIC LEAFLETS THROUGH THE POST. And, just in case you don’t get the message: ISN’T SIX MILLION JEWS ENOUGH? And of course, they’re even trying to deny that now. We must ban them too, those wicked Revisionists. If Organised Jewry lack a sense of humour, they lack a sense of proportion even more. With leaders like this, is it any wonder that Jews are hated?
The culpability of the Board of Deputies for dragging Lady Birdwood through the courts a second time does not end here though, and for a very good reason. Over a period of about eighteen months, the current writer investigated the true nature of the anti-Semitic “menace” in Britain, with particular relevance to the production and distribution of anti- Semitic literature. The conclusions I reached are as follows: there exist in Britain, indeed the world over, small cliques of fanatical Jew-haters and people who believe – without necessarily hating them – that the Jews control the economy, the financial system, world communism, the media and so on in varying degrees. A great deal of evidence can be adduced for these hypotheses, much but not all of it flawed, but none of this will be discussed here. None of these people wants to burn, gas or otherwise “exterminate” the Jews. None of them, whatever their rhetoric. Some of them – the brave but foolish Lady Birdwood for example – want to save their fellow Christians from the Jewish world conspiracy and the Jews from themselves. (72) The anti-Semitic international proper want to incite the goyim to do their dirty work for them. The goyim don’t give a toss, and never have.
The anti-Semitic “menace” consists of people who are forever sending Jews offensive letters about the Holocaust, fake Chunakah cards etc. They also send material to Christians and to various other ethnic groups trying to stir up trouble. They write letters to the local press protesting against shechita; their epistles are signed Arnold Leese, Mr Alf Rosenberg, Sadie Feinstein and so on. Some of them desecrate Jewish graves, with swastikas, of course. Not because they’re Nazis, or even anti-Semites, but because they’re evil little bastards and they know Jews don’t like swastikas. When they desecrate Christian cemeteries, as some of them undoubtedly do, they adorn them with Satanic symbols.
They daub swastikas on the walls of synagogues, the same people put pigs’ heads in mosques. If they see a Hassidic Jew in the street, they’ll shout “Sieg Heil!”
Some people make a lot of money out of printing anti-Semitic literature, and out of publishing it. Some do both. In Britain, the largest purveyors of anti-Semitica are based in Sussex. They do a lot of purely commercial work but are happy to make a few shekels out of aggravating the Jews. This is the sum total of the anti-Semitic “menace”. In short, there is none.
When I had arrived at these conclusions, I contacted the Board of Deputies of British Jews. I contacted them for another reason too, but that will not be discussed here. I gave them all this information, and I also told them the truth about Lady Birdwood, that she is a victim rather than a villain. They know that Lady Birdwood is not a Jew- hater; they know that she is motivated by idealism, unlike most of the people on the right, including some who would never dream of publishing the sort of appalling anti-Semitica she does. The Board of Deputies knew and know damn well, yet they still pressurised the government with all their usual whining and wailing about “anti-Semitism” to drag this principled octogenarian into court on spurious race-hate charges. For this reason, as much as for failing to condemn the well-documented atrocities of their murderous co-racialists, the Board of Deputies should be unequivocally condemned.
I have established that this dear old thing has published some of the most appalling anti-Jewish hate literature known to man, and that she has done this in good faith. If the reader still finds that difficult to believe after all I have said, let him consider this. I gave her a copy of my aforementioned pamphlet Charity Begins At Home and told her this was a proper, reasoned approach to the Jewish question. She read it or at least read through it and clearly found it offensive. This isn’t the sort of thing I’d publish, Alexander, she said, it’s too “negative”. That was the word she used, “negative”. But what she meant was anti-Semitic!
In the Summer of 1993, a controversy was manufactured by the Board of Deputies and the rest of the forever wailing and gnashing of teeth Anglo-Jewish Establishment when it was announced that the BBC was to screen a drama set in the Orthodox Jewish quarter of North London, a film/play which included, among other things, a ritual murder. No, not the classical ritual murder of a Christian child as per anti-Semitic folklore, but one in which a moiser, an informant, had his eyes gouged out. This is something that was new to me, and, I suspect, to most Jews as well.
The reaction of the Board of Deputies was typical, they demanded, not asked for, but demanded, a meeting with the Board of Governors of the BBC. There was all the wailing and whining we have come to expect about there never having been any ritual murders by Jews anywhere at any time and how this play would stir up anti-Semitism. Their defence of the “ultra-Orthodox” was all the more hypocritical because the secular Zionists have nothing but contempt for the Orthodox. (73) [To cite just one example, in 1993, Thomas Dine, Director of the powerful American Zionist lobbying organisation AIPAC was forced to resign after he had made derogatory comments about Orthodox Jews in a book.] (74) Eventually, there was an advanced screening so that the servants of Imperial Zion could satisfy themselves that the programme was not “anti-Semitic”, that it would not incite hatred against Jews – keep shooting those Palestinian schoolchildren Private Green, we’ll make sure those filthy goyim don’t libel your religion.
The drama, when it was finally shown, turned out to be a damp squib. True, there were three eye-gouging “ritual killings” in it, but the programme in its entirety was totally unrealistic. And certainly, for this reviewer at least, it came over a lot worse than an overtly anti-Semitic presentation because at the end, the young heroine discarded her strict Orthodox upbringing and boarded a plane with a Mossad agent, an organisation which has as little respect for the Jewish religion as it has for human life. Other than Jews’, of course. This should not have been entirely unexpected as the two writers who wrote A Wall of Silence were both Jewish, as was almost everyone involved with its production. Media Jews are a far cry from Torah Jews, who in any case do not watch TV. (75)
This was yet another example of the hidden hand of Jewish/Zionist censorship, although this time it came right out into the open. The Deputies were given short shrift on this occasion, but suppose they hadn’t been, suppose instead that this film/play had been significantly rewritten, or scrapped altogether. How would that have been interpreted by the anti-Semitic international? As further proof that the Jews control the media, that’s how. When will these stupid people ever learn?
In October 1993, the Jewish Chronicle reported that at a recent meeting of B’nai B’rith, (76) Lord Lester, who, it boasted, was “one of the architects of Britain’s Race Relations Act”, had clashed with the Home Secretary, Michael Howard. (77) Howard, like his Thatcherite predecessor Leon Brittan, is Jewish. Organised Jewry, not being satisfied with destroying virtually all free speech on race issues and instilling fear and loathing in the goyim on account of it, now demanded even more repressive race laws. Howard made all the right noises about condemning the evils of racism, but apart from that he told his hatemongering co-racialists where to go.
It may be that, like many people in his position, the Home Secretary is conscious of the way Organised Jewry attempts to exploit powerful Jews, often sucessfully, it must be admitted, and is therefore mindful of the way anti-Semites interpret anything Jews in high places do. It is more likely however that he, like Leon Brittan, (78) serves first and foremost his country. The same thing cannot be said for the Board of Deputies, unless the country referred to is Israel.
Such attempts to influence Jews in high places are all the more dastardly on account of this, and it is high time that Organised Jewry realised what they are doing, and the aid and comfort they give to anti-Semitic propagandists. Or perhaps they do. The boastfulness of the Jewish Chronicle, which of course is read by anti-Semites as well as Jews, does little to detract from anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. Furthermore, this example of wire-pulling is in the public domain. One can only speculate as to what goes on behind the scenes.
Everyone is entitled to defend himself, his family, his reputation – provided he has one – his livelihood, and so on. The Jewish/Zionist claim, and one that is echoed, and echoed, and echoed by the Board of Deputies, is that the Jews are a special case, that their race is subjected to constant attack, that they deserve special protection and special privileges, in particular, the right to ride roughshod over the rest of mankind. These poor, persecuted Jews are surrounded by a world in which the wicked goyim would like nothing better than to exterminate them at the first opportunity. How far removed is this from fact?
Between 1969 and 1987, 2,618 people were killed and more than 33,000 injured in the “Troubles” in Northern Ireland. (79) Northern Ireland has a population of less than 1.6 million. (80) The majority of these thousands of innocent people were murdered simply because they were Protestants or Catholics. That’s what the goyim do to each other! How many Jews were murdered in Britain in the same period because they were Jews? Further comment would be superfluous. In reality, the Board of Deputies and Organised Jewry generally are pressing for more and more repressive race laws just because a bunch of pillocks in darkest Sussex and sorely misguided idealists like my good friend Lady Birdwood think they are plotting to take over the world and dare to put their insane ravings into print. No one who matters pays the slightest attention; all the anti-Semitic garbage goes straight into the bin where it belongs. This is the reality.
But let us not stop here, let us look instead at other crime, real crime, not “thought crime” like anti-Semitism, but the real McCoy. In the United States, a far more violent society than Britain, the well-known reference work The World Almanac tells us that in 1991, out of a population of 252,177,000, there were 24,700 murders and 106,590 “forcible rapes”. (81) Forget about the murders. As it is generally acknowledged that rape is often about power as much as sex, and as most women will readily agree, men who rape women seldom do so out of love, it follows that we are looking at an awful lot of woman-hating here. Let us not forget either that rape is an under-reported crime, possibly even very under-reported.
Now it is a fact that rapists tend to be loners. The odd gang rape notwithstanding, there is no organised anti-woman movement in the same way that there is an organised anti-Semitic one. But that is still a lot of hate, and “feminists” and their fellow travellers do – much as it pains me to have to admit it – make out a strong case that men in general don’t treat the female form with quite the veneration they should. In particular there is the multi-million dollar porn industry, the sex industry and so on. Many “thrillers” involve the murder or murders of women, often in a way that involves some sort of sexual gratification for the perpetrator. All this “anti-womanism” takes place every day in our society. It is true that the “wimmin’s movement” does make a lot of noise about this, though nowhere near as much as it once did. But if feminists were to make as much noise as Organised Jewry in proportion to the degree of hate, they would long since have screamed the house down.
That should be sufficient to answer the question we posed earlier: are Jews special? The answer of course is a re- sounding NO! But they think they are, and by constant yapping, wailing and whining, they have managed to convince everyone else that they are too. Or, at least, everyone in positions of power and authority who matters. And, to appease this noisy, tiresome, and at times, vicious, minority, they are making life hell for the rest of us.
A black man walks into a bar and orders a drink. The barman looks him in the eye and says, “We don’t serve niggers here. Clear off!” The man looks embarrassed, turns around and walks out. Half a dozen drinkers put down their glasses and follow him. This sort of thing does happen. Even in South Africa, petty bigotry is not popular. (82)
Now, suppose instead of walking out of the bar with a hurt look on his face, this fellow were to pick up a glass, smash it in the barman’s face, leap over the bar and kick him unconscious. How many friends would he make? How much sympathy would he garner for the racial slight? Not a lot! Now, suppose that on top of that he were to set the building afire and burn the man’s wife and children to death into the bargain. One might be entitled to ask: Did he not over-react a little?
The Jewish equivalent of “self-defence” more often resembles the latter action than the former. And, very often, the leaders of Organised Jewry don’t even wait for the barman to open his mouth, they smash the glass in his face just because they think he is going to say something that might incite hatred against Jews. You think I jest? I mentioned earlier the case of Sir Oswald Mosley, but the rewriters of history have already done a glorious hatchet job on him, so let’s take something more contemporary, and over which there can be no arguing. (83)
On June 3rd 1982, Mr Shlomo Argov the Israeli Ambassador in London was gunned down and seriously wounded by Palestinian terrorists. At the time, the Palestine Liberation Organisation was blamed for the attack, but this claim was never substantiated. That notwithstanding, Israel used this as a pretext to invade the Lebanon, and attempt to wipe out the PLO, and, the following September, the horrifying massacres of Sabra and Shatila – already alluded to – were perpetrated by the Zionists’ murderous friends the Phalangists, with their blessing. So, for the sake of one – admittedly cowardly – attack on one politician, mass murderer Menachem Begin and Butcher of Beirut Ariel Sharon murdered thousands of innocent people, destroyed tens or hundreds of millions of dollars worth of property, and undoubtedly greatly damaged the already tarnished name of the Jewish people throughout the world. Frankly, this is not the sort of behaviour we would expect from a people who make so much noise about the fallacy and the evil of blaming an entire race for the misdemeanours of a few bad apples. Sabra and Shatila are not by any means forgotten today, but to mention them in the presence of feisty Zionists is to risk being charged with anti-Semitism. Now, consider the following, the analogy, by the way, is almost perfect.
On November 7th 1938, the German diplomat Ernst vom Rath was gunned down by a young Jew, Herschel Grynspan, in Paris. This led to the so-called “Night of the Broken Glass”, Kristallnacht. According to the Encyclopaedia Judaica, 36 Jews were killed, 36 seriously injured. (84) Jewish shops were said to have been ransacked and thousands of Jews arrested. I will not enter into the controversy as to exactly how many Jews were killed on Kristallnacht (85) – one was obviously one too many – nor as to how these so-persecuted people owned so many shops in Germany after five years of Nazi tyranny, (86) but the comparison is obvious. Kristallnacht was condemned all over the world, and rightly so. It is still remembered with horror today. But was it any worse, or indeed half as bad as what the Israelis did?
It was certainly no worse, and in one respect was nowhere near as bad, because Kristallnacht was a spontaneous uprising against the Jews rather than a state-sponsored one. I would even go so far as to say that this was a reaction against Jewry not as Jews but as a race which was perceived by many Germans to have attacked the German people. (87)
This has always been the case. (88) Organised Jewry has always attempted to – and more often than not, succeeded in – riding roughshod over the rest of mankind. And I have hardly mentioned here the Jews who are active in the “anti-fascist” movement worldwide to suppress “nationalism”. White nationalism, of course. The Zionist establishment is forever whining about the evils of racism and “nationalism” and does everything in its power to suppress it. And, as stated, it was the Board of Deputies which in the first instance provided the inspiration and impetus for ANAL.
Greville Janner QC MP served on the Board of Deputies from 1979-85, including as its President. In 1989, he told one author “Anti-Semites cause anti-Semitism, not Jews. I have the biggest filth mail of any MP outside those who deal in Ireland, and I don’t think it makes the slightest difference what I say.” (89) That is not entirely true, certainly not in Mr Janner’s case. In September 1993 he was again calling for stronger laws against “racial harassment”. (90) Mr Janner might wonder why he receives so much more hate mail than other Jewish MPs. It is simply because people who de- stroy our freedoms deserve to be hated. And that is what he, and a great number of his co-racialists, are doing, and have been doing for decades. (91)
It is a staple of anti-Semitic propaganda that not only does the Zionist movement incite anti-Semitism but that it does so wilfully. It is an unfortunate fact, that, as with that absurd fabrication the Protocols of Zion, the unjaun- diced truth about Organised Jewry is often more grotesque than fiction. In this context, here is what an Orthodox Rabbi had to say on this subject:
“The Zionists dreamed of indoctrinating a whole generation of Jews, those Jews who had settled in [Israel] largely through their own acts of sabotage. They incited anti-Semitism which forced Jews to flee the countries where they were domiciled.”
“You’re saying that Zionist Jews incited anti-Semitism?”
“Yes.”
“Wilfully?”
“That’s correct. In fact, some of them were very close collaborators with the Nazis.” (92)
I will not dwell on this here, but my friend Rabbi Cohen, who has himself been the victim of a Zionist-inspired whispering campaign, is not the only rabbi I have spoken to who shares this “anti-Semitic” belief.
If you are a Jew and have read this far, you will now have some idea why your race and religion are hated. Forget all the Protocols of Zion, Jewish conspiracy crap, all the communism is a Jewish plot, the Talmud is the root of all depravity...forget all the garbage about Jews controlling TV, the economy, the Mafia or corrupting everything they touch. Anti-Semites have been spewing that out from the year dot. It is true that Jews were sometimes accused of ritual murder, but this was superstition rather than anti-Semitism. (93) Even more absurd accusations were levelled at Christians; that they rode the night on broomsticks and had sexual relations with the Devil. No, the real reason the Jews are hated has nothing to do with the anti-Semitic poison churned out by hard-core Jew-haters, or the insane ravings of Dr Kitty Little. The real reason Jews are hated is because they are perceived to be destroying Western Man, his democratic institutions and his freedoms. And they are so perceived because that is what Jewish leaders worldwide are doing. The hub of the Zionist octopus in Britain is the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and the body within the Board of Deputies which causes most if not all the trouble is the so-called defence committee.
The Board of Deputies exists for many legitimate reasons, but hatemongering is not one of them. And it is funded by you, the Jews. According to the Board’s 1988 annual report, there is a £10 fixed levy for every synagogue member. (94) Many members pay much more, of course. According to a report in the Jewish Chronicle for November 26, 1993, (page 13), the levy is currently £15. Organised Jewry knows that it is powerless without Jewish financial support. “The Board, being representative of the community, must be supported financially by the community.” (95) Does it represent you when it crows over the hounding of Lady Birdwood, or when it looks the other way while Private Cohen murders a Palestinian schoolgirl on her way to buy milk?
The Board claims to work for every synagogue member and for every Jew, and to represent every Jew. (96) And, of course, it doesn’t! The Orthodox left years ago. (97) The Board calls on all sections of the community to “continue and intensify support for Israel and her constructive achievements in building a just and democratic society.” (98) And killing Arabs?
The so-called Jewish Defence and Group Relations Committee is said to “monitor” anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic material and “to investigate...the possibility of Group Libel legislation”. (99) This is something they’ve been lobbying for for decades. Ideally they’d like to have anyone who makes the slightest derogatory remark about Jews – or any individual Jew – thrown into prison. You though, might like to bear the following in mind. In 1934, a man was dragged in front of a court and fined for sending an insulting message to a Jewish lawyer. He had addressed it “To the Jew lawyer...” No doubt that other “Jew lawyer” Greville Janner would be delighted to see some such legislation on the statute books here. But he might also like to bear in mind that the culprit in this instance was fined 25 Marks by a court in Nazi Germany! (100)
On the subject of which, it is often forgotten now that it was Organised Jewry’s hate campaign against Nazi Germany as much as the Nazis’ supposedly inherent evil which led to the Second World War and the Holocaust, whatever it was. From the day Hitler came to power, Organised Jewry throughout the world mounted a boycott of Germany and German goods, a boycott that was ruthlessly enforced using all the dirty tricks they have become renowned for since. (101) Where nowadays the reality of this boycott is conceded, it is played down. The standard reference work The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, refers to it as a counter-boycott. Which it certainly was not; the boycott was instituted in the first instance by Jews. (102)
By the end of 1934, the London Jewish Representative Council declared its willingness to call off the anti-German boycott if the Nazis “cancelled their campaign against the Jews.” (103) American Jewry raised an outcry over this, and the influential newspaper the American Hebrew went on record thus: “Nazi peace with Jews alone is unthinkable...the boycott must continue until Hitler and Nazi philosophy are overthrown.” (104) They got their wish, of course, but at a terrible price to both Jewry and to the rest of mankind. (105)
Returning to the Board of Deputies, let it not be forgotten that this organisation has repeatedly opposed the Arab boycott of the quasi-fascistic Israel. If you think Israel has a better record on human rights than Nazi Germany, tell the Palestinians. In the first year of the intifada, the gallant uprising of the Palestinian people against their Zionist oppressors, 400 Palestinians were killed and some 20,000 injured. (106) The worst substantiated Nazi atrocity against the Jews before the outbreak of World War Two was Kristallnacht, which we have already discussed. Needless to say, the Board’s failure to boycott and indeed to support their beloved Israel is totally inconsistent with the boycott of Nazi Germany half a century earlier. Times have changed since then, of course, but man’s inhumanity to man hasn’t.
As stated, the Board of Deputies cannot exist without the financial support of British Jewry. As a Jew, someone who suffers as the result of the perfidy of the Anglo-Jewish Establishment, you have a duty to pressurise this organisation when it carries out policies inimical to your interests. Britain’s Draconian “race relations” laws were passed and strengthened primarily because of Jewish pressure. Most of that pressure has come from the Board, and the Anglo-Jewish Establishment has played a major part in the framing of “race relations” legislation. And that contrary to the wishes of most Jews, who, anti-Semitic propaganda aside, are every bit as racist as the goyim. (107)
Apart from the well-established fact that hard-core anti-Semites blame the Jews for the Race Act and for pushing forced race-mixing generally, (108) you should ask yourself what sort of society it is where a sincere but misguided octogenarian – Lady Birdwood – can be dragged into court not once but twice for publishing insane ravings to which only the demented pay any attention. And what sort of society is it where a man can be thrown into jail for refusing to sell his house to a non-white. (109) Or where a man can be jailed for publishing leaflets which claim (correctly) that race-mixing destroys his people. (110) Or where it is considered an incitement to hatred against Jews to ask them not to subsidise the murderers of Palestinian children?
The Board of Deputies defence committee must be shut down. The hard-core Jew-haters and their fellow travellers have always been here and always will be here. They are a fact of life and an anomaly every bit as much as the UFO “abductees”, Scientologists and other loony cults. Whatever Jews do, they will never stop hardened Jew-haters hating them or conspiracy cranks whispering about the latest update of the Protocols of Zion. What they will do though by continuing to support Zionist tyranny – even if only by default – is to create a climate of fear, superstition, and perhaps even terror among the goyim, people who have never had any interest in Jews, or have even been friendly towards them as fellow whites. Whether or not such terror will ever manifest itself as violence IRA-style is difficult to say, but that is not the point. The point is, as I have already stressed, that PEOPLE WHO DESTROY OUR FREEDOMS DESERVE TO BE HATED.
This includes the Board of Deputies defence committee. And the more of our freedoms they destroy, and the more they keep whining for special privileges and about how much people hate them, the more they will be hated, and the more they will deserve it. And if you condone them either wilfully or by your silence, then you too deserve to be hated. For the sake of our rapidly dwindling individual liberty, this Draconian, fascistic organisation must be abolished for good.
In February 1993, Mrs Miriam Liebermann, a 64 year old mother of seven, was found dead in her Stamford Hill home. Stamford Hill, London N16, has the largest colony of Orthodox Jews in Britain. Mrs Liebermann was an Orthodox Jewess. She was murdered not by “Nazis”, anti-Semites or by any other spiritual heirs of the Third Reich, but by a burglar who battered her to death because she happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. (111)
In July 1993, a nine year old Asian boy, Akhlaq Ahmed, was found strangled in a park near his Slough home where he had been watching a cricket match. A youth was later charged with his murder. This was not a racially motivated murder but a sex crime. Racially motivated murders are all too common nowadays, as are racially motivated crimes in general, but most of these are provoked by the destruction of individual rights in general and white people’s rights in particular. The hate campaign against racists and the “no-platform for fascists” together with the suppression of legitimate dissent over such issues as immigration can only have worsened the problem. And, once again, Jews, in particular the Board of Zionist Deputies, have been major players in this game and have been largely responsible for bringing this situation about.
The British people and the peoples of Europe and indeed of the world went to war against Hitler, supposedly to destroy his tyranny. Whatever one may think of Hitler, the reality is that his destruction did not usher in a new age of free- dom, all the peoples of Europe did was exchange one tyranny, the tyranny of Aryan tyrants, for the – albeit more “moderate” tyranny of the self-styled leaders of the Jewish race. At least, that is the way a lot of people see it, not just Lady Birdwood. This tyranny, the tyranny of whispering campaigns, innuendo and ad hominem enforced by the full apparatus of Draconian “race relations” laws, is no better than the tyranny of the luger and the jackboot. Who wants to live in a society where people are afraid to open their mouths, to use the word “Jew”, or even to condemn the oppression of a nation – the Palestinians – for fear of being branded anti-Semitic?
The only problem of anti-Semitism is the anti-Semitism Jews themselves create, in particular, Jewish “anti-fascists” and Zionist hatemongers, the most active of which in the UK is the Board of Deputies of British Jews defence committee. For the sake of freedom, ending this madness, paranoia and hatred, and for the sake of Jews themselves, the sooner we get these fascists off all our backs, the better.
If you are a Jew, don’t worry about anti-Semitism. When you wife is late home, don’t think of Nazis, think of sex killers. When your children are playing in the street, don’t worry about a skinhead gang which might come along and slit their throats, worry instead about the stranger who might entice them into a car. When your mother doesn’t answer the door, don’t worry that she’s been kidnapped by “fascists” and “gassed”, think instead of Mrs Liebermann lying on the floor with her head caved in by some two-bit burglar cum thug who thought nothing of snuffing out an old lady’s life in case she could later identify him. And if the worst comes to the worst, and you are attacked in the street and hospitalised by a group of Sieg Heiling skinhead thugs, don’t ask yourself why me, why the Jews? Think of that disgusting little group of Jewish-born fascists sitting around a conference table in Woburn House plotting and scheming new ways to destroy the precious freedoms our fathers and grandfathers supposedly destroyed Hitler to preserve. Then you will understand.
After all the wailing and whining there remains the election of Derek Beackon, albeit by only seven votes. Beackon himself may or may not be a fascist, but the leader of his party certainly is. John Tyndall has a well-documented history of Nazi/fascist involvement going back to the 1950s. He’s still making the same noises now as he was then, albeit he has mellowed somewhat with age. In this connection it would be just as well to note that the first fascists ever elected in Britain were Arnold Leese and Harry Simpson. They stood openly as fascists in 1924 and were elected to Stamford Council. Simpson stood again and was re-elected; Leese, though, found his duties boring and didn’t bother. (112) Leese was perhaps the most virulent anti-Semite this country has ever seen, yet once he achieved a morsel of power he found it boring. So much for the fascist menace.
The BNP, like Leese, is going nowhere. Whatever its politics, the BNP has a case to answer. In reality, it exists only because of the race issue. The indigenous people of Britain have never been consulted on the future of their country, and they are constantly having multi-racialism forced down their throats. And, if they don’t swallow it all at once and ask for a larger dose, they are immediately branded as racists and potential heirs of Hitler.
The BNP has made anti-Semitism a cornerstone of its policy; it would never have succeeded with this had it not been for the Zionist-inspired hate campaign against its predecessors. In much the same way, it would never have won a seat at a local council or any election if there hadn’t been such an orchestrated campaign against it and against what it professes to stand for, in particular a white Britain. The BNP may and almost certainly will grow, but not by much. The people of Britain don’t want fascists any more than they want the BNP’s style of “racial purity”. But they do want to be left alone. And they don’t want to be denounced as fascists themselves any time they express an opinion that someone in Woburn House doesn’t like.
Get rid of the Board of Deputies defence committee, cut off its funding, close it down completely, scrap all the “race relations” legislation in this country, and let’s have open debate on race issues, including the Jewish Question. Let’s have it out in the open rather than under the carpet. When the whispering and wire-pulling behind the scenes stops, people will stop talking about Jewish conspiracies, but until then, the not-so-learned Elders at Woburn House will have a lot to answer for.
To Notes And References
Back To Inside Front Cover
Back To Front Cover
Back To Baron Pamphlets Index
Back To Site Index