We have already covered parts of this lie-ridden film in our critique of the lie-ridden book of the same name, so we will not dwell unduly on the subject of Hill’s and Searchlight’s unreliability and will try also to avoid repetition. We have though included some comment from the far right activist mentioned earlier in the book. We have not covered everything, the film’s smears on the IHR, David Irving etc, but have covered everything that is relevant to Hill’s alleged role as a “mole”.
In the film, Hill says that he entered the anti-immigration movement through AIMS in Leicester, which tallies with the book, but by the time this organisation was founded, March 1968, he was hardly newly married. The claim that Hill was a “star and leader of the British Movement” is of course rubbish. The common motivating factor of the right is hatred, he says. When one considers the hatred - specifically racial hatred - that has gone into this film and the book of the same name, that is most definitely a case of the pot calling the kettle black. For example, a Dutch “anti-fascist” group is shown in the film chanting “Death to the fascists!” And that is only the hatred of Aryan “anti-fascists” for their racial kin. Hill refers to the burning of “thirty odd” synagogues in the sixties. We have already dealt with this nonsense, and in any case, the synagogue arson attacks pre-dated his involvement with far right politics.
Throughout the film, Hill played up to the camera; it was claimed that he led the team to the Hancocks, as if the Hancock family were some obscure religious sect hiding away in a secret temple in the Sussex countryside instead of the notorious “Nazi godfathers” that Hill and co claimed. Both the business and personal addresses of the Hancock family are well known not only to the authorities but to Organised Jewry, and of course to anyone who reads anti-Semitic literature and all the other obscure books and pamphlets they stock.
A number of photographs were shown of victims of alleged race attacks. One of these victims, although attacked by National Front supporters, was certainly not a victim of a racial attack. The white man in the still was none other than Graeme Atkinson, Searchlight’s European editor. This photograph, which originally appeared in the communist newspaper the Morning Star, was taken as long ago as 1975! (1) Atkinson required nineteen stitches after he was hit in the face with a bottle at a political meeting in the North of England, the meeting was related to the situation in Ireland, and as it was pro-IRA it obviously wouldn’t have gone down at all well with a lot of people, most of whom wouldn’t give the National Front the time of day. That neither justifies nor excuses this vicious attack, (the meeting was indeed wrecked by National Front members), but neither does it excuse or justify the use of what, to all intents and purposes, is a fake photograph.
The claims made about Diksmuide are just not true. The footage is most definitely not “not for public consumption” - if the reader will excuse the double negative. These videos are sold openly through far right outlets; if they are not advertised to the general public this is for the same reason that chess magazines, Psychic News and similar publications are not given mass publicity. Apart from the expense of advertising, this is a niche market, however much the Hancocks of this world may wish it were not. No explanation is needed as to why outsiders’ cameras may not be popular at Diksmuide.
Two particularly absurd claims are made about this festival. The gathering is said to be clandestine. How many other “clandestine” gatherings accommodate 40,000 visitors? And the Belgian authorities are said to be “impotent in the face of this invasion”. Presumably the local traders are impotent in the face of it too, and would do anything to stop these 40,000 people visiting the town where they will do such outrageous things as spend enormous sums of money on accommodation, souvenirs, food, and, of course, beer.
Hill was said to have attended Diksmuide “to investigate the source of racist books and pamphlets flooding into Europe”. This claim, which is also made in the book (page 13), is utter nonsense. The publishers of such material have been known to Organised Jewry and to the authorities for decades. In Britain, the Hancock gang’s Historical Review Press is the main publisher/distributor; in the United States there are many, the Sons of Liberty publishing house churns out some particularly nasty material.
“Through Ray Hill we traced the Hancock printing works to this industrial estate in Sussex.” Indeed. As if these premises were not known to Searchlight already, when in 1981 one of their “researchers” was jailed for two and a half years for burning the place down! (2) Hancock is said to hide “behind the facade of a plastics factory”. This is nonsense. The simple truth is that as a printer, Hancock prints a great deal of purely commercial material. And if he does “hide” his operation behind “the facade of a plastics factory”, the aforementioned arson - by Jewish hatemonger Manny Carpel - explains why. The torching of the Hancock print works is actually mentioned on page 240 of the book, although the arsonist is not credited, for obvious reasons. Hancock is said also to be extremely careful not to be seen, and to be at the centre of a worldwide network of propaganda and violence. Presumably, this means that he is also anxious not to be seen to be at the centre of this allegedly worldwide network of propaganda and violence. He won’t have to try very hard, because he isn’t. Like Gable, Hancock is making a comfortable living out of hatred, but, unlike Gable, his activities are confined primarily to publishing. If they have anything in common at all, it is publishing forged documents.
In the film, Max Bollo is said to be serving fifteen years in South Africa. According to the book (page 73), he was sentenced to fifty-two years. Hill is also filmed sitting at a table outside a café laughing and joking with a black guy. Exactly who is this supposed to fool? Hill’s claim of how he converted from a “fascist” to an “anti-fascist” is entirely different from the explanation given in the book. No pathetic Indian family by the roadside here, rather it was the situation in Britain, gangs of skinheads firebombing Asian takeaways. In fact, even if he’d had any ideology at all - and I think we have conclusively demonstrated that he hadn’t - the fact that he was (and remains) anti-black, anti-Asian and anti-Jewish doesn’t mean he was ever a fascist, much less a Nazi. He could simply have been an evil, bigoted bastard. One can find people like this within the Conservative Party and even the Labour Party. And certainly the Liberal Democrats!
Hill’s account of his own involvement with the Italian fugitives in Britain is that he was approached in 1980-1. In reality, there were other Italians already safe-housed here before he arrived on the scene. He claimed to have set that up. He didn’t. Fiore and co had others helping them. (3) The claim that the Italian authorities bungled the extradition of the Italians - “administrative errors” - is just not true. The case was thrown out by the magistrate because he considered there was no case to answer in English law. (4) Hill’s account of meeting Irving suggests that he was merely a member of the audience.
Remer was said to have been the man who saved Hitler’s life. This is absolute nonsense. Remer’s actual role in putting down the July plot (Operation Valkyrie) is worth recounting in some detail. On July 20 1944, an attempt was made to assassinate the Fuhrer while he directed the course of the war. Count von Stauffenberg left a bomb in a briefcase under Hitler’s table; though the bomb exploded, Hitler survived, but the word went out that he had been killed. Stauffenberg realised Hitler was still alive but tried to carry through the conspiracy to seize power anyway. Remer, who was a major at the time, was sent to arrest Goebbels, but Goebbels put Hitler on the line who said, “Major Remer, can you hear - do you recognize my voice?” Remer did, and Hitler told him that he was speaking as Supreme Commander. He ordered Remer to restore order in Berlin and shoot anyone who disobeyed. Remer did. He was awarded the Knight’s Cross with Oak Leaves and was subsequently promoted to general. (5)
Hill claims that at the Hitler birthday party in Paris he was asked to contact people who may be interested in bombing the Carnival.
When asked: “Who asked you that?”
Hill replied two people at the party, “not British people.”
Bearing in mind that this was 1984, four years later when the book was published, these two people had become “the fingerless Frenchman” who also gave him a “shopping list” for the bomb, (page 213).
The late John Kingsley Read is interviewed in the film. He claimed to have designed the cover of The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, which may be true. He says Dr Butz “claims to be a doctor, I don’t know what of”. If he had looked inside the cover of the book he would have read that Arthur Butz obtained his PhD in Control Sciences from the University of Minnesota in 1965, and that in 1966 he joined the Faculty of Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, where in 1977 (the date of the Second Edition) he was Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences.
The film also referred to the ADL as a “Jewish anti-racist organisation”. Thought police and Zionist hatemongers would be a much more fitting description. The Other Face of Terror was screened on the evening of March 29, 1984; the review in the Times of that date, (page 31), said of this 75 minute pseudo-documentary “THE OTHER FACE OF TERROR...is a minutely-detailed exposé of right-wing extremism...the authenticity of the film’s revelations about fascist-inspired terrorism appears to be beyond doubt...” Hill was also referred to erroneously as the former deputy leader of the British Movement. Anyone can be conned, even a newspaper with a reputation as formidable and prestigious as the Times.
Back To First Extract
Back To Book Extracts Index
Back To Site Index