Good evening ladies and gentlemen,

I think I can say without false modesty that I am known to some, perhaps many, of you, through my researches and writings, and my ultimately successful vexatious litigation against a well-known hatemonger. I would like to talk to you tonight about a subject which is close to my heart, and likewise, I’m sure, close to yours. This is the subject which was once known as the International Jewish Conspiracy, but perhaps is better known today as the World Zionist Conspiracy.

For reasons which I will make clear shortly I prefer not to use the word conspiracy at all. Rather I prefer to call this phenomenon Organised Jewry, a bona fide term which to me is in no sense pejorative. (1)

Some people have what appear at first sight to be outrageous, absurd, or even lunatic, ideas about Jews. There are some - and I’ve met a few of them, and I’m sure you have too - who believe Jews control the media, the financial system, the international communist movement, or even the entire world. All these claims are dismissed routinely as hate, hate propaganda, bigotry, prejudice, anti-Semitism - quote unquote - or even as outright Nazism. In the ordinary course of events, anyone who suggests that any of these claims has any basis in fact or that they should be investigated dispassionately, runs the risk of being denounced in such terms.

I have investigated all of these claims dispassionately and objectively, and I like to think of myself as a level-headed sort of person. And whatever Gerry Gable and his ugly friends may have told you or anybody else about me, I am no manner of anti-Semite, and I am certainly not a Nazi. I can also tell you, with some relief, that Jews do not control the world, and that though there is indeed a Jewish Question, the Jewish Peril, as it was once known, (2) has been greatly exaggerated.

There are some people, including, unsurprisingly, many Jews, who dismiss the Jewish Question in its entirety, as a total fiction. Many Jewish apologists - creeps, I think is a better word - refuse to discuss it or even to consider it. It is an unfortunate fact that the overwhelming majority of Gentile academics who have written on this supposedly so difficult subject fall into this category. On the other hand, there are and have been many highly intelligent people throughout history who have come to entirely different conclusions after investigating the Jewish Question honestly and with an open mind.

These include, first and foremost, Adolf Hitler. Hitler had many faults, but no knowledgable person could seriously claim that he was stupid. It is not widely known but is a fact nevertheless that Hitler was not always anti-Jewish, and indeed his first encounters with anti-Semitism revolted him. Of his first encounter with - in his words - “the Jewish problem”, Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that “In the Jew I still saw only a man who was of a different religion, and therefore, on grounds of human tolerance, I was against the idea that he should be attacked because he had a different faith. And so I considered that the tone adopted by the anti-Semitic press in Vienna was unworthy of the cultural traditions of a great people.” (3)

The American Nazi leader George Lincoln Rockwell was a highly intelligent man, a graduate of Brown University; the British Nazi leader Colin Jordan, is also a university graduate. The great industrial genius and founder of the Ford Motor Company Henry Ford Senior, was a firm believer in the Jewish conspiracy.

None of these men were fools, likewise many others who have followed the same path. They may have come to the wrong conclusions, but they each and every one of them recognised that something was going on.

Other people have recognised that something was and is going on too, because throughout history Jews have been expelled from one country after another; they have been persecuted far more than any other ethnic or religious minority. Or so their leaders would have us believe. And they are powerless. Or so their leaders would have us believe. There is though an anomaly here: if the Jews are so powerless, why have there been so many laws and prosecutions enacted in their name?

I’m sure you are all of you au fait with the case of Regina versus Griffin, (1998), and of many similarly Jewish-inspired legal persecutions. I would though like to refer to one incident in particular. In 1995, the Japanese magazine Marco Polo published an article on the Holocaust which gave credence to Revisionist claims; I’m sure I don’t need to elaborate on this further to such an educated audience. Within hours an international boycott had shut it down; the major advertisers had withdrawn, and the magazine was killed stone dead. This was extraordinary, and obviously caused much controversy. A correspondent for the London Jewish Chronicle commenting on the Japanese press reported that “At least one journalist saw the crackdown and the advertisers’ boycott as confirmation of international Jewish power.” (4) What could have given that Japanese journalist that idea?

Well, seventy years and more earlier, British journalists had the answer. In July 1926, writing in a fascist newspaper, an uncredited pundit commented that “In The Patriot of 5 July, 1923, and 23 October, 1924, it was made perfectly clear that there is a Jewish Question of world-wide importance, and that there had been accumulated around it for several generations a barricade of journalistic, political, and commercial influence, which has succeeded in destroying our freedom of speech on this one subject, by branding as anti-Semitic anyone who dares look over the barricade.” (5)

A “barricade of journalistic, political, and commercial influence”, that is very true. There is a widely held belief that we live in a democracy: government of the people, by the people, for the people. Politicians, senior police officers, and many other power-brokers, never tire of telling us this. Even the organised left tell us that we live in a democracy, which must be protected from the fascist menace - that’s you, by the way. And me. Except that the left don’t really believe this piece of nonsense either; it suits their purposes to pretend they do when they are campaigning against the BNP or against racism, or against one of their other chimeras, but if you read Socialist Worker and similar newspapers it is clear that the left really believes that this country as every other is run by and on behalf of the vested interests of the rich and the super-rich; the ruling class, as this largely anonymous group of people is generally known.

The fiction which the power-brokers maintain is that our laws are formulated by Parliament, primarily by MPs, who are our representatives, that these proposals are debated openly and honestly, and that the free press - our guardians of democracy - watch over the entire process to ensure fair play and a fair hearing for all. This is of course absolute eyewash. In the first instance there is no such thing as a free press; the press is influenced to a great extent by commercial pressures, particularly from advertisers, some of whom are Jewish. In the second instance, there are all manner of subversive forces at work in politics besides those of the rich and the super-rich, and I would like in this context to quote from a leaflet which was issued by the anti-censorship organisation NCROPA: (6)

“Individual freedom is daily being eroded in this country and in no area more insidiously than that concerned with freedom of expression and censorship. The highly organised, vociferous pro-censorship factions, in their role as self-appointed ‘guardians of the nation’s moral’s’, have, for far too long, succeeded in forcing their minority opinions on the much more liberal-minded, tolerant majority, often using highly emotive, dishonest propaganda to spread their repressive and bigoted doctrines. More recently they have been joined, in an ‘unholy alliance’, by feminist extremists who, just as dictatorially, wish to force their equally repressive, authoritarian demands for more censorship on everyone else. Parliament has hitherto paid heed to these two dangerous factions out of all proportion to the numbers they represent or the soundness of their logic...”

This is one of the most poignant and thought-provoking statements I have ever read. Although the author is not talking about the Jewish Question but specifically about sexual censorship, and about those who seek to impose it on society, this statement is applicable to the Jewish Question, and not just to the Jewish Question, but to every other important political, economic, social and moral issue in the world today. Indeed, it is probably not an exaggeration to claim that in less than a hundred and fifty words this statement summarises the root cause of most of the world’s current problems, and indeed most of the world’s problems in all eras since the dawn of history.

“Individual freedom is daily being eroded”, and it is being eroded, undermined, constantly attacked, by highly organised, vociferous minorities who use every dirty trick in the book to force their opinions down other people’s throats, to silence any opposition to their dogmas, and in many cases to line their own pockets at the expense of the general public. (7)

One such highly organised vociferous minority is religion. Countless millions of people throughout the world follow some religion or other, as is their right, and in its place religion doubtless serves a valid purpose. But by the same token there have been people who have used religion for all manner of nefarious purposes. It has been reliably estimated that between the years 1450 and 1700, as many as a hundred thousand people were executed for witchcraft. (8) Most if not all of these people were entirely harmless. In the 17^th Century, if an old woman lived by herself and she owned a cat, and perhaps she was lonely and talked to it, she ran the very real risk of being tried and executed as a witch.

Another example from more recent history was what has been called the Prohibition “experiment” in the United States. This came into force with the passage of the Volstead Act in 1919. Prohibition was brought about by constant lobbying by noisy, vociferous minorities who sought, successfully, to impose their will on the majority, in the name of the public good, of course. But Prohibition brought anything but good, rather by criminalising a legitimate activity - the consumption of alcohol - these do-gooders succeeded only in creating an era of lawlessness and violence, corrupting the forces of law and order, and making the people whose good they claimed to be campaigning for, thoroughly miserable.

Closer to home we are constantly witnessing all manner of organisations and individuals acting, as our friend from NCROPA said, “as self-appointed ‘guardians of the nation’s moral’s’”. We are forever being told by the police and their apologists that the menace of crime is so all-pervasive and so terrible that we must give them more and more powers, and that we must surrender our civil liberties - many of which our forefathers paid for with their own precious blood.

After the outrage of the Omagh bombing - with which no doubt all of you are depressingly familiar - the government of baby-faced, clean-living Tony Blair forced through some of the most Draconian laws in history. Attempts to destroy the right of trial by jury and to curtail the right of silence are ongoing. An earlier outrage, the Dunblane massacre, in which one madman, Thomas Hamilton, butchered sixteen young children, led to the total disarmament of the civilian population.

On the eve of the new firearms act, Shadow Scottish Secretary George Robertson said: “If we were tonight to leave a loophole in the firearms laws big enough for another mass murderer - another Michael Ryan, another Thomas Hamilton - to walk through, then we would never be forgiven or indeed deserve to be forgiven.” (9)

The hysteria generated over the Dunblane and Omagh tragedies was understandable. The gratuitous murders of totally innocent people, especially children, is something which causes deep revulsion in the overwhelming majority of people. People of all races and classes I might add. Many people who supported the Draconian legislation which followed these outrages, including no doubt most of the MPs who voted in favour of it, were motivated by the noblest of ideals. But by the same token, there are those who take advantage of such terrible tragedies to impose their agendas on the rest of us, the Stephen Lawrence campaign, for example. And at this point I will return to the Jewish Question.

There is no International Jewish Conspiracy, as such, but there is such an entity as Organised Jewry. You can’t look up Organised Jewry in the phone book, but by the same token you can’t look up the green movement in the phone book either, or the Revisionist Movement, or the Animal Rights movement, for that matter. Organised Jewry is a generic term for Jewish political/religious/cultural organisations worldwide and their supporters, not all of whom are Jews, incidentally. Some of the better known - and some would say sinister - outfits which make up Organised Jewry are the misnamed Anti-Defamation League, the Institute of Jewish Affairs (which recently changed its name to Jewish Policy Research), and the Board of Deputies of British Jews, in particular its self-styled defence committee.

There is nothing necessarily sinister about the concept of Organised Jewry; everybody else under the sun is organised, from Catholics, blacks, trades unionists and professionals to psychics, diabetics and chess players. We live in an organised world. Jews have a right, and some would say a duty, to organise. They have a right to lobby governments and everybody else to bring about legal and social change, in exactly the same way as do all the aforementioned groups and a plethora of others. But the downside of rights is responsibilities. When people shirk their responsibilities, they set themselves up for legitimate criticism. And when people demand rights and obtain those rights at the expense of others, they set themselves up for, among other things, resentment, and ostracism.

Some Jewish organisations and individuals have done this for many years, indeed for decades. They have played what has become known in recent years, since the O.J. Simpson trial, as the race card, and at times they have played it cynically and quite shamelessly in order not only to further their own agendas, but to silence, or even to destroy, those individuals and organisations whom they perceive in some way or other to threaten what they consider to be Jewish interests.

The greatest weapon in the armoury of Organised Jewry has been the epithet “anti-Semitism”. An anti-Semite is someone who doesn’t like Jews. In practice, an anti-Semite is often someone Jews don’t like. Or if not Jews in general then some Jew or some group of them somewhere. Even the most easy going and good-natured of people makes enemies. It may be simply that somebody doesn’t like your face, or the way you dress, or the fact that you are successful in business, or a million and one other reasons, so that means that each and every one of us is an anti-Semite or potential anti-Semite in the eyes of some Jews.

Jews have been persecuted throughout history, that is a fact. But then so has everybody else. It is undeniable though that one of the most visible persecutions of the Twentieth Century was that of the persecution of Jewry by the Nazis. For many reasons, this persecution has been exaggerated, at times greatly, but there can be no doubt whatsoever that in Nazi Germany Jews were singled out for persecution, that many of them were driven out of the professions, that many of them had their property confiscated more or less arbitrarily, that many were thrown into concentration camps and prisons on the slightest pretext, and that during the Second World War especially, many of them were murdered. I wouldn’t like to put a number on this, but it must surely be far below the generally accepted figure of six million.

Although there were many exceptions and anomalies, (10) the government of Nazi Germany was manifestly anti-Semitic. However, there is anti-Semitism and there is anti-Semitism. Many Jewish organisations and certain Jewish individuals have gone to extraordinary lengths to blur the distinction between the irrational and at times vitriolic hatred of Jews exhibited by for example certain European populations, and the slightest resentment at Jewish and Jewish-inspired gerrymandering.

This gerrymandering has been most prominent in three fields especially: the misnamed race relations industry; the Holocaust - whatever it was; and the Middle East.

The Middle East is a particularly interesting issue, because any honest person who studies the recent history of the Middle East will very quickly conclude that the Jews are far from the poor, persecuted, powerless people their leaders would have us believe. The power centre of world Jewry is not the State of Israel, but the United States, and political Zionism has long been entangled intimately with United States foreign policy. At times it is difficult to discern which is the tail and which is the dog, but there is more than a grain of truth in the claim that the Israel lobby dictates US foreign policy in the Middle East rather than the United States exploits Israel for its own purposes.

The roots of what is generally referred to as the Arab-Israeli conflict can actually be traced in large measure to British rather than United States foreign policy. In November 1917 the British Government issued the Balfour Declaration, which contains the following pronouncement:

“His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country”. (11)

The Balfour Declaration has been rightly described as the most remarkable proclamation ever issued by any government anywhere at any time. One nation promised to the second the country of a third which was at that time ruled by a fourth. (12) The real purpose of the Balfour Declaration was not in any sense humanitarian, to provide Jews with a safe haven to flee from pogroms, but to persuade the leaders of American Jewry, in particular American finance Jewry, to drag the United States into the First World War. This is tacitly and sometimes even candidly admitted now. In 1988, the anti-Zionist author Robert John wrote that “Britain, France and Germany attached considerable importance to the attitudes of Jewry towards them because money and credit were needed for the war. The international banking houses of Lazard Freres, Eugene Mayer, J.&W. Seligman, Speyer Brothers and M.M. Warburg, were all conducting major operations in the United States, as were the Rothschilds through the New York banking house of Kuhn, Loeb & Co.” (13)

Mr John also made the point that the leader of Zionist Jewry, Chaim Weizmann, “claimed that Jews controlled the grain trade of the Ukraine and could deny it to the Germans if Russia stopped fighting in World War I...” (14) While in 1983, American “aid” to Israel amounted to $625 for every man, woman and child in that country, and that although there were concentration camps in Israel, as in Nazi Germany, any criticism of the State of Israel or of its policies is inevitably condemned as anti-Semitism. (15) Mr John devotes much space in his book to an analysis of the reasons for the Balfour Declaration. His conclusion is that it was indeed used to drag the United States into the First World War.

Three years later, two mainstream authors made the same claim about the Balfour Declaration in their book on the Gulf War. Journalists John Bullock and Harvey Morris wrote that by 1916: “Zionist ideas had already taken a strong hold on Jewish opinion in the United States and the British government hoped to gain the support of influential American Jews in its efforts to persuade the United States to join the allied war effort against Germany and Turkey.” (16) This, they say, led to the Balfour Declaration.

Finally, I would like to quote from a Jewish academic. At University College London, in his inaugural lecture as Professor of Hebrew and Jewish Studies, Professor Chimen Abramsky told his audience that Zionists under Chaim Weizmann entered into a conspiracy (17) with the British government to drag the US into the War, and that this resulted in the break up of the Ottoman Empire and its replacement by the British Empire. (18) He quoted Lord Robert Cecil, Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who in March 1916 stated candidly “I do not think it is easy to exaggerate the international power of the Jews.” (19) And just for good measure Professor Abramsky added a quote from Chaim Weizmann: “...if you give us a declaration in favour of Zionism, this declaration will make the Jews of the World understand that you are really friendly, and the friendship of the Jews of the world is not a thing to be blown upon: it is a thing that matters a great deal, even for a mighty empire like the British.” (20)

I am sure that this admission of Professor Abramsky was made more by accident than by design, but if this boastful claim by Chaim Weizmann is true that “the friendship of the Jews of the world is not a thing to be blown upon” then it is also true, as no doubt Weizmann intended it to be understood, that the enmity of the Jews is something not to be envied, even for a mighty empire like the British, so you had better not antagonise us. Or else. This is a truism that I and very many other researchers in this field have discovered, to our personal cost.

I said earlier that the overwhelming majority of Gentile academics who have written on the subject of the Jewish Question are creeps. Changing perceptions of the Middle East, even in this era of political correctness, mean that this too is slowly changing, but refreshingly, Jewish authors are often more candid than us goyim. Some, like Professor Abramsky, let the cat out of the bag in all innocence, but others are so candid that it is embarrassing, particularly in relation to their boastful claims about the nature and extent of Jewish power.

A staple of anti-Semitic propaganda is that the Jews control the media. As I said earlier, anyone who dared to make such a claim would be denounced as a crank, an anti-Semite, a Nazi, or all three. Perhaps I should have said any Gentile who dared to make such a claim, because when Jewish authors make such claims, nobody bats an eyelid.

In his book The Jewish Image in American Film, Lester D. Friedman boasts that “Until television undercut the industry’s power, Jews guided the destiny of America’s largest propaganda machine [and] put their stamp on the American mind...” (21) The 1992 edition of Friedman’s book was distributed in Britain by Virgin; hardly a cranky little anti-Semitic publishing house. Another Jewish author wrote a book in which he boasted that Jews had literally invented Hollywood. Neal Gabler’s book, which was published by the mainstream publishing house W.H. Allen, claimed that in 1936, of 85 names engaged in production in Hollywood, 53 - a staggering 62% - were Jews. (22) I don’t know how many of you use the Internet, probably quite a few, but if you’ve ever logged onto the newsgroup alt.revisionism you will quite likely have seen discussions about Jewish power, media control and media manipulation between Revisionists and Exterminationists. I remember having a somewhat heated debate on this subject with a feisty Jewish lawyer whose ad hominem attacks included the epithet “Lying Al”. It’s a lie that Jews control Hollywood, Lying Al, he screamed, where is your evidence? When I produced the citations, from these impeccable Jewish sources, he changed his tune. Then it became, yes Lying Al, but why did they control Hollywood?

His incredibly specious argument ran something like this: Jews suffered such discrimination in the United States earlier this century that they had no alternative but to start new industries, including the film industry. Just like that. I told this buffoon that I wasn’t interested in the whys and wherefores but that I was simply making the point that the Jews are not always the poor, persecuted, powerless people their leaders, spokesmen and apologists would have us believe.

A similar argument is often used by Jewish apologists to explain, or rather to explain away, Jewish financial power, particularly in the Middle Ages. That argument goes something like this: Jews were excluded from the professions, they were social outcasts, they suffered persecution and discrimination, therefore they had no alternative but to become money-lenders. There must be a moral here for all those blacks in our inner cities whom we are told suffer from the effects of racism and all manner of overt and subtle forms of oppression by the white ruling class. So Delroy, Leroy, Winston, if you’re unemployed and socially ostracised, don’t sit around whining about how racism is holding you down, go out and start a bank, or set up a film studio.

The reality of course, as far as Jewry in the Middle Ages - and many other ages - is concerned, is that Jews have very often lived as a privileged minority in their host nations rather than as a persecuted one, and at times they have risen to positions of great wealth and power. (23)

Yet another Jew has inadvertently made common cause with those the likes of the Jewish lawyer in alt.revisionism would have the world believe are anti-Semites, Nazis and cranks. Writing in his authoratitive survey of the American Jewish establishment, Jewish Chronicle correspondent J.J. Goldberg says of the American media that “It is true that Jews are represented in the media business in numbers far out of proportion to their share of the population. Studies have shown that while Jews make a little more than 5 percent of the working press nationwide - hardly more than their share of the population - they make up one fourth or more of the writers, editors, and producers in America’s ‘elite media,’ including network news divisions, the top newsweeklies and the four leading daily papers...” (24)

Then he alludes to an October 1994 Vanity Fair feature which profiles - in his words - the kingpins of the new media elite. “[Just] under half of the two dozen entrepreneurs profiled were Jews. In the view of the magazine’s editors, these are America’s true power elite...” (25)

And, most candidly: “For all of the rank anti-Semitism lurking in the Jewish-conspiracy theories, the notion of Jewish influence in the media is not necessarily anti-Semitic in and of itself...” (26) because “in a few key sectors of the media, notably among Hollywood studio executives, Jews are so numerically dominant that calling these businesses Jewish-controlled is little more than a statistical observation.” (27)

Here’s another quote: “The combined weight of so many Jews in one of American’s most lucrative and important industries gives the Jews of Hollywood a great deal of political power.” (28) Goldberg even has the audacity to quote from the Protocols Of Zion at one point: “Through the Press we have gained the power to influence while remaining ourselves in the shade.” (29)

Bear in mind that I and countless others before me have been branded anti-Semitic for making similar and often more modest observations. I’ve certainly never attempted to support my arguments about Jewish power and wire-pulling by quoting from the Protocols Of Zion.

Goldberg’s book is a mine of information, among other things he boasts that “the Jews” - his phrase - won the cold war. (30)

On page 174 the reader is told that “...the organized American Jewish community gained enormous bargaining power across the globe.”

And that “The Jewish community saw that it could change laws, and in so doing change history. Attention and money shifted from New York to Washington.” (31)

On the following page we are informed that the Washington offices of the major Jewish organisations became major power centres. And on the very next page, Goldberg claims that “Each victory was easier than the last, as the organisations learned to cooperate.”

However, it has to be said in all fairness that, unlike J.J. Goldberg and his cronies at the Jewish Chronicle, some Jewish authors are far from happy with the way their co-racialists ride roughshod over the rest of mankind. These authors are to be commended for their outspokenness and their courage. In spite of their ethnic origins they too run the risk of being smeared by Jewish hatemongers and their goy fellow travellers as anti-Semites, and also as self-hating Jews.

In 1993, an American Jew named Ron David made his own contribution to exposing the incessant lies about the Middle East which Organised Jewry, their powerful allies and their lapdogs have been forcing down everybody’s throats since the end of the Second World War. His book is called ARABS & ISRAEL FOR BEGINNERS; here are a couple of quotes from it.

“Until six or seven years ago I was certain that the Israelis were on the side of the Angels, period. No questions, no conditions, no mitigating factors - just the Good Guys versus the Bad Guys.” (32) But, after doing some basic research he concluded that “...I cannot see how any fair-minded person with an IQ over fifty can believe the Zionist/Jewish/Israeli version of what happened in the Middle East - and of what is happening now.” (33)

There are other Jewish authors who have spoken out against the mendacity of Zion, quite a few of them in fact, but like goyim who research this supposedly so difficult subject, their writings are, by and large, consigned to the memory hole, or else they are written off as cranks and eccentrics. Two of them deserve honourable mention here: Alfred Lilienthal, the American-Jewish scholar, and Rabbi Dr Elmer Berger, one of the leading anti-Zionist rabbis of the post-war era.

In recent years, even mainstream Jewish historians and others have wiped away the cobwebs of Zionist propaganda and Jewish apologetics. Writing in the review section of the Daily Telegraph in February 1998, Mordecai Richler had some incisive comments to make about the book Israel: a History. This book was written by another Jewish academic, Martin Gilbert, whom I’m sure you all know has been since 1968 the official whitewasher of Winston Churchill. (34)

“In 1986, Sir Martin writes, Mordechai Vanunu...was ‘taken to Israel’, but we are not told that he was, in fact, drugged and kidnapped.” Richler doesn’t think much of that. Nor does he think much of Gilbert’s claim that “During the War of Independence hundreds of thousands of Arabs fled their villages, but many thousands more were ‘encouraged’ to leave...”

Much more could be written in this vein, but by now I’m sure you get my drift. This is how Organised Jewry operate: they, especially Jewish leaders, are the world’s master liars and the world’s greatest hypocrites. This is not to say that at times the goyim don’t put them to shame, I’m thinking in particular of the British Government, but I’m sure that Americans, Canadians, Nigerians, and so on, have their own nominations for the most perfidious administrations in history. The big difference though is that when people attack the American government, the American administration, or - quote unquote - the Americans, the cry of anti-Americanism, bigotry, hatred, and so on, doesn’t register much impact. Ditto attacks on the British, etc.

It is even possible to expose the lies, perfidy and corruption of various black and other non-white nations and organisations, and provided it is done in a suitably diplomatic manner, the stock charge of racism can be avoided. But let any goy accuse any Jew of lying about the Holocaust, or of having less than noble motives for meddling in the race industry, and the cry of “anti-Semitism” will resound from here to the ends of the Earth and back.

I’ve just spoken about courageous Jewish authors; I’d like now to focus on a couple of Jewish creeps, in particular Dr Anthony Kushner, who is perhaps the most venal and insidious of the lot; and Dr David Cesarani, who is, among other things, Director of the prestigious Wiener Library. Both these men are full professors, which does rather make one despair for the future of academia in this country.

Dr Kushner has written a number of books on Jewish themes. In 1994 he published The Holocaust and the Liberal Imagination. (35) Needless to say, on this subject at least, Dr Kushner himself has a very liberal imagination indeed, but that is hardly surprising because not only is he Jewish, he is also a director of the Searchlight Educational Trust. In his aforementioned book he whines that “For survivors...Holocaust denial has been particularly disturbing. Yet attempts in Britain to ban such material in the late 1980s and early 1990s have been rejected...The liberal British state has refused to protect one of its most vulnerable minorities - even though it now has the most powerful anti-racist legislation in Europe.” (36) What he doesn’t say, of course, is the reason “the liberal British state” - quote unquote - has “the most powerful anti-racist legislation in Europe” is largely because of the incessant whining, wire-pulling and lobbying of this supposedly so vulnerable minority.

The other Jewish creep I would like to mention is David Cesarani, who is, supposedly, an expert on fascism. Him and Gerry Gable. It is widely believed nowadays that Fascism was first and foremost an anti-Semitic ideology, and that it remains so. Cesarani is as much to blame as any man for perpetuating this dangerous myth. In his biography of the Jewish Chronicle newspaper, which, like Kushner’s garbage about the Holocaust, was published in 1994, Cesarani reports that “Jewish defence came to the fore when Sir Oswald Mosley formed the British Union of Fascists...in 1932. Individual members were soon identified with anti-Jewish agitation, and the Jewish Chronicle challenged Mosley to disown them.” Mosley is said to have made an ambivalent reply saying that the BUF would never attack Jews as Jews, but if attacked by Jewish subversives, or Jewish finance, his organisation would react in kind.

In fact, the primary reason the British Union of Fascists adopted a “Jewish policy” was because of the hate campaign against Sir Oswald and his fellow travellers by Organised Jewry. On his founding of the BUF, Mosley issued a statement to the effect that: “Anti-Semitism is no issue of Fascism, and is, therefore, no part of the policy of the British Union Of Fascists...Jews who are loyal citizens of Britain and who serve this country rather than its enemies will always have a Square deal from us.” (37)

In an interview with the Jewish Chronicle the following year Mosley again set the record straight: “As I have already said in public, I think that the anti-Semitic policy of the German Nazis was a great mistake. It certainly is not our policy.” He also accused the British press of misrepresenting the BUF, and distanced himself from anti-Semitic fascist groups in Britain. (38) And I should point out that at that time the British press was not controlled by Jews so much as by the British upper classes, the Rothermere family, for example. Later that same year, Mosley was defended by the President of the Oxford University Jewish Society, A. Herman, who was quoted in the very same paper thus: “At the present time, our greatest supporters in our fight against the Imperial Fascists are the Mosley Fascists themselves.” (39) The Imperial Fascist League was a rabidly anti-Semitic organisation led by Arnold Leese, who believed Mosley to be a Jewish agent. (40)

In 1934-5, of 293 people convicted of offences against fascists, over 20% were of Jewish origin, (41) and when Mosley attacked these Jewish thugs, and other Jews whom he believed - rightly or wrongly - were seeking to drag Britain into a war with Nazi Germany for their own purposes, he was set upon by the entire Anglo-Jewish establishment. David Cesarani and his ilk won’t tell you that. Nor will they tell you any of the other dirty tricks that Organised Jewry, their powerful allies and lapdogs use to attack and suppress “anti-Semites”. And remember, they decide who is an anti-Semite.

So this is how Organised Jewry operate, the same way virtually every other political lobby and pressure group operates, except that they are by and large more efficient, a great deal more ruthless, and in many cases they have elevated lies, deception and special pleading into an artform. Now I will end my dissertation with a review of some of the more readily provable lies and deceptions endorsed by Organised Jewry.

The biggest lie promulgated by this fascistic lobby is that the Jewish Question - as far as they concede that it exists at all - is a racial question. In particular that it is about racial hatred. I have had plenty of first hand experience of this. The lie is promulgated tirelessly that anyone who attacks any Jew or group of Jews for any reason is attacking “the Jews”.

Thus if you are foolish enough to raise the issue of Jewish wire-pulling or Jewish influence in the media or anywhere else, it is assumed that you are in reality attacking Mr Cohen the tailor, Mr Rosenberg the accountant, and your local rabbi to boot. This is garbage. In fact, many or even most of the Jews of Organised Jewry are not Jews at all in any meaningful sense; they may go to synagogue a few times a year, but many of them don’t do even that, and have very tenuous cultural ties with Judaism into the bargain.

A very good article on this subject appeared in the homeless people’s magazine The Big Issue in June 1996. (42) The author, Paul Sussman, whom one might suppose from that name has some Jewish connection, wrote in an opinion column that “Never...has Judaism been as fashionable as it is today. People who couldn’t tell a Torah from a turnip, and think a bar mitzvah is a sort of trendy Japanese lager are loudly proclaiming previously unmentioned Jewish bloodlines....A friend of mine, with blond hair, blue eyes, a minuscule nose and an impeccable Anglo-Saxon heritage has unearthed a tenuous connection with a distant semitic half-cousin. ’I’m a Jew and I’m proud!’ he has taken to announcing.”

Now why should they do this? Why should anyone? Fashion? Mr Sussman hits the nail bang on the head; it is, he says, “the-need-to-be-part-of-a-persecuted-minority syndrome. It makes subscribers feel rather important; it’s seen as rather worthy, heroic and rebellious...”

He might have added that it is also a mask for privilege, (43) or what has become known in recent years as playing the race card. Organised Jewry are adepts at playing the race card, often but not always with regard to the so-called Holocaust. And they do it, or attempt to do it, with Jewish politicians and power-brokers as much as with the goyim. Confirmation of this comes from Gerald Kaufman, whom I will freely admit is not my favourite politician. (44) In 1998 he became involved in a so-called controversy in which Foreign Secretary Robin Cook of all people was accused of anti-Semitism. Kaufman subsequently commented on this in the creeping left wing New Statesman and, after boasting of his Zionist credentials, he added that “At a lunch organised by Labour Friends of Israel at the Labour Party conference, I had made it clear that as shadow foreign secretary I must not be regarded as the representative of the Jewish community in the shadow cabinet. Everyone nodded sagely. It came as a surprise when they found out I meant it.” (45)

Whatever his racial or religious affiliations, Kaufman is his own man, so too is Michael Howard, who as Home Secretary was forever being targeted by his hatemongering co-racialists over his adherence to Conservative principles. Yet he consistently resisted pressures to make what they refer to pejoratively as “Holocaust denial” a criminal offence. In October 1993, he came under fire from Lord Lester, another member of that poor, persecuted, powerless minority. In fact, Lord Lester is so powerless that he was once described by the Jewish Chronicle as “one of the architects of Britain’s Race Relations Act”. (46) Three years later, Lester himself admitted that Britain’s equality laws [sic] have failed, and need “root and branch reform”. (47)

These examples of Jewish wire-pulling I’ve cited here are in the public domain, but for obvious reasons the vast majority are not, and like most dirty tricks, whoever is behind them, they are for the most part all but impossible to prove. There are many examples to be found in Public Record Office files, in particular files in the HO 45 and HO 144 series relating to fascist and anti-fascist activities from the 1930s onwards. Public records in Britain are generally closed for at least thirty years, but like I said, mostly this sort of thing goes unrecorded; all people know is that rumours are spread about them; their reputations are sullied undeservedly; meetings are cancelled; that sort of thing, as I’m sure you are all well aware. This leads people, naturally, to talk about conspiracies.

This word conspiracy is a Godsend for Organised Jewry, because as soon as you use the words conspiracy and Jew in the same sentence, you can be written off as an anti-Semitic crank, a Nazi, or the like, as I said at the beginning of this speech. “Ho, ho, ho, Jewish conspiracy. So the Jews are out to get you, are they?” And so on. But conspiracies are real, they exist. Although proving they exist is often very difficult or impossible, we have all heard of the IRA, the Mafia, Triads, Yardies, paedophile rings...Any organisation which is proscribed by law can, by definition, exist only as a conspiracy. But just make sure that you never accuse Jews or any group of Jews of conspiracy. Unfortunately, you don’t even have to accuse them of conspiring, because if they hate you enough, they will put those very words in your mouth. This has happened to me on more than one occasion, and indeed I have been the victim or the intended victim of Jewish mischief-making on several occasions, some of which I have documented in my publications. (48)

One final and very important method of subversion used by Organised Jewry is their recruitment of agents provocateurs and anti-Semitic propagandists. Sir Oswald Mosley warned against this as early as 1936 when writing in the Blackshirt he said: “Some do this in perfect good faith and honesty, and thus unconsciously help the enemies of their cause. Others, no doubt, as the struggle develops, will actually be employed, often unknowingly, by those very clever people, the big Jews, to make wild and foolish attacks upon Jews in general, in order to discredit anti-Semitism.” (49)

Notwithstanding his foolish claim about discrediting anti-Semitism, this is something which should be borne in mind, and I’m sure that in this context each and every one of is au fait with the name Ray Hill, and more recently with Tim Hepple.

I’ve spoken at length about the way Organised Jewry operate, and I hope that I’ve given you some useful insights, although I’m sure that much of what I’ve said was already known to many of you, in general terms if not in detail. However, it is one thing to identify a problem, and it is another thing entirely to do anything about it.

The only thing most of us can do is to expose their lies, hypocrisy and double standards, and to keep exposing them. This is why above all else they loathe and fear Holocaust Revisionism. Not because they believe the Revisionists are wicked Nazis who are rewriting the history of the Third Reich for their own nefarious reasons, but because Revisionism exposes them as liars and manipulators, and takes away their moral highground. A moral highground which the likes of Gerry Gable and his ugly friends at Woburn House certainly do not deserve.

Back To Front Cover And Introductory Blurb
To Notes And References

Back To Speeches Index
Back To Site Index