Dear Mr Boateng, Professor Ahmed and Reverend Harries,
You don’t know me and I don’t know you, but since you have unwittingly lent your names to a publication which libels me, and countless other people, I feel I should introduce myself. In January 1994, the Runnymede Commission on Antisemitism published a large format booklet called A VERY LIGHT SLEEPER: THE PERSISTENCE AND DANGERS OF ANTISEMITISM. I was aware of this publication’s existence shortly after it became available, but I did not get round to reading it until November 1994. I was more than a little surprised to find that it included an extract from one of my own publications, one which has been routinely branded anti-Semitic by the spokesmen for the Anglo-Jewish Establishment, in spite of its having Rabbinic approval. I say I was surprised, I shouldn’t have been, because after the way I have suffered at the hands of the entity known as political Zionism over the past year and a half, this is par for the course. Before I embark on my critique of the Runnymede Commission’s gratuitously inaccurate publication, I will introduce the pamphlet mentioned.
This is called Charity Begins At Home: How To Help Your Fellow Jews – And Combat Anti-Semitism. It was published as an Anglo-Hebrew Publishing Information Pamphlet, and was put out by myself and my then collaborator, an Orthodox Rabbi, in the summer of 1993. A long extract from it is reproduced on page 30 of the Runnymede booklet, as Appendix F. A couple of unimportant mistakes have been made in the transcription. In the fourth paragraph the word David has been rendered as Dave, and in the sixth paragraph the word Torah has been misspelt Torch. The Torah is of course the body of Jewish writings and law, something Zionists are both profoundly ignorant and contemptuous of.
The caption at the bottom of this pamphlet reads as follows: “This is an extract from a document circulated in antisemitic organisations in Britain and the United States in the 1990s. It is referred to in paragraph 26.”
The truth is that this publication was not circulated in anti-Semitic organisations in either the United Kingdom or the United States. As far as I can remember, I did not send a single copy to the United States, and I doubt very much anybody else did. In any case, this pamphlet was not written for anti-Semites, but for practising Jews. The Runnymede Commission’s information on this pamphlet obviously came from Mike Whine, the so-called “defence director” of the so-called Board of Deputies of British Jews. Whine knows this to be untrue, so he lied to you the same way Zionists always lie to dumb goyim, and for the same reason, he holds you in the same contempt as he holds me, the Palestinian people, and the rest of mankind.
The existence of this pamphlet was revealed to the world by the September 10, 1993 issue of the Jewish Chronicle. An article on page 12 by Julian Kossoff entitled Anti-Israel pamphlet referred to law officer stated, incorrectly, that “The Attorney General is investigating the latest pamphlet produced by the fictitious organisation, Anglo-Hebrew Publishing.” Described as “violently anti-Israel”, the pamphlet was said to have been distributed to a small number of Jewish people in the London area. It was stated also that an accompanying letter appealed for sympathy to the Dowager Lady Birdwood. Mike Whine was said to have passed on the leaflet (meaning the pamphlet and an accompanying leaflet) to the Attorney General. Finally, it was claimed that in May, Anglo-Hebrew Publishing distributed a hoax letter to Jewish homes in London requesting a donation.
It is difficult for me to credit that anyone, even an arch-liar like Julian Kossoff, could tell so many lies in five short paragraphs, but I will itemise them now and refute them.
The claim that the Attorney General was investigating the pamphlet is wishful thinking. The fact is that any publication passed on to the Attorney General by any member of the public will be processed in the same manner that any complaint to the police – however ill-founded or gratuitous – will be logged. This is the way the system works.
Anglo-Hebrew Publishing is not fictitious, and Julian Kossoff knows it. It is still in existence now, and, for example, on October 15, 1994 it published a documented exposé of the Zionist agent and rampant homosexual David Irving.
The claim that the pamphlet is violently anti-Israel might be construed as misleading; it certainly does not advocate violence, rather it advocates non-violence. In particular, it warns Jews that by sending money to Israel they are buying bullets for the murderers of Palestinian children. I may be assuming incorrectly, Professor Ahmed, and if I do, then I apologise, but it seems to me that with a name such as yours you are a Moslem, or of Moslem extraction. If that is the case, then some of the many children murdered by the Zionist Imperialists are your kinfolk. Even if they are not, they are still children. I will return to this subject shortly.
As the article claims that the pamphlet had been distributed to a small number of Jewish people in the London area, we are already at odds with the claim in the Runnymede booklet. As I said, the information concerning this pamphlet came from Mike Whine. He relayed it to Neville Nagler, who is a member of this august commission; he, in turn, relayed it to the other members, including you, and you accepted his word uncritically because like the dumb goyim you are, you don’t believe any Jew would ever lie to you. Either that or you are too afraid of being branded anti-Semitic to question the word of the arch-liars and Machiavellian schemers of Organised Zionist Jewry.
In reality, the pamphlet Charity Begins At Home was sent to a number of Jews outside of London as well, and, as far as I know, it was not sent to any anti-Semitic organisations and was certainly not circulated by them. If either Nagler or Whine have evidence to the contrary, let them present it.
The claim that the mailing also appealed for sympathy for Lady Birdwood is misleading. The current writer’s view is that the Dowager Lady Birdwood is no kind of anti-Semite, rather she is a sorely misguided idealist who doesn’t realise that she is being exploited by evil men. So, Mike Whine passed the pamphlet on to the Attorney General. On December 11, 1974, an organisation calling itself the Committee for Justice in the Middle East placed a poorly worded (though extremely moderate) advertisement in the Times. Its essence was the same as the pamphlet Charity Begins At Home: don’t send money to Israel. In January 1983, Ken Livingstone, who needs no introduction, published a cartoon attacking the Zionist-sponsored atrocities of Sabra and Shatila. Both the Committee for Justice in the Middle East and Ken Livingstone were referred to the Attorney General by – in my undiplomatic phrase – the slime of Organised Jewry. Exactly the same way I was. This is the way Zionists’ minds operate; to them, asking Jews not to support campaigns of murder and genocide conducted by Jews against non-Jews – Palestinians in this case – they see as an incitement to hatred against Jews. Incidentally, I referred Mike Whine to the Attorney General in turn because here is a man who clearly believes that Jews have a right to murder non-Jews. Fortunately for him, and for the rest of us, Gentile and Jew, the vast majority of Jews do not. But it remains to be seen which of us was inciting hatred against Jews here.
The Board of Deputies “defence committee” has also tried to destroy me financially; I won’t go into details about this here, but it will suffice to say that had I been a lesser man and had I not had the unwavering support of friends, Gentile and Jew, friends such as no man has any right to expect, they would have destroyed me in this and other ways. This is the sort of totally ruthless and thoroughly evil people the so-called Jewish Establishment are.
Before I deal with the rest of this gratuitously inaccurate pamphlet, I will deal with the other attacks on, and libels against, myself. In its May 14, 1993 issue, the Jewish Chronicle published an article by one of its staffers, the aforementioned Julian Kossoff. Anti-Semites ask for cash in latest sophisticated forgery claimed that Anglo-Hebrew Publishing had mailed out a publication with the dual purpose of a) inciting hatred against Jews and b) conning money out of them. Immediately this article came to my attention a full refutation was published and circulated to, among others, the Jewish Chronicle. The Board of Deputies of British Jews “defence committee”, in particular Mike Whine, wilfully mislead the police, and after I was arrested on spurious charges of mail order deception and hate-mongering, he and his organisation withheld important information from the authorities while they held onto my property for seven months.
After this I commenced publishing documented exposés of the spurious anti-fascist organisation known as Searchlight and of its odious controller Gerry Gable. This resulted in a scurrilous attack on me in the November 1993 issue of that magazine. At the time of writing I am engaged in litigation with Gable so can’t go into details of this here, but I will say that following this magazine article I was the victim of a politically motivated hammer attack, in particular I was attacked on my own doorstep by three men, two of whom wielded mallets. Shortly after this I was informed by the police that there was no case against me, and that I could therefore collect all my impounded property from Holborn Police Station.
The hammer attack had taken place on November 28. On December 8, I served a libel writ on Gable as he was about to give evidence to the Home Affairs Committee investigating racial attacks. I served this writ at the House of Commons, which meant that it was automatically invalidated, and indeed, the Jewish Chronicle of December 31 reported my contempt of Parliament.
When I served this writ, Whine and Nagler had just finished giving evidence to the Committee. As I served it I announced that I was serving it for Gable’s having incited a racial attack on me. As I consider this attack to have been racially motivated, ie on a Gentile and incited, directly or otherwise, by a Jew, this was fair comment. There can be no question whatsoever that Whine, Nagler, and a great many other people in the misnamed “anti-racist” and anti-fascist movements, were aware of both the attack on me and its almost certain cause.
In its January 14, 1994 issue, the trade magazine the Bookseller published a trade notice to the effect that Anglo-Hebrew Publishing publications would in future be distributed by InƒoText Manuscripts, and from my home address. This resulted in a typically ingenuous article in the Jewish Chronicle. Written by Ruth Rothenberg, Anger as magazine promotes anti-Semitic pamphleteers appeared in the February 4 issue.
This article contained three libels and an incitement to violence against me. It was written in the full knowledge that Anglo-Hebrew Publishing was not part of any anti-Semitic campaign, in the full knowledge that I had been the victim of an appalling attack, and in the full knowledge that it was likely to incite further violence against me by cronies or followers of Gerry Gable.
Subsequently, I published a pamphlet on the 1960s synagogue arsons. Briefly this concerned an arson campaign against a number of synagogues in the Greater London area in 1965. In the September 1984 issue of Searchlight, Gable claimed that a now deceased Jewish-born thug (and later convicted pimp) named Harry Bidney had brought the perpetrators of these crimes to justice. He claimed also that this arson campaign had resulted in the death of a Yeshiva student, a blatant lie, for the fire in question, the November 1964 fire at the Mesifta Talmudical College in Stamford Hill, was in reality a tragic accident.
In an interview with the Jewish Chronicle published in the October 23, 1987 issue, Gable repeated the lie about solving the synagogue arsons, but this time, he took the credit himself for tracking down the arson gangs. (He was later to repeat these lies in Searchlight, in the April 1993 and August 1994 issues, the latter after I had repeatedly exposed the lie in print). Simultaneously with the pamphlet on the synagogue arsons I published an open letter to the Jewish Chronicle, pointing out using information from their own archive that Gable had lied through his teeth to them, and that he cynically exploits his co-racialists. Needless to say, this letter was ignored.
I have since published irrefutable evidence from many sources of Gable and company’s evil machinations including a detailed critique of the lie-ridden autobiography of his “mole” Ray Hill in which I demonstrate clearly using only public domain sources, that Hill and company not only invented non-existent crimes which they laid at the door of the international Nazi conspiracy, but that they, in particular Hill, actually incited criminal acts.
For example, Hill claimed to have witnessed an attack on a Paris cafe by so-called Nazis; a textual analysis of the two published versions of this – in the News Of The World, March 25, 1984 and four years later in The Other Face Of Terror – reveals major and irreconcilable inconsistencies. Neither did any account of this, or another alleged violent incident, appear in the French press, for the obvious reason that they were both fiction.
Nor am I the first person to expose Gable’s evil machinations, others, including the left wing New Statesman, have shown him up to the world for the rat he is. In February 1980, the New Statesman published the now notorious Gable memorandum, which contained a mass of gross libels on the left wing journalist Phil Kelly. In its July 1986 issue it published another exposé in which Gable and his buddies from Channel 4 had smeared a gullible, junior civil servant as a liaison man for an alleged Czech spy. This story was also covered by the Sunday Times. In spite of this, the same magazine published a two part serialisation of the quasi-mythical adventures of Gable’s other so-called mole, Tim Hepple. Hepple had not only been a member of the British National Party but had been hanging around the lunatic fringes of both the far right and the far left for a number of years.
And again, in spite of this, the Jewish Establishment, that paragon of virtue which is always whining and wailing about the evils of anti-Semitism and racism, and the fallacy of judging a man by the colour of his skin or by his ethnic origins, that same Jewish Establishment, including the Jewish Chronicle, has continued to lend its full support to Gable, in the full knowledge that he is a damned liar, and that his moles – read agents provocateurs – are almost certainly at this very moment, hard at work inside the far right, inciting the less intelligent members of the numerically insignificant British National Party and others to commit criminal acts against Jews, Asians and blacks.
For the record, since the attack on myself, there have been other, similar attacks. After his picture appeared in the April 1994 issue of Searchlight, the British National Party’s press officer Mike Newland was brutally attacked in his own home. This was reported in the national media. An attempt was made to attack Mark Taha, who was libelled in the November 1993 issue. Most recently, Mark Cotterill, a former member of the National Front, was the victim of a potentially lethal attack, also in his own home. Fortunately, Cotterill managed to fight his attackers off. Two members of the organised group of thugs called Anti-Fascist Action are currently on bail for this attack, which involved the use of a knife. Advertisements for Anti-Fascist Action appear in every issue of Searchlight. Remember Mr Boateng and Professor Ahmed, this sort of thing is being done in your name. I will now deal with the rest of the Runnymede Commission’s booklet.
On page 18, the American industrialist Henry Ford is reputed to have written that “Jews have always controlled the business...The motion picture industry of the United States and Canada...is exclusively under the control, moral and financial, of the Jewish manipulators of the public mind.” This statement is attributed to an article in his Dearborn Independent newspaper for 12-19 February 1921. Leaving aside the well-documented fact that these articles were not written by Mr Ford but by Thomas Cameron and others – although contrary to his protestations in 1927, Ford knew damn well what his henchmen were writing – how is this statement anti-Semitic? Because it attributes the control of the then very youthful film industry to Jews? Then what is one to make of the following statement which appeared in print as recently as 1992?
“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 ...”
This embarrassing if extraordinarily candid admission appeared in the book The Jewish Image in American Film, by Jewish author Lester D. Friedman, which was first published in 1987. Far from being any sort of anti-Semitic tract, this is a large format, popular book. The 1992 reprint was distributed in the UK by Richard Branson’s Virgin. More recently still, William Cash caused a furore by referring to the Jewish control of Hollywood in an article published in the Spectator, a magazine edited by the Jewish Dominic Lawson. Having read the Cash article, I can truthfully say that its author is more of a fool than an anti-Semite as indeed was Henry Ford, but what about Friedman’s claim, and Ford’s claim before that?
The Jewish presence in, and to some extent control of, Hollywood, is a thoroughly documented fact. It isn’t though the quantity of the Jews in Hollywood or anywhere else in the media that is the real issue, but the quality of them, and their mind-set. One Bernard Levin is worth ten Kelvin MacKenzies. In this context you might like to consider the Searchlight Organisation’s boast that it has been consulted on 80-90 per cent of the mainstream media’s story’s on the so-called Nazi conspiracy for the past two decades. This means that the minds of the British public – including your children – have been to some extent poisoned by the unconditional hatred of Gerry Gable and his fellow travellers, Jew and Gentile. Proven liars all.
Whether or not one allows for the claim of the Jewish domination of Hollywood by anti-Semites real and imagined, are such claims really any worse or materially any different from the claims of certain blacks that racism restricts their entry into certain professions, including the media? If you claim that blacks are under-represented in the media, implying that there should be some sort of quota system, then logically the British National Party, whatever its views on Jews, can claim just as validly, that there are too many Jews in the media. Perhaps Hollywood should sack a few of its Jewish actors, directors and producers and hire blacks instead? Or perhaps politicians, and socialists of all hues, should stop trying to interfere in the managements of privately-owned companies.
On page 20 of the Runnymede report, an example is given of mass vandalism at a Jewish cemetery in Southampton, which had been daubed by such graffiti as BNP, NF, Heil Hitler and White Power, Gas the Jews, etc. Nearly a hundred graves are said to have been vandalised. Obviously, such obscenities are extremely distressing for the families, but does this amount to an anti-Semitic outrage, or could there be another explanation?
In August 1994, seven months after this report was published, the current writer saw a TV report of an attack on a Dover cemetery which had been ransacked by vandals. In this incident, some two hundred graves had been damaged. There was no mention of anti-Semitic or related graffiti being daubed on any of the graves, which is hardly surprising because this was a Christian cemetery. Statistics on these sorts of incidents are not easy to come by, but in its February 22, 1985 issue, a Canadian newspaper, the Vancouver Sun, carried a report Church arson not rare: all denominations suffering from attacks, statistics show, which claimed that arson attacks on religious premises in British Columbia had caused nearly $6 million damage since 1980. There had been an average of 12 arson attacks a year, mostly on churches, but ordinary vandalism had also been a problem.
It seems then that attacks – including arson – on religious premises are more likely a non-denominational problem than an anti-Semitic or racial one. The reality is of course that unless the culprits are apprehended, the actual motive must remain a mystery, but it seems most likely that the world is full of sick people, including youths, perhaps of poor character and low or borderline intelligence, who don’t know any better. When they attack Christian cemeteries and places of worship, they daub them with Satanic regalia, but when the same people attack Jewish targets, they daub them with the emblems of the Devil of the Jews. And who is the Devil of the Jews? Can there be a man or woman in the Western World who can’t make the connection Jew – Hitler – swastika? And perhaps BNP, NF, etc. Incidentally, the fact that Jewish graves should have been daubed with both “NF” and “BNP” leads me to suggest that the people responsible for the Southampton cemetery attack were not right wing extremists, and I’ll explain why.
Firstly, the National Front and the British National Party have absolutely no connection, indeed, the Front boasts that it is Britain’s premier democratic nationalist party and rejects totally the authoritarianism of the BNP. It is most unlikely that NF and BNP members would ever work together, at least, the way relations between them at the moment are.
Secondly, the National Front has been doing its best to revamp its “Nazi” reputation and to present a clean cut image to the British public. It has a diminutive membership, and may well disappear up its own exhaust pipe. I haven’t read much of its literature of late, but it would certainly not entertain such rabid anti-Semitism as daubing Jewish graves, nor even the only slightly less unsubtle anti-Semitism of the BNP.
It is also an established fact that when this sort of incident is well publicised, copycat attacks often manifest. This applies not just to criminal offences but to such incidents as “saucer flaps” and attacks by mad dogs. It has been well established that a report of a flying saucer in say Lancashire, may well trigger off similar reports from all over the country, all over Europe, or indeed all over the world, depending on who reports seeing the craft and how it is handled by the media. You may recall that a while ago there was a scare about Pit Bull terriers attacking children. It may well have been that a number of such incidents occurred in a very short space of time, but the reporting of such incidents is more a tribute to the power of the media. Similarly, the reporting of outbreaks of swastika daubings and related (ostensibly) anti-Semitic incidents, is likewise a tribute to the power of the media rather than to the rise of the Fourth Reich.
There is though, another possible explanation. An article in the Guardian, July 24, 1990, claimed that Searchlight (ie Gerry Gable) had warned the Board of Deputies of British Jews about the desecration of an Edmonton cemetery three weeks before it happened, while an article in the Mail on Sunday, August 5 the same year reported that a worldwide fascist network was responsible for a supposed outbreak of such desecrations. According to Mr Gable’s “informants”, they were co-ordinated by the British Movement, the British National Party, German and Dutch fascist groups and the Ku Klux Klan.
Mr Gable appears to have had suspicious foreknowledge of these cases, and impeccable information. Too suspicious and too impeccable. In March 1984, Ray Hill, Mr Gable’s “mole”, boasted that he had once desecrated a synagogue. And that he had attacked “a few Pakis”. It is not clear if this was before or after he became a Searchlight “mole”, but one cannot of course rule out the possibility, indeed the likelihood, that Hill’s successors are committing, or, more likely, inciting, such acts. Mr Gable boasted as recently as December 1994, (Searchlight, page 24), that he has such “moles” working inside far right parties and hate groups both here and abroad. If you subscribe to Searchlight, your money is being used to pay such people.
Finally, I would like to give an example of the attitude of real Nazis to this sort of sacrilege. The August 10, 1934 issue of the Jewish Chronicle reported that the German government had condemned the desecration of 54 tombstones which were smashed when a Jewish cemetery was vandalised. “Our movement wars only against living people, not against the dead, who are at peace.” said one spokesman. Three drunkards were later jailed: one for one year, one for six months, one for four months for this apparently non-political outrage. They were jailed in accordance with the guidelines laid down by Hitler himself. This is totally out of keeping with the sex shop image of Nazism peddled by Gerry Gable’s hate-filled magazine. And by Hollywood’s Jews, who “guided the destiny of America’s largest propaganda machine”, remember?
On a not unrelated subject, you may recall the recent case of the female student Catherine Ayling, who was knifed to death by an American fellow student, Curtis Howard, who had developed an obsession with her. This case was very well publicised, but I am taking my information here from the free London evening newspaper Tonight of October 26, 1994. It was reported here that the mentally disturbed Howard had carved a swastika in his victim’s bedroom, among other things. As Howard was black as well as mentally disturbed, and an aspiring miscegenist, it is hardly likely that he was any sort of Nazi, which raises the obvious question: how many other swastika daubing incidents are neither anti-Semitic nor political, but manifestations of mental illness, childishness, or some unidentified brand of mischief-making?
Returning to the Runnymede booklet, on page 21 we meet the scapegoat whitewash again. Not only that, but we are told that racial – and even sexual – differences, have no meaning. The latter outside of the bedroom and maternity ward, presumably.
“Black men are assumed to be sexually aggressive; Jews are supposed to be interested only in money; women are perceived as hysterical and indecisive, and so on. Generations of meticulous research into these issues have failed to demonstrate that any such gender or racially-linked characteristics exist.”
No links at all? The 1994 issue of Whitakers’ Almanack, page 120, gives life expectancy for males in England as 73 years, and for females as 78.5. There are fluctuations between nations and between regions, but everywhere in the world where death in childbirth is no longer common (ie everywhere in the white world and increasingly in the Orient), women outlive men. Are we to believe that there is no biological basis for this?
An article in the June 1993 issue of Good Housekeeping magazine revealed that in 1991 (according to Home Office statistics), out of 201 people convicted of murder, a mere 11 were women. In other words, by this measure, men are seventeen times more violent (more homicidal) than women. What was that phrase “Generations of meticulous research into these issues have failed to demonstrate that any such gender...linked characteristics exist.” ? Who but a fool or a mischief-maker would claim such a thing? Save for the following two short paragraphs I won’t deal here with the question of racially-linked characteristics nor with the media/leftist manufactured controversy over such issues, but both you and I know that such characteristics do exist, the Runnymede Commission’s nonsense aside.
No woman has ever been or is ever likely to be heavyweight champion of the world, notwithstanding the fact that a few women are physically stronger than most men. Incidentally, how many ethnic Chinese have become heavyweight champion of the world? No racially-linked characteristics at all? Then whites are just as likely to contract sickle-cell anaemia as blacks? Such specious claptrap is hardly worth debating.
Undoubtedly the real reason for the insertion of this nonsense is the so-called IQ controversy which the Zionists and their fellow travellers in the Socialist International have waged war against since the end of the Nazi era, and indeed before. In particular this is the claim that blacks – as a group – score measurably lower than whites, and Orientals. Scientists who give credence to this claim are smeared routinely as racists, but the reality is that this controversy is no controversy at all. As the distinguished psychologist Hans Eysenck told me when I interviewed him in 1993, the controversy exists only in the media. Eysenck has himself been smeared – and physically attacked many times – by “anti-racist” thugs, for promulgating such views. One would have thought the fact that he is married to a Jewess (now for over forty years) and that he is a refugee from Nazi Germany, would have refuted the lie that he is sympathetic to Nazi race science. Not at all. Even Patterns Of Prejudice defended Eysenck in a 1973 article entitled violence at universities attack on academic freedom, but only because the uncredited author assumed, erroneously, that as an anti-Nazi refugee, he was also a Jew. Eysenck is of course a Gentile whose father was a devout Nazi, although his grandmother died in a concentration camp.
Of course, whatever the so-called IQ controversy, there is far more to intelligence and indeed life than having a high IQ or a fine brain. Like what you do with it. The likes of Nagler and Whine are obviously men of above average intelligence. They are also, as I demonstrate here, snakes and lowlife who will smear anyone who refuses to kiss the arse of Imperial Zion, and whom by virtue of this they regard with the utmost contempt.
On page 22, anti-Semitism is likened to a virus. Again, this is nonsense. Hatred is not a disease. Next we are told that “Hostility to the Jews is entirely one-sided, in the sense that it is unreciprocated and functions independently of its object; it is not the result of any particular objective factor or kind of behaviour on the part of Jewish people.”
This is unquestionably the biggest eyewash in this totally disingenuous piece of nonsense. What it is saying in effect is that Jews are never guilty of racial hatred, indeed, that they are incapable of racial hatred. One has only to look at some of the hatred and poison spewed out by the Jews of Hollywood and the Jews involved in the “anti-fascist” movement to realise what utter rubbish this is. Indeed, those Jews who do not tow the line with regard to the policies of the Zionist régime are often as not smeared as self-hating Jews. One such “self-hating Jew” is the Brighton-based anti-Zionist Tony Greenstein. As well as campaigning against the likes of the National Front and the British National Party, Greenstein belongs to a group called Palestine Solidarity; he has been smeared (in private correspondence) by none other than Gerry Gable.
The claim that “Hostility to the Jews is entirely one-sided [and] unreciprocated” is complete and utter garbage. The current writer has been told by former Mosleyites that most of them bore no hostility towards Jews at all, but that after a few weeks on the streets being attacked by Jewish thugs – and such was overwhelmingly the case rather than vice versa – they soon got “Jew-wise”. This claim is borne out by anyone who takes the trouble to read the Jewish press for the 1930s. In the August 12th-18th, 1933 issue of the Blackshirt, the newspaper of the British Union of Fascists, it was reported that the Jewish World of August 3rd had condemned Jews who attacked BUF members as “wicked and stupid and [are] condemned outright, as The Blackshirt truly says, by all decent men of our faith”
The following month, the President of the Oxford University Jewish Society, A. Herman, told the Jewish Chronicle that “At the present time, our greatest supporters in our fight against the Imperial Fascists are the Mosley Fascists themselves.” The Imperial Fascist League was a small, cranky, anti-Jewish group led by the fanatical anti-Semite Arnold Leese. It was only persistent attacks on Mosley by communists – many of them Jewish – and later the hate campaign of the Jewish establishment against his movement, which made the BUF and possibly Mosley himself, anti-Semitic. If instead Organised Jewry had reasoned with him, they might have been able to use him as a benign influence on Hitler. In the early days of the BUF, the party had no “Jewish policy”, and not a few joined, including, I am reliably informed, a certain Mr Levinsohn from Battersea who stayed on after the BUF introduced its “Jewish policy”, and who later married the black pianist Winifred Attwell! The Jewish former middleweight boxing champion Kid Lewis was also a Fascist; he was in charge of Mosley’s personal stewards.
Lastly, are we to believe that the likes of Barukh Goldstein were not and are not capable of racial hatred? Did he slaughter twenty-nine people in a mosque – Palestinian Arabs – because he loved Arabs or was merely indifferent to them? Stuff and nonsense. The Runnymede Commission pamphlet argues also for curbs on freedom of speech, one of the things our fathers and grandfathers supposedly destroyed Hitler to preserve. Don’t these stupid people – in particular Zionist and “anti-fascist” Jews – realise that the more of our freedoms they destroy the more they will be hated because the more they will deserve to be hated?
On page 24 the Runnymede booklet reproduces the Ester Harrod letter, a piece of mischief-making sent out in 1993, and on page 26 is the Happy Chanucah card which was allegedly sent to many Jewish organisations and individuals in Autumn 1992. I don’t doubt it, I was sent one! This was reported in the March 1993 issue of Searchlight. A letter was also reprinted here, from the head of the CPS herself, Barbara Mills, to Tony Blair. This is the sort of nonsense that the government is squandering precious taxpayers’ money investigating. Yes, the card was distasteful, although it was obviously drawn by a talented artist. Yes, some people would have been upset. But so what?
The Zionist lobby and their fellow travellers in the misnamed anti-fascist movement want the so-called Race Relations Act and the Public Order Act strengthened yet again on account of rubbish like this. They already have Draconian powers. Indeed, as stated, I myself was arrested in this connection and my computer and files confiscated – and held for seven months – after malicious complaints and misleading information was passed on to the police. More importantly, information was withheld from the police. And I haven’t and won’t rail at Jews in the abstract, I’ll name names. That damned liar Mike Whine for one. The Home Office Committee investigating racial attacks was dominated by Zionist Jews, in particular Sir Ivan Lawrence was its chairman; Barbara Roche MP was another member; and, as stated, evidence was heard from the Searchlight Organisation (three Jews) and the misnamed Board of Deputies of “British” Jews – Whine and Nagler.
To Part Three Of This Pamphlet
Back To Part One
Back To Baron Pamphlets Index
Back To Correspondence And Open Letters Index
Back To Site Index