The Nation Wreckers

• The Nation Wreckers: Jewish Influence in British Politics.
Sandra Ross (1975)

This version is one file only, suitable for printing.  Originally published by Britain First, this booklet is an updated version of a series of articles which first appeared in Britain First between May and August, 1975.  Britain First was a monthly newspaper produced in support of the National Front in Britain.   Its price was 20p.   HTML Rae West 10 Nov 2014. Rearranged from Simon Sheppard's site (no relation to the corrupt searchlight organisation). The original may have been designed with Letraset-style lettering, or perhaps typewriter; it was pre-Internet. Original pagination hidden in the source code. May (or may not) have been written by the late David McCalden under a pseudonym.

This booklet predates Koestler's Thirteenth Tribe, and it is pre-large scale Holocaust Revisionism: it's sad to see the way words like 'SS' and 'Nazi' and 'fascist' are used in the conventional Jewish propaganda senses. And how 'Communism', in say East Germany, is not recognised as Jewish. Genocide against whites is acknowledged (I added this piece because, even in 1975, Jewish policy was known), but Jewish psychopathology is not clearly identified as the cause. There is nothing on Talmudic influence, for example or Jews as the 'master race'.

So the piece is not very satisfactory; even so, it was far ahead of average British thinking in the 1970s. Most people, even today, have no idea that Jews were active throughout the Second World War in legal control over race matters; nor do most people realise the extent to which 'conventions' and 'offences' have been designed. Nor do most people understand Jewish control of money, and control over political parties and propaganda. The utterly ludicrous and hypocritical way in which conventions have been ignored in war crimes and genocides has only slowly begun to penetrate into popular awareness.


I. INTRODUCTION by Richard Lawson
II. THE ANTI-BRITISH CONSPIRATORS   [ 'Board of Deputies' | Underwriters | Siege Mentality | AJEX at Work | Newham South | Board of Deputies Strikes Again | Smear Leaflets | Searchlight | Gable | Anti-NF Committees | Paul Rose | United Nations (UN) ]
III. BEHIND THE RACE LAWS   [ NCCL | Swastika Daubings | "British Nazi Party" | Visited East Germany | Yellow Star Movement | Bindman (Lawyers) | Intent | Samizdat Literature? ]
IV. THE DEMOCRATIC SHAM   [ Political Subsidies ]
V. HERUT   [ Herut in Britain ]
Appendix I:  The United Nations Treaties
Appendix II:  A Reader's Letter

ILLUSTRATIONS:  Lord Fisher | 4 MPs: Silkin, Lipton, S C Davis, Renee Short | Freeson | Paul Rose | Lord Justice Scarman | Edward Short | Menachem Begin | Deir Yassin.

[ Top of page ]

With coloured immigrants being brought into Britain to swell the pool of available labour and thus undercut the wage bargaining position of British workers; with Capitalists pressuring for Britain to remain trapped in the European Common Market; with powerful Financiers expanding the world money supply far in advance of the production of goods and services and thus causing inflation; with Communist disrupters pursuing their anti-working class personal ambitions by reducing major industries to chaos; THE BRITISH NATION IS UNDER ATTACK.

The National Front stands in the forefront of the political struggle to restore to our people our right to defend our racial identity and national independence. Ranged against us are the forces of those vested interests which have succeeded in reducing this once proud nation, from a hard-earned position of strength to an alarming position of economic, moral and military weakness.

The Establishment politicians, the Big Capitalists and the Communists within and without the Labour Party fear the wrath of the British People, should our nation wake up to the enormity of the wrecking operation which has been perpetrated upon it.

Knowing their guilt and desperate to stem the rising tide of British Nationalism, our enemies are frantically throwing one obstacle after another in our path in a vain attempt to stave off the day of reckoning. Local councils abuse their position by banning the NF from hiring council premises for meetings; the TV and radio find time to give broadcasting opportunities to Communists but deliberately freeze out the National Front; while the National Front is deliberately ignored or abused by the monopolist daily press.

All these obstacles we have tackled and are overcoming. All the time National Front membership is rising and the sales of Britain First grow and grow.

Establishment politicians, Zionists and Communists have become so worried by the National Front's remarkable growth over the past few years that they are now resorting to the age-old ploy of 'divide and conquer'. On the one hand, they are trying to stir up the Jewish population against British Nationalism by smearing the National Front as 'Fascist' and 'anti-Jewish', whilst simultaneously trying to stir up British Nationalists against the Jewish population by hijacking its community organisations and implicating them in anti-British activities.

They know as well as we do that the National Front is a one hundred per cent democratic party, both in its policies and in its organization, and that it does in fact have several members of Jewish origin. We British Nationalists do not intend to be diverted into the blind alley of anti-Semitism, no matter how much the Establishment seeks to provoke us, and no matter how many decoys they throw in our path. Likewise, it is the duty of all patriotic Jews to shake off the stranglehold that these people have over Jewish organisations.

It is, therefore, in the interests not only of committed British Nationalists but also of the thousands of ordinary Jews in Britain, that this booklet explores the web of intrigue that has camouflaged for too long the pernicious anti-British activities of these carpet-baggers.

Richard Lawson
Editor, Britain First
October, 1975.

[ Top of page ]

There does exist, and has existed for some time, a concerted campaign to deny free speech to the cause of British Racial Nationalism as expounded by the National Front; by the 'hire' of Red mobs, the production of smear literature, the denial of premises, and 'legal action' in the form of Race Laws.

At the centre of this campaign lie the two principal Jewish organisations in Britain: the London Committee of Deputies of the British Jews—commonly known as the Jewish Board of Deputies; and the Association of Jewish Ex-Servicemen and Women, commonly known as 'Ajex'.

The Board of Deputies has its headquarters at Woburn House, London WC1 while Ajex is based at the Stepney Jewish (B'nai B'rith) Clubs and Settlement in Beaumont Grove, E1.

Both organisations are extremely secretive about their membership and activities. Most people are probably not even aware of their existence.

[ Top of page ]

His interests embrace Zionism, Socialism, race-mixing for non-Jews and diamonds.

The president of the Board of Deputies is Lord Fisher of Camden (Sir Samuel Fisher). He is also chairman of the Board of Deputies Race Relations Working Party, as well as being a Life Peer, a Labour Party Alderman and vice president of the London Diamond Bourse.

The vice president of the Board of Deputies is Greville Janner who also doubles as vice chairman of the Race Relations Working Party, besides being the Labour MP for Leicester West, a Fabian, a director of the Jewish Chronicle and a vice president of Ajex.

Another member of the Board of Deputies is the prominent anti-NF campaigner, Councillor Arthur Super, the Labour Mayor of Hackney.

The Board does its work through a number of committees including the Jewish Defence and Group Relations Committee. The chairman of this is Martin Savitt who is again a member of the Race Relations Working Party and another vice president of Ajex. The executive director of the so-called "Defence" Committee is Dr. Jacob Gewirtz.

Also on this Committee is Mrs. Lottie Green who is a vice-president of the Jewish B'nai B'rith organization. Like Ajex, B'nai B'rith has branches all over the country. Its president is David Stern and it operates from 1/2 Endsleigh Street, London WC1.

Further evidence of the close links between the Board of Deputies and Ajex came in October 1974 when a committee was set up under the chairmanship of Jack Wolkind, town clerk of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, to study the organisational structure of the Board of Deputies. Included in the committee was Captain David Tack, then national chairman of Ajex.

The Board of Deputies and Ajex are in turn interlinked with other Zionist-Socialist elements. So deep is the Zionist-Socialist axis that it even embraces groups at the extreme 'Left' of the orthodox political spectrum.

[ Top of page ]
The October 2nd 1972 edition of the International Marxist Group newspaper (then known as Red Mole but now known as Red Weekly) complained that the Socialist "Zionists of Hashomer Hatzair refused to underwrite the recent left-wing demonstration against the Monday Club's rally at Central Hall..." as if the underwriting by Zionists of Communist anti-British demonstrations was commonplace and to be expected.

When the National Front held its anti-I.R.A. march in London last September, Mapam—a Zionist party affiliated to the Communist Liberation organisation—made a veiled appeal for a counter-demonstration. In a circular letter to its members (which did not directly call for participation presumably because the demonstrations occurred on the Jewish sabbath) Mapam emphasized both the venue and time of the NF rally. The chairman of Mapam is Mr. Solli Marcus.

Other Zionist-Socialist links are effected through Jewish members of the Labour Party (which currently include at least 33 Labour MPs), the Labour Friends of Israel, and Poale Zion—the Jewish Socialist Party which is an integral part of the British Labour Party. Poale Zion also has a youth section known as Young Poale Zion. Its general secretary is Eli Benson and it operates from Bet-Ben, 19 Dudden Hill Lane, London NWIO.

Jewish Labour MPs with Zionist connections include Clinton Davis, Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of Trade and a member of the Board of Deputies; Marcus Lipton, MP for Lambeth Central and president of the South London branch of Ajex; Ian Mikardo, chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party and also active in Poale Zion; Maurice Miller, MP for East Kilbride and a past chairman of Poale Zion; Eric Moonman, MR for Basildon, a member of the House of Commons Select Committee on Race Relations, and now the present chairman of Poale Zion; and Harold Lever, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Wilson's top financial adviser, as well as being a member of Poale Zion for over forty years.

Some of the MPs with Zionist connections (clockwise) Sam Silkin, Marcus Lipton, Stanley Clinton Davis, Renee Short.
Other Jewish Labour MPs of particular note to National Front members and supporters are Mrs. Renée Short, MP for Wolverhampton North-East, and Paul Rose, MP for Manchester Blackley.

[ Top of page ]
The board of Deputies and other Jewish organisations have had a long and deep interest in British Nationalist movements. Indeed, they have geared their activities to combating them.

According to The British Political Fringe (Anthony Blond, London 1965) written by George Thayer,
'The Board of Deputies has turned part of its headquarters in Tavistock Square into what looks to me, as an outsider, like a military command post in the last stages of a siege. This is particularly true in those areas of the building which are occupied by the Jewish Defence Committee. Such words as 'operations', 'communications' and 'action' can be seen on bulletin boards and memoranda; the employees seldom walk down the corridors—they trot; telephones are constantly ringing, facts and figures are produced with remarkable speed, and there is a constant hum of voices arguing, ordering and analysing the day away.

'This 'battle atmosphere' has spread to other organizations as well, particularly to the World Jewish Congress and AJEX. Between the three of them, there exists an intelligence network that would do credit to DI 5 (the successor to MI 5). If some point of information is not available in one particular set of files, they need only make one or two calls to find it.'
This network obviously prefers to work behind closed doors while usually putting other people into the front line. There are times, however, when in-fighting breaks the surface and various factions jockey for position by putting over their own point of view in the fanatically Zionist Jewish Chronicle.

The chairman of the Jewish Chronicle Trust Ltd. is Lord Arnold Abraham Goodman—Wilson's personal lawyer.

[ Top of page ]
The National Front has always faced a certain amount of illegal smear leafletting, but the February 1974 General Election was the first time it was used on a reasonably large scale.

Although it was mainly the Reds of the International Socialists and Communist Party who did the donkey work by putting them out, it became known to us through inside information that the leaflets originated from persons closely connected with the Association of Jewish Ex-Servicemen. Some friction did in fact occur at the time between some of the Socialists and Ajex, as well as within Jewish organisations themselves.

The Jewish Chronicle of September 27th 1974 carried a report of a Mr. Jack Roth, president of the council of Manchester and Salford Jews, who attacked the Manchester Jewish Socialist Group for distributing smear leaflets against the National Front "which he said should be left to Ajex and which, in any case has brought much criticism from non-Jews." The secretary of the Manchester Jewish Socialist Group is A. Lewis, 3 Wood Grove, Whitefield, Manchester.

In a letter to the Jewish Chronicle of October 18th of last year, Mr. Monty Henig, chairman of the Leicester Jewish Defence and Group Relations Committee, regretted that in his area: "leaflets did not have the effect of reducing the massive combined vote that the National Front candidates received at the General Election."

Henig was complaining that in his area Ajex were not then quite doing their stuff and that: "for the future hopes and prosperity of the community Ajex should accept constructive suggestions and criticism" in the spirit in which they were given. He concluded: "If they do this they will go from strength to strength to complete the vital work which they have undertaken."

Henig's address is Tudor Lodge, 11 Portsdown Road, Leicester.

Further evidence of Ajex involvement was given by Roy Lewis, Labour candidate for Harrow East in the October 1974 General Election, who said:
'I have had National Front propaganda regurgitated to me on too many doorsteps... As a Jew, I would like to help strengthen the links between my own community and the other ethnic minorities, who at the moment are bearing the brunt of racial discrimination. In this connection I am very pleased that the Association of Jewish Ex-Servicemen and Women (A.J.E.X.) is keeping a useful check on the National Front.'
[ Top of page ]
During the Newham South By-election in May 1974, smear leaflets were distributed by International Socialists from 84 Chesterton Road, Plaistow, E13. The leafleters were soon frightened off by a swift and militant response from the NF. The leaflets were then speedily removed the next evening by a van hailing from an address in Berwick St., Soho, only a short distance from the Coffeepot restaurant of the notorious Harry Bidney. Bidney is well-known in Nationalist circles as the boss of the Zionist fascist organisation, the 62 Group.

As in other places the smear leaflet distribution in Newham was highly illegal. The leaflets bore no imprint, they were put out by people not contesting the election, and they were criminally libellous.

A detailed report on the matter was passed to the police who, no doubt fearful of direct retaliatory action should no prosecutions be brought, promised to start legal proceedings.

After some time, however, the police decided not to do so. It may have some bearing on the matter that the Attorney General, Jewish Labour MP Sam Silkin, speaks on Zionist platforms promoted by the Board of Deputies, the Zionist Federation and Ajex!

[ Top of page ]
More blatant than the involvement of Ajex was the involvement of the Jewish Board of Deputies itself in publishing and printing a smear leaflet which was used in the October 1974 General Election. The leaflet was entitled 'The Hate-Mongers' and bore the imprint: "Printed & Published by Woburn Press, Upper Woburn Place, London WC1", though some were left blank so that other groups could stamp on their own addresses.

In some areas members of the Labour Party and the Labour Party Young Socialists put out this leaflet together with their own election leaflets. The Jewish Chronicle (4.10.74) reported: "Thousands of election leaflets published by the Board of Deputies are being distributed throughout the country."

[ Top of page ]
Besides smear booklets on the National Front produced by the International Socialists, the International Marxist Group and the Communist Party on information 'supplied', there is also one called "A Well-Oiled Nazi Machine" which is published by AF & R Publications, 21/6 Livery Street, Great Western Building, Birmingham 3, and printed by Narod Press Ltd., 129/131 Cavell Street, London E1.

The Narod Press is run by Mr. Bar Kochba Narod, son of Israel Narodiczky, a fervent Zionist and East End printer and publisher. The booklet has been avidly promoted by the Communist Party newspaper, Morning Star.

[ Top of page ]
Just recently an old paper, Searchlight, was revived. It is also published by AF & R Publications in harness with 'Searchlight Associates', and is advertised by Red Weekly, the paper of the International Marxist Group, Socialist Worker, the paper of the International Socialists, and Time Out, a 'what's-on-in-London' guide contributed to by Communists.


Afraid to use his own name, 'Freeson' only slandered the B.N.P. from the safety of Parliament.
The Editor of the original Searchlight was the Jewish Labour MP Reginald Freeson. Freeson (whose real name is Venitz) was educated at a Jewish orphanage and is a founder member of the United Nations International Service.

He was well suited to be its editor, being an old hand at smear techniques. In May 1965 he tabled a parliamentary question which read:
'What steps are being taken to institute legal proceedings against members of the British Nazi Party, the British National Party, the Greater Britain Movement and the Nazi International, which have participated in the daubing of synagogues, the desecration of Jewish cemeteries and the flyposting of fascist and racialist leaflets on property in parts of London and other cities?'
The British National Party was one of the constituent organisations which merged to form the National Front. It did, of course, distribute racialist literature, but was certainly not guilty of the other accusations. Freeson had said it in a place where MPs are immune from being sued for libel.

BNP National Organiser, John Bean, wrote to Freeson as follows:
'Your intensive study of the British Right Wing, including its lunatic 'Nazi' fringe, has given you ample knowledge that no members of the British National Party have ever indulged in such activities and furthermore you must know only too well that since February 1962 the British National Party has disassociated itself on innumerable occasions from the antics of the 'Nazi' groups. I would be pleased to see you make your slanderous accusations outside the precincts of the House of Commons in order that we may have the pleasure of your contributing, and most generously, to British National Party funds.'
It is tactics of this sort that people like Freeson/Venitz, now Labour's Minister of Housing, have used to smear the cause of British Nationalism.

[ Top of page ]
The Editor of the new Searchlight is Gerry Gable, a member of the Zionist Fascist 62-Group. It has been reported—and never disputed—that Gable carried out "service jobs" (i.e. break-ins) for Martin 'Sweety' Walker, in order to provide the latter with material for his Open File column in the Guardian newspaper and for his forthcoming book on the National Front, which is to be published by Andre Deutsch.

In the early 70s Gable's wife, then known as Jo Cox, was behind the Chelmsford Radical Bulletin—a local Red magazine that devoted much space to smearing the National Front. Jo Gable—who is closely connected with the Labour Party—was more recently concerned with the launching of a quite 'respectable' local commercial newspaper.

Other names which have appeared in Searchlight include that of its managing editor, Maurice Ludmer, and Paul Foot, the Editor of Socialist Worker. Arab students who read Free Palestine, the supposedly anti-Zionist paper printed by SW (Litho)—the International Socialists' printing company—may wonder what Paul Foot is doing working in such close collaboration with Zionists.

It may or may not have some connection with the fact that the leading member of the I.S., Tony Cliff, is really called Ygael Gluckstein, was born in Haifa, and is an Israeli citizen.

[ Top of page ]
Having failed to stop the National Front by using the I.S. and I.M.G. etc., its opponents are now trying to build a 'broad front' by forming anti-National Front committees.

In November 1974 an anti-National Front meeting in Harrow was addressed by Dr. Jacob Gewirtz. According to Challenge, the newspaper of the Young Communist League, Gewirtz claimed: "There is nothing in the programme of the National Front which does not come from Mein Kampf, Hitler's blueprint for genocide." Any reader who could give credence to such paranoid drivel should refer to the National Front Statement of Policy.

These "anti-Fascist" committees are in turn covered by a national organisation spuriously entitled "Democratic Defence", and which has as one of its aims: "Pressure to strengthen the Race Relations Act to prevent racial incitement and end all forms of discrimination."


He supports Israel and the I.R.A. but is strongly opposed to British Nationalism.
The leading light of "Democratic Defence" is Paul Rose, Labour MP for Manchester Blackley. Together with Niel Kinnock, Labour MP for Bedwelty and parliamentary private secretary to Michael Foot, and Eddie Loyden, Labour MP for Liverpool Garston, Paul Rose was at its inaugural meeting at the Lesser Free Hall in Manchester.

Rose stated: "I recognise the differences of approach, but sometimes violence is justified..." He continued: "Our main weapon must be the truth (sic), but I do not shrink from the fact that there may be other methods."

[ Top of page ]
Paul Rose, who once described Britain First as having Nazi overtones, has a confirmed history of hostility to British Nationalism. Not only has he been at the centre of numerous similar scurrilous attacks against the National Front, but he is also a leading member of the Labour Committee for Europe.

He is not hostile to all forms of Nationalism, however, as he is National Chairman of the Labour Friends of Israel, and is also sympathetic to Irish Republicanism.

Paul Rose is author of The Manchester Martyrs, which is about three Irish Republican terrorists who murdered an English policeman. The book is published by Lawrence and Wishart, the Communist Party publishing company.

"Democratic Defence" is now producing a leaflet entitled 'The Truth About The National Front.' Its content and style of printing bear a remarkable similarity to the illegal smear leaflets which were closely associated with Ajex. The new leaflets, however, have an imprint: "c/o St. Mary's Annexe, Lower Milk St., Liverpool 3."

St. Mary's Annexe is the address of an infants school attached to a local Roman Catholic Church. The address is also used by the so-called "Merseyside Anti-Fascist Committee", at the head of which is a certain Roger O'Hara. O'Hara's home address—which is also used by the Committee—is at 8 Crump St., Liverpool 3, in the heart of Liverpool's Black district.

Whereas we are in no way anti-Irish any more than we are anti-Jewish, we are hostile to all anti-British nationalisms being expounded on British soil, especially when this is done by people who on other occasions fervently demand that they are no different from anyone else.

[ Top of page ]
The organisations involved in the campaign against the British Nationalist movement are also co-ordinated internationally. On April 19, 1975, Maurice Ludmer, the managing editor of Searchlight, attended a conference held in Brussels. This was not an Adolf Hitler birthday party for ex-S.S. men, but an international gathering of anti-Nationalists and multi-racialists organised by the Movement against Racism, Anti-Semitism and Xenophobia, and by the Belgian League for the Defence of Human Rights. Also represented was the French Movement contre le Racisme, l'Antisemitisme et pour la Paix, which has actually been given the status of a "non government agency" by the United Nations.

We are, therefore, not only coming up against organisations in Britain, but even against the embryonic race relations board of an intended future World Government.

[ Top of page ]
The question of 'race relations' legislation is clouded with a lot of misleading cant and gobbledegook. Those who support it like to pose as 'liberals', as champions of 'Civil Rights' and of poor 'oppressed minorities', while those who oppose race legislation are presented at 'prejudiced racist bigots stirring up hatred'.

The reality of the situation is, however, the complete opposite. The so-called 'liberals' are far from liberal in their treatment of the indigenous White British People. In effect, these 'liberals' are nothing but accomplices in the attempt to destroy our national identity, and that attempt is being pursued through the oppressing, suppressing and repressing of the British majority by a 'minority-liberal' coalition. Not only are we suffering as a result of having had Coloured immigration foisted upon us, but an attempt is being made to make discussion of the whole subject taboo.

During the Second World War, when patriotic Britons were defending their country from outside attack, the Communist-dominated National Council for Civil Liberties were plotting away on how to disarm the British people in the face of any future internal threat by minority groups.

The 1943 annual conference of the NCCL called for legislation whereby individuals or organisations disseminating "racial antagonism in any form" should "be guilty of a criminal offence." The Socialist MP and crypto-Communist, D. N. Pritt, argued that all kinds of racial hatred should be made the subject of a new law.

In February, 1948, a book by Lionel S. Rose, MBE, demanded:
'The Law should be so amended or extended to make it an offence to publish defamatory statements concerning groups identifiable by race, creed or colour, calculated to create or promote ill-will or hostility between different sections or classes of His Majesty's subjects.'
It may be noted that the wording was closely followed in Section 6 of the Race Relations Act which states:
'A person shall be guilty of an offence under this section if, with intent to stir up hatred against any section of the public in Great Britain distinguished by colour, race or ethnic or national origins, he publishes or distributes written matter which is threatening, abusive or insulting.'
In 1950 Lord Brockway of the Movement for Colonial Freedom (now known as Liberation) formulated a Human Rights Bill. Liberation is the Communist front organisation which organised the demonstration against the National Front which resulted in the riot in Red Lion Square.

[ Top of page ]
Following the Notting Hill race riots demand grew again from the National Council for Civil Liberties for race legislation. In the book Civil Liberties in Britain Barry Cox states:
'Just at the moment when the NCCL was providing this vital intellectual muscle in the race legislation debate, a sudden spate of swastika daubings over Christmas 1959 and the New Year reinforced the wider public consciousness of the incitement problems. These swung the Jewish lobbies behind the incitement bill campaign. Plummer, the Jewish Labour MP who promoted the insults bill in the spring of 1960, allied himself, as did Brockway, to the successful NCCL effort to unite all those who opposed racial prejudice under a common banner.'
One may well ask whose interest these daubings served?

In his book KGB: The Secret Work of Soviet Secret Agents (Hodder and Stoughton, 1974), John Barron has thrown some interesting light on the question:
'Under KGB guidance, the Czech STB in 1956 started mailing virulent neo-Nazi tracts to French, British, and American officials in Europe. They bore the imprimatur of a non-existent organisation called the Fighting Group for an Independent Germany (Kampfverband für Unabhängiges Deutschland). Continuing propaganda from this phantom organisation created the impression that a gang of fanatical resurgent Nazis was active in West Germany.'

[ Top of page ]
'On Christmas Eve 1959, a twenty-five-year-old German, aided by an accomplice, smeared swastikas and a slogan, "Germans Demand That Jews Get Out," on the synagogue in Cologne. A Jewish memorial a mile away was also defaced. In the next few nights, swastikas and anti-Semitic slogans were painted on synagogues, tombstones, and Jewish-owned stores in more than twenty West German towns and cities. Jews received threatening anonymous telephone calls and letters. During the New Year's weekend, swastikas and slogans were daubed on synagogues and Jewish buildings in London, Oslo, Vienna, Paris, Parma, Glasgow, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Milan, Antwerp, and New York. On January 3, further outbreaks of anti-Semitism were reported in Melbourne, Manchester, Athens, and Perth, Australia. On January 6, more desecrations occurred in Bogota, Buenos Aires, Milan, Oslo, Vienna, and the summer home of King Frederick IX of Denmark. A Jewish member of the British Parliament was provided a bodyguard after his life was threatened by an anonymous caller purporting to be a representative of the "British Nazi Party." Meanwhile the epidemic of desecrations intensified and spread throughout West Germany.'
It is interesting to note that the fictitious "British Nazi Party" was the non-existent organisation named by Reg Freeson, MP in his parliamentary question mentioned earlier.

John Barron continues:
'The worldwide reaction was instant... The American poet Carl Sandburg advocated death for anyone caught painting swastikas. In London, Lord Robert Boothby, saying he had been told of a "rising tide of Nazism", announced that he was going to Germany to investigate the situation...'
[ Top of page ]
'Responsibility for a majority of the acts remained unfixed. All along, West German spokesmen expressed a vague suspicion of organised, clandestine Communist involvement. The young German and his accomplice who were convicted of desecrating the Cologne synagogue on Christmas Eve belonged to a small right-wing political party and at their trial unrepentantly mouthed Nazi-like statements. But the police established that both frequently had visited East Germany, and one had a Communist Party badge hidden behind his coat lapel. In a separate case, Bernhard Schlottmann, the twenty-two year-old treasurer of a neo-Nazi organization in West Berlin, confessed after his arrest that he was an East German agent under orders to infiltrate and foment anti-Semitism among extremist factions. The simultaneous appearance of swastikas in many cities on different continents as well as the sudden abatement of the campaign suggest an organised operation. But in the absence of proof, insinuations of Communist complicity sounded unpersuasive at the time.

'Western security services did not begin to learn what actually happened until later in the 1960s, when defectors revealed that the whole swastika operation had been conceived by General Agayants himself.'
Agayants was a top KGB official.

We must always be on our guard against possible Soviet agents who may crave positions in or even sole control over anti-Communist organisations in order to indulge in anti-Semitism, thus discrediting them in the eyes of ordinary people and mobilising the Jewish community against them.

In August 1962 the then Conservative MP for Ilford North, Tom Lascelles Iremonger, sought to amend the 1936 Public Order Act by adding to Section 5 the inciting of 'hatred of a racial group' as an offence. Tom Iremonger has long courted the Jewish vote. Not only has he attempted to smear the National Front as Nazi, but he even put an advert in the Jewish Chronicle describing the Labour Party as Red Nazis!

After Red Lion Square some comments of Iremonger's on the National Front were quoted by Peter Gladstone Smith in the Sunday Telegraph: "They talk about repatriation of immigrants. Physically what they want to do is put them all in cattle trucks and shoot them off the end of Southend pier."

[ Top of page ]
In 1962 a Petition against Racial Incitement, sponsored by the NCCL and the Yellow Star Movement, attracted nearly half a million signatures.

The Yellow Star Movement was launched in July 1962 in response to the 'Free Britain from Jewish Control' rally held in Trafalgar Square by Colin Jordan's National Socialist Movement. This rally effectively mobilised members of the Jewish community to oppose not only the lunatic activities of the N.S.M. but the work of all other Nationalist or 'Right-wing' groups.

The Secretary of the Yellow Star Movement was Olga Levertoff, an ex-Communist whose Rabbi father had been converted to the Anglican priesthood. Most of the active support for the Y.S.M. came from the Association of Jewish Ex-Servicemen, and it was a faction of it which later became the Zionist Fascist 62 Group.

Another organisation agitating for race legislation in Britain was the World Jewish Congress. (The recent affiliation of the Jewish Board of Deputies to the WJC represents a significant victory for the Zionist outlook within the Jewish community in Britain.)

In May 1965 the British Section of the WJC issued a booklet entitled Legal Curbs on Racial Incitement, which was a revised edition of a publication which first appeared in 1962.

The booklet was prepared by Dr. F. L. Brassloff and Dr. Natan Lerner, Legal Advisors to the WJC in London and New York respectively. An introduction to the booklet was written by Dr. S. J. Roth, Executive Director of the European Division of the WJC.

The booklet gives further confirmation of the fact that the Communist organised swastika daubings of 1959-60 led to increased demand for race legislation: "In some cases—Austria, Germany, Norway—existing legislation has been supplemented as a direct result of the swastika-daubing outbreak of the winter of 1959-60."

The booklet also gives significant coverage to the United Nations treaties dealt with in this issue.

Race is again the subject of another WJC booklet published in the same series, Jews and Human Rights, which deals with the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The booklet is extremely frank about the twin Messianic aims of political Zionism. Zionists believe that while the gentile nations of the world will all become internationalised, the Jews will enjoy a national state based on Jerusalem which will be the seat of a World Government.

This helps to explain the seeming contradiction prevalent in Zionist circles which simultaneously demand fanatical support for the survival of Israel, but race-mixing for everybody else.

Both these two WJC booklets were printed by the Narod Press Ltd., Cavell Street, London El—the same press that printed the AF and R smear magazine against the National Front entitled "A Well-Oiled Nazi Machine ."

This continual agitation by the National Council for Civil Liberties, Zionists, Socialists and Communists, was also aided by the Jewish Board of Deputies as well as by numerous other interests.

These included a group of Labour lawyers headed by Anthony Lester, the British Caribbean Association, the Institute of Race Relations and the then newly-formed Campaign Against Racial Discrimination.

This agitation eventually resulted in the Race Relations Acts of 1965 and '68. Although most of the agitation was concerned with demanding laws against 'incitement to racial hatred', the Race Acts were also aimed at breaking down the 'Colour Bar'—that is forcing White people to serve, employ or mix with anybody and everybody regardless of whether they chose to or not.

[ Top of page ]
In order to assist in persecuting people and dragooning them into multi-racialism, the Race Relations Board was set up. The solicitors who act for the Board are Bindman and Partners. Together with Anthony Lester, Geoffrey Bindman was co-author of the book Race and Law. He also serves on the advisory committee of the pro-immigration Runnymede Trust, as well as being a member of the Jewish Board of Deputies Race Relations Committee.

It may be of note that Bindman also acted for Paul Foot of the International Socialists in the Socialist Worker contempt trial.

[ Top of page ]
Rather ironically the law against incitement had an opposite effect. It forced immoderately written propaganda out of existence, and obliged those who were trying to alert the population to the dangers of immigration to phrase their appeals in a far more moderate and thus effective tone. The counter-productive race hate literature of lunatic fringe groups was effectively swept away, leaving the field clear for the National Front to alert people to the dangers of immigration in a responsible and effective manner.

When the Race Relations Act was first planned, however, it was obviously intended to suppress all racialist literature, and the fact that it failed to do so was a great disappointment to its promoters. Moves are afoot, therefore, to amend the Race Relations Act so as to make prosecutions easier, by removing the need to prove intent to stir up "hatred."

Returning again to what Lionel Rose wrote in 1948, we see advocated that, "The proving of intent to promote ill-will or hostility between different sections or classes of His Majesty's subjects should not be the criterion of conviction under the Act."

Then we read in the Jewish Chronicle of January 17th of this year that:
'Section 6 of the Race Relations Act, 1965, dealing with incitement to racial hatred, may be amended and strengthened following representations made to the Attorney-General, Mr. Sam Silkin, QC, by the Board of Deputies.

'In the view of the board's Jewish Defence and Group Relations Committee, the weakness of the Section is its present requirement that "intent" to stir up racial hatred must be proven for any prosecution to succeed.'
The Editorial in the same issue expressed gratification that the visit had had this result, but said that it "would better have been achieved by less publicised means."

In February, the Scarman report on the Red Lion Square riot was issued. There was little criticism of the National Front's behaviour, but there was an insidiously menacing threat echoing the demands of the Jewish Board of Deputies.


He used the pretext of a report on Red violence to call for a stronger Race Relations Act. Was he acting on instructions from Labour's Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins, or on those from the Zionist Board of Deputies?
Lord Justice Scarman wrote:
'Section 6 of the Race Relations Act is merely an embarrassment... Hedged about with restrictions (proof of intent, requirement of the Attorney General's consent)... The section needs radical amendment to make it an effective sanction, particularly, I think, in relation to its formulation of the intent to be proved before an offence can be established.'
In the Jewish Chronicle of March 7th we read of a meeting of Manchester and Salford Jews being addressed by Mr. Martin Savitt, chairman of the Board of Deputies Jewish Defence and Group Relations Committee, and Dr. Jacob Gewirtz, its director: "The Race Relations Act was yet another bone of contention. Mr. Savitt said they must insist on amendment to the Act—section 6 was unworkable, and "intent" should be eliminated."

In the Jewish Chronicle of June 6th, its editor added his voice to the campaign by stressing
'the need to improve the 1965 Race Relations Act so that it can act as an effective deterrent... The law in some circumstances accepts the proposition that a person is deemed to intend the consequences of his act. As Lord Justice Scarman has pointed out, Section 6 of the Act (which requires proof of intent to stir up racial hatred) is "merely an embarrassment." Hedged about with restrictions, he says, it needs radical amendment to make it an effective sanction, particularly in relation to proof of intent before an offence can be established... If the Race Relations Act is to be relevant to the current situation, it must be given the teeth which it now patently lacks.'
The campaign is also being promoted by the Communist Party's Morning Star (15.4.75):
'the police... should also consider their duty under Section Six of the Race Relations Act 1965.

'This makes it an offence to use "threatening, abusive or insulting words" in a public place with intent to stir up racial hatred.

'At the same time, Parliament could make their duty even clearer by deleting those words "with intent" as very often the abuse that is racist and leads to trouble can be proved but the intent is more easily obscured.'
This passage shows that the Communist Party has so well penetrated the ruling Establishment through the Labour Party, that far from being revolutionary it sees repressive laws and increased State control as tools of its own power.

More recently a Communist Party broadsheet stated:
'New legislation is being prepared to strengthen the Race Relations Acts of 1965 and 1968... The law has proved, so far, ineffective in stemming racialist propaganda and activity. At present only the Attorney General can start prosecutions and very few cases have been taken up. The new Act must make it possible for both the Race Relations Board and individuals, assisted by legal aid if necessary, to undertake actions in the court to stop racialist propaganda and activity which sets out to incite race hatred or bring into contempt individuals or groups on the grounds of their race, whether in public or semi-public places.'
In a press notice released on May 6 the Home Office stated: "To aid the Government's review of race relations legislation the Home Office today invites organisations. groups and individuals to submit advice and recommendations on improving race relations legislation and machinery."

The Jewish Board of Deputies sent a memorandum on the subject to the Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins, and to the House of Commons Select Cornmittee on Race Relations.

Calling for deletion of the intent provision contained in Section 6 of the Race Relations Act, the memorandum stated: "This provision has been a major stumbling-block in initiating prosecutions and has allowed some of the most vicious types of racist provocations to go unpunished." It also noted "the difficult economic situation facing this country and the experience gleaned from recent history that racial hatred can be inflamed in times of economic stress and political uncertainty."


He praised Soviet Jewry for preserving their identity, but works for the destruction of British identity.

In September the Labour Government duly issued a White Paper which incorporated the proposal to amend Section 6. Paragraph 126 concluded:
'The present law penalises crude verbal attacks if and only if it is established that they have been made with the deliberate intention of causing groups to be hated because of their racial origins. In the Government's view this is too narrow in approach. It accepts the observation made by Sir Leslie Scarman in his report on the Red Lion Square disorders that Section 6 is too restrictively defined to be an effective sanction. It therefore proposes to ensure that it will no longer be necessary to prove a subjective intention to stir up racial hatred.'
Were this new campaign to be successful, it would bring the Race Relations Act more into line with the draconian UN treaties on racial discrimination.

Indeed, the May 1975 issue of Searchlight stated:
'We in Britain should be ashamed that successive governments have not seen fit to ratify the United Nations Genocide Convention and that they have to date only enacted very weak laws with regard to combatting racism. It is about time our parliamentary representatives got on with the job of bringing us into line with countries like Canada in this matter.'
[ Top of page ]
It is impossible to assess the exact effects of the threatened amendment to the Race Relations Act. It would bring about a situation in which the courts would have to judge whether a piece of racialist writing was likely to stir up racial hatred. Two things are here in doubt. First there is the question of probability. Here the courts apply the test of what they believe the reasonable man would consider likely. Secondly there is the question of what exactly is 'racial hatred.'

When all is said and done, however, the change is obviously one which will make it more difficult to discuss the racial question. Up to a point it will be a good thing if the Race Relations Board starts persecuting and bullying people, as this always creates a sympathetic reaction amongst the general public. On the other hand it would be rather inconvenient if too many activists are slung into gaol.

It is likely then that we will have to find ways round the problem. This may come in the form of rephrasing though in no way altering our attitude to the race question, or in preparing to distribute anonymous literature like the so-called "Samizdat" literature of the political underground in the Soviet Union. For this purpose it would be necessary to have good typewriters, duplicators and silk screen printing equipment. In this way local news sheets and posters can be easily and inexpensively produced.

Of course, mixing-in isn't for everybody. Mr. Edward Short, Leader of the House of Commons, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, and for three years national chairman of the Labour Friends of Israel, once "praised Soviet Jewry for demonstrating its ability to preserve its Jewish identity after decades of Communism." (Jewish Chronicle 23.3.75). One wonders if, in the years to come, Mr. Short will ever praise the British people for demonstrating its ability to preserve its British identity after decades of the Race Relations Acts.

[ Top of page ]

Owing to the ceaseless hard work put in by rank and file members and the ever-expanding organisation of our Party machine, the National Front has grown to the stage where we were able to put up first 54 and then 90 candidates during the two General Elections of last year.

I have examined the attempts being made to attack the National Front's dramatic progress through the hire of Red mobs, the production of smear literature, and making the Race Relations Act really repressive. Other tactics are also being considered, including changing the British Constitution so as to hamper our participation in elections.

A report in the Bradford Telegraph and Argus of the 22nd October 1974 stated: "Mr. Paul Rose, Labour MP for Manchester Blackley, wants to increase the deposit put up by general election candidates from £150 to £500 to discourage fringe candidates."

Paul Rose is so frightened by the rising support for the National Front amongst the electorate, that he is plotting to actually frustrate and suppress the democratic aspirations of our people, by making it possible only for those backed by a lot of money to contest elections.

[ Top of page ]
The Houghton Committee meanwhile is examining the proposal that taxpayers' money should be given to subsidise political parties, thereby further reinforcing the status quo. Were such payments to be adopted I have little doubt that the National Front would be one party that did not receive any.

As two Tory MPs. pointed out to the Committee: "If the criteria allowed subsidies to be paid to extremists such as the... National Front that would add to the unpopularity of the scheme."

Though these two Tories were against any subsidies, Ron Hayward, general secretary of the Labour Party, has made it clear that his party intends to submit evidence to the committee in support of the proposal. Equally disapproving of the National Front, Hayward probably believes that subsidies should go to all parties except racialist ones!

Parallel with these moves to institutionalise Establishment political parties, there have long been moves afoot to demand subsidies to Establishment newspapers.

As in the Soviet Union, the ruling Establishment allows you the illusion of democracy providing you always vote for its own candidates. In the Soviet Union they only have one label, while in Britain they have several, but vote for a party that threatens their vested interests and you will immediately be denounced as 'a threat to democracy' and get suppressed.

These ploys do at least have the function of alerting us to the fact that as long as the State is controlled by our enemies, its courts, its laws, and all the other organs under its command can only be regarded as potential weapons that may one day be used against us. This does not mean to say that we should be hostile to ordinary individuals who serve in the army, in the police, or elsewhere. On the contrary, it means that we must make an effort to win sympathy and support amongst these people.

On the other hand we must harbour no illusions that the Establishment will simply allow us to step into power, and may well use these institutions if we fail to neutralise them. The lesson taught by the Communist Armed Forces Movement in Portugal is plain for all to see.

The Establishment's moves to deny us the normal use of the constitutional Parliamentary road to power stresses the importance of our simultaneously building up an industrial base that will give us real democratic power along the lines of the Ulster Workers' Council which organised the highly successful general strike in Northern Ireland.



"You shall have no pity on them until we shall have destroyed their so-called Arab culture, on the ruins of which we shall build our own civilisation." Zionists may work for the destruction of other peoples' freedom and identity, but are fanatical in their support for Israel.
[ Top of page ]

As an activist organisation of Zionist stormtroopers the 62-Group has been overshadowed in recent years by Herut, an Israeli political party.

Herut is the largest opposition party in Israel and is headed by the Irgun terrorist, Menachem Begin. Before 1948 when Israel gained its independence the Irgun gained a worldwide reputation for anti-Arab and anti-British atrocities.

Amongst the worst of these was the murder of over 250 Arab villagers in Deir Yassin. These included 25 pregnant women (their bodies were ripped open with bayonets), 52 mothers with young children, and 60 other women and young girls. International Red Cross representatives found the bodies of 150 women and children in a well. The massacre ranked with the war-time German Nazi mass murder of French citizens at Oradour and the Czechs of Lidice. Another crime committed by the Irgun was the kidnapping and torture of British Army Sergeants Clifford Martin and Mervyn Paice. When United Kingdom authorities refused to release lrgun gunmen who had been tried and convicted of murders by proper process of law, Sgts. Paice and Martin were slow hanged with wire from eucalyptus trees by the lrgun in an act of brutality strongly evocative of SS methods.

At a conference in Tel Aviv on October 28th 1956, Begin declared: "You Israelites, you should never become lenient if you kill your enemies. You shall have no pity on them until we shall have destroyed their so-called Arab culture, on the ruins of which we shall build our own civilisation."

[ Top of page ]
Arab bodies after the massacre at Deir Yassin
The "British" section of Herut was formed some 5 years ago, has a full-time general secretary, and boasts a membership of over 5,000. Its chairman is George Evnine, and its vice-chairman Malvyn Benjamin.

It has two youth groups: Young Herut under the chairmanship of Ronnie Jacobs which caters for those aged 18–35, and Betar which caters for those under 18. It also has an official journal entitled Zionist Standard.

It is now based at Tel Hai, 71 Compayne Gardens, London NW6. This West Hampstead headquarters, which it shares with the Polish-Jewish Ex-Servicemen's Association, was opened in October 1974.

An anti-Palestinian leaflet produced by Essex Branch of Herut berated Jews for not being active in the Zionist cause, and asked them—quite irrelevantly—whether they would do nothing until a National Front government was in power at Westminster. Although Herut supports the idea of an Israel from the Nile to the Euphratees, it is quite hostile to any upsurge of British Nationalism.

Young Herut members have recently achieved notoriety for breaking up film shows put on by MERAG, a Jewish but anti-Zionist group. A story was floated in the Morning Star which attempted to shift responsibility for these attacks by suggesting that the National Front was to blame. This is yet another typical example of the way in which certain interests are trying to provoke a conflict between the National Front and the ordinary Jewish community.

Herut is also suspected of being behind a sticker campaign ostensibly designed to resist anti-Semitism, but which is far more likely to stir it up. One sticker is headed Direct Action Zionist Group and states: "Captain Roy Farrar (and henchmen) wanted for homicide under British Mandate, Palestine 1947." Another one reads: "Remember Dov Gruner hanged under British Mandate Resist Anti-Semitism in Britain."

These stickers fit perfectly the pattern which has been identified. Vested interests are at work attempting to stir up a conflict between British Nationalism and the Jewish Community, some motivated by a desire to stop the rise of British Nationalism, some motivated by a desire to promote immigration to Israel, and some motivated by both.

[ Top of page ]
The British Government does not yet adhere to the United Nations Genocide Convention, nor has it yet ratified the International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination though the latter was signed by the United Kingdom in 1966. Should the Government ever fully embrace these treaties, it would mean nothing less than the creation of a total police state.

As much as we must all agree that genocide is abhorrent, the UN Genocide Convention would create as many evils as it could ever overcome; presuming—that is—that the elimination, and not the promotion of genocide, is its true intention.

As the Convention considers even "mental harm" to come within the ambit of genocide, it follows that mere publication of disparaging facts would become a crime.

The International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination seeks to prohibit the very existence of organisations which advocate any racial preference. Not only would racialist movements like the National Front be forced to go underground, but even private individuals would be victimised for "dissemination of ideas" advocating Britain for the British.

Ratification of either of these two Conventions would mean the suppression of our democratic aspirations as a people. In the event of that happening we would lose all chance of regaining our country through normal constitutional channels. If that day ever comes all good Nationalists who wish to continue the struggle will be forced to join their local gun club.

Article 1
The contracting Parties confirm that genocide whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish. In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: Article 8
Any contracting Party may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of the United Nations as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide...

Article 1 1. In this Convention the term 'racial discrimination' shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

Article 4 States Parties condemn all propaganda and all organizations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form, and undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination, and to this end, with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of this Convention, inter alia:
[ Top of page ]

Dear Editor,

I was interested to read the article in Britain First No. 28 on the involvement of Zionists in fomenting anti-Semitism.

Most Jews leaving the Soviet Union are going to the United States rather than to Israel. The Zionists, therefore, must look on Britain's half million Jews as an alternative reservoir of manpower for Israel.

One is reminded of the words of Mr. Sussman of the American Council of Judaism, as quoted in Moshe Menuhin's classic, The Decadence of Judaism in Our Time:
'The Zionist Movement wants to picture Jews constantly in trouble, It is bad for fund-raising and bad for immigration to Israel if Jews are not in trouble. But 'trouble' must be of a particular kind. It must be 'Jewish' trouble. It must fit the Zionist pattern of inevitable anti-Semitism just as surely as the 'inevitable' class war fits classic Marxism.'
John Henderson

HTML Rae West 10 Nov 2014. Rearranged from Simon Sheppard's site (no relation to the corrupt searchlight organisation). Original pagination hidden. May (or may not) have been written by Martin Webster under a pseudonym. The original may have been set with Letraset-style lettering, or perhaps typewriter; it was pre-Internet. It predates Kostler's Thirteenth Tribe, and it is pre-Holocaust Revisionism: it's sadly funny to see the way words like 'SS' and 'Nazi' and 'fascist' are used in the conventional Jewish propaganda senses. And how 'Communism', in say East Germany, is not recognised as Jewish. Genocide against whites is acknowledged, but Jewish psychopathology is not identified as the cause. There is nothing on Talmudic influence, for example Jews as the 'master race'. So the piece is not very satisfactory; but even so it was far ahead of average people in Britain in the 1970s. Most people still have no idea that Jews were active throughout the Second World War in legal control over popualtion and race matters; nor do they realise the extent to which 'conventions' and 'offences' may interfere in everyday life. The utterly ludicrous way in which these conventions have been disregarded in such matters as war crimes and genocides has only slowly begun to penetrate most people's consciousness.