Month: November 2017

Non-white gangs of youths can be violent racists, too

Martin Webster

This blog post was first published in Professor Kevin MacDonald’s The Occidental Observer on January 6, 2012. A link to that site is under ‘Friendly Sites’ to the right of this page.

Editorial note: The following letter was published, with some deletions, in The Independent regarding the murder convictions of David Dobson and Gary Norris, both White, for the 1993 murder of Stephen Lawrence, who was Black, of West Indian origin. (The link that formerly existed to this letter on The Independent‘s web site has since been edited and leads to a different page.) This is Martin Webster’s original letter, posted here with his permission:

Sir:

All murders are to be deplored; all murderers should be brought to justice; and the media should give coverage to all such crimes.

This said, I note the different treatment accorded by the Metropolitan Police, the judiciary and the media to the murders by teenage “racist gangs” of 18 year old Stephen Lawrence in Eltham, SE London, in April 1993 and 15 year old Richard Everitt in Somers Town, Camden, North London, in August 1994. Stephen was of West Indian origin; Richard was white.

The circumstances of the murders were similar. Both were attacked by gangs of teenagers who before and after the murders expressed violent racial hatred. Stephen was murdered by a white gang. Richard was murdered by a Bengali gang. Neither victim behaved in any way to provoke even verbal abuse, let alone being stabbed.

Massive media publicity, sustained over nearly two decades, followed Stephen’s case. There was a visit by the Home Secretary to the murder scene where a public monument was erected. A public judicial inquiry was conducted in which the police were denounced as “institutionally racist”. Money was found to fund a private prosecution, which failed.

As we now know, two men, Gary Dobson and David Norris, have been convicted after a second trial at the Old Bailey of Stephen’s murder and sentenced to life imprisonment of which they must serve a minimum 15+ years and 14+ years respectively. The judge called for Stephen’s other attackers to be brought to justice because they were engaged in a “joint exercise”. This has been echoed by the entire media and political establishment.

With all this, “Stephen Lawrence” has become a household name. Richard Everitt’s name was never in the headlines for long enough for the public mind to retain it.

Eleven Bengali youths (one as old as 20) were arrested in connection with Richard’s murder. Only two came to trial, Badrul Miah and Showkat Akbar. There were no calls for all the attackers to be prosecuted on a “joint enterprise” basis. Akbar was found guilty of violent disorder and sentenced to three years, of which he served 18 months. Miah was sentenced to life but let out on licence after 11 years despite the trial judge describing it as an “unprovoked racist attack”. The media tried to pressure Richard’s parents to say the murder was not racially motivated.

There was no visit by the Home Secretary to Somers Town, no public monument; no public judicial inquiry; and virtual silence from the local MP Frank Dobson.

I will not attempt to second-guess the jury in the Dobson and Norris trial. I simply wish to suggest that the verdict against them should not be taken as proof that the population of this country — at least, the white working class section of it — is getting justice from the police, the judiciary and the media because they all subscribe to the notion that in Britain only white people and never black people commit offences motivated by racial hatred.

Yours faithfully,

Martin Webster.

Express Group now openly promoting the English Defence League

Martin Webster*

This blog post was first published in Professor Kevin MacDonald’s The Occidental Observer on February 10, 2011. A link to that site is under ‘Friendly Sites’ to the right of this page.

The promotion which the billionaire Zionist Jew Richard Desmond is giving to the English Defence League via the Express Group component of his ever-growing media empire would seem to challenge the ‘official’ position of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and its Community Security Trust that Zionist-Jewry in Britain is firmly opposed to the EDL and its ‘Islamophobic’ policies. An article in Desmond’s Daily Star (“EDL to go political“), touts the electoral prospects of the EDL and reports results of a phone poll finding that 98% of Daily Star readers agree with EDL policies.

Desmond has always been a bit of a maverick. He built his fortune on pornography before selling up to raise the capital to buy the Express Group, which includes the Daily Express, the Sunday Express and the Daily Star. Last year he bought Channel 5 TV. Recently he withdrew his publications from the Press Complaints Commission, to which all major national and small local newspaper groups belong.

But his backing of the EDL should not be seen a genuine split within the Jewry.

Throughout history, wherever they have settled, the Jews have not been bothered by the concept of a principled, unified and consistent approach to any issue — except one: the survival and advancement of the Jews. In all other matters they are entirely morally pragmatic and often deliberately contradictory.

Thus it is that they want to promote immigration and race-mixing among non-Jews in Britain — and indeed among all White European peoples and nations — but also want to make Britain an uncomfortable place for Muslims, except those who are willing both to accommodate themselves to the Jewish domination of Britain’s ‘Establishment’ and abandon the Palestinians to Israel’s genocidal ethnic cleansing.

So they operate a ‘Good Cop, Bad Cop’ routine which confuses the Goyim, be they indigenous Anglo-Saxon-Celtic British, or any one of several hundred varieties of ethnic aliens who have been encouraged (by the Jews) to invade and settle in our homeland since WW2.

P.S.: In connection with Jewish backing of the EDL, you might care to check out this video:

It’s is a short clip from the speech given by the EDL’s religious advisor, Rabbi Nachum Shiffren. In this, during a ‘Freudian slip’, he blurts out the truth concerning Jewish racism. I think he gave this speech at the EDL’s pro-Israel rally held last year outside the Israeli Embassy in Kensington, London.

A week before that rally the EDL held an anti-Muslim rally in Leicester and the “anti-fascist” rabble led by Searchlight mobilised against it. For some reason Searchlight did not mobilise its supporters against the EDL’s pro-Zionist, pro-Jewish rally outside the Israeli Embassy. I e-mailed Searchlight via its web site to ask why. Guess what? I didn’t get a reply!

*Martin Webster (email him) has been a racial-nationalist activist in Britain since he was an 18 year old in 1961. From 1969 until 1983 he was National Activities Organiser of the National Front and a member of its National Directorate. In 1973 he was the first nationalist in Britain (pre- or post-WW2) to “save a deposit” (then set at 12.5%, currently set at 5%) in a parliamentary election when he won 16.02% of the poll at West Bromwich in 1973. Since 1983 he has not associated with any political organisation. He issues occasional e-bulletins to a world-wide circle of friends (and some enemies).

Courting the Jews on the European “Far Right”

Martin Webster*

This article was first published in Professor Kevin MacDonald’s The Occidental Observer on November 21st, 2010. A link to that site is under ‘Friendly Sites’ to the right of this page.

The Guardian’s definition of “far right”, and mine, differ considerably, which is the reason why I have not rushed to its website to read a two-page article published a few of days ago about “the threat of the far right in Europe” which, I am told, made no mention of the BNP or the state of race relations in Britain.

The Financial Times simultaneously published a similar one-page survey, but this included a brief post-script item about the failure of the BNP to mobilise the full potential of anti-immigration sentiment persisting amongst the British electorate. It begins as follows:

“In a pub garden in Birkenhead, a blighted post-industrial suburb in England’s north-west, Nick Griffin told the Financial Times that his party had a “once in a lifetime” chance to escape its white supremacist roots and emerge as an alternative for millions scorned by the London elite.

“Less than 18 months later – following this year’s disastrous national election campaign, a savage internal power struggle and a court battle with the country’s equality watchdog that threatens to bankrupt the party – his dream is over.”

The impression I have gained in recent years is that the only “far right” parties in Europe who have been able (allowed) to flutter near to the flame of power are those that have been able to convince the Establishment, the media and Jewry that they are most definitely not anti-Jewish, not “racist”, not against all coloured immigration (but only against the immigration of Muslims!) and not against the multi-racial society (just so long as it doesn’t include Muslims!) The Jobbik Party in Hungary may be the only notable exception to this.

This “far right” anti-Muslim/anti-Islam rhetoric is designed, of course, to make these “kosher fascists” more appealing to Jewry and, hence, the mass media. Whether that line of ingratiation really impresses Jewry’s learned elders — as distinct from their lesser brethren — is a matter I will touch on in due course.

The first of these post-WW2 “kosher fascists” was Gianfranco Fini, who started out his political career in Italy as an arm-in-the-air, Mussolini-admiring, Giovinezza-singing, MSI Blackshirt in the late 1970s, but within a decade or so was groveling at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem begging forgiveness. Since then his career zoomed upwards.

Until recently, Fini occupied the post of Speaker of parliament in Bercusconi’s (“right wing”) government, but now that Bercusconi’s administration is on the skids (due to the old roué’s extracurricular activities) Fini has resigned and is now positioning himself to become Prime Minister after the next general election.

It is no doubt a mere happenstance that the period of Fini’s conversion and rise to high office and the period when Italy became the No. 1 target for endless boatloads of illegal immigrants from Africa coincided.

Following Fini into the Wilderness of “Success”

The Dutch “far right” politician Geert Wilders is currently building a political career by means of a strenuous anti-Muslim/anti-Islam agitation which he promotes in tandem with a strident pro-Jewish/pro-Israel campaign. The one is part-and-parcel of the other.

On Sunday 14th December 2008, just as Israel was preparing to drop White phosphorous bombs on the crammed civilian areas in the Gaza concentration camp, Wilders was at the Begin Memorial Hall, Jerusalem, sharing the platform with some of the most rabid Arab-hating Jewish racists in the Zionist fold, including Arieh Eldad, a “far right” member of Israel’s parliament. You can find Eldad’s post-conference press statement here. [You may need to use a browser other than Google Chrome to view this. If you still can’t get access and you would like a copy, let me know.]

Wilders knew well that the Begin Memorial Hall was built in honour of Menachem Begin who in the late 1940s was the leader of the Irgun Zvai Leumi terrorist gang. Among many other atrocities, Begin instigated and personally participated in the massacre of Palestinian villagers at Dir Yassein, the bombing of the King David Hotel and the kidnapping and slow-hanging with piano wire of British Army Sergeants Mervyn Paice and Clifford Martin. In the foreword to his autobiography The Revolt he insists: “Yes….I would do at all again”. The Israeli public were so grateful to Begin that they elected him prime minister in 1977.

Wilders is clearly hell-bent on out-grovelling Fini. But are his ‘brown nose’ snufflings doing him any good with the people who really count?

At the recent general election in Holland his party obtained, so it was reported, sufficient votes to influence which of the major parties formed the government. He has been given the additional advantage of being prosecuted under Holland’s version of the UK’s “Incitement to Racial Hatred” laws.

But is Wilders getting the backing of Zionist-Jewry’s Establishment — or just the support of chancers, mavericks and opportunists like himself?

Prof. Kevin MacDonald (Professor of Psychology at California State University, Long Beach) wrote a commentary on Wilders (and, by implication, other Populist grovellers) which you can read here. The main point is the failure of Jewish leaders to support Wilders despite his philo-Semitic statements and fervent support for Israel.

MacDonald’s final two paragraphs read:

“The reality is that this is what the entire Jewish political spectrum wants, from the far left to the neoconservative right. Again we see that despite the well-oiled myth that Jews are beset by fundamental disagreements about policy, Jewish power is pushing in one direction throughout the West: Multiculturalism and the end of racially and culturally homogeneous White societies.

“And it should be obvious that White advocates who attempt to recruit Jewish support in opposition to multiculturalism are engaging in a futile undertaking. The fact that the organized Jewish community favors Muslim immigration throughout the West even when so many Muslims are hostile to Israel and to Jews (to the point that Jews have been forced to vacate Muslim areas in many places, including Sweden) shows how committed they are to their campaign against the people and the culture of the West.”

This explanation is probably broadly correct, but I venture to suggest that there may be exceptions, if temporary, to this global Jewish drive to destroy White ethnic homogeneity: most notably here in Britain.

The size of the Muslim population in many British towns and cities — especially in the north of England and the east of London — both in terms of overall numbers and as a proportion of the population, puts anything to be seen in Sweden in the shade.

From the point of view of Jewry in the UK, the issue is not the number of indigenous White non-Jews resorting to ‘White Flight’ from the home towns of their youth, but the increasing number of parliamentary constituencies which are electing Muslims to Parliament; constituencies which will never welcome Jewish candidates of any political party — even those which, two or three decades ago, were represented by frequently re-elected Jewish (usually Labour Party) MPs.

On top of this demographically charged political change there is the rise of Muslim business empires in Britain. These are increasingly able to bestow financial patronage to the major Establishment political parties, and do so.

These developments indicate that a power base is evolving which could have the potential to challenge the Jewish money-and-media dominance over the British body politic and this is making UK Jewry jittery, no matter what may be world Jewry’s overall strategy of encouraging White European nations to dissolve themselves into a multi-racial stew.

Hence, in the Jewish-owned sections of the UK media, there is a flood of anti-Muslim, anti-Islam stories. This barrage is so relentless that for the average Briton the words “Muslim” and “Islam” have become hardwired to the word “terrorist”. In the long run this campaign and the associated activities of the Jewish-backed English Defence League might be intensified to the point that Muslims return to their homelands — no bad thing, providing other varieties of immigrant followed in their footsteps!

At the moment, however, the campaign seems designed simply to put all but the most fanatical Islamists among the Muslim population on the back foot and, in particular, to scare Muslim religious, political and business leaders away from any thought of challenging the current status quo for fear of being depicted by media character assassins as “extremists” and “promoters of terrorism” — allegations which terminate careers, destroy businesses and ruin lives.

No similar such mainstream media campaign has ever been mounted in the UK against Afro-Caribbeans, who perpetrate more homicides and maimings per year in our country than have ever been inflicted by Islamic terrorists. Were any such campaign to be launched the “hatemongers” responsible would soon find themselves facing “Incitement to Racial Hatred” charges. The difference is that the Afro-Caribbeans do not represent a threat to Jewry’s scruff-of-the-neck grip on Britain’s Establishment.

Prof. MacDonald’s description of Jewry’s global strategy of promoting alien immigration to White European lands could well be a large part of the explanation why British National Party chairman Nick Griffin failed so signally with his decade-long charm offensive with Jewry.

Part of the explanation must surely also include:

  • Griffin’s long earlier career as an anti-Semite — including in the mid-1990s his claimed authorship of a factual magazine exposing Jewish media ownership and influence (in fact written by Dr. Mark Deavin) — before he adopted what the more perceptive among the Jews recognised was a cynical, careerist-opportunist volte face. In this regard, he is quite different from Wilders whose philo-Semitic attitudes were apparent even in his youth. Why should the Jews take a chance with Griffin? There are plenty genuinely philo-Semitic non-Jews on the “far right” to pick from, as the media-backed progress of the so-called English Defence League (with its Jewish Division, its rabbinical advisers and its pro-Israel demonstrations outside the Israeli Embassy) makes all too clear.
  • Griffin’s record as an ‘unreliable’ manager of funds subscribed to the cause. His approach has led him to engage in ‘trading’, ‘accountancy’ and personnel arrangements which have evoked disquiet and dismay. Senior party employees who have drawn his attention to arrangements which they felt to be improper have found themselves sacked upon the instant. The party has had five National Treasurers during the past 18 months. It is continually late in presenting its audited annual accounts to the Electoral Commission — a statutory obligation — incurring ever-increasing fines. The party’s auditor advised the Electoral Commission that it was unable to sign-off the last set of accounts. Various civil actions (and not just that brought by the EC) are grinding on. Why would the Jews wish to patronise the engine-driver of what appears to be an impending train wreck?

The long and the short of it is that it was the Jews who let Griffin down! …. If only they had grasped the hand of friendship that he extended for so long …. if only they had rewarded his conversion to philo-Semitism …. If only they had got the media a bit more on his side …. then by now they would have had a firm and obedient ally not only in the European Parliament but in the House of Commons and all his/the BNP’s financial problems would now be a forgotten nightmare!

*Martin Webster (email him) has been a racial-nationalist activist in Britain since he was an 18 year old in 1961. From 1969 until 1983 he was National Activities Organiser of the National Front and a member of its National Directorate. In 1973 he was the first nationalist in Britain (pre- or post-WW2) to “save a deposit” (then set at 12.5%, currently set at 5%) in a parliamentary election when he won 16.02% of the poll at West Bromwich in 1973. Since 1983 he has not associated with any political organisation. He issues occasional e-bulletins to a world-wide circle of friends (and some enemies).

Mossad’s One Million Helpers World-Wide

Martin Webster*

This article was first published in Professor Kevin MacDonald’s The Occidental Observer on March 26th, 2010. A link to that site is under ‘Friendly Sites’ to the right of this page. Click here to view to original article at The Occidental Observer.

Aftershocks following the assassination in Dubai in January of Palestinian Hamas leader Mahmoud Mabhouh by Israel’s secret service Mossad finally shook the Palace of Westminster in London on the afternoon of Tuesday 23rd March.
Mossad iconThe assassination was perpetrated by a large hit-squad comprising men and women who arrived and departed Dubai using “cloned” passports originally issued to citizens of Australia, France, Germany, Holland, Ireland and the United Kingdom. The Israeli government has refused to comment on the matter beyond stating: “There is no evidence that Israel was responsible”.Twelve of the forged passports were copies of UK originals. It is noteworthy that all of the holders of the authentic UK documents are British citizens who have settled in Israel and who, under the Law of the Return have also taken Israeli citizenship.The Labour government’s Jewish (but not necessarily Zionist) Foreign Secretary David Milliband rose to his feet in a hushed House of Commons to make a ministerial statement which announced that following an investigation by Scotland Yard’s Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA), a decision had been taken to require a senior member of the diplomatic staff of the Israeli Embassy in London to quit Britain forthwith.The diplomat was not named in the statement, but it is presumed that the person, whatever his or her official title, is Mossad’s ‘head of station’ in London.

Milliband told the Commons that the SOCA investigation had been able to establish that the authentic UK documents had only ever left the hands of their owners when they were taken into the temporary possession of Israeli officials either in London or in transit at Ben Gurion Airport in Israel. He declared:

“We have concluded, that there are compelling reasons to believe that Israel was responsible for the misuse of the British passports. Such misuse is intolerable. It represents a profound disregard for the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. The fact that this was done by a country which is a friend, with significant diplomatic, cultural, business and personal ties to the UK, only adds insult to injury. No country or government could stand by in such a situation. I have asked that a member of the Embassy of Israel be withdrawn, and this is taking place.”

It will be interesting to see what the Jewish Chronicle makes of Milliband’s announcement. On 26th February the paper, under the heading “Million Jews aid Mossad says writer on Radio 4” tried to pooh-pooh information that Israel’s foreign intelligence service, Mossad, has recruited a million Jews world-wide to assist with its espionage activities.

This denial of Mossad’s million helpers among Diaspora Jewry studiously failed to mention the existence of a sub-unit of Mossad known as the “Sayanim” [= “Helpers”].

Sayanim are Jews who live in and hold the citizenship of lands outside Israel who are recruited clandestinely by Mossad to help with its operations, i.e. providing ‘safe houses’, transportation, access to communications networks and other facilities, official documents, etc., etc.

Full (and undenied) details of the existence of the Mossad Sayanim network were given in the 1994 book The Other Side of Deception by Victor Ostrovsky, a renegade Mossad agent.

It is certain that not all Sayanim are recruited by Mossad talent-scouts in the Diaspora lands of their birth where they hold citizenship; some are recruited while on visits to Israel. Ever since Israel was proclaimed in 1948, it has been an objective of the Zionist movement’s premier international organisation, the World Jewish Congress (WJC), to achieve a bonding between Jews of the Diaspora and Israel.

This policy was articulated with astounding frankness by Zionism’s foremost strategist of the 20th century, Nahum Goldmann. Goldmann co-founded the World Jewish Congress with Rabbi Stephen S. Wise in 1934 and was president of the WJC from 1949 to 1977. In his book, The Jewish Paradox(1978), he argued that this bonding process be implemented among Jews in their late teens when all young people are at their most idealistic and impressionable.

Goldmann advocated that as many young Jews as possible be enabled to go to Israel for what are now known as ‘gap-years’, within or just before university education, for immersion in the Israeli way of life by way of working on kibbutzimor in one of the social services — or even as recruits to the Israeli Defence Force.

He even had the effrontery to argue that the governments of Diaspora nations sympathetic to the Jewish cause would facilitate this process and, indeed, might be persuaded to donate funds from their respective national exchequers to help pay for it!

Whether this is, or has been, done by the British government I do not know. But several Zionist charities which organise and (nominally) pay for such gap years in Israel for young Jews holding British nationality all publish registered charity numbers which means their funds are exempt from taxation, so the operation certainly has an indirect subsidy courtesy of the British taxpayer.

During their stay in Israel the most avid young Zionists who also possess the required intellects and personality traits are recruited and, no doubt, given training. The process is very little different in principle from that perpetrated by the Soviet NKVD spymaster who recruited and trained the ring of Soviet spies at Cambridge University just before World War II: Guy Burgess, Donald Duart MacLean, Kim Philby, Anthony Blunt & Co. were able to penetrate the highest reaches of Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) during the war when Britain was allied to the USSR. They frustrated and subverted British anti-Soviet intelligence operations during the Cold War.

The only difference between the Soviet-British and the Zionist-Jewish operation is that the Zionists are doing it on a continuous, global, mass-production basis and are carrying out the work of spotting, recruiting and training each new wave of young talent within the borders of Israel where such activity is outside the scope of the laws of Diaspora countries.

Activities of the Sayanim

Sayanim in Britain and Italy assisted with the 1986 abduction and smuggling to Israel (drugged, in a packing case) of Mordechai Vanunu, the Christian-convert Israeli scientist who blew the whistle on Israel’s secret nuclear bomb-making facility at Dimona.

Sayanim also helped Mossad agents in New Zealand four years ago purloin official New Zealand passports belonging to a number of its elderly, infirm and otherwise vulnerable citizens. These passports were intended for Mossad use in espionage and murder operations elsewhere in the world.

Mossad hoped that the people whose identities they were stealing would be less likely to notice if anything was amiss and report it to the authorities. That is the kind of cynical wickedness which Israel-admirers tend to dismiss with an indulgent smile as mere “chutzpah”. (These are the same people who speak of the “high ethical standards” of the Israeli Defence Force.)

The plucky New Zealand government of the time did not take that view. Two Mossad agents were jailed, and Israel was required to express a public apology and provide assurances that it would never undertake to do such a thing again. The apology and assurances were given.

Such Israeli assurances are not worth a cup of cold spit. In the debate which followed Milliband’s ministerial statement, William Haigh, Conservative shadow foreign secretary, reminded the House of Commons that Israel had been caught in a similar UK passport forgery operation in 1987. He said the then Israeli foreign minister — now President of Israel — Shimon Peres, gave a solemn verbal and written assurance to the British government that “such a thing will never happen again”.

Haigh’s remark is noteworthy for its absence from most media reports of the debate the following day.

As we now know, forged British, as well as Australian, French, German and Dutch passports, were used in the Dubai assassination of Mahmoud Mabhouh.

It is, of course, outrageous — in diplomatic language “an unfriendly act” — for the secret service of a foreign power to recruit the nationals of another country to assist with any kind of espionage activity in let alone against the interests of that other country.

Mossad perpetrates just such activity in every Diaspora land where there is a Jewish community simply because the governments of most nations (especially Britain, the USA, Canada, Germany, Italy, Poland) are normally reluctant to take effective action to stamp out such subversion for fear of:

Why Mossad’s Bosses Know They Are Able To Get Away With Murder

  • Shrill accusations of “anti-semitism”; or
  • Fear that local Friends of Israel organisations will cease making cash donations to their Establishment political parties; or
  • Pressure from the USA, which is always willing to assist Israel because its entire political system and mass media are dominated by Zionist-Jews or non-Jew careerists whom they have suborned.

The blind-eye which successive British governments give to Mossad-Sayanim subversion in the UK was institutionalised in the mid 1990s when the Home Office, which supervises Britain’s police service and the internal security service (MI5), gave permission for the London Metropolitan Police and the Greater Manchester Police to provide ongoing training for and intelligence-sharing with the Community Security Trust (CST).

The CST is the security and intelligence arm of the Board of Deputies of British Jews (JBD), whose prospectus declares that it exists to “Protect the interests, religious rights and security of Jews world-wide and to advance Israel’s security, welfare and standing”. Quite clearly concerns about loyalty issues are not uppermost in the minds of the organised Jewish community.

In an article in The Observer of Sunday 2nd February 1997, the then JBD “Defence Director” Michael Whine (now living and working in Israel) revealed that the CST is

“a 2,000 strong defence force…. with a sophisticated intelligence system which provides security guards and trains bodyguards …. Personnel undertake vigorous physical training.”

CST formations are often seen escorting Zionist political demonstrations and other Jewish communal public manifestations wearing uniform day-glow jackets similar to those sported by the police, but with “CST” stamped on them in large letters. CST personnel are paraded in public places even though all such activities are given a full Police escort, which is sufficient protection for all manner of other folks and organisations in our land.

In the light of such public manifestations of the CST and Michael Whine’s admissions, it is important to note that under Section 1 of the Public Order Act of 1936 (enacted to cramp the style of the Blackshirts of Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists) it is illegal to “organise and/or equip and/or train a paramilitary force for the purpose of achieving political objectives by means of physical force”….. or “….to behave in such a manner as to give reasonable apprehension….” of being so engaged. Nevertheless, the CST is somehow exempt from Section 1 of the Public Order Act.

The late Colin Jordan and three of his associates in the now long-defunct National Socialist Movement were jailed in 1963 after an Old Bailey trial for periods ranging from three to nine months even though they had been found not guilty of the substantive offence but guilty of “giving reasonable apprehension” that the unarmed 12-man formation of stewards (who wore uniform grey shirts) called The Spearhead was in breach of the Act.

When I was organising National Front demonstrations in the 1970s I was continually warned about the terms of that Act when I visited Scotland Yard’s A8 Public Order department to negotiate routes for marches and other details. I was told that it would be considered an offence against the Act if the members of the NF Drum Corps even so much as wore similar white shirts! (“That would be considered a uniform. They would be arrested.”)

The Home Office plan to put the police into bed with a private Zionist paramilitary/security/spook organisation was engineered by a top civil servant, Neville Nagler, who headed the Home Office department responsible for race relations issues and who boasted to my old friend, the late Dowager Lady Birdwood, of having drafted every speech on race relations topics made by every Home Secretary, Labour and Conservative, for more than a decade.

Guess what? When he retired from the Home Office, Nagler was immediately appointed Executive Director of the JBD.

Now chief constables and other very senior police officers attend annual CST banquets at super-luxurious Mayfair hotels where they rub shoulders with leading Zionist fanatics, many of whom are multi-millionaires and some of whom are convicted fraudsters and ex-jail-birds. (For more details about this, see my TOO essay “Is there a revolt brewing against the Israel Lobby in Britain.”)

In the light of all these facts, it seems to me reasonable to assert that many of the Zionist-Jews who are motivated to join the CST will be prime targets for recruitment into the ranks of Mossad Sayanim — that is, if they have not already been recruited during gap years spent in Israel bonding with the Zionist state.

The Jewish Chronicle’s studious avoidance of any mention of Mossad’s world-wide Sayanim network in its attempt to discount the notion of a million Jews around the world organised to assist Mossad operations can only evoke rueful smiles from those non-Jews who know what the score is — and belly-laughs from the Jews.

*Martin Webster (email him) has been a racial-nationalist activist in Britain since he was an 18 year old in 1961. From 1969 until 1983 he was National Activities Organiser of the National Front and a member of its National Directorate. In 1973 he was the first nationalist in Britain (pre- or post-WW2) to “save a deposit” (then set at 12.5%, currently set at 5%) in a parliamentary election when he won 16.02% of the poll at West Bromwich in 1973. Since 1983 he has not associated with any political organisation. He issues occasional e-bulletins to a world-wide circle of friends (and some enemies).

National Front demonstrations were attended by many hundreds, sometimes thousands of supporters, when the party was ‘on the boil’ in the late 1970s. On this occasion in 1977, an anti-immigration march through the Borough of Hyde in Greater Manchester proposed by me when I was NF National Activities Organiser was banned under the Public Order Act on the grounds that it was likely to be a focus of “serious disturbances”. When the ban was promulgated, I announced that there would be two NF marches in Manchester on the appointed Saturday. The NF membership would march in one of the other boroughs of the city where no ban applied. Its assembly place and route would not be announced in advance so that the massed Red ‘Rentamob’ would not know where to turn up to be “provoked” into staging a riot. The second ‘march’ would be conducted by me along the main street in Hyde where the ban applied. I carried a Union Jack flag and a placard reading “Defend British Free Speech from Red Terrorism”. The authorities would have to make up their minds if such a one-man demonstration contravened the ban. This strategy had the effect of fragmenting the Red mob, some of whom went to Hyde believing that all the NF would go there to defy the ban; others scoured around Greater Manchester, a huge area, seeking the NF column. Both NF events were conducted without any disorders, but with considerable expressions of support from ordinary Mancunians out for their Saturday shopping. Such a large number of police officers escorted me that the effect was a march of constables. It made the ban ludicrous. Apart from massive media publicity for days before and after the event, its planning and conduct was also made the subject of a BBC TV ‘Inside Story’ film.