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.

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 essayIs 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.

Is There A Revolt Against the Israel Lobby Brewing in Britain?

A review of Peter Oborne’s TV report “Inside Britain’s Israel Lobby”

Martin Webster*

This article was first published in Professor Kevin MacDonald’s The Occidental Observer on 8th December 2009. A link to that site is under ‘Friendly Sites’ to the right of this page. Click here to read Prof MacDonald’s introduction to this article (opens in a new tab).

It is not often that one can, with pleasure, place on record that one was wrong in expressing a particular opinion. But I can do this in the case of a TV documentary film, Inside Britain’s Israel Lobby, by the journalist and political commentator Peter Oborne, broadcast on Monday 16th November [2009] by Britain’s Channel 4, an independent network, as part of its Dispatches series.

On the basis of the pro-Zionism of his regular employers The Spectator and the Daily Mail (extreme in the case of the former, moderate in the case of the latter), and what I perceived to be his involvement with the Zionist-inspired media puffing the British National Party (BNP) towards its present situation — a pro-Israel populist party whose opposition to multi-racialism has been replaced by an anti-Islam placebo — I had predicted that Oborne’s investigation of the Israel lobby would be a damp squib at best, or disinformation at worst.

But I was wrong about his film. It went to the heart of the exercise of Jewish power in Britain. It established that this power is now so substantial and pervasive that Jewry is able to manipulate key institutions of our nation, in particular the governing Labour Party, the official opposition Conservative Party, and the supposedly “independent and impartial by law” BBC, for the benefit of a foreign power: Israel.

Nobody who saw the film could doubt that Zionist Jewry has been able to suborn many people holding key positions with sundry organs of the British nation who have a duty imposed by patriotism, honour and, in some cases, by law to uphold British national sovereignty, political independence and democratic freedoms.

In my view these creatures have become ‘Shabbas Goyim’ who, in return for career enhancement and/or cash, serve the interests of World Jewry in all its locations and apparitions and not just, as Oborne shows, the state of Israel.

I will leave to another article the information I have about a cohort of non-Jewish pro-Zionist journalists, mainly employed by Tory-supporting papers, which made me expect the worst from Dispatches film before I saw it. This information, considered in tandem with the film, provides us with a glimmer of hope that Oborne’s desertion from the cohort and his exposure of the Israel Lobby may be part of a wider revolt by journalists against the relentless effort by Zionist Jews to control their output in a way that puts Jewry and Israel above criticism.

The purpose of this article is to provide a taste of Oborne’s research and to comment on it. My review is based on seeing his film when broadcast, supported by the full text of Oborne’s Dispatches commentary. This was posted in the “Our Kingdom — power and liberty in Britain” section of the Open Democracy web site, where it appears to be a pamphlet by Oborne and one James Jones. No title, publisher, publication date or ISBN number is given so it may be awaiting publication in hard copy form. With Oborne’s text the site has also posted a Foreword by the Jewish anti-Zionist campaigner Antony Lerman explaining why he assisted Oborne with the Dispatches report. Any ambiguities may be resolved by those who have 50 minutes to spare by resort to the YouTube posting of the film (see the note at foot of this post).

Unfortunately that posting has an embedded block against downloading. I will, of course, intrude my own digressions into my review of Oborne’s work, but will take pains to separate my information and opinions from his. I may have knowledge of matters either unknown to him or which, due to constraints of time or a wish to avoid accusations “anti-Semitism”, he was unable to mention.

The Israel Lobby and The Conservative Party

Despite two very recent public opinion polls which indicate that that the general election next Spring is likely to produce a “hung parliament”, the psephological wisdom prevailing for the past two years has it that the Conservative Party, led by David Cameron, is likely to subject the current Labour Party government, led by Gordon Brown, to a landslide defeat.

It was in this context, coupled with David Cameron’s cringing performance at this year’s annual luncheon staged by the Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) — which Oborne believes to be the best-funded lobbying group at Westminster — that his commentary began by dealing with Zionist manipulation of the Tory Party:

“Every year, in a central London hotel, a very grand lunch is thrown by the Conservative Friends of Israel. It is often addressed by the Conservative leader of the day. Many members of the shadow cabinet make it their business to be there along with a very large number of Tory peers and prospective candidates, while the Conservative MPs present amount to something close to a majority of the parliamentary party. It is a formidable turnout.”

Oborne remarked that the dominant event of the previous twelve months had been the Israeli invasion of Gaza at the start of the year. He examined he text of Cameron’s speech to see how that event was handled.

“I was shocked to see that Cameron made no reference at all to the invasion of Gaza, the massive destruction it caused, or the 1,370 deaths that had resulted. Indeed, Cameron went out of his way to praise Israel because it ‘strives to protect innocent life’. I found it impossible to reconcile the remarks made by the young Conservative leader with the numerous reports of human rights abuses in Gaza.

Afterwards I said as much to some Tory MPs. They looked at me as if I was distressingly naïve, drawing my attention to the very large number of Tory donors in the audience…..”

“It is impossible to imagine any British political leader showing such equanimity and tolerance if British troops had committed even a fraction of the human rights abuses and war crimes of which Israel has been accused.”

The Saturday after that CFI luncheon Oborne criticised Cameron’s speech in his Daily Mail column, drawing particular attention to his failure to mention Gaza and his speaking of “Israeli respect for the sanctity of human life” and the presence of Jewish big business donors to Conservative funds.

Immediately he received a letter from CFI director Stuart Polak which lamented that his “concentrating on the businessmen and David’s alleged comments was really unhelpful”. Hot on the heels of Polak’s letter was a missive from CFI political director Robert Halfon who described Oborne’s opinions as “astonishing” and berated him for suggesting a “moral equivalence” between Israel and Iran. [my emphases]

Such letters from leading Zionist Lobby heavyweights usually have the effect of causing hacks and their editors to issue profuse apologies and retractions. But something in the deep background which we don’t know about — something more that just Israeli genocide in Gaza (which, disgusting though it was, can hardly be described as unprecedented Israeli behaviour) — provided Oborne with additional backbone.

His reaction to Polak’s and Halfon’s attempt to pressure him was this:

“I resolved then to ask the question: what led David Cameron to behave in the way he did at the CFI lunch at the Dorchester Hotel last June? What are the rules of British political behaviour which cause the Tory Party leader and his mass of MPs and parliamentary candidates to flock to the Friends of Israel lunch in the year of the Gaza invasion? And what are the rules of media discourse that ensure that such an event passes without notice?…..

“Now I want to ask a question that has never been seriously addressed in the mainstream press: is there a Pro-Israel lobby in Britain, what does it do and what influence does it wield?” [my emphasis]

That is not the kind of question that the organized Jewish community thought would ever again be posed in the mainstream media (albeit a channel whose mandate is to cater to minority groups) and it is the reason why Oborne’s film was subjected to the ‘Silent Treatment’ by much of the print and broadcasting media even though Jewish websites and discussion forums were crackling with traffic — but more of the media reaction anon.

Oborne’s pursuit of answers to his questions inevitably led him to examine not only how the Israel Lobby ensures that the Conservative Party pursues an Israel-friendly line by deployment of financial and media patronage (with the spectre of character assassination, career destruction and financial ruin hovering in the background), but also how it secures similar compliance from the Labour Party and from national institutions such as the BBC, by application of precisely the same model of bribery and intimidation.

As to the Lobby’s influence over the Tory Party, Oborne mentions that he consulted the Lexis Nexis site to examine the way in which the CFI’s activities are largely ignored by the British media. His search revealed that since 1985 there have been only 154 mentions of the CFI. In contrast, over the same period, Michael Ashcroft, the (non-Jewish) billionaire donor to Tory Party funds attracted 2,239; the Tobacco Manufacturers Association had 1,083; the Scotch Whisky Association 2,895.

How the Israel Lobby circumvents  “transparency” law

Under revisions to the law implemented during the last decade with a view to providing the electorate with “transparency” concerning political parties’ sources of funds, parties are required to “record” in their internal accounts the sources of all donations of more than £200 but less than £5,000 and are required to “report” in their accounts lodged with the Electorate Commission (EC) the sources of all donations of £5,000 or more. These annual accounts are posted on the EC’s website for public examination.

Oborne described how the Conservative Party is “bought-and-paid-for” by the CFI. This bribery is effected not just by big cash donations to Tory Central Office and to the party leader’s “private office”, but to the constituency organisations of individual MPs — or prospective parliamentary candidates.

The CFI — and also the Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) — gets around these EC regulations by making in its own name comparatively puny donations. It then tips off its corporate and wealthy individual members to make donations either to Conservative Central Office and/or to the constituency organizations of favoured MPs or candidates — without any on-the-record mention of the CFI, Israel, Jewry or whatever

Oborne gave two anecdotes of the way the system works, provided by informants who were too afraid to go on record. In one case a man who is now a Tory MP described how before the 2005 election he was lobbied by the CFI’s Stuart Polak at a social occasion. At the end of the meal, Polak asked the candidate if his campaign needed any money. A couple of weeks later two checks arrived at the constituency office. Both came from businessmen closely connected to the CFI whom the MP had never met and who had never, so far as he knew, ever stepped inside his constituency. In the other case, a Tory parliamentary candidate contesting a marginal seat had gone to see Stuart Polak, where he was tested on his views on Israel. Within a fortnight a check from a businessman he had never met arrived in his constituency office.

Study of donations to Conservative constituency offices before the 2005 election reveals a clear pattern according to Oborne. A group of donors linked to the Zionist cause, almost all of whom are on the board of the CFI and/or are prominently associated with the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM) made donations of between £2,000 and £5,000 either personally or through their companies to the constituency offices of certain Conservative

Despite CFI and BICOM not formally merging, the two groups are closely coordinated. Many of BICOM’s key figures also play roles in the CFI: Trevor Pears, Michael Lewis and Poju Zabludowicz — all hugely wealthy — are driving forces behind both lobbies.

Oborne devoted special attention to Zabludowicz, a Finnish Jew whose father made multi-millions as an international arms dealer. That fortune has now been transferred to real estate investments, a portfolio that encompasses 40 per cent of downtown Las Vegas and a shopping mall built in an illegal settlement in the Israeli-occupied West Bank of Palestine.

Tory leader David Cameron owes Trevor Pears and Poju Zabludowicz a special debt of gratitude. When Cameron was campaigning to secure the party leadership he received a £20,000 donation from Pears and donations amounting to £15,000 from Tamares Real Estate Investments, a Zabludowicz subsidiary based in Britain.

According to Oborne, since 2005 (the year of the last Parliamentary general election) the total of the CFI’s donations to the Tory Party made in its own name, added to those made by CFI members, personal and corporate, in their own names but at the CFI’s recommendation, has been in excess of £10 million.

On 17th November, the day after Dispatches was broadcast, the Jewish Chronicle web site carried a report entitled “Dispatches criticised by leading Jews” which included an interview with CFI director Stuart Polack. His remarks were coy, to say the least:

“The programme’s claim that CFI donated £10m to the Conservatives over the last eight years was deeply flawed.”

“Deeply flawed”?

Why not “untrue” or “wrong” or “a lie”?

“Deeply flawed” is clearly one of those ‘non-denial denials’ beloved by spin doctors who can also devise ‘non-apology apologies’. Do these flim-flam artists believe that all the goyim are completely brain-dead?

Polak then went on to say:

“CFI as an organisation has donated only £30,000 since 2005. Each of these donations has been made transparently and publicly registered. In addition to this £30,000, it is undoubtedly the case that some of our supporters have also chosen, separately, to donate to the party as individuals.”

Note the “as an organisation”. He ducks the crucial issue of donations made by individuals and companies at the CFI’s and BICOM’s instigation.
In order to yet further obscure the Zionist purchase of the Conservative and Labour parties, the CFI, the LFI and BICOM are constituted as “unincorporated associations” — not companies, registered charities, political parties or other formal entities which the law requires to maintain accounts for annual submission to the Inland Revenue or other relevant statutory authorities.

These are not the kind of arrangements we would expect from public spirited citizens willing to expend their largesse in an open and above-board way to promote what they see as good causes through political action.

These are arrangements employed by conspirators intent on corrupting public servants and anxious to hide the source of the bribes. One is put in mind of the criminal mastermind Meyer Lansky who created the financial structure of America’s modern Cosa Nostra. When faced with prosecution he fled not to Sicily but to Israel where he claimed admission under the “Law of The Return” which grants Israeli citizenship to all “authentic Jews”.

“Lord Cashpoint” and the Jewish Leadership Council

Turning to the Zionist influence over the Labour Party (and hence, the current Labour government), Oborne covered territory which is well known and notorious: the relationship between Tony Blair — Gordon Brown’s predecessor as Prime Minister — and Lord Michael Levy.

Levy was the principal fund-raiser for Blair’s “private office” through a so-called “blind fund”. £2 million was raised. Please note: Though they played tennis together at Levy’s mansion every week for several years, they never ever discussed the names of the contributors or how much they were giving.

Levy was also the principal fund raiser for the Labour Party itself (in excess of £15 million). His success was such that he became known as “Lord Cashpoint”. Blair wanted Levy to replace the trade unions as Labour’s principal source of income, and told Levy as much.

The saga of Levy’s fall from grace as a result of his central involvement in the “Cash for central involvement in the “Cash for Honours” scandal — for which he was arrested but, after a long wait, not prosecuted — is well known and was concisely summarised by Oborne, so I need not repeat it here. The full story is but a Google search away.

What is not so well known — at least until Oborne’s film — is that Levy was rewarded for his services to the Zionist cause by being co-opted to the premier secular entity of British Jewry: the Jewish Leadership Council (JLC). Who set up this secretive oligarchy — which is never mentioned in the mass media — and how it was vested with supremacy, is not clear. Its existence excites “conspiracy theorists” to make comparisons with the fabulous “Learned Elders of Zion”.

The JLC’s current membership is understood (at least by me) to include: Poju Zabludowicz, Chairman of BICOM; Henry Grunwald, President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews (JBD); Gerald Ronson, Chairman of the Community Security Trust (CST); and ‘Lord’ Greville Janner, President of the Holocaust Educational Trust (HET) and of the LFI. All these Great Panjandrums of Jewry are, of course, multi-millionaires or billionaires.

I add to Oborne’s information by mentioning that Levy is not the only member of the JLC who has had his collar felt by the police. In the late 1980s, Gerald Ronson was jailed for his part in a massive Guinness brewery share-trading fraud. On his release, he, along with other of his partners in crime, were “guests of honour” at a Welcome Home banquet presided over by the Chief Rabbi, Dr Jonathan Sacks, who has since been ennobled and is now ‘Lord’ Sacks.

Sad to say, because of his criminal record, the Queen is unlikely to raise Ronson to the peerage so that he can sit with Sacks in the House of Lords, but he has been given a consolation prize by the King of Spain, Juan Carlos, who appointed him as a member of the “Order of Civil Merit”. This entitles him to be addressed as “Illustrísimo Señor Don Gerald Ronson”. (You couldn’t make it up, could you?)

Top cops drawn into the spider’s web

Ronson’s appointment as Chairman of the CST, Jewry’s private security and “spook” organization, was another Jewish one-finger salute to Britain’s law enforcement authorities. Here’s why:

When the CST was established in 1995/6 the London Metropolitan Police and the Greater Manchester Police were prevailed upon by the then Conservative government to provide the CST’s personnel with training and intelligence sharing. It is likely that the arrangement was devised by Neville Nagler, for years the senior Home Office civil servant in charge of race relations matters who, immediately upon retirement, was appointed Executive Director of the JBD.

This was a quite unprecedented and, I believe, extra-legal arrangement between the British police and a private political security formation with close and admitted connections with a foreign power. The arrangement has continued under a Labour government despite the appointment of Ronson, a convicted criminal, as the CST chairman.

So senior police officers continue to be obliged — some may be more than willing — to attend annual CST banquets at swanky West End hotels presided over by a convicted fraudster and jail-bird, and exchange polite conversation with Zionist fanatics, some of whom are doubtless Mossad Sayanim ….. and all “in the interests of good community relations”.

At the last CST dinner held early this year at the Grosvenor House Hotel in Mayfair, Lord Levy made a bee-line for Assistant-Commissioner John Yates, deputy head of the Met at Scotland Yard. Yates headed the investigation into the “Cash for Honours” scam and it fell to him to arrest Levy in connection with that matter.

Before the gaze of all present, Levy enjoyed administering ostentatious
and patronising “no hard feelings” back-slaps on the hapless Yates. This officer’s feelings, and the corrosive effect news of it has had on wider police morale, political independence and integrity, may be imagined.

I conclude this digression on a lighter note. The central figure in the Guinness/Distillers shares-fraud was prominent Jewish businessman Ernest Saunders. He had part of his jail term remitted on the grounds that he had Alzheimers disease. This incurable and fatal degenerative brain condition went into an unprecedented remission upon his release. Indeed, he was able to start a new career on the business studies lecture circuit, to the continuing amazement of the medical profession — and the admiration of us all.

“Shabbas goyim” grovel in House of Commons fiascos

Returning to Oborne’s Dispatches thread: The sickly farce enacted between leading officials of the CFI and the LFI on the floor of the House of Commons (as they engage in what the general public is told is “the Labour v. Conservative ding-dong battle”) was well covered.

He cited a recent Commons question from senior Tory MP David Amess “to enquire what the British government was doing to improve British relations with Israel”.

The government’s answer came from Ivan Lewis MP, the Foreign Office Minister with special responsibility for the Middle East. He replied: “Israel is a close ally of the United Kingdom and we have regular warm and productive exchanges at all levels….. We shall continue to foster a close relationship with Israel.”

Many honorable members on both sides of the House, their constituency bank balances gagging for more Zionist donations, just as were given before the last general election — and the election before that, and before that, ad nauseam — nodded sagely and called “Hear hear!”

The House of Commons order paper, the subsequent report in Hansard and media coverage of these proceedings failed to mention that David Amess is the secretary of the CFI while Ivan Lewis is a former vice-chairman of the LFI. So much for “transparency” at Westminster.

The Jewish Lobby is not only able to stage-manage question sessions involving relatively junior members of the government, it is able to set the agenda for the well-known weekly Prime Minister’s Questions.

In these time-limited sessions, it is very hard for ordinary members to “catch the Speaker’s eye” — i.e., be given the opportunity to put a question and thereby gain massive publicity for a topic. (The recently-appointed Speaker is John Bercow, a Jew co-opted to the ancient and prestigious post from the Tory benches. His wife is a non-Jewish Labour Party prospective parliamentary candidate. What’s the betting he’s a member of the CFI and she’s a members of the LFI?)

During Prime Minister’s Questions at the end of November — too late for Oborne to include in his Dispatches report — Tory leader Cameron asked Prime Minister Brown about £130,000 of public funds said to have been made available to two Muslim schools run by the Shakhsiyah Foundation in Slough and Haringey which Cameron alleged had “links” to the “Islamic extremist” group Hizb-ut-Tahrir. Brown replied that he would investigate Cameron’s concerns “very, very carefully”.

The obvious purpose of the question was to suggest that the current Labour administration was soft on “Islamic extremists” (sub-text: “terrorists!”). But another unstated item on the Jewish agenda was at work as well, namely:

Why was the government making grants to militant Islamic schools while the Jewish Free School (JFS) is shortly to appear at the Supreme Court to appeal against a High Court ruling that the school’s admissions policy is “discriminatory on the grounds of race or ethnic origin” and, hence, illegal under the Race Relations Act?

Jewry contests Race Relations Act litigation
— the BNP does not

Background: The JFS refused to admit a boy whose father is Jewish according to the Orthodox interpretation of the Halacha , but whose mother was born into a non-Jewish family but converted to Judaism via the Liberal-Reform route. Liberal-Reform conversions are not recognized as valid by the majority United Synagogue congregation, from among whose rabbinate the Chief Rabbi of the UK is always appointed. (Liberal-Reform conversions are likewise not recognised by the Orthodox rabbinical authorities in Israel who adjudicate on claims for citizenship under the Law of The Return).

I understand that the litigation against the JFS, though launched by the boy’s parents is — or eventually became — “legally-aided”, that is, supported by grants of public funds via the Legal Aid Fund.

I surmise that the almost coincidentally similar litigation launched against the BNP by the government’s equality quango, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), to persuade the party to change its constitution so as to open its membership to all applicants regardless of their ethnic origin (a demand that BNP chairman Nick Griffin says he is willing to accept without testing its legality before the courts!) was only instigated to provide “proof” that the government and its agencies are even-handed in the enforcement of anti-discriminatory legislation.

Having explored the background to Cameron’s question to the Prime Minister, we must ask: Who provided the information on which the question was based? Step forward Michael Gove, shadow Conservative education secretary. We know this because it emerged that two weeks before Cameron put his question to Brown in public to a blaze of publicity the same facts were rehearsed by Gove in a private letter he sent to the government’s education secretary Ed Balls.

But we must dig deeper. Who provided Gove with the information about the obscure alleged “links” between Islamic schools’ owners, the Shakhsiyah Foundation, and the alleged “Islamic extremists” of Hizb-ut-Tahrir? We have two good clues.

Firstly, last year Gove was appointed as an honorary patron of the Zionist Federation (ZF). The very discreet announcement in the 28th March 2008 Jewish Chronicle which recorded this appointment also mentioned that the previous month he had been awarded the ZF’s Jerusalem Prize “in honour of his support for Israel’s security and well-being”. (No mention was made of the amount of money which comes with this prize.

Perhaps no hard cash was granted by the Zionist Federation, but the certainty of a golden career path.)

Michael Gove, Jonathan Turner and the Zionist Federation

Among Gove’s senior associates in the ZF is the lawyer Jonathan Turner. He was the person who fronted the Jewish Lobby’s voluminous complaint against the BBC’s Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen, which was part of the Zionist campaign to bring the BBC to heel. Turner’s vendetta against Bowen and the BBC was discussed at some length by Oborne. I cover the topic at a later stage. It is enough to remark here that Turner and his researchers obviously see themselves as avenging career-destroyers in the Zionist war against any critical reporting of Israel.

Secondly, the Daily Telegraph of 3rd July 2007, reporting Gove’s promotion as shadow Education Secretary, ended by recording that Gove’s wife is one Sarah Vine, who I understand is Jewish and who was at the time of the report — and may still be — a leader writer with The Times. Gove was assistant editor and chief leader writer of The Times before his election to the House of Commons in 2005.

In 1998 Gove was the first senior journalist of a prestigious mass-circulation newspaper to give substantial and helpful coverage to Nick Griffin when he was seeking to displace John Tyndall as the leader of the BNP. That article set a trend throughout the British media, but especially among papers who support the Tory party and maintain a pro-Israel line.

(I give more information about The Times and its disproportionate number of Jewish senior staff later in this article.)

Turning from the corruption of Conservative and Labour MPs, and, hence, of successive Labour and Conservative governments, so that the war-mongering and genocidal state of Israel might be protected and assisted, Oborne’s other main theme was the relentless campaign by the Israel Lobby to regulate the output of the British media on the subject of Israel and Zionist influence at home and abroad. Its principal target of this campaign for years has been the BBC.

Here I must again intrude a personal digression which I feel provides essential background:

It is true that “the Beeb” (as the BBC is popularly known) is full of Lefties of various stripes who promote all manner of “politically correct” agendas, including, of course “anti-racism”. While I was prominently associated for more than a decade with the now long-dead National Front, I was continuously a target for their attacks. (NB: the organisation currently masquerading under that name is not a continuance of the original party).

So while I have no personal motive for coming to the defence of these people, I have to allow that for some of them their “anti-racist” beliefs are sincere and applied without exception.

It is a pity that this principled approach does not allow them to realise that “racism” and “racialism” are different. The latter does not represent a desire to persecute, let alone exterminate, other races but a wish to protect one’s own folk and ancient culture from the creeping genocide which is the inevitable and intended outcome of enforced race-mixing.

Zionists fret as some leftists wake up

Be all this as it may, some of the principled anti-racist Lefties of the BBC (including a few Jews) hold that Jewish “racism” is just as objectionable as any other kind. They have seen with their own eyes as reporters on the ground that Israel, supported by Zionist-Jewry throughout the Diaspora, is engaged in a genocidal ethnic-cleansing onslaught against the Palestinians perpetrated by application of terrorism, massacres, besiegement, wanton destruction of property, imprisonment, theft, torture and other varieties of wickedness.

Despite the Zionists’ massive exploitation of the “Holocaust” narrative — designed to impair the eyesight and deaden the consciences of the peoples of “the West” — an increasing element of the Left, including some of those in the BBC, has been forced to confront the reality of the genocide being perpetrated right now by the Jews against the Palestinians.

The attitude, traditional among Lefties until about 25 years ago, that philo-Semitism (and, hence, pro-Zionism) was part-and-parcel of what it means to be Left Wing and “progressive” has withered in the face of what Israel has been doing.

Principled anti-racist journalists in the BBC (and elsewhere, such as The Guardian and The Independent) have increasingly felt compelled to expose Israel as a “racist” state pursuing policies closely resembling those of Apartheid South Africa and even — gasp! — the German National Socialists.

It is because the Zionists, especially the “far Right” element — who constitute the political mainstream in Israel and increasingly among Jews elsewhere — have been waking up to their loss of a growing portion of gentile Left Wing opinion that they have been taking an interest in the emergent “far Right” in Europe, providing it can be induced to abandon its traditional “anti-semitism”, support Israel and campaign against the “Islamification of Europe” rather than against Afro-Asian immigration and multi-racialism per se.

“Opinions are like arse-holes — everybody’s got one”

I return now to Oborne’s film and his description of the way in which the Israel Lobby has sought to place a leash on the BBC and The Guardian. (The Independent is obviously considered to be such small fry that it seems to have escaped Zionism’s big guns, despite the wonderfully courageous reports from its Middle East correspondent Robert Fisk.)

Oborne begins by recounting the eruption of Zionist fury when in 2006 Guardian journalist Chris McGreal produced an article which compared Israel’s policies to South African Apartheid. An emergency meeting was called at the Israeli ambassador’s residence with BICOM chairman Poju Zabludowicz, JBD president Henry Grunwald, CST chairman Gerald Ronson and LFI & HET president ‘Lord’ Janner — all, so far as I know, members of the JLC.

Ronson and Grunwald were deputed to visit Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger at his office. Without even taking off his coat, Ronson launched into a foul-mouthed attack (“…opinions are like arse holes — everybody’s got one!…”) which concluded with the allegation that McGreal’s article had prompted violent physical assaults on Jews in
London.

That is a very serious allegation which, had there been the slightest evidence to support it, could have prompted an “Incitement to Racial Hatred” prosecution which, if successful, might have landed Rusbridger in jail. Even without a prosecution such an allegation constitutes a potentially damaging smear.

Oborne reported that Rusbridger kept his nerve and replied coolly:

“I’d be interested in the evidence. I’m not sure how you make that causal connection between someone reading an article that is critical of the foreign policy of Israel and then thinking why don’t I go out and mug Jews on the streets of London. I just can’t believe that happens.”

We are left with the impression that the discussion fizzled out quite soon after that response. Later the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), a pro-Israel media “watchdog”, was put up to stray far from its territory to lodge a complaint with the UK’s Press Complaints Commission. This asserted that McGreal’s article was “based on materially false accusations”. The complaint was not upheld.

Rusbridger went on to tell Oborne that The Guardian was not the only paper to come under such pressure, which often works.

“There are a lot of newspaper and broadcasting editors who have told me that they just don’t think it’s worth the hassle to challenge the Israeli line. They’ve had enough.”

The Israel Lobby’s onslaught on the BBC

But nothing experienced by The Guardian can match the viciousness of the campaign waged by the Israel Lobby against the BBC. Here it involved not merely lobbying the senior management of the corporation but waging personal campaigns against individual journalists designed to ruin their reputations and terminate their careers.

Oborne substantiated his claims about these Zionist vendettas against individual BBC journalists by recounting the experiences of Middle East correspondent Orla Guerin, Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen and multi-programme presenter Jonathan Dimbleby (currently chairman of Any Questions, Britain’s best-known and longest-running radio political forum).

He prefaced his coverage of campaigns of persecution against particular BBC journalists with these general observations about the British media:

“Making criticisms of Israel can give rise to accusations of anti-semitism — a charge which any decent or reasonable person would assiduously seek to avoid. Furthermore most British newspaper groups — for example:

News International

[owned by Rupert Murdoch, owner of Sky TV, The Sun (a tabloid), and The Times, whose editor James Harding, assistant editor Danny Finkelstein and chief political columnist David Aaronovitch are all Zionist Jews];

Telegraph newspapers

[owned by the reclusive Barclay brothers, gentile Scotsmen, who seem to favour the strongly pro-Tory, pro-Israel line of the senior editorial staff of their papers, a mixture of Roman Catholic philo-Semites and Jews],

and The Express Group

[owned by Richard Desmond, a Jew, who made himself a billionaire publishing pornographic magazines, but who then went upmarket and bought out the Daily and Sunday Express which are now vehicles for pro-Israel and anti-Muslim/Islam sentiment, and which increasingly carry articles helpful to the BNP as that party has aligned itself with far-right Zionism]

have tended to take a pro-Israel line and have not always been an hospitable environment for those taking a critical look at Israeli foreign policy and influence. Finally, media critics of Israeli foreign policy — as we will vividly demonstrate in this pamphlet — can open themselves up to coordinated campaigns and denunciation.”

This is what Oborne reported about BBC correspondent
Orla Guerin:

“Some journalists we spoke to had been accused of anti-semitism, and felt inevitably it had done some damage to their careers. Others, like the BBC’s Orla Guerin, against whom this very serious and damaging charge has repeatedly been made by the Israeli government, would’t even talk to us off the record. It is easy enough to see why. Guerin is a brave, honest and compassionate reporter. Yet the Israeli government has repeatedly complained to the BBC that Guerin is ‘antisemitic’ and showed ‘total identification with the goals and methods of Palestinian terror groups’.

“On one occasion, in an appalling charge, they linked her reporting from the Middle East to the rise of antisemitic incidents in Britain. When Guerin was based in the Middle East in 2004, she filed a report about a sixteen year-old Palestinian would-be suicide bomber. Guerin said in the report that ‘this is a picture that Israel wants the world to see’, implying the Israelis were exploiting the boy for propaganda purposes.

“Natan Sharansky, a cabinet minister at the time, wrote a formal letter to the BBC accusing her of ‘such a gross double-standards to the Jewish state, it is difficult to see Ms Guerin’s report as anything but antisemitic’.

“The following year, when Guerin was awarded with an MBE for her reporting, Sharansky said: ‘It is very sad that something as important as anti-semitism is not taken into consideration when issuing this award, especially in Britain where the incidents of anti-semitism are on the rise.’ Officially sanctioned smears like this show why so many people shy away from confronting the influence of the Israel lobby.”

This is what Oborne reported about Jeremy Bowen:

“In April this year, in an important success for the pro-Israel lobby, the BBC’s Middle East editor, Jeremy Bowen, was criticized by the BBC Trust for breaching their rules of accuracy and impartiality in an online piece, and their rules of accuracy in a radio piece. Bowen’s critics have seized on his humiliation, demanding that he be sacked and insisting that the episode proved the BBC’s ‘chronically biased reporting’. The real story behind the BBC Trust’s criticism of Bowen reports is rather different: it demonstrates the pusillanimity of the BBC Trust and the energy and opportunism of the pro-Israel lobby.

“The story begins with an essay written by Bowen to mark the 40th anniversary of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War for the BBC website. Though many people viewed Bowen’s essay as a fair and balanced account, erring if anything on the side of conventional wisdom, this was not the reaction of two passionate members of the Pro-Israel lobby, Jonathan Turner of the Zionist Federation and Gilead Ini, who lobbies for CAMERA, an American pro-Israel media watchdog organization.

“Turner and Ini subjected Bowen’s article to line by line scrutiny, alleging some 24 instances of bias in his online article and a further four in a later report by Bowen from a controversial Israeli settlement called Har Homa.

“Turner and Ini’s complaints were rejected by the BBC’s editorial complaints unit, so they duly appealed to the BBC Trust. The meeting was chaired by David Liddiment who, to quote Jonathan Dimbleby, “is admired as a TV entertainment wizard and former director of programmes at ITV but whose experience of the dilemmas posed by news and current affairs, especially in relation to the bitterly contested complexities of the Middle East is, perforce, limited.

“The BBC Trust found that Bowen had breached three accuracy and one impartiality guideline in his online report, and one accuracy guideline in his radio piece. This was a massive boost for the organizations to which Turner and Ini were attached.

“The Zionist Federation at once called for Bowen to be sacked, calling his position ‘untenable’, while adding that what they called his ‘biased coverage of Israel’ had been a ‘significant contributor to the recent rise in antisemitic incidents in the UK to record levels’. Meanwhile, CAMERA claimed that the BBC Trust had exposed Bowen’s ‘unethical’ approach to his work and insisted the BBC must now take ‘concrete steps’ to combat its ‘chronically biased reporting’ of the Middle East.

“These powerful attacks might have been justified if the BBC Trust had found Bowen guilty of egregious bias. In fact he was condemned for what were at best matters of opinion. In a majority of the cases, the complaints were found to have no merit, and where changes were made they changed the meaning very little. … The Trust’s ruling was met with dismay in BBC newsrooms. A former BBC News editor, Charlie Beckett, told us ‘the BBC investigated Jeremy Bowen because they were under such extraordinary pressure. … It struck a chill through the actual BBC newsroom because it signalled to them that they were under assault’.”

This is what Oborne reported about Jonathan Dimbleby:

“Jonathan Dimbleby had boldly expressed criticism in a powerfully argued article for Index on Censorship of the pressure from pro-Israel groups on the BBC, which led to the BBC Trust’s report on Jeremy Bowen, and had initially been keen to be involved. Suddenly his interest evaporated. There simply wasn’t the time, he said. At first we felt baffled and let down. But in due course we discovered that his comments had brought a complaint from the very same lawyer, Jonathan Turner of the Zionist Federation, that had complained about Jeremy Bowen.

“Dimbleby is now going through the exact same complaints process that he criticised. Turner is arguing that Dimbleby’s comments make him unfit to host the BBC’s Any Questions. The Dimbleby experience serves as a cautionary tale for anyone approaching this subject. Others, such as Sir John Tusa, who had opposed the BBC’s refusal to broadcast the Disasters Emergency Committee Gaza appeal, were overcome with modesty, feeling that they simply didn’t have the expertise to tackle the subject.”

This now brings us to one of the most disgraceful decisions ever taken by the BBC’s senior management, a decision which indicates the extent to which they are now receptive to Zionist pressure. This receptivity may in part be due to intimidation of the kind revealed by Oborne, but there is another factor which he has not mentioned, which he must have known about, but which did not feature in his otherwise excellent report. That factor will emerge shortly, but let us deal first with the disgraceful decision.

The BBC prides itself on its tradition of mounting at short notice major appeals for funds from the viewing and listening public to bring aid to innocent civilian people anywhere in the world afflicted by disasters and catastrophes.

BBC refused to join fund-raiser for Gaza victims

The Israeli attack on the Gaza strip in December 2008/January 2009, ‘Operation Cast Lead’, involving massive slaughter and wanton destruction at a level which the report (250 pages in Pdf format – see note at the foot of this post) of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, headed by the South African Jewish Judge Richard Goldstone was obliged to characterize as “actions amounting to war crimes, possibly crimes against humanity” was just the kind of event which would prompt the BBC, along with all other broadcasting networks, to support such an appeal by the Disasters Emergency Committee.

But that did not happen. In Oborne’s words:

“In January 2009, Mark Thompson, director general of the BBC, took the unprecedented decision of breaking away from other broadcasters and refusing to broadcast the Disasters Emergency Appeal for Gaza, claiming it would compromise the BBC’s impartiality. ITV and Channel 4 screened the Gaza appeal, but Sky [a satellite TV network owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News International] joined the BBC in refusing.

“The BBC’s decision had an undeniable impact. Brendan Gormley, Chief Executive of the DEC, told us that the appeal raised about half of the expected total: £7.5 million. In the first 48 hours of the appeal, phone calls were down by 17,000 on the average.

“Thompson also cast doubt on the charities’ ability to deliver aid on the ground despite assurances from the DEC and his own charitable appeals advisers that this was not the case.

“We asked Charlie Beckett why the BBC had refused. He replied: ‘If there was no pro-Israeli lobby in this country then I don’t think [screening the appeal] would have been seen as politically problematic. I don’t think it would be a serious political issue and concern for them if they didn’t have that pressure from an extraordinarily active, sophisticated, and persuasive lobby sticking up for the Israeli viewpoint’.”

It would be easy to conclude, as Oborne seems to have done, that this wicked decision to deny aid to a wretched civilian population whose environment resembled Hiroshima after the atomic bomb blast, was the product — solely the product — of the intimidation campaign against the BBC by the Israel Lobby.

Thompson’s trip to Jerusalem and his Jewish wife

But there is another explanation. It was given in a small item that appeared in Guy Adams’ Pandora gossip column (see note at the foot of this post), published in The Independent on November 29, 2005. Under the heading “BBC chief holds peace talks in Jerusalem with Ariel Sharon”, Adams wrote [with emphases added by me]:

“The BBC is often accused of an anti-Israeli bias in its coverage of the Middle East, and recently censured reporter Barbara Plett for saying she ‘started to cry’ when Yasser Arafat left Palestine shortly before his death.

“Fascinating, then, to learn that its director general, Mark Thompson, has recently returned from Jerusalem, where he held a face-to-face meeting with the hard-line Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

“Although the diplomatic visit was not publicised on these shores, it has been seized upon in Israel as evidence that Thompson, who took office in 2004, intends to build bridges with the country’s political class.

“Sources at the Beeb also suspect that it heralds a ‘softening’ to the corporation’s unofficial editorial line on the Middle East.

“This was the first visit of its kind by any serving director general, so it’s clearly a significant development, I’m told.

“Not many people know this, but Mark is actually a deeply religious man. He’s a Catholic, but his wife is Jewish, and he has a far greater regard for the Israeli cause than some of his predecessors.

“Understandably, an official BBC spokesman was anxious to downplay talk of an exclusively pro-Israeli charm offensive.

“Apopros this month’s previously undocumented trip, he stressed that Thompson had also held talks with the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas.”

Ariel Sharon, of course, achieved Major War Criminal status when he was still serving with the Israeli ‘Defence’ Force. Sharon added to his reputation when he became Israeli Prime Minister when he wallowed exultantly in Palestinian and Lebanese blood. What is the head of our Beeb doing even being in the same room, let alone holding meetings hidden from the British public, with such a man?

Has there been any other occasion when the premier of a foreign state has been able to summon into his presence, on his territory, the Director-General of the British Broadcasting Corporation for a harangue about the editorial policy of the corporation via-à-vis that foreign state? No, there has not.

According to the statute which established the corporation, not even a British prime minister has the power to do any such thing. Any attempt to do so, were it to be established, would provoke an uproar which would likely lead to the resignation of the prime minister, if not the fall of the government.

Quite obviously it would be naïve to assert that successive British governments have never exerted — or attempted to exert — behind-the-scenes pressures on the BBC with regard to its domestic output (I exclude the BBC World Service, which broadcasts to foreigners and which is subsidized by the Foreign Office), but that cannot be viewed as a licence for the Israeli prime minister to do the same thing and, what is more, flaunt the fact.

I am surprised that Oborne did not use in his film the information published in The Independent in 2005 and which is still available via a Google search. As I say, he must have known about it.

Perhaps the fact about Thompson’s wife being Jewish might have been viewed as too “personal” and open to allegations of “anti-Semitism”. But if the slightest bit of research were to be done on philo-Semitic Gentiles’ active on Israel’s behalf in the media and in major political parties and the number of these who have Jewish wives, then eyebrows would be raised beyond the level of coincidence.

Certainly the information about Thompson going to Jerusalem to discuss BBC editorial policy towards Israel with the Israeli prime minister was a political fact apposite to the central theme of the Oborne’s programme:

The influence of Zionist Jews over leading officials of British state and national institutions to direct their policies for the benefit of Israel, even if it harms British national interests.

Such influence cannot be described as mere “lobbying”. It constitutes treasonous subversion, and it must be rooted out.

Postscript on the Media aftermath

The information which Oborne produced in his Dispatches report deserved massive coverage by the entire print and broadcasting media, but especially the BBC, which was so strongly featured.

But the BBC did not carry, so far as I can find, a single mention on any of its multiple TV, radio and web platforms, not even in any of its programmes or sites which specialise in reporting what other media are reporting.

The Guardian and The Independent allowed some small-scale print coverage and debate in their website discussion forums but these are relatively small-circulation publications.

The Times, which proclaims itself as “The Paper of Record”, and all other entities in Rupert Murdoch’s News International group (including The Sun and Sky TV; Independent Television, ITV1 and Channel 5; The Daily Telegraph and all other entities in the Telegraph Group; the Daily Mail; the Daily Mirror) all were completely silent about the film.

The Jewish Chronicle carried smallish, dismissive, low-key print reports and comment, but these did not reflect the quantity and angst of contributions on its website and on a variety of other Jewish community sites.

The almost universal and clearly coordinated application of the ‘Silent Treatment’ of this film is both an illustration of the oppressive power of the Zionist Lobby over the ‘news’ media (and therefore over the public’s “right to know”) — which was one of the main points of the film — but also an indication that no comprehensive rebuttal of Oborne’s litany of damning facts could be found.

*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%) 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).

Note: Some links originally contained in this article, including one YouTube video, have subsequently been removed. Readers may draw their own conclusions from this.

This article was originally published on The Occidental Observer blog (click here – opens in new tab).

Other Relevant Articles Published in The Occidental Observer:

The Morality of Majority Rights and Interests

Martin Webster: Fabrication published by the London Times

Kevin MacDonald: Martin Webster on Peter Oborne’s Exposé of Britain’s Israel Lobby

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

Courting the Jews on the European “Far Right”

Mossad’s One Million Helpers World-Wide

Antisemitism is merely a Business Plan

by Gilad Atzmon

From the Gilad Atzmon blog – Tuesday 18th July 2017

While The Crown Persecution Service (CPS) attests that there has
been no increase in anti-Semitism in Britain, in the following Sky News
interview, Jewish ethnic activist Gideon Falter, insists that Jew hatred is
on the rise.

​CAA Chairman Gideon Falter on​
Sky News explaining rising antisemitic
crime and failure to enforce

We are asked to choose between two versions of the truth, that
delivered by Falter who leads the Campaign Against Antisemitsm (CAA)
and basically makes his living manufacturing antisemitic incidents and
the judicial approach of the CPS: a public body, subject to scrutiny and
committed to impartiality. This is hardly a difficult choice.

Falter and the CAA obviously fabricate anti-Semitic incidents. Falter
interprets condemnation of Israel and Jewish politics as ‘hate crimes.’ It
seems the CPS doesn’t buy Falter’s duplicitous claims. Against the
odds and despite the treacherous Zionised British political elite, the
CPS insists upon defending freedom of expression so that Britain may
still be able to regard itself an ‘open society.’

Openly and in the name of the Jews, Falter condemns the Crown
Prosecution Services. Falter conspicuously operates to wipe out the
British liberal heritage of freedom of speech.

This attempt may not be very popular amongst Brits and could lead to
some unfortunate circumstances for British Jews. I guess that this is
exactly what Falter and the CAA are after. Since Falter makes a living
out of the ‘rise of anti-Semitism’, it shouldn’t surprise us that he himself
propels such a rise.

This dynamic is at the core of the Zionist philosophy: Since Israel
presents itself as a ‘Jewish shelter,’ its existence becomes meaningful
only when a shelter is desired. As we often witness, it is Israel’s politics
and policies that instigate global Jew hatred and that hatred actually
affirms Israel’s existence as a safe haven for world Jewry.

Falter and the CAA employ the same method. A decrease in anti-
Semitic incidents or Jews being loved and cherished could have fatal consequences for Falter and his CAA’s business plan. They need anti-
Semitism and a lot if it. When it isn’t there, they just invent it.

The only issue that concerns me here, is where does all this leave the
Goyim, the gentiles, the non-Jews?

Falter and the CAA need the Jews to be hated so they can collect more
and more British taxpayer money. But what is the role of the ordinary
Brit? If hating the Jew means working for Falter and the CAA what is left
for the non-Jews? Not a lot, I can tell you.

HATE PLC

HATE PLC

by Gilad Atzmon

(Reproduced with permission from the Gilad Atzmon blog Thursday, 27th July 2017)

In March 2016, the British government pledged 13.4 million pounds to
the Community Security Trust (CST), a Jewish body that is committed
to fighting hatred against one group only. One would expect that with
all that money, the CST would do its job and curb anti Semitism. But the
miracle is that the opposite has occurred.

Just two weeks later, according to the CST’s statistics, anti Semitism
went through the roof. The Daily Mail reports today that 767 anti Semitic
hate crimes were logged by the CST in the first six months of 2017, a
30 per cent rise over 2016. It is the highest figure since statistics were
first kept 33 years ago. The CST reports an “unprecedented run of over
100 incidents each month back to April 2016”.

A mere few days after the British government vowed to wire millions of
pounds to the CST, the number of ‘anti Semitic incidents’ rose by
30% to over 100 incidents a month. The results, at least according to
the CST’s statistics, are that the more public money is allocated to fight
anti Semitism, the more anti Semitic the Brits become.

If this is the case, the cure for British anti Semitism may be within reach
– to fight anti Semitism, deprive the CST and similar organisations of
taxpayers’ money!

Anti Semitism is not really a social phenomenon, it is instead a multi
million pound industry. The more we spend on the fight against it, the
more incidents are ‘recorded’ to justify further spending.

If the British government genuinely wants to fight anti Semitism it would
do better to reinstate British liberal values of universalism and tolerance
that go beyond the interests of one group. If British Jews feel unsafe,
they should ensure that they are stripped of their exceptional status.
They should insist that they are Brits like all other Britons: protected by
the same laws as their neighbours.

In December 2016, the British Government decided to step up the battle
against anti Semitism by adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of anti-
Semitism. The IHRA’s definition was designed to suppress any criticism of Jewish politics, Zionism or Israel. Its intent was to make impossible the utterance of any criticism of anything in any way Jewish related.

Yet, according to the new CST statistics, even this drastic measure
didn’t reduce anti Semitism at all. If anything, anti Semitism increased
sharply since the British Government adopted the new definition.

I would advise both Jews and the British authorities that it is the
exceptional treatment of one group that contributes to the growing
animosity towards Jewish politics and Jewish lobbying.

But there is another problem that must be addressed. Though it is not
clear whether anti Semitism is actually on the rise, it is certain that a
growing number of Brits have been subjected to an orchestrated
slanderous campaign run by Zionist institutions that are funded by
British taxpayer money such as CST and CAA.

These organisations attack Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour party, venues,
intellectuals, artists, musicians, authors and anyone else they decide
has dared to point at Israeli brutality and extensive Jewish political
lobbying in Britain.

If Britain still cares for values of tolerance and intellectual exchange, it
better spend some taxpayer money defending its citizens, gentiles as
well as Jews, from these foreign bodies. And if Britain truly cares for its
Jews, it should protect them from the unfortunate consequences of the
CST, CAA and other Israeli lobbies operating in our midst.