Chapter Two:
The Movements 1960 - 1975

 

 

The years around 1960 mark a significant uplift on the potential of the Right. This time was noted for the growth of neo-fascist trends in many Western nations. The advent of George Lincoln Rockwell’s ‘American Nazi Party’, activist Falangists in Spain, and the movements associated with 'Algerie Francaise', are cases in point. It is important to note the simultaneous development of the New Left which broke from the old-Marxism, to articulate the youth rebellion and the "counter-culture". Certain social-psychological roots are attributed to this radical movement; perhaps it may not be speculative to assert similar bases to the new adventurist Right. (1) The 1950’s in Britain had spurned neo-fascist tendencies; through the Establishment's monopoly of anti-communism during the Cold War, the Right was possibly defused. It is open to argue that sections of the Right were coopted into official anti-communism. The alteration of the patterns of the Cold War by 1960, and the emergence of new issues led the Right to believe in the possibility of success.

It is necessary to divide the narrative into two sections: from 1960 to 1967, and from 1967 to 1975. The latter period seems a more serious quality which grew from the former activist, experimental period. The organisations will be recounted in turn, their peculiar views given some elucidation separate from the following sections on neo-fascist ideology.

 

(a)   The British National Party 1960-67 (BNP).

 

The British National Party (BNP) resulted from the fusion of two small organisations, the 'White Defence League' (WDL), led by Colin Jordan, and the 'National Labour Party', (NLP) formed by Andrew Fountaine and John Bean. Both groups were created in 1958. Jordan’s WDL issued a paper, Black and White News, (1958-9), which was thoroughly devoted to the immigration question. The WDL had branches in London and Coventry. (2) The NLP however, possessed more substance. Bean, 31, in 1959, was an industrial chemist, Fountaine, a landowner of some means. The NLP intended to be an activist party. The growth of an extra-parliamentary Left proved the potential of protest politics, television the necessity for a new style of protest. The NLP and its successor were not adverse to dealing with the law if it brought publicity. Tyndall and Bean were arrested in September 1959 for daubing slogans on John Stonehouse’s residence. (3) Bean was again arrested at a "colonial freedom rally" that year. (4) In the General Elections of 1959, the NLP fielded a candidate for St. Pancras North, gaining 3.5% of the poll. The race issue was paramount, and violence had occurred. (5)

In February 1960, the WDL and the NLP formally merged. Jordan became Activities Organiser and Fountaine, President; Mrs.Leese joined the directorate. The BNP could, in years 1960-62 could be described as a neo-nazi organisation, in preference to the general label, neo-fascist, if only because of the untiring efforts of a faction dedicated to this idea. This is apparent from their international connections through another 'International', the Northern European Ring (NER). A survey of the NER bulletin, The Northern European, issued under Jordan’s auspices, is illustrative of this neo-nazism.

Firstly Jordan sought to differentiate "Fascisms" from "National Socialisms", for the former "while being social and national...were not racial.."-- ‘racial’ being mainly associated with anti-semitism. (6) ‘Fascism’ was seen largely as a product of the "Mediterranean mind"-- and the BNP was throughout, a believer in "Northern European solidarity" inside a united Europe. (7) This "Nordicism" was thought by Jordan, to have had roots in German National Socialism, and was named ‘Racial Nationalism’ (although the whole party endorsed the term). As indicated in The Northern European, the BNP eulogised "folk myths" in the fashion of Alfred Rosenburg. The BNP had admiration for certain Austrian and German neo-nazis who were devotees of Germanic mythologies, celebrated the solstices, and daubed swastikas. (8) It followed that the BNP took the side of the Austrian Right over the South Tyrol.

The NER liaised with the Swedish ‘Nordiska Riksparteit’, the ‘National States' Rights Party', ( U.S.A), Rockwell, and several Dutch, German, and Austrian neo-nazi groups. Under BNP auspices a "camp" was held in May 1961, despite Home Office bans on certain foreign delegates. The BNP therefore maintained it was more than a British nationalist organisation; to demonstrate their "Racial-Nationalist" ideology, the BNP adopted a party symbol, the Sunwheel, which was similar to the Celtic Cross. These emblems have/had wide currency amongst Continental neo-fascists.

The BNP desired to establish itself as a credible political force; hence it contested local and national elections. Even in local contests the racial question was raised. In 1961 in the London County Council elections the BNP polled 10% in Deptford to win an average 8.4% result. (9) In local polls the BNP achieved some popularity; in May 1963 a 27% poll ensured with a similar vote being gained in May 1964. (10) For the seat of ‘Southall’ in 1964, Bean received a 9.1% return, leading "race-commentator" Nicholas Deakin to argue; "the BNP exploited the feeling among some electors that the two major parties were out of touch with the common people...". (11) The BNP was concerned also to paint an image of constant action and dynamism. From 1960 they used regular rallies in Trafalgar Square which drew large audiences--and occasional violence. The street parades which never seem to have involved more than a hundred activists were another publicity measure. To "discipline" the stewards for public meetings, Jordan and Tyndall established 'Spearhead', a para-military structure, in mid 1960. This implicit appeal to the "stormtrooper" image was obvious, and partially the reason for Jordan’s schism from the BNP in April 1962. (12)

The reasons for this split were numerous, and ideological issues were involved. George Thayer contends that after the split the BNP still retained 200 members and 1000 supporters. Jordan probably seceded with less than a third of the membership, and the Notting Hill headquarters. (13) Hence the pre-split BNP was not without some substance, and Bean and Fountaine justified in wishing the party to retain its legalist approach. Spearhead ran contrary to this. Bean later asserted the preoccupation with Nazism had inhibited the party as much as personality conflicts. (14)

After 1962 the British National Party’s ideological position underwent perceptible changes, perhaps as a response to Jordan’s nazi activities. In the party paper, Combat, "Racial-Nationalism" was slightly muted to cater for a different nationalist/pro-Commonwealth political market. (15) Prior to the split the party had been prone to anti-semitism. On November 21st 1960 some members had been arrested for insulting "London’s Jewish Lord Mayor". On April 17th 1961, Bean, Jordan, and Kerr-Ritchie (a later neo-nazi) were arrested at a Jewish meeting commemorating the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. (16) The BNP had also denounced the Eichmann trial and asserted the Nazi’s extermination of Jews as a "myth". In the modified BNP the anti-semitism was curtailed.

The BNP retained one fundamental ideological tenet as formulated by Fountaine in a series of articles, "The Wars of the Churchillian Succession"; that there was since the Great War a world coloured revolution which grew more intense after the Second World War --which Britain "lost". (17) The basic themes are close to the base-ideas of Oswald Spengler and Lothrop Stoddard, the American racial-theorist. The BNP programme remained intact, though emphasis seems to have changed to counter the neo-nazi phraseology.

While the BNP continued marches and demonstrations, it was banned from Trafalgar Square, after 1962. Jordan’s neo-nazism reflected on the other neo-fascist parties; it managed also to engender the ‘Yellow Star Movement’, a mostly Jewish group which sought to deny meeting places to fascists, the BNP being regarded as a major fascist challenge. In 1963, the BNP attempted to gain an injunction against the YSM holding a demonstration at the same place (simultaneously) as itself. Despite all, Bean’s racism stayed stringent, which may have encouraged angry reactions.

For example in Combat ( January 1963) he said:

“At the age of eighteen the half caste would be given free passage to the country of its choice, or he,...would be allowed to remain in Britain enjoying all the rights and privileges ...except for the fact that he would be legally enforced to undertake sterilisation..”. (18)

The BNP lost some of its vigour in 1963, indicated by an official appeal for funds in combat in May which bordered on desperation.(19) Despite the electoral success of 1964, (‘Southall’), by 1965 the BNP was reduced to a participant in vicious squabbles with the other neo-fascist movements. In Combat, Mosleyism was condemned for leading youth into a "blind alley" and the "swastika groups" censured for "foolish adventurism".(20) It became apparent to the BNP, that factionalism was to the detriment of the nationalist cause, and hence the plan for "unification" of the neo-fascist parties, as advanced by Tyndall, met with favourable response in 1966.

 

(b)  The National Socialist Movement 1962-67 (NSM).

 

The inspiration for the formation of the NSM seems to have come from the American Nazis. In 1961, Rockwell sent a taped letter to a private gathering of BNP members and remarked that the BNP differed from him only over "open Nazism". It may have summed to an attempt by Rockwell to establish a British section for his projected ‘World Union of National Socialists’ and an appeal to Colin Jordan to follow in his vein.

Rockwell symbolised the successful fascist agitator able to gather mass media publicity. Perhaps some BNP members were hypnotised by the naive lucidity of Rockwell’s schema. This new "National Socialism" was clearly a misrepresentation and vulgarisation of German fascism. Hitler’s Volk-creed was equated with a racial-nationalism (21); therefore German fascism was removed from this European ideological context and transformed into a "redeemer doctrine" divorced from its time-space limitations. (This, from those who argued organic thinking in History and Politics, was a virtue) Jordan’s neo-nazism stood as a contradiction to traditional fascist pragmatism and the revised continental neo-fascisms.

It may be debatable how far the Nazis of the 1960’s can be taken seriously. The current ‘National Socialist Party of Ireland and the United Kingdom’ (1976-7) distributes a U.S neo-nazi booklet which may have developed the neo-nazism of the 1960's into a near-religion. (22) Whether Jordan concurred with the imagery of Hitler as Messiah, swastika as ‘Cross’ , Nazi Germany as the ‘Passion’, war as ‘crucifixion’, Mein Kampf as Bible, and Rockwell as a ‘Saint Paul’ - is not speculative, as various neo-nazis hinted in this direction and Jordan subsequently supported this position. (23)

The NSM was inaugurated on Hitler’s birthday 1962. The media responded favourably to the NSM’s plan to "smash" its way into the headlines. Reports of Jordan’s expulsion from his teaching position were forthcoming. (24) The press also reported Jordan’s manifesto of July 1962. In that month Jordan and Tyndall addressed a rally in Trafalgar Square which ended amidst riot. Jordan raised blatant anti-semitic, anti-marxist, and anti-capitalist themes, which perhaps contributed towards the disorders. That the riot left a national "impression" is indicated in that it became the background to a The Saint television programme, involving the subversive nature of British neo-nazism.

In early August 1962, Rockwell appeared in England for an international neo-nazi conference. The resulting publicity made the NSM known throughout Britain, for Rockwell’s arrival involved the Home Secretary and the police authorities. (25) Before Rockwell was deported, the World Union of National Socialists was properly established with Jordan as its titular leader. The WUNS meeting adopted the Cotswolds Agreement as its working document, the idea of "devotion" to Hitler and the "necessity" of a world neo-nazi movement being its ideological basis. (26) Immediately afterwards, the Public Order Act was invoked against the ‘Spearhead’ activities - and for the riot in Trafalgar Square.

It is probable the government acted under pressure as the NSM maintained. Certain Left and Jewish groups were, throughout the history of the NSM prone to exaggerate its potential. That 1962 was also the most active year for the neo-fascist parties may have panicked the authorities. The charge of "inciting riot" caused Jordan to be jailed on August 21st 1962.

The charges involving ‘Spearhead’ were heard in October. Though the charges were difficult to sustain Jordan was jailed for nine months, Tyndall for six months, while two other neo-nazis received lighter sentences. (27) Jordan resumed leadership of the NSM in mid-1963. In an article for the May 1963 National Socialist, he contended prison had only hardened his convictions, while Tyndall denounced police harassment of the NSM. (28) Jordan kept to his sensationalist politics; even his marriage to Francoise Dior, Tyndall’s former fiancé, was an occasion for further demonstration. (29) The NSM’s political isolation and senseless sensationalism led to further troubles for Tyndall led a group out of the NSM to form a new movement in May 1964. Tyndall had not objected to the neo-nazi racism, but primarily to its "un-British" appearance. (30)

In 1965 the NSM entered its last active phase. The campaign against "race-traitor", Patrick Gordon Walker, won numerous headlines. It was here that Jordan dramatised a slogan first used during Peter Griffith’s election campaign in ‘Smethwick’ in 1964: "If you want a nigger for a neighbour -vote Labour." (31) Probably as a reaction to this new wave of neo-nazi activity the British ‘Jewish Board of Deputies’ interviewed the Home Secretary (January 14th 1965), with a view to press for a Race Relations law. The Daily Mirror was to claim that such an Act was proposed to "silence all the Colin Jordans of our time". (32) Late in 1965 Jordan attempted to arrest Harold Wilson under an obscure treason statute, for his "betrayal" of Rhodesia. He was jailed, appealed, and later fined for his effort. (33) In May 1966 an MP urged the "nazi party" be prosecuted under the ‘race laws’. Jordan was finally arrested in November 1966, and given 18 months jail in January1967. This caused the collapse of the neo-nazi party and the 'European Federation of WUNS' which Jordan directed.

The neo-nazi experiment was an obvious failure, and severely damaged the fascist cause. It encouraged mass reaction to neo-fascism and racism and led anti-fascist terrorism (as waged by the Jewish ‘62 Group’) to develop. The opposition has been since able to smear the Right with neo-nazism. The association with the NSM damaged the credibility of various rightists. It may be that the government overacted to the NSM and this contributed to the 1965 Race Relations Act being accepted by parliament. The repetition of old Hitlerian themes, and usage of hated foreign rituals and symbols alienated much of the Right, and certainly the public. The NSM never gained more than a couple of hundred members in its whole existence , and those it had were probably attracted by its exotic nature. The connection between this neo-nazism and the renewed interest in Nazi Germany may also be possible. It is certain that the current Right , and its opposition - have not forgotten the NSM.

 

(c) The Greater Britain Movement (GBM) (1964-67)

 

The Greater Britain Movement GBM was formed by John Tyndall and Martin Webster in August 1964. It seems to have been a shadowy movement, and probably never raised its membership beyond a couple of hundreds. Nonetheless its ideology gives the impression of better elucidation than the sterile creed of the NSM, for Tyndall was, and is, not an unintelligent character. The Greater Britain Movement drew on a wide range of neo-fascist thinking, much in the character of the BNP. (34) However personality-differences, and Tyndall’s too recent association with neo-nazism, precluded any early union with the other neo-fascist parties.

The GBM did assume an activist method of political action. Prior to the formal inauguration of their party, both Tyndall and Webster were arrested for events concerning an assault on Jomo Kenyatta; the former was jailed. (35) Tyndall persisted with holding rallies, one of which in Dalston in October 1965 caused seventeen arrests. (36) Early in 1966, Tyndall and some of his followers were charged with possession of illegal firearms, damaging thereby damaging the GBM’s credibility with other rightists. (37)

It may be possible the GBM came to be envisaged as a transitional stage in the organised evolution of the Right, for in March 1965 Tyndall instructed his followers to liaise with other "patriotic organisations" - except the NSM. (38) By March 1966 Tyndall argued:

“...we must do everything we can to bring together the tragically splintered forces of the National-Right. It may mean snubs. It may mean continued frustrations. It may even mean total failure. But somewhere, some time, an example must be made.” (39)

In an article in Spearhead in July 1966, ‘Where is the Right?’, Tyndall made a savage attack on the neo-fascist movements’ particularisms;

“...the little men who talk about uniting Britain , the white race, Europe,... cannot even unite themselves. Any talk of a common fight against a common enemy is treated bythem as a sinister plot to undermine their own precious private identities.” (40)

Tyndall also reasoned the growth of "liberal-Conservatism" created a vacuum on the Right. In retrospect he contended himself willing to exclude himself from the policy direction of a new movement--in the name of "unity". (41) This Spearhead article interested Bean; however more conservative groups like the Racial Preservation Society were unwilling to merge with "neo-nazis".

The new movement, the National Front, was officially launched in February 1967 as a merger of the BNP and the LE, the former urging the GBM’s inclusion in the party as a matter of course. In Spearhead (Sept.1967), Tyndall again urged his followers to allow the liquidation of the GBM; this was achieved by the close of 1967. (42) A.K. Chesterton, convinced of Tyndall’s political sobriety agreed with the merger of the GBM into the NF, this despite a small faction of LEL supporters who shied from the creation of a radical nationalist party which was to seek political power. (43)

 

(d) The Union Movement 1960-67.(UM)

 

In the years following Mosley’s campaign in North Kensington and the Notting Hill riots in which Union Movement members were involved, Mosley took an activist stance unsurpassed save for his BUF days. In June 1959 Mosley addressed a rally in Trafalgar Square and involved himself in a court case involving some UM members accused of assaulting blacks.(44) Though Mosley was shaken by his "low" poll in N. Kensington in October, he urged his supporters to further action. Mosley was aware his "blackshirts" possessed a certain vogue in the politics of racial confrontation. On February 28th 1960, Mosleyites clashed, at an anti-apartheid rally addressed by Hugh Gaitskell, with "new left" elements. (45)

The various confrontations which followed allowed Gordon Walker and Sir Leslie Plummer to recall in the Parliament the violence of the Thirties. (46) On March 27th Union Movement headquarters was picked by Left and Labour groups. On August 10th 1960, a Union Movement member was arrested for assaulting the Ghana High Commissioner. (47) Mosley continued these opportunist tactics into 1961, examples being a UM disruption of an anti-aparthied rally in London (April), and assaults an opponents at a Mosley rally in May. (48)

The emergence of the NSM worried Mosley, and probably led to an increased Jewish and Left interest in Union Movement. The Jordan riot of July 1962 enraged anti-fascists, perhaps contributing to a wild melee on July 31st where Mosley was physically beaten and fifty-four arrests affected. (49) Mosley subsequently urged the repeal of some sections of the Public Order Act to give his "black-shirts" free reign. The intense political-racial rioting in London during August 1962 caused a Mosley march to be banned, and a 48-hour ban on demonstrations issued on August 30th. (50) On September 3rd a UM rally in E. London concluded with forty arrests. On this occasion, Rev. Sargent of the ‘Yellow Star Movement’ misrepresented the situation to assert, "...the fascists..(were)...here for one reason...to provoke." (51) There followed a series of violent struggles between the YSM and the UM into 1963. On May 12th 1963, YSM members broke into UM headquarters and assaulted the secretary, Robert Row. Most of the intruders were convicted in court and were interestingly, Jewish. (52)

In 1962 the Union Movement concluded a shaky ideological union with certain continental movements, symbolised by the ‘Declaration of Venice’ signed in May, by the MSI (Italy), the German Reichs Parteit, and the neo-fascist ‘Young Europe’ movement. The parties resolved to establish the ‘National Party of Europe’ - but failed to do so. The Venice manifesto called for a "European Parliament" and the withdrawal of Russian and American troops from Europe. (54) Significantly, the manifesto carried little of the nostalgia for the past which has plagued other neo-fascist parties and Internationals. In his autobiography Mosley believed the ‘Declaration’ a "success" despite its obvious failure to achieve political results.

According to Skidelsky, UM possessed 1,500 members and 10,000 supporters in 1964, a sufficient base to support its monthly magazine National European and the party administration. (53) The membership figure is probably excessive. The amount of media coverage given to UM seems to have declined from 1963 as the first burst of fascist activism subsided. By 1966 the UM was polling only 4.6% in national elections; the reasons for this decline in public support could be attributed to the "recovery" of the British public mind from the initial "cultural shock" caused by the rising numbers of coloured immigrants and some government measures which ameliorated the social position of poor immigrants.

 

Section B 1967-75

 

The neo-fascist movements in the period can be discussed under three main headings: Union Movement, British Movement and National Front. That a new phase in British neo-fascist politics had begun should become apparent from the narrative.

 

(a)   UNION MOVEMENT 1967-75

 

Information on the Union Movement 1967-75 was sparing when compared to the period 1960-67. However one generalisation is admissible; that the Union Movement has declined from a party into primarily a publishing organisation, which, although it shows enough energy to have maintained Action newspaper as a fortnightly (from 1973 until the present) and published in 1975 in over 4000 copies, has lost its place as a contender for political influence.

The directorate which took over UM in 1967 was, with the exception of Dan Harmston, composed of men of the older generation, BUF members or activists from the early days of Union Movement. The coherent completeness of UM’s ideology has about it a dogmatism based probably on a nostalgic faith in Mosley’s political judgement; hence little innovation could have been expected. In May 1966 Mosley had set UM’s course with his contention that the party needed,

“...a strong enough base for a rapid advance when the great economic crisis comes of ;which we alone have warned the country for years past. Quite often in recent times movements with lesser votes have been in power very soon afterwards...when their time came.” (1)

‘Mosley Says Slump’ the old slogan since 1950 was / is rehashed endlessly. A Leninist notion was added to it: the necessity of a "revolutionary party" with an all-embracing world-view to exploit a crisis situation. That the UM was living in illusions could perhaps be demonstrated by the headline of Action for 1 July 1975, which screamed: ‘1931 Again--But Worse’, the faith that history may yet repeat itself in Depression. (2) A short resumé of various UM’s activities since 1967 may illustrate their new situation.

At the time of Powell’s "rivers of blood" speech of April 1968, it was noted that London dockers marched in his support. The Smithfield meatporters, over 500 strong were also mobilised under the direction of Harmston. This action was to UM’s advantage for they received numerous invitations over the next couple of years to assorted meetings, including those of the Monday Club. Naturally UM’s anti-Powell stance was not popular with the conservative Right. Mosley managed to speak before the Conservative Bow Group in November 1969; he spoke on British defence but turned his address into an attack on various Powellist attitudes. (3) UM later argued that "Powellism is the last spasm of Little England". Union Movement’s anti-Powell line is to be sharply contrasted with the NF’s "critical support". (4)

In 1971, Union Movement fielded many candidates in the Greater London Council elections, remaining true to their promise not to contest parliamentary elections. This was a major effort and encompassed the largest number of municipal seats contested by a neo-fascist party in London. Their average percentage result was around 7%. (5) This result overlapped with areas in which the NF had been active. Rightist voters did not, obviously, differentiate between the policies of the far-Right parties.

In 1972 at the time of the arrival of the Ugandan Asians, UM was again active though the British Movement and the Front had clearly cornered the market in anti-immigration feeling. Harmston did speak on a combined rightist platform in London on  September 7th , before all other right-wing movements were "proscribed" for UM members, Confident that the UM had not lost its political appeal, and sure that its rival parties could still be outdone, a conference was held in December 1972 which was to inaugurate a new phase in UM activity: the party was re-christened as 'Action Party'.

In January 1973, AP marched in a pro-EEC parade, and threw itself into making propaganda on its behalf. In March the NF was chided for "backing the wrong horse" in opposing Britain’s entry into the EEC. Nonetheless by the end of the year Action Party was again Union Movement as of the decision of the October conference. (6) The populist stance of the UM had won little sympathy, despite that the majority of Britons backed the decision to join. The NF, even though its campaign failed its ultimate object--to keep Britain out--had won a certain credibility. At this time the Mosleyites turned viciously on the Front.

In Action for 1 February 1973, a photo of Tyndall with Rockwell (1962) was produced with additional biting commentary.(7) By December the attack escalated with a broadside which "discussed" the ideological "impossibility" of the union of neo-nazism with the creed of the LEL. (8)

In June 1974 the UM continued with;

“You may join a "front" organisation and be all things to all men, shouting any popular slogan of the day--hang’em, send a (non-existent) gunboat. You can pretend foodprices are high because we are in Europe...The press will boost you...and you can convince yourself that you are on the march to power--and not up the garden path..” .(9)

Although the Union movement protested the "Red violence" directed against police and the NF at Red Lion Square in London during that same month, they failed to pay "tribute" to the NF for its stand against Marxism. Instead, Action recommended only that a special riot police be established to combat Marxist inspired disorders. (10)

In mid-1974 the UM also found time to denounce the "private armies" formed by General Walker and Colonel Stirling. (as below). Action said; "Freedom must be assured by Parliament", with a powerful executive popularly supported. Military authority was not enough. (11) An indication of UM’s support in 1975 may be indicated by a statement in Action giving their expenditures for six numbers of the paper and office rent at 4,000 pounds. Certainly the movement was small (perhaps less than a thousand members and friends by then), and was restricted mainly in London.

Though UM blasted away at the "need" to revitalise NATO, defend South Africa, repartition Ireland to end the civil war, and guard against the Labour Left, it had clearly lost its base. What was perhaps UN’s last hope to regain its status on the Right, the Tyndall-Reed schism in the NF has come to nothing. In 1976 the Union Movement abstained from the most heated issue in Right politics, the case of the imprisoned "victim" of the Race Relations Board, Robert Relf. That many of its members have defected to the NF throughout the period here examined is most likely, this contributing to further decline of the movement.

 

(b)   THE BRITISH MOVEMENT 1968-75.

 

Colin Jordan, leader of the British Movement from the time of its foundation in May 1968 until March 1975, was in jail as a result of a conviction under the Race Relations Act (as above), when the National Front was formed. Most foundation members of the NF did not wish Jordan to join the new party. Upon his release from prison, Tyndall and Webster advised him to stay clear of political action, this in the interest of the radicals who hoped to take over the Front. (12)

Jordan did not take this advice, disliking as he did the ideological-political chaos which characterised the early NF, and he consequently founded the BM in Coventry that year. The BM’s programme, as set out in a pamphlet interestingly entitled Black and White News , involved the termination of immigration, repatriation of all coloured immigrants, the cessation of international control over British politics and economy, local government for Wales and Scotland, economic autarky, "white international solidarity" and the suppression of party and class warfare. (13) With the exception of "white solidarity" clause, the policy was remarkably similar to the programme of National Front. The British Movement adopted the "Celtic Cross" as its symbol and retained its commitment to racial nationalism. Nonetheless, Jordan hoped to avoid the Nazi slur by positing his new "National Democratic" philosophy. According to Searchlight , an anti-fascist news bulletin, this new course met with opposition from "Nazi" elements who have continued to exist under various labels to coalesce as ‘Column 88’ about 1972. (14)

It is probable Jordan hoped to do with his party what the Front planned as its course of action. Hence Jordan was appealing to the same political market. Confident that the people had become favourable to racist perspectives, Jordan fielded a certain Robert Duffen in the Birmingham municipal elections of May 1969. The platform which covered housing, "free speech" and "crime", centred on the question of immigration. (15) In July 1969 Jordan became a candidate in the Ladywood by-election in Birmingham, standing on a standard nationalist platform. He received over 3% of the poll. This line of party-building, the "perpetual-campaign" jolted by electioneering, was also in use by the Front. Jordan also offered himself as a candidate in Wolverhampton, in an electorate adjacent to the constituency held by Powell. He managed to receive over 4% of the result. (16)

A dearth of information allows little to be said of the period 1971-74. The French neo-fascist, Francois Duprat, claimed Jordan managed to construct a modest party of some 400-500 members and supporters such as to maintain his monthly magazine, British Patriot. (17)

A former member of British Movement told the writer that most of the members who joined in this period were young, recalled Jordan’s "Nazi" past with an amused excitement, and otherwise enjoyed the “fascist” atmosphere of the party. The claim was also made that BM attracted two broad categories of member: the "secret Nazi" and the more stable "British nationalist". Relations with the National Front in this period had not reached the stage of mutual recrimination. (18) This is not to say the British Movement had been inactive. A chronicle of their activities 1971-74 would include: an attempt to have Prime Minister Heath charged under a treason statute, (19), a small demonstration at Heathrow airport in London as the Ugandan Asians were arriving (20), a wild rally in Liverpool in July 1973 at which 13 arrests were affected. (21) It would seem that the BM became restricted to certain bases - Liverpool, Merseyside, and Coventry during this time. A small branch was implanted in London.

In March 1975 Jordan resigned from the chairmanship of his party, and allowed a young man in his mid-twenties, Michael Mc Laughlin, to direct the movement. Under Mc Laughlin the BM seems to have drifted in the neo-nazi direction. The year 1975 seems to have been a time of expansion for British Movement. This time coincided with the troubles inside the National Front which encouraged some defections in the directions of BM. In January 1975, British Patriot had noted the abuse directed at Tyndall at the Front’s annual congress. (22) In May 1975, in a blatant anti-semitic statement, British Patriot headlined, "Jews Take Over National Front", while "Tyndall fights for his political life".(23) The BM also distributed a leaflet, ‘Why Not the National Front’.

Without Jordan to closely scrutinise the BM it had developed away from what appeared to have been the original intention. The British Movement joined the ‘White Nationalist Confederacy of Understanding’, another neo-fascist International, which included three U.S. neo-nazi parties. (24) The BM also sent delegates to the Belgian nationalist congress at Dixmuide, and hosted Dr.E.Fields of the extreme anti-semitic National State’s Rights Party in July 1975. Simultaneously, the BM began to advertise, and sell U.S neo-nazi material, including papers and Rockwell tapes.

The split in the NF raised the hopes of the BM, expectations, it appears which have not been realised. The BM remains active; indeed it was the British Movement which claimed Robert Relf as its own until the NF acquired his support. It has continued to offer candidates in local and national elections. Its publications are of low standard which could indicate stagnant membership. The French fascists predict the BM will merge because of membership defections into the re-radicalised NF. (25) The BM’s ideology is similar to the Front on most issues, however it has been somewhat inarticulately expressed. Lack of staff or funding would have contributed thereto. Recently (1977) Jordan became estranged from Mc Laughlin to whom he had been offering advice. This could lead further to the BM’s decline.

 

(c) THE NATIONAL FRONT 1967-75.

 

A basic narrative of the NF’s history and development needs be made. After that, certain questions not answered by the narrative can be discussed.

The difficulty in arranging the merger of the League of Empire Loyalists and the BNP has already been noted; Tyndall, who contributed so much to the spirit of unity on the Right was initially outside the organisation. The haggling between BNP members and Leaguers continued for at least a year. The National Front, according to Martin Walker, claimed 2,500 adherents at the time of its foundation. More likely, he reasoned the membership at 1,500, and many of these "members" were so only in name. (26) In a recent article in Defence de l’Occident, Francois Duprat, estimated the number of NF "actives" at the close of 1967 as, 150 from the former LEL, 200 from the old BNP, and 100 from the Greater Britain Movement, which merged slowly between September and December. (27) The journals, Spearhead and Combat became supporting organs to the new party.

At the congress of the NF held in October 1967, party-chairman, A.K. Chesterton, sought to cement the still fragile union of the Right. He urged the NF use "political intelligence" to outwit its opponents, and that the Front remain a "responsible" organisation. While he actually spoke of "the Jewish financial power", Chesterton argued against the blind "Jew haters" and "nigger haters”. (28) The Front’s first test of public support was the Acton by-election soon after Powell’s speech of April 1968. The candidate was Andrew Fountaine who managed to win 1400 votes, 5.6%, a low result (29), considering that Acton bordered the old BNP stronghold of Southall. In May, the Front nominated 26 municipal candidates; 15 were in South London, where good results were expected. The highest return was 12.5%. (30) Shortly thereafter, Chesterton quarrelled violently with Fountaine; the latter obtained a high court order which held that his dismissal from party positions was unconstitutional when compared to party-rules. Fountaine’s injunction was also aimed at Tyndall, Pirie, Philip Maxwell (a former BNP executive), and Gordon Brown, Tyndall’s financial benefactor from the GBM days. (31) Later in the year, Fountaine left the NF to establish a short lived ‘Nationalist Party’. It would appear that, from there on, Tyndall’s position became more secure in the party.

Martin Webster’s oft quoted statement: "we had to kick our way into the headlines", appears to have summed the nature of the NF’s activities in 1969-70. Front activities a "sit in" at a "Leftist" education meeting (32), disruption of a dramatic performance which supported homosexual rights (33), and a demonstration against a "teach-in" on the South African apartheid laws. (34) Into 1970 the campaign continued with a pro-Springbok march in Cardiff (35), an appearance at a Monday Club "freedom (from socialism ) rally" (36), and a picket against the Kirov ballet around the theme "Russia out of Czechoslovakia’. (37)

The NF therefore confidently entered the 1970 General Elections, but found its support was low when compared to the municipal votes of 1969; in affect the NF was still a fringe party. The poor showing at the polls probably contributed to Gordon Brown’s effort to have Chesterton resign the leadership. When Chesterton did resign the leadership--and from the party - the putschists could not agree on the choice of a new chairman, until a compromise candidate, John O’Brien, was decided upon. An anti NF pamphlet dated 1974, quoted Chesterton as saying at the time that the NF was possessed of two percent "evil men" of shady intent and ideology. (38)

In March 1971, O’Brien said the NF would, while keeping its creed intact, seek a new image of popularity based on the utilisation of Powell’s statements and close identification with issues close to the people’s interest. (39) This appears to have been the first sign of the emergence of an amorphous 'patriotic' faction seeking to direct the Front. Interestingly O’Brien’s political origin, the Tory party and anti-immigrant groups, was remarkably similar to those, who in 1974, wished to take the party away from the Tyndall faction.

It was perhaps not surprising, because the NF’s progress in 1971 was probably a negative factor, that O’Brien attempted to expel the "Tyndall-Webster group". The NF’s political atmosphere seems to have allowed personal ambitions and playacting to regularly come to the fore, especially in times of political difficulty. Tyndall, the most "ideological" character on the Directorate, could easily be blamed for the continued association of the party with neo-nazism. At least this has been a standard excuse for failure. The account given by Walker of this first real split; that O’Brien made many moves over a six months period at Executive meetings to lessen Tyndall’s influence, was confirmed by Peter Applin who at that time was an Executive member himself. Applin told the writer that O’Brien saw Tyndall and Webster as "siamese twins" who represented a fascist wing of the party, totally divorced from the modified and radicalised Powellism which O’Brien had embraced. (40) O’Brien and his supporters on the Directorate, as they failed to wrest the control of the party from "the extremists", resigned in mid-1972 to join the ‘National Independence Party’. The latter group managed to enjoy a shaky existence until 1976. Applin noted that "luck" was on Tyndall’s side in the shape of the arrival of the Ugandan Asians; the NF quickly recovered from its schism, directed by its new chairman, John Tyndall. (41)

It was under Tyndall’s first chairmanship of the Front that it became a national organisation worthy of note. The first real traces of administrative and election machinery formed at this time. Recruits were gained from the Monday Club in late 1972; better calibre members, including John Kingsley and Roy Painter brought valuable administrative skills. In December 1972 the Front enjoyed its first electoral triumph, the 2,960 votes, 8.2% at Uxbridge. (42) At this time the issue of the EEC loomed as a potential vote-getter. In January 1973, the NF held an anti EEC rally in Bristol with the theme "Britain died today". (43) The Front’s anti EEC propaganda combined with racism perhaps contributed to a startling development characterised by the Times as, "The National Front’s Growing Challenge To Mr. Heath." (44) This was Webster’s campaign in the West Bromwich by-election which delivered over 4,700 votes, 16% of the poll. The June 1973 Britain First, argued that the local election results at Leicester in April 1973, which brought 10,000 NF votes, were enhanced by the West Bromwich result. Britain First reasoned that the Front was developing into a genuine "alternative" to the large parties. The second set of elections in Leicester that month, saw the Front’s vote rise to 18,000, had obviously whetted Britain First’s political appetite. (45)

Walker has pointed out, and Applin concurred, that these new successes had won a great volume of recruits who slowly came to view the "fascist faction" of the party as a liability. (46) This "populist" faction came to include Reed, Painter, Mike Lobb, Richard Lawson, and Gordon Brown. The unpromising results of the February 1974 General Elections, in which the Front fielded 54 candidates, confirmed the opinion of various elements that the "Nazi smear" had been to the NF’s disadvantage. In Spearhead, for June 1974, friction could be seen between Tyndall and the young Dave McCalden who urged that "nationalism" be always popular; in reply Tyndall could only assert the virtues of ideological purism. (47) The last "triumph" of Tyndall’s first chairmanship of the Front, was the ‘Battle Of Red Lion Square’, now a part of the political mythologies of both Right and Left. On June 15 1974 a pitched street battle was fought between police and leftist demonstrators who had arrived to counter-demonstrate a National Front march. One student lost his life. Justice Scarman’s report maintained that the International Marxist Group had been responsible for the violence and had obviously mastered the technique of violent confrontation. (48) The IMG’s paper, Red Weekly, had issued slightly veiled incitements to violence which the Front managed to exploit, and later glorified their role at the Red Lion Square riot. (49)

From early 1974, the International Socialists, Gerry Healy’s Workers' Revolutionary Party, and the IMG had come to view the NF as a serious fascist threat, something in the fashion of the Greek junta or Pinochet’s Chilean revolution, a party addressed to averting the rapid advance of the proletarian cause which they believed characterised these times. (50) The creation of General Walker’s ‘Unison Movement’ and Colonel Stirling’s GB75 group, forces "ready to serve the nation" in the advent of a leftist coup, soured by the political air. The violence designed to allow "no platform for fascists" was perhaps part of the Left’s hysteria. The Left also established in early 1974, numerous ‘Anti-Fascist Committees’, which had the support of many coloureds and students, a large element which was directed against the Front in 1974 and 1975.

In September 1974, the NF protested a savage television program which equated the NF to dogmatic racism and Nazism. The Front was also depicted as a one-issue movement, just as it was struggling to present a four part propaganda package. (51) In addition to ‘race’ the other policies involved, opposition to Britain’s membership of the EEC, support for the Loyalists in Northern Ireland, and stringent denunciation of the communist influence over certain trade unions. The Newham by-election of May 1974, where Mike Lobb was the candidate, which yielded an 11.5% result proved to the Front the value of a coherent policy which embraced several key issues. (52) The question arose as to how far the party could extend the net for votes without diluting doctrine. For a still small party this was recognised by Tyndall - as a danger.

The October General Elections of 1974 saw the NF contest 90 seats for 113,000 votes, under the control a new Directorate with Kingsley-Reed as Chairman, and Tyndall as vice-Chairman. The heavy election expenditures of 1974, with 20,000 pounds in lost election deposits alone, perhaps induced the 'populists' to overcome the neo-fascist wing of the party, such as to gain full public respectability. Though electoral support was on the rise, it was probably thought to be ready to go higher with an "untainted" leadership at the helm of the Front. Hence Tyndall’s hope of regaining the party leadership rested with what Walker called "the young men" of the Front, those who liked the party’s radical image. (53)

It may not be speculation to argue that the ‘nationalism’ of Tyndall and Webster varied greatly from the staid conservatism of Reed and Painter. For Tyndall the question was a clash of doctrine, not personalities. In January 1975, John Bean returned to the Front with an article in Spearhead, which argued that the nationalist ideology was in danger from those who believed what the media and the Left suggested--that if the front purged its "radicals" it would make real progress. (54) Martin Webster contended that Martin Walker was "aiding" the populists through the columns of The Guardian. (55) Webster mentioned that as a party grows, so does ideological dilution become the answer to those who wish to speed the rate of progress. In September 1975 Tyndall wrote, that the only way the NF could one day have a mass following would be if it retained its radical stance. (56) This article on political-propaganda was blatantly fascistic; Tyndall argued that the people respond only to strong voices, and never to "popular" slogans. Spearhead also affirmed the "irrational" character of man, the necessity for virile leadership.

In October, the party finally split. The year had been a trying one. Smear campaigns waged inside the party had created a bitter atmosphere. The Left had also been active causing difficulty for most NF activities, something which may have intensified the internal dispute. Tyndall had put together and alternate leadership for the party. Webster had restored Fountaine to the fold. Andrew Brons, described by Cahiers Europeens as a "nationaliste-revolutionnaire" (read neo-fascist), joined the Spearhead staff. In October, in a complex series of events, Reed attempted to "discipline" Tyndall for a breech of party rules. Shortly after the chaotic party congress in November, Tyndall  was expelled, with Fountaine and Webster suffering suspension from duties; a court case financed by Fountaine pronounced against the Reed decision, and Tyndall retained the party files and headquarters.

The populists seceded from the NF to establish the National Party of the United Kingdom. The NF retained 101 of its branches, the NPUK took only 29. It would not be an extreme assertion to say that since the removal of the populists the NF’s opposition to Zionism has grown more virulent (as has its opposition from Britain’s Jewish community), the old virulent racism has become more intense thanks to the radical troubles of 1976, and that the NF has become content to allow itself to be controlled in an authoritarian manner, as guaranteed in a new party constitution.

The growth of the National Front to 1975, and beyond poses many important questions at which the historical narrative has only hinted.

Firstly, by looking at the early dispute between the BNP and LEL groups in the party, the O’Brien split in 1972, and the growth of populists 1973-5, it could be valid to argue that the NF has had two basic factions since its foundation. (Note: contemporary scholarship argues for three factions: the neo-nazis were not referred to in my 1977 argument.) One could be devoted to a loose "patriotism", the other to a modern fascism. Just as Hitler’s NSDAP and Mussolini’s Fascist Party embraced a wide range of opinion, and bearing in mind that the Italian Social Movement and the German National Democrats have had aggressive conservative wings which have sought to keep their respective party out of the hands of neo-fascists, it is not impossible to visualise the NF in this way. A faction of the party by claiming its 'reasonableness' could easily take control. Interestingly, and significantly, both factions have used broadly the same political language; emphasis, and psychology may have been the points of difference. Today, 1977, it is unlikely to visualise the Tyndall group relinquishing the party into 'conservative' control.

Secondly, the National Front’s flashy political style has placed it tune with the multiform issues which have been before it since 1973. The NF’s propaganda efforts which, between 1973 and 1975 distributed over 4 million leaflets, and directed innumerable demonstrations have enabled the party to become nationally known, to break out of the political-ghetto into which the Right had been previously confined. The NF has, since 1973, developed a regional organisation, and has also formally structured the various departments (finance, activities, publications, co-ordination), which are subsidiary to the Directorate. The growth of a paid staff should also be noted. The emergence of electoral machinery and party bureaucracy was probably slowed by the populist split. It may not be conjecture to argue that, as the NF’s internal structuring grows more complex, the radical leadership will politicise it thoroughly, such as to avoid the troubles of 1975. This machinery is a vital necessity, if the NF is to live up to its promise of 1975 to contest 318 seats in the next General Election.

Thirdly, the voting strength of the NF has varied considerably over the years. The impressionistic opinion expressed here is that, since 1973, the NF has found a stable pool of voting support, and has been able, generally, to enlarge upon it. That this support has been rising is illustrated by the fact that the Front now out-polls the Liberal Party, and is the third party in Britain. The May 1977 municipal elections saw the Liberals trounced severely. (57)

Those who oppose the Front seem to have had, and still do possess a strange conception of it, and its plans. For example a writer in Race argued that;

“The irrelevance of the National Front is that its policies have already been incorporated into the state plan..” .(58)

Demonstrably this is a ridiculous claim. Similarly, the British Trotskyites have, since 1974, seen the NF as an unknowing organ of official racism. (59) A recent claim in International Socialism, that the NF has always been a "petty bourgeois movement" as per Trotsky’s analysis of 1930’s fascism, ready to embrace anti-semitism to the detriment of its anti-immigrant argument, seems to rest on the 'unexplainable' fact (for a Marxist) that the NF is gaining great support from inner-city working class areas.

Duprat maintains that the Front's membership was 15,000 in 1975 and that it is now 25,000 (this was a definite exaggeration although estimates have varied as high as 18,000 and possibly higher if a loose concept of membership is employed); that its publications' distributions have likewise increased from 5,000 to 10,000 for Spearhead, and 20,000 for Britain First to 50,000 for National Front News. It is likely that the NF has been a self-financed party, and hence has not conformed to the stereotype fascist movement with capitalist subsidy. Overall, its future looks very bright. (60)

The following sections on the ideological perspectives of the neo-fascist parties should make clearer the sort of order the Right would impose on Britain; it being always necessary to differentiate between the ‘letter’ and the ‘word’ of such statements. Some light may also emerge on the internal differences in an organisation like the National Front, and the general evolution of ideas on the Right.

 

Footnotes

 

(1) Richard Gombin, The Origins of Modern Leftism, (Penguin) 1975, pp.13-24. and Paul Jacobs and Saul Landau, The New Radicals, (Penguin) 1967 pp.18-22.

(2) see Black and White News, (Organ of the White Defense League) November 1958.

(3) The Times (London) 8 September 1959, p.8

(4) The Times. 30 September 1959, p.7.

(5) Nicholas Deakin, Colour and the British Electorate 1964. (Pall Mall Press) London 1965, p.4

(6) The Northern European. (Voice of Nordic Racial Nationalism.) (Northern European Ring, Coventry.) N.2 August-September 1960 p.3.

(7) ibid., p.1

(8) The Northern European N.4 December 1960 p.1 and N.2 p.2

(9) Deakin op.cit., p.111

(10) ibid., p.40

(11) ibid., p.52.

(12) Thayer op.cit., p.20

(13) ibid., pp20-23

(14) Combat (Organ of the British National Party.) N.24 September-October 1963 p.5

(15) see Combat in 1963-5. References to Racial Nationalism do not occur.

(16) The Times 18 April 1961 p.8

(17) Andrew Fountaine "The War of the Churchillian Succession" in Combat No.11 March-April 1961 p.5, as compared with Fountaine ‘Politics: Impure and Simple' in Combat September-October 1965.

(18) Combat. January-February 1963. p.5

(19) Combat. May-June 1963. p.7

(20) Combat. September-October 1965. p.4

(21) George Lincoln Rockwell. This Time The World, (Parliament House) New York, 1974, pp.154-57.

(22) Matt Koehl. The Future Calls, (DNSU Forlag.) 1976. reprinted from White Power, a U.S. Nazi paper April 1973 p.5.

(23) Rockwell op.cit., pp. 306-310.

(24) The Times 3 July 1962 p.6 and 5 July p.12

(25) George Lincoln Rockwell, ‘England!’ in Stormtrooper, publication of the American Nazi Party, No.3, November 1962

(26) seeThe Cotswalds Agreement’, a leaflet, American Nazi Party. date unknown.

(27) Angelo del Boca and Mario Giovanna op.cit., p.268.

(28) The National Socialist Vol.1 N.4 May 1963 ‘From Jail to Victory’. pp 2-3

(29) Harcourt, David Everyone Wants To Be Fuehrer: National Socialism In Australia And New Zealand. (Angus and Robertson) Sydney 1973.

(30) Walker, Martin. The National Front (Fontana Collins) London May 1977 p.46

(31) The National Socialist No.9 April-June 1965 p.6

(32) The Daily Mirror (date uncertain)

(33) The Times 2 November 1965 p.5 and 26 November p.7

(34) see Spearhead, then organ of the Greater Britain Movement. No.5 September 1965.References to both New European Order and corporate state occur; need for a "new ideology" stated.

(35) The Times 16 July 1964 p.3 and 7 August 1964 p.6

(36) The Times 25 October 1965, p.10

(37) The Times 30 June 1966, p.11

(38) Greater Britain Movement newsletter. March 1965 p.3

(39) Spearhead N.8 March 1966 pp.5-6

(40) John Tyndall ‘Where is the Right?’ Spearhead No.9 July 1966, pp.5-7

(41) see Spearhead No.103 March 1977 p.8

(42) Spearhead No.10 September 1966 p.11

(43) Candour June 1967 p.4 and August 1967 p.4

(44) The Times. 25 August 1959, p.5

(45) The Times 29 February 1960, p.10

(46) The Times, 18 March 1960 p.8

(47) The Times, 11 August 1960, p.5

(48) The Times, 14 August 1961, p.17 and 15 May 1961, p.8

(49) Mosley, My Life., pp.454-56

(50) The Times., 30 August 1962, p.7 and 31 August 1962, p.8

(51) The Times, 3 September 1962, p.10

(52) The Times, 17 June 1963, p.2

(53) Skidelsky op.cit., pp.491-2

(54) Mosley, My Life, pp. 435-6; Skidelsky op.cit.p.493-4; del Boca and Giovanna op.cit., p. 264-5.

 

Section B.

 

(1) Sir Oswald Mosley, The National European, May 1966 p.2

(2) Action, No. 198 1 July 1975, p.1

(3) Mosley Broadsheet, January 1970, which records the speech of 7 November 1969.

(4) Action, No.156 1 July 1973, p.1

(5) Union Movement members' letter, 1971

(6) Action, No.164 1 November 1973, p.4

(7) Action, No.146 1 February 1973, p.2

(8) Action, No.165 1 December, p.4

(9) Action, No.175 15 June 1974, p.4

(10) Action, No.176 1 July 1974, p.1

(11) Action, No.179 15 August 1974, p.1

(12) Martin Walker, The National Front, pp.77-8

(13) Black and White News p.4 (dated 1969)

(14) Searchlight, May 1975, pp.4-5

(15) from an election leaflet issued by British Movement.

(16) Colin Jordan, letter to author, 1977.

(17) Cahiers Europeens Hedbo, April 1977, p.16

(18) from the conversation cited.

(19) The Times 22 December 1971, p.2

(20) The Times 13 September 1972, p.4

(21) The Times 2 July 1973 p.2

(22) British Patriot January 1975 p.7

(23) British Patriot May 1975, pp.9-10

(24) British Tidings. (Bulletin of British Movement) No.48 July 1975, p.2

(25) La Montee du Nationalisme en Grande Bretagne. (Supplement a la Revue du Histoirie du Fascisme.No.23/4 June-July 1977 Le Trait. p.28

(26) Walker op.cit.,p.67

(27) Francois Duprat. "La Percee politique du Nationalisme en Grande Bretagne." in Defense de L’Occident. No.149 June 1977 Paris.

(28) Combat No.42 November-December 1967, p.7

(29) Combat No.43 Spring 1968 p.7

(30) La Montee du Nationalisme., p.8

(31) The Times 30 August 1968, p.3

(32) The Times 30 April, 1969, p.8

(33) The Times, 5 June 1969, p.4

(34) The Times, 7 July 1969, p.2

(35) The Times 13 January, 1970, p.8

(36) The Times, 4 May 1970, p.2

(37) The Times, 24 August 1970, p.2

(38) The Hatemongers (anonymous anti-NF pamphlet) 1974.p.4

(39) The Times, 16 March 1971, p.5

(40) conversation with Peter Applin

(41) ibid.

(42) Walker op.cit.,p.138

(43) The Times, 2 January 1973, p.5

(44) The Times, 31 May 1973, p.16

(45) Britain First, June 1973 p.4

(46) Walker op.cit.,pp.148-9

(47) Spearhead, No.76 June 1974 p.8

(48) The Red Lion Square Disorders of 15 June 1974: Report of Inquiry by Rt.Hon.Justice Scarman M.B.E., 1975

(50) Shipley, Peter. Revolutionaires in Modern Britain. (The Bodley Head) London 1975, p.122

(51) The Times 15 September 1974, p.3

(52) La Montee du Nationalisme p.21

(53) Walker op.cit.,pp.176-7

(54) John Bean, "Analysis of the Smear" in Spearhead No.80 January 1975.pp.11-12

(55) Webster in Spearhead No.80 January 1975 p.17

(56) John Tyndall, "Some Reflections on Propaganda" in Spearhead No.87 September 1975 pp.10-11

(57) see Spearhead No.105 May 1977.

(58) Ian Macdonald, "Some Thoughts on Fascism Today" in Race Vol.xvi, No, 3 January 1975 pp.295-304 p.302

(59) International Socialism. (monthly journal of the Socialist Workers' Party) June 1977, pp.22-3

(60) see Cahiers Europeens June 1977.

 

 







Return to start page:

British Neo-Fascist Politics 1960 - 1975

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………