Sometime ago while surfing the Web, I came across the following extract from Anti-Semitism Worldwide 1997/8 - UNITED KINGDOM. It reads thus:
Alexander Baron, a so-called libertarian, and prolific writer of anti-Semitic and Holocaust denial publications, was found not guilty of intimidating a witness and making threats to kill, following an investigation of his financial affairs by the Department of Social Security. Baron conducted his own defense financed with support gained from adverts placed on the Internet site of the American neo-Nazi Harold Covington, alias Winston Smith. In September his civil case against Gerry Gable, editor of the anti-fascist magazine Searchlight, who had labeled him an anti-Semite, was settled out of court, but Gable was not forced to retract his statement. In December, however, Baron was charged with offenses under the Malicious Communications Act, and his case was due to be heard early in 1998.
I would have replied to these distortions before but I’ve been far too busy with other projects, such as exposing the damned liar (and convicted murderer) Satpal Ram. I’ve also been dogged by ill-health, in particular by severe musclo-skeletal problems (heck, goyim suffer as well, you know). I am now though - simultaneously with this refutation - publishing my pamphlet on the Baron v Gable libel case on this website. The on-line version includes a scan of the actual consent order between your blue-eyed boy and myself, so the virtual community can choose between yours and Gable’s lies and distortions, and my documented facts.
Let’s though go through the above wilful misrepresentations point by point: “Alexander Baron, a so-called libertarian”; you got that right at least; certainly far more Libertarian than the Board of Deputies of “British” Jews which has consistently lobbied to destroy our already much eroded rights of free speech on the grounds that anyone who doesn’t kiss Jewish ass can only be an anti-Semite and therefore a threat to public safety, ad nauseum. This same perfidious organisation has also voted in favour of identity cards, (1) something I have never done, (“Vere are your papers, Jew?”).
What comes next? Ah yes: “prolific writer of anti-Semitic and Holocaust denial publications”. Well, I have published quite a lot on the Jewish Question; I’m not sure that my word output makes me prolific, but I will take the assertion that I am as a compliment. Anti-Semitic? Oh dear, who else does that term embrace? Here is a very partial list:
Former President George Bush - what other motive could he have had for opposing Zionist expansionism?
Actress Vanessa Redgrave - stop shooting those Palestinian schoolchildren, you wicked Zionist Imperialists.
Now London Mayor Ken Livingstone - heck, he must be an anti-Semite, why else would Baron vote for him?
And, according to the ADL, no less in one in five Americans!
“Holocaust denial publications” - for the Nth time, nobody in his right mind denies the Holocaust, but as in your case, people who affirm the Holocaust uncritically are not necessarily in their right minds. An honest psychologist could make out a good prima facie case for believing that anyone who accepts all the major tenets of the Holocaust uncritically cannot possibly be sane. I just love this one, which was published in the New York Times, no less:
Speaking of Buchenwald concentration camp, Morris Hubert says: “In the camp there was a cage with a bear and an eagle,” and “Every day, they would throw a Jew in there.
The bear would tear him apart and the eagle would pick at his bones.”
“But that’s unbelievable,” whispered a visitor.
“It is unbelievable,” said Mr. Hubert, “but it happened.” (2)
Of course it happened, Morris, to assert otherwise constitutes “Holocaust denial”, and therefore anti-Semitism.
Back to Yours Truly: “was found not guilty of intimidating a witness and making threats to kill, following an investigation of his financial affairs by the Department of Social Security.”
The important words here are “was found not guilty”. As demonstrated clearly under cross-examination, this so-called witness was no such thing, although I could say a few other things about her. This so-called investigation was instigated in the first instance by Gerry Gable, with a tissue of lies (so what’s new?). The fact that Gable was aided and abetted by one of his bent copper friends in the course of this fit-up also came out in court; even though the overtly hostile (and bent) judge tried to ridicule and hamper me at every turn, the jury would have none of it. What does that tell you about the case?
“Baron conducted his own defense financed with support gained from adverts placed on the Internet site of the American neo-Nazi Harold Covington, alias Winston Smith.”
Oh dear, oh dear, is this malice or ignorance or both? Like most plebs, Baron was granted Legal Aid. My solicitor and barrister represented me up until the day of the trial, whereupon I dismissed both - acting against the advice of the judge - and conducted my own defence. During the six months I spent on remand I wrote to many people, and some of them publicised my case. One of these was American Nazi leader Harold Covington, or as I jokingly call him, Wicked Harold. Harold appealed to people to support me, and some did. The actual financial support I received didn’t run into three figures much less finance my case, but as always it’s the thought that counts. One guy sent a letter to the governor of Brixton Prison and a donation of $5. I was no less impressed with that than with all the other support I received; it may have been all he could afford, and he didn’t know me from Adam, yet he took the trouble to write to a prison governor five thousand miles away on my behalf. It’s people like him who revive one’s faith in human nature when things are at an all-time low.
It wasn’t “Nazis” who visited me in prison though, it was, among others, two Moslems from my Party. I suppose they are part and parcel of the all-pervasive Anti-Semitic Internationale as well?
What next? Ah yes, Baron v Gable. “In September his civil case against Gerry Gable, editor of the anti-fascist magazine Searchlight, who had labeled him an anti-Semite, was settled out of court, but Gable was not forced to retract his statement.”
Oh yes he was! In the first place, I did not sue Gable because he branded me an anti-Semite. This epithet is now used so freely that it will eventually lose its stigma. (3) After all, if all goyim are anti-Semitic, why should anyone be offended by the term, and how could the allegation lower one’s reputation in the eyes of right thinking men and women? I sued Gable because he accused me of conspiring with two other men to break criminal and civil laws with impunity, and shortly after the defamatory article appeared in his anti-goy hate-sheet, three men turned up on my doorstep on a Sunday morning and attacked me with mallets. I won’t name the person who hired them because Gerry might consider that to be defamatory.
Due to my extremely poor knowledge of the civil law I made a complete hash of the actual writ, and Gable was able with the assistance of his duplicitous lawyers to drag the case out and to have part of it struck out. If I had gone to a barrister in the first instance the case would have been over in months and Gable would have eaten humble pie. As things happened, he did eat humble pie, and because the case was long and drawn out, it cost him a great deal more money than a quick settlement would have done. During the course of the case Gable also made some startling revelations, and very kindly wrote me his (albeit highly fanciful) family history, both of which I will use against him sometime in the future.
Click on this link for a large format scan of the defamatory article which was published in the November 1993 issue of Searchlight.
Click on this link for a scan of the final consent order in Baron v Gable and others.
Click on this link for one of the other orders - a judgment.
Click on this link for an amusing diversion: the interrogatories served on the Centerprise Trust/Bookshop, the 11th defendant in the second of the consolidated libel actions.
Having extracted damages and costs, and published apologies, and a judgment from one of the other parties, it was a pragmatic decision to settle with Gable on the terms eventually agreed. If the case had proceeded and I had won it - as I surely would have - any damages I was awarded would have been set off against those already received, and I would have been liable to pay a portion of the costs after the settlement dates as determined by the court. My decision to settle was therefore (as stated) a pragmatic one, and in every sense a victory.
Gable didn’t publish an apology; I didn’t ask for one because an apology from him under any circumstances would have been totally insincere. His published retraction though was undoubtedly sincere. The phrase “Mr Gable has not paid Mr Baron any damages” was included at my suggestion. It allowed Gable to save face with his readers (temporarily) and with himself, but it will fool no honest person who reads my pamphlet on the case.
At the end of the day, I made a small profit on the case, and Gable published the retraction I had demanded prior to instituting proceedings. Everybody else was out of pocket (except the lawyers!). What more need be said?
Back to your innuendo: “In December, however, Baron was charged with offenses under the Malicious Communications Act, and his case was due to be heard early in 1998.”
This has now been resolved; I was found not guilty on one of the charges, even the assholes who sit as Stipendiaries at Horseferry Road find it difficult to believe it should be a criminal offence to write to a doctor warning her that a bent copper might try to fit her up the same way he did me. As for the other one, in the United States there are constitutional guarantees against this sort of nonsense, in spite of ongoing attempts by Organised Jewry and others to destroy freedom of speech and freedom of expression. The harassment I have suffered at the hands of Britain’s police (which is what these charges were about) continued for some time, but it may well have gone too far. Among other things I have been granted Legal Aid to sue them again. Watch this space for further announcements.
Finally, Organised Jewry in Britain and now worldwide have shown themselves in their true colours many times in relation to Gerry Gable. He may be no Nordic blond, but he is certainly your blue-eyed boy. However many lies he is proven to have told - including to you - you don’t give the proverbial monkey’s. My minutely documented exposé Liars Ought To Have Good Memories and my other researches, with particular reference to the 1960s synagogue arsons, are irrefutable. Other authors have also exposed Gable; Larry O’Hara (conspiracy theories aside) has shown him to be a Machiavellian schemer with scant respect for truth; (4) as far back as 1980, Gable was embarrassed by left wing journalists. (5) There have been others too, but none of this counts the slightest with Organised Jewry, because Gable is a Jew, one of us, and we must protect our own at any cost, screw the goyim.
As I’ve warned you before, when you smear me you’d better not do so in a public forum because if it comes to my attention, as it surely will, I will expose and refute your lies exactly as I always do, and the perfidy of you poor, persecuted, powerless people will once again be laid bare for the entire world to see. Anti-Semitism indeed, to paraphrase an oft’ quoted Jew of yore: before you condemn your neighbour for his bigotry, take a good look at your own.
May 18, 2001