ALEXANDER BARON
v
GERRY GABLE
AND OTHERS:

Summary Of One Of The
Libel Actions Of The Decade
(And Related Legal Actions).

In the November 1993 issue of Searchlight magazine, which appeared about mid-November, it was claimed that I, together with two other men: Mark Taha and Larry O’Hara, was engaged in a criminal conspiracy. The major offending phrase used was:

“Together they are breaking criminal and civil laws with impunity and it is high time Baron was in custody to prevent him from continually reoffending.”

On November 16, 1993 I wrote a strongly worded letter to the man responsible, Gerry Gable, Editor of Searchlight magazine and head honcho of the Searchlight Organisation.

This letter included the phrase: “...if you don’t publish a full and unqualified retraction in the next issue of Searchlight I will issue a summons against your error-prone, lie-ridden, mischief-making magazine in the High Court the day after it hits the street. Is that clear?”

Gable ignored this letter, as he might well have done, because at this time I had absolutely no intention of issuing a libel writ, however, on the morning of November 28th, something happened which made me change my mind. I was the victim of a vicious and clearly politically motivated mallet attack by three hired thugs on my own doorstep.

As a result of this I issued a libel writ in the High Court and served it on Gable at the House of Commons on the evening of December 8th as he was about to give evidence to the Home Affairs Committee “investigating” racial attacks. Gable’s kosher buddies - and fellow arch-liars and smear-mongers Mike Whine and Neville Nagler - had previously given evidence to the Committee and were clearly embarrassed, as was the man himself.

Serving a writ at the House of Commons is invalid and is actually Contempt of Parliament; I knew this but served it anyway as a publicity stunt. I was thrown out of the House. A report of the incident appeared in the Jewish Chronicle’s December 31st issue. (1)

No doubt at this stage Gable thought this action would be struck out in double swift time. The reason for this is that libel is one of the most complex areas of the civil law; libel writs have to be pleaded in a particular and very precise fashion, and mine was absolutely hopelessly worded. Fortunately, although I was acting in person I had wise counsel and amended the writ; I also added three further defendants: Gable’s printer, his distributor, and Housmans Bookshop. The latter is styled a pacifist or “peace movement” outlet; its major speciality however appears to be queer porn, and, for example, it was heavily involved in the Gay News blasphemous libel case.

Gable was so unimpressed by my hopelessly drafted writ that he published further defamatory remarks in the February 1994 issue of Searchlight. His lack of faith in me was nearly rewarded when subsequently Master Trench struck out significant tranches and awarded costs against me forthwith, but I appealed to Judge in Chambers, and Mrs Justice Smith, although finding against me on every point, refused to drive a plaintiff from the judgment seat and ordered that costs should follow the event.

In September 1994, Gable found himself facing another writ, and this time I sued twelve parties, adding his fellow hatemonger and conspirator Ray Hill and seven more bookshops. Gable’s so-called defences to the actions were served in December 1994; among other things he dug up an irrelevant 1983 conviction which his barrister, fellow traveller and co-racialist Richard Hermer tried later to argue in a most tortuous fashion was fundamental to the action. (2) It is in fact most unlikely that Gable had any knowledge of this conviction when he wrote the November 1993 Searchlight article; it almost certainly came from one of his bent copper friends after the event. A number of summonses in both actions were heard by Master Trench over two days in May 1996, and Gable’s reference to this conviction was struck out as embarrassing and irrelevant. (3)

Before that however, Gable had been busy making mischief in another area. Early in 1995, Mark Taha visited two of the defendants’ bookshops: Bookmarks and Housmans, and found them stocking, among other things, an issue of an anarchist newspaper called Class War which blatantly and grossly incited the murders of Britain’s judges. Housmans also stocked a newspaper which gloated over the murder of three police officers by French “anarchists” and incited the murders of British police officers. I took a trip up to North London and found a third defendant, Centerprise Trust, stocking the same filth. Centerprise is actually a registered charity and is funded primarily by public money (local authority and national government).

Naturally I reported this to the authorities. It was this which led to these defendants settling with me on favourable terms. Housmans went one better; in April 1995 one of its staff issued a leaflet (which was distributed by the bookshop) defending conspiracy crank Larry O’Hara against Gable’s incessant libels. As O’Hara was alleged to have been one of my co-conspirators, this amounted to an admission that Housmans didn’t believe their defence.

By January 1996, I had received settlements with the other defendants totalling something over eighteen thousand pounds, and two published apologies. I have been registered disabled for several years, (4) and at the time of the settlements I had been claiming benefit. Gable sent copies of the consent orders to the Benefits Agency, in particular to a little monster named Rita Broadway. In the meantime, Mark Taha issued writs against Gable in person, Searchlight Magazine Limited, and four other parties in connection with the same November 1993 article. And Derbyshire accountant Morris Riley issued writs against Gable and three other parties in connection with another article. (5)

There was a further development in August 1996 when I was raided by - believe it or not - the Organised Crime Group. This related to a pamphlet I published in December 1995 with a second edition in May 1996. After finding hate literature offered for sale in Housmans, Bookmarks and Centerprise, and after the powers-that-be had, it seemed, turned a blind eye to this, I wrote to a number of prominent Jews asking them to write to the authorities condemning this hate literature and to call for the prosecution of the bookshops concerned. One of those I wrote to was the Labour MP Gerald Kaufman. I wrote to him for a very good reason. In 1991, Kaufman had filed a complaint against veteran Nazi and hatemonger Colin Jordan. (6) His complaint concerned a cartoon the latter had published depicting Uncle Sam as Uncle Sol and implying that the all-pervasive International Jewish Conspiracy had orchestrated the Gulf War.

For publishing one poxy cartoon, such as one would find in Private Eye or any downmarket comic, Jordan was raided and his property seized en masse. It took him many hours of legal research and the full weight of the civil law to get it back, and he ended up suing the police and settling out of court for a five figure sum. I figured that if Kaufman was outraged over a tasteless (if mildly anti-Semitic) cartoon published by a marginal crank with a restricted mailing list, that he would be livid at the use of public money to incite the murders of police officers and judges. Apparently he wasn’t, because I received a non-committal acknowledgment from him. None of the other prominent Jews I wrote to even bothered to reply, (7) although Gable and his then solicitor Geoffrey Bindman, tried to have me thrown into gaol for writing to him, claiming that I was in contempt of court. (8)

It was Kaufman’s reply and the silence of his normally wailing and gnashing of teeth co-racialists, which led me to publish the aforementioned pamphlet, which bore the diplomatic title Why Britain’s Police Aren’t Worth A Jewish Fingernail. (9) Needless to say, there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth about this. In due course I received a letter from a stupid, pompous old fart at New Scotland Yard, Detective Sergeant Wall, known not so affectionately to his underlings as Commander Wall. I declined his invitation to come in and discuss it, expecting, indeed hoping for, the Jordan treatment. I wasn’t disappointed, although I had a long wait. I was raided on August 6th and bailed at the Attorney General’s pleasure.

At the end of October I sent a lengthy if strongly worded memorandum to the same wanker, DS Wall, making a number of serious allegations against Gable’s friend Rita Broadway. Unfortunately, I used somewhat strong language, to put it mildly, and it was then that Wall showed what a complete wanker he really is.

On the evening of November 1st I was raided by his underling, a piece of slime called Nemeth, and thrown into Brixton Gaol. Originally they brought two charges of witness intimidation, one concerning a letter I’d written to Broadway accusing her of acting ultra vires and accessing my bank and building society accounts without proper authority, the other concerning the memorandum I’d sent to Wall.

Later, the CPS added a charge of making a threat to kill with intent and, incredibly, assault occasioning actual bodily harm. (10) The basis for this latter charge was, incredibly, that Wall and Nemeth had faxed through this confidential memorandum to the so-called victim, and she was so distressed at its contents that she suffered irreparable psychological damage including post traumatic stress disorder.

While I was in Brixton, Nemeth, like the piece of slime he is, set about harassing my friends. He did this as much for pragmatic reasons as for spite. Having charged me with witness intimidation, he found himself in the embarrassing position of having no witness and no investigation, so he resurrected the so-called investigation into the distribution of (supposedly) anti-Semitic literature in a vain attempt to make Rita Broadway a witness, even though she claimed to know nothing about it, and even though I had never disputed its authorship and distribution, and indeed had shouted it from the rooftops.

In what must be one of the most eclectic “investigations” in police history, Morris Riley was raided, allegedly on suspicion of distributing anti-Semitic literature, arrested for a motoring insurance application offence, and charged with benefit fraud! This charge was later dropped. (11) Mark Taha was also raided, and arrested for questioning. Apparently the police have the power to do that now. (12) I told Mark to keep his mouth shut - not as if he could say anything incriminating - but he went along to the police interview with his solicitor and Counsel. It was undoubtedly this which made Nemeth lose his bottle. When he raided Mark’s bedsit he planted a stolen credit card in an obvious attempt to put pressure on him. (Mark is a nervous individual at the best of times).

Mark said he found Nemeth quite pleasant and was pleased that he hadn’t been charged with theft. (13) I told him later that he is the last person in the world who should judge a book by its cover. (14) Nemeth is scum, he is slime, he is the reason the police are called the Filth; Nemeth is lowlife. Morris had no illusions about this little turd, and Nemeth obviously realised that as far as Mr Riley was concerned, he had bitten off more than he could chew.

My trial opened at Southwark Crown Court on April 22, 1997. Before it commenced I dismissed my imbecile of a barrister and conducted my own defence; the judge, who was almost as big a piece of slime as Nemeth, advised me against it, but for a number of reasons there was no way I could allow anyone to represent me. I don’t want to sound unkind to Counsel, Michael O’Maoileoin, who put in a lot of time and effort on this case, but both he and my solicitor had misled me many times - whether by accident or design - and there were many matters I wanted raising which Goodman (15) said weren’t relevant. At one point I had to tell him “I don’t care what you think is irrelevant”. If I had allowed O’Maoileoin, or any other barrister, to defend me, I wouldn’t be sitting here now, and Gable would have won. Him and his kind.

I do though have a few words of praise for my legal team. For one thing, Counsel got disclosure of an important letter that Gable had written to that little monster Broadway, and this, together with Gable’s witness statement, cast serious doubt on his version of events. It also exposed him for what he is to all but the most venal of his left wing and Jewish friends. Another thing Counsel did was give me important pre-trial advice on the legislation, what the prosecution had to prove and what I had to prove. A third thing he and Ted did was stave off Gable’s attempts to have my libel action struck out. (16)

Gable had used all manner of dirty tricks to delay the actions. Originally he was represented by Bindman & Partners, who as well as being totally ruthless are one of the leading law firms in the country and specialists in defamation. They are also extremely expensive! After his failure to have me gaoled for contempt he dismissed Bindman’s and acted in person, requesting a six month delay on this account and on account of his supposed ill-health. When I refused he issued a time summons and was granted a delay of six weeks. He turned up for the May 1996 hearings with a new legal team; then he dismissed his second solicitor, David Kosky of Kosky Seal, and brought Bindman’s back on the record.

The first thing Bindman’s did was request a further delay of 42 days on the most spurious of pretexts. When I did not accede they issued a time summons, in the full knowledge that I was in Brixton Prison, and they were no doubt both surprised and displeased when Goodman (17) and Counsel turned up for the November 1996 hearing.

Then they appealed out of time against an order of Master Trench made in May of that year. Normally an appeal to judge in chambers must be made within five days, so this was clearly a further attempt to have my action struck out knowing that I was in no position to mount an effective resistance to the application. Goodman and O’Maoileoin handled all these hearings while I was in Brixton, for a much reduced fee. So, back to Southwark.

There had been talk of adding a fourth charge to the indictment, that of the publication and distribution of the satirical pamphlet, but this was shelved, probably because the authorities didn’t want to turn this into an openly political show trial. Eventually I stood trial on two charges: making a threat to kill with intent, and intimidation. The ABH charge was too much even for a judge as biased as Victor Brian Watts, who said it would cause insuperable difficulties, so he ordered the prosecution not to proceed with it.

The first prosecution witness was the so-called victim, Rita Broadway. This little monster had appeared at Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court holding hands with her paramour and looking like a frightened schoolgirl. She was careful not to overact here to the same extent, but she obviously didn’t impress the jury, who must have found it difficult to believe that reading a few comments about her being a sadistic little whore and expressing a desire to slit her worthless throat could really cause her more trauma than many rape victims, a point I stressed in my summing up.

Commander Wall gave evidence in his typically pompous manner; unfortunately I missed an important point in cross-examination, and on this account he made a good impression on the jury, but I was able to more than repair the damage when I cross-examined his underling. I made Nemeth look stupid beyond all meaning of the word, and the genuineness of his concern for this little monster Broadway must have been seriously questioned by some jurors when he said that he would have shown her my memorandum to DS Wall even if he had known it would cause her psychological damage. He said “That’s down to you, pal”. (18)

Nemeth was also unable to explain how an article about the August 1996 raid on my flat published in the following month’s issue of Gable’s hate sheet contained information that had not been placed in the public domain. And he found it very difficult indeed to explain why the other two people he had arrested in his spurious investigation were both in litigation with Gable. He denied meeting, knowing or even having heard of Gable prior to taking a statement from him, a claim that is, for many reasons, completely untenable.

Further proof of what a totally worthless little shit Nemeth is, as if further proof were needed, was an incident that happened after I had given evidence. On walking back to the dock I saw him sitting there grinning. Surprised at how good I had sounded in the witness box, I felt really confident, so as I passed him I said under my breath “Watch me walk, Julian”. (19)

After the jury had been dismissed for the day, the prosecuting barrister turned to the judge and told him that I’d threatened Nemeth (as if I was in a position to threaten anyone). He’d told her I’d said: “Watch where you walk, Julian”. What a complete piece of shit. The judge said she could raise that in cross-examination. She didn’t, probably because she forgot, but she was the one member of the entire court who had any integrity at all, and in this I include the judge.

After giving evidence, Nemeth attended the entire trial; he even sat in the public gallery before the jury was sworn in and I had to get the judge to throw him out. The one session he didn’t attend he sent along a colleague. I pointed this out to the jury in my summing up and stressed that he was obviously enjoying these proceedings, that he would be there for the verdict, and sentence if any, and I hoped they would deny him the latter. I was not disappointed.

When she opened the Crown’s case, the prosecution barrister had warned the jury not to judge a book by its cover. I took up this point in my opening address; by the time of the trial I had a full beard and must have looked like a fucking rabbi, something I most certainly am not. I made the same point about Rita Broadway, that she was no sweet, innocent young thing, but a woman with a heart of ice, by dint of her profession and attitude.

I was very surprised how good I sounded when I gave evidence myself, but I was more than a little disgusted with the judge’s summing up. He was the pits. During his summing up he made no less than eight errors, which I drew to his attention in the absence of the jury. His reaction was that if they were errors of fact he would correct them, if they were errors of law I should save it for the Court of Appeal. He had also severely curtailed my cross-examination of Nemeth and told me to take this up on appeal. John Orme, a barrister who looked in on the case, told me that the overt hostility of the judge may have worked in my favour. Certainly the old bastard himself didn’t do me any favours. After my acquittal I wrote a lengthy letter of complaint to the Lord Chancellor’s Department concerning the judge’s conduct of the case. (20) At first they claimed not to have received it; after I faxed them through a copy I received a reply to the effect that we have an independent judiciary - yeah, sure - and that a judge has carte blanche to sum up in any way he likes.

After six and three quarter hours the jury returned a majority verdict of not guilty on both counts. Gable and Nemeth were obviously equally sick over my acquittal, but while Nemeth had suffered only a personal humiliation, Gable had lost far more by his giving evidence against me and showing himself in his true colours for all the world to see. He also still had a libel action to defend.

While I was in Brixton, Gable’s legal team had successfully amended his defences to include the following words:

“...so far as may be necessary the Defendant will rely on the following in mitigation of any damages that he is required to pay:

(a) The provocative conduct of the Plaintiff towards the Defendant in that both before and after the publication complained of, the Plaintiff has on numerous occasions written of and about the 1st Defendant and his wife, Sonia, in grossly defamatory and offensive terms...The Plaintiff’s poor reputation...The Plaintiff’s conduct of the action...Further or alternatively...the 1st Defendant will rely on the fact that the Plaintiff has brought actions for damages for libel in respect of such publications as follows: Russell Press Ltd...£4,742.67; Central Books Ltd £4,742.67...Housmans Bookshop Ltd £3,200...IS Books Ltd £1,600 (21)...Centreprise [sic] Trust Ltd. £2,300...Waterstones Booksellers Ltd £1,800...Mushroom Books Ltd £100...Alleycat Books Ltd. £100...The sums referred were for both damages and costs which were not differentiated, but the Plaintiff being a litigant in person at all times prior to these settlements, it is to be inferred that they substantially represented damges [sic].” (22)

When I’d had time to digest this, and Gable’s witness statements, I wrote to his solicitors in the following terms:

“Hello Robin Lewis, you shyster,

To paraphrase Samuel Clemens, rumours of my demise have been greatly exaggerated. I’m back. I have now received your client’s witness statements and read them, for what they are worth. At paragraph 130 of his witness statement - did I say witness statement? I meant autobiography - Mr Gable states that ’My belief is that Mr Baron...has no reputation whatsoever that might have been damaged or to defend.’

I think I have more than once pointed out that the main reason I brought libel proceedings against Mr Gable is because I believe that his magazine has set me up for violent attack. Whether or not I have a reputation to defend, no one has the right to batter me over the head and other parts of my anatomy with hammers, mallets or anything else. Therefore I am going to make him the following offer:

If he will make a full retraction of his claim that in the November 1993 issue of Searchlight that I was, together with Mark Taha and Larry O’Hara, breaking criminal and civil laws with impunity, then I will not seek any damages whatsoever. Not one penny. A public apology will be sufficient. The only other condition I would attach to that is that there must be no order for costs on his part and that he must pay my costs as a litigant in person and my legal costs for the time my solicitor and Counsel were on the record for me. How’s that?

I would advise you to tell him not to think about this magnanimous offer for too long because I am currently taking legal advice with regard to a repeated abuse of process by your client, and possibly by your firm, and may have grounds to have his defence struck out. (23) If you think that is idle talk I suggest you obtain a transcript of his evidence at the Southwark trial - in which he committed blatant perjury on more than one occasion. In fact, I consider the evidence that your client gave at this trial to have done more to discredit him than any of the exposés of his organisation that I have published. You should also carefully scrutinise his letter to Rita Broadway, which contains further damning revelations. In the meantime there is to be an internal police investigation into the activities of Defective Constable Nemeth, whose relationship with Mr Gable was very convenient for the both of them.

This offer will remain open until the end of the trial, if this case comes to court...” (24)

By now Lewis had had enough of me and passed on this letter to Caroline Bates. Subsequently I received offers of £1,000 towards my costs, and £2,000 if I would go away. Eventually I screwed the old bastard for five grand and a retraction into the bargain. I had asked for an apology but any apology from Gable would have all the sincerity of a turkey relishing the onset of Christmas, while a retraction was something nobody could dispute. The consent order was sealed by the High Court on July 15, 1997 and shortly afterwards I received a cheque from Bindman & Partners. Gable’s - undoubtedly sincere - retraction was published on the back page of the September 1997 issue of his hate sheet. (25)

I am not entirely sure why after fighting tooth and claw all the way and using every dirty trick in the book, Gable suddenly decided to settle so promptly, but it could have been a number of reasons. One is that when the witness statements were served Gable realised that my Rabbi friend is not a figment of my imagination, and he may have been concerned over some of the things a pious Torah Jew would say about him and his ilk. (26) Another very likely reason is that in his amended defences Gable had made all manner of further allegations, and under the Rules of the Supreme Court I would be entitled to discovery and inspection of the documents on which these allegations were based. And at least one of these documents would have caused severe embarrassment to Gable’s slimy friends in Organised Jewry.

I would like to think that the outcome of this action would spell the end for Gable and his hate machine but he is still being quoted by the controlled media as some sort of expert on the evils of the mythical disease of racism, and something called fascism. One thing that most definitely did come out of this action was a change in the law of defamation.

By 1996, the 1952 Act was sorely in need of updating to take account of the Internet. There were some people too who believed that the defence of innocent dissemination should be beefed up, in particular Housmans, Bookmarks and Centerprise! In June 1996, they went crawling to Jeremy Corbyn MP and others and told them that a wicked conspiracy of “far right terrorists” was trying to put them out of business. (27) Attempts were also made by the media to set me up. In particular there was a biased article in the Independent by the paper’s legal affairs correspondent, (28) and an absolutely gross article in The Big Issue. (29) I was very disappointed with this latter because this is a magazine which was founded by people with high ideals, to help the homeless. Unfortunately, as with so many “left wing” causes it has been hijacked by people with a different political agenda.

A libel fund was also started to defend Housmans and Bookmarks, and this was supported liberally by the usual “progressives”, including the General Secretary of the TUC and Michael Mansfield QC. It goes without saying that neither Housmans nor Bookmarks mentioned to these “progressives” that they were overt distributors of “hate literature”. I wrote to a number of people in this connection to put them in the picture, and I doubt the libel fund has received such enthusiastic support from Michael Mansfield since he studied the accompanying documentation!

Jeremy Corbyn tabled two amendments to the pending bill, (30) and probably entirely or largely as a result of this, the defence of innocent dissemination has indeed been beefed up. My Libertarian friends think this is a good idea and that in the long term it will benefit worthy parties, which Housmans, Bookmarks and Centerprise clearly are not.

So what of Gable? Like I said, his hate goes on, but although he is a major player, Gable is only one man, and his organisation, although both nasty and influential, is not the root cause of the problem. In the medium to long term, Gable is finished with the “anti-fascist” left. He has been exposed too many times, and his willingness to collaborate with bent coppers and other agents of the repressive state has been documented in his own words for all but the wilfully blind to see. There remains though the reason he libelled me in the first place.

In November 1990 I was introduced to Mark Taha, and we soon discovered that we had a lot in common. Mark is a voracious reader, and one of his habits - which is not always appreciated by authors! - is to read books, note down all the mistakes therein, and then write to the author informing him so. Some time after we met, Mark gave me a copy of The Other Face Of Terror to read. This book is supposedly the autobiography of Searchlight “mole” Ray Hill. Briefly, Hill was a nasty piece of work who became involved with the anti-immigration movement in the late sixties. After a brief flirtation with a local anti-immigration pressure group in Leicester, he joined Colin Jordan’s British Movement then did a bunk to South Africa while facing a charge of assaulting a Jewish café owner.

In South Africa, Hill kept a low profile for several years before becoming a leading light in the short-lived but extremely nasty South African National Front. He returned to Britain in 1979, after jumping bail in South Africa too, (31) and ingratiated himself with the far right, eventually ending up with a fairly senior post in the British National Party. In 1984 he “came out” with a big exposé in a TV pseudo-documentary that was produced by Gable and shown across Europe. Together with other chutzpah Hill’s book, which was published in 1988, paints a picture of him as an essentially decent working man who had fallen in with a bad crowd then undergone a road to Damascus conversion. (32)

Mark Taha’s critical reading of Hill’s book cast doubt on several of his claims. When I read it I found even more errors and outright lies. Subsequently Mark and I were to re-read the book and scrutinise minutely every single issue of Searchlight ever produced and all the subsidiary pamphlets and articles we could lay our hands on. We found a mass of disinformation, innuendo and outright fraud. In particular it became evident to me that the whole cause of “anti-racism” and the anti-fascist movement in general is primarily a campaign of racial hatred led by alienated racial Jews and others; the target of their hatred is (principally) the White Race, and their lies and smears against any White Gentile who exhibits the slightest trace of racial consciousness know no bounds.

This is a controversial hypothesis and one that has to date received little or no support outside of the far right. Needless to say it has been denounced to high heaven as “anti-Semitic”, but in the words of Rabbi Moshe Menuhin: “Anti-Semitism is not always a ’one-way street.’” (33)

My original intention had been to publish a book exposing Gable and Searchlight, but financial and other considerations led me in the first instance to publish our documented exposés in pamphlet form. The first of these was A Question Or Ten From The Floor To The Searchlight Representative, a slim pamphlet which I put out in September 1993 and which Mark Taha distributed at a meeting of the National Association of Conservative Graduates. This was quickly followed by, among others, Searchlight On A Searchliar (now in its third edition), but the publications which really upset Gable were The War Against Halahkah, (34) and Ode To Sweet Sonia.

The War Against Halahkah had in fact been published in the Spring of 1993 and did not concern Gable at all except that I superimposed his head on a cartoon used in the artwork. This sent his kosher buddies at the Jewish Chronicle and the Board of Deputies, into a frenzy, Julian Kossoff and arch slimeball Mike Whine (35) in particular. It was The War Against Halahkah which had led to my arrest in May 1993. (36) Ode To Sweet Sonia was also published in September 1993. This is a whimsical poem about the former Sonia Hochfelder, now Mrs Sonia Gable, who had been a member of various far right groups during her student days and, I have on good authority, the one-time lover of leading National Front member Steve Brady. (37) Like most bullies, Gable can dish it out but he can’t take it.

Be that as it may, my repeated publication of anti-Gable and anti-Searchlight exposés has a far from frivolous higher purpose. As stated, I have developed a new and unpleasant theory that "anti-racism" is no such thing but is in reality a different manifestation of racial hatred. (38) Even so, when you strip away all the cant, Marxist rhetoric, and nonsense about gas chambers, the message of naive “anti-racists” - which Gable is most definitely not - is fundamentally sound. This is that you should not judge a man by the colour of his skin, his race, or by any other superficial characteristic. And that equality under the law, and equality of opportunity, should be extended to all. Notwithstanding that we should not apply this principle verbatim but with a little common sense, no reasonable person could take issue with such ideals. (39)

For Organised Jewry though, this is all window dressing; the entire concept of “anti-racism” is something they have manufactured purely for the goyim; it is not to apply to them. There are signs that this is changing by degrees - spurred on principally by repeated Zionist human rights abuses against and hypocrisy over, the Palestinians, but the race laws in Britain, and to a large extent elsewhere, were drafted by Jews at the behest of Jews and for the perceived benefit of Jews. (40) And anyone who refuses to kiss their arses is branded a raving anti-Semite.

Nothing was more indicative of this to me than Gable’s cynical exploitation of Jewish suffering, real and imagined, and the Jewish Chronicle’s response to it. Briefly, in 1987, Gable gave a lie-ridden interview to the Jewish Chronicle in which, among other things, he took the credit for solving a series of arson attacks against synagogues in London in the mid-60s. He recalled how a Jewish student had died in one of the fires, and how: “I stood in the burnt-out shell of that yeshiva at four in the morning and made a private vow to get the people who’d done that”. (41)

This was complete garbage. In the first place, the synagogue arsons was solved not by Gable, but by routine police work coupled with a lucky break. And the fire at the Mesifta Talmudical College in Stamford Hill was not an arson attack but a tragic accident which occurred in November 1964, several months before the first of the attacks. (42) All Gable did was simply tack on this accidental fire to his non-existent successful investigation. (43)

I researched back issues of the Jewish Chronicle and exposed Gable’s lies to the paper and to Organised Jewry. They ignored me and shortly after they were again singing Gable’s praises and, incredibly, parroting the same lie. (44)

The bigger issue though, and a far more frightening one, is that almost the entire social policy on the delicate subject of race relations, in Great Britain, the United States, and every other predominantly white nation, is based on the lies of Gable and his kind, be they vicious, Aryan-hating kikes like Gable himself, opportunists and professional “anti-racists” such as those who staff such bodies as the odious Commission for Racial Equality, or wide-eyed fanatics such as the average SWP supporter.

The supposedly noble cause of “anti-racism” has been used and continues to be used quite cynically to promote the most odious of political agendas: the destruction of Western Man’s democratic institutions and, ultimately, of Western Man himself. Organised Jewry, Gable, and their powerful allies and fellow travellers have plumbed the depths in pursuit of that political agenda, even at times inciting criminal acts, including racial hatred. (45) In addition to this, Gable has worked for the European Parliament as a consultant/researcher into racism and xenophobia, while the extent of his and Searchlight’s influence on the British media’s reporting of race issues and “fascism” is difficult to overstate.

I would like to think that my successful libel action against Gable would be the first step towards breaking the stranglehold of the “anti-racist” cabal over the Western mind, and the liberation of all of us from the intellectual tyranny of political correctness. I would like to, but I am not that optimistic.


To Appendix A
To Appendix B
To Notes And References

Back To Baron Pamphlets Index
Back To Site Index