2^nd Edition

A few weeks ago a four page A4 magazine came through my letter box. Called LOOSE CANNON, and subtitled An occasional salvo of news and comment from Martin Webster, this first issue dated September 1999 invited its readers to

The alleged purpose of this debut issue was to “out” Nick Griffin as a (former) closet homosexual. At the time Griffin was contesting the leadership of the British National Party with then leader John Tyndall; Griffin has since replaced JT as leader, and Tyndall, like the magnanimous individual he is, has chosen to remain within the party as an ordinary member.

Support for Webster’s claim that for four years during his youthful days in the National Front Griffin was his “bit-on-the-side” has come from a surprising source, Searchlight magazine. Or maybe it’s not so surprising when one considers the lies and poison that have been promulgated by this vicious anti-white clique of lying, scheming Jewish mischief-makers and goy fellow travellers over the past quarter of a century and more. Griffin’s alleged sexual perversions are mentioned in an editorial and featured in a two page article called Wanted for hypocrisy, which is written by one Nick Lowles aka Laurence King, who has been co-editor since arch-hater Gerry Gable decided to take a back seat.

I am not, never have been and never will be a member of either the National Front or the British National Party, and though Griffin is a regular correspondent of mine I have known him only since 1993 when I contacted him in connection with my then nascent biography of Ray Hill. I have met Griffin perhaps half a dozen times, and because of the above I am not competent to comment on his past, including any sexual frolics he may have engaged in, but I would like to add my two shekelsworth, just in case anyone is tempted to believe any of the rumours circulated by Webster and Searchlight, or any of the “evidence” which from a reading of the Lowles article the Searchlight team has been quietly manufacturing for the past few weeks, of Griffin having followed the path of Lord Alfred Douglas and Michael Portillo before retiring to the Welsh countryside to raise a brood of four as part of his commitment to the continued existence of the white race. I am also in a position to shed some light on two aspects of this campaign.

Like most effective disinformation, Webster’s outrageous lies contain a kernel of truth. His claim that he was kicked out of the National Front for reasons that had nothing to do with his homosexuality is true, as is his claim that John Tyndall resigned from the National Front not because of any homosexual network (as he claimed at the time) but because the (thoroughly democratic) Front refused to give him dictatorial powers over the party.

The extent of this homosexual network was Webster and his “lover” Michael Salt. The extent of the Front’s hypocrisy is that Webster’s homosexuality was tolerated by Tyndall, Griffin and others because he was a good organiser, in much the same way that Hitler and other leading Nazis tolerated talented Jews in and around the Nazi Party. (1) I don’t know the full details of this arrangement but I suspect that it was on the lines of the policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” which we have heard so much about of late in connection with homosexuals in the Church. I am not qualified to comment on the merits or otherwise of this arrangement, but I can understand how it came about; it was a pragmatic decision made purely in view of Webster’s acknowledged qualities, though in retrospect it was the wrong one. Webster should have been given a choice: give up homosexuality or resign from the National Front. (2)

Although I did not know Griffin in his National Front days, Webster’s salvo contains one blatant lie which I can vouch for. This is the claim that during the run-up to the BNP leadership election the Griffin camp

spread a false rumour two months ago to the effect that Tyndall was circulating an allegation that Griffin has had sex with a donkey!

This asinine rumour was not concocted to make Tyndall appear absurd. It was contrived to inoculate peoples’ minds against believing any information about Griffin of a more credible nature.

How do I know this is a blatant lie? Because Griffin first heard the donkey rumour from me, and I heard it in December 1997!

The circumstances of my hearing this most bizarre of rumours is as follows. I had been in E-mail correspondence with a South African “nationalist”, a man with whom I had corresponded rather amicably in the early 80s. That was until the Falklands campaign when this person referred to the people of Argentina as “a grubby bunch of dagoes” and expressed a sincere desire that the British task force would wipe them out. Being totally opposed to this senseless fratricidal conflict I voiced my dismay, and as a result of my failing to whole-heartedly endorse his genocidal sentiments he announced that he was severing all connection with me, something I certainly didn’t lose any sleep over. In the late nineties his E-mail address found its way onto my mailing list, and I contacted him again – more by accident than by design. I’d hoped that by then he would have moderated his genocidal views. Some hope. He still maintained that my position on the Falklands War was “treasonable”, so that was the end of our correspondence.

I won’t give this person’s name but it will suffice to say that he is an old-fashioned “Imperialist” who expressed a desire to see the British Empire (no less!) subjugate the whole world. Strangely he referred to Holocaust Revisionism as dangerous Nazi-inspired lies and in the same breath condemned Griffin for his “equally treacherous views concerning the Gulf War”. Griffin’s “treachery” consists of condemning the bombing of Iraq and the current genocidal blockade against that tragic nation which has led to so much misery and suffering, a blockade which is supported by own our government whose members routinely denounce people like Griffin as vicious race-haters on account of their opposition to miscegenation.

In an E-mail of December 14, 1997 the “Imperialist” told me that he had heard that Griffin had had sexual relations with a donkey adding “Of course I cannot vouch for this sickening and bizarre account myself as I only heard it second or third hand. The significant fact is, however, that the person who told me this once knew him personally, and certainly THOUGHT HIM CAPABLE OF IT.” (3)

When I told Griffin this over the phone he could hardly stop laughing, and thus the “Eyore” joke was born. (4)

This is the only part of Webster’s missive I am able to comment on, and as he has lied blatantly about that it remains to be seen what other lies he has concocted. Which brings us to Searchlight.

In 1994 I published at my own expense a book exposing a certain David Irving as a Zionist agent. Among other things! In view of the serious allegations I made against Irving, one might have expected the Searchlight team when they alluded to the book to do so with a nudge and a wink. Did they?

On the contrary, the December 1994 issue referred to my exposé as “A libellous and untrue booklet”, and a further mention in the February 1995 issue said that “we” do not believe the author’s claims.

So if Gable and his gang were dismissive of my allegations against Irving - which were documented to some degree - why are they so certain that Webster is telling the truth about Griffin? The big difference is, as I said above, that Irving is a Zionist agent, Griffin most certainly is not.

Lest anyone have any doubts they should recall the extraordinary lengths Carlton TV went to - with a little help from Gable and his gang - to try to entrap Griffin in a survivalist/weapons training scam in 1997. Details of other, similar scams have been thoroughly documented in my 1994 biography of Ray Hill, Liars Ought To Have Good Memories. Lowlife that he is, Gerry Gable also has some ugly friends in particularly unsavoury places, including at New Scotland Yard.

Another point worth noting is the fact that no mention of any depraved sexual activity involving Griffin was ever alluded to either directly or indirectly by Searchlight or by any of its agents throughout the period claimed by Webster. According to Webster, his “affair” with Griffin was an open secret. Gable’s sources inside the far right are neither as reliable nor as profound as he would have his gullible readership believe, but the theft of documents from National Front and related sources was not exactly unknown, and if Griffin had indeed, as Webster claims now, “earned wolf-whistles from 40+ guests at one of my parties” this would surely have found its way into the columns of Searchlight.

Remember, we are not talking here about a hush-hush affair involving sexual depravity carried out discreetly at a secret address, but at claims that Griffin was openly homosexual or bi-sexual.

The only “evidence” for this is the word of Martin Webster, and whatever perjured witnesses Gable and his gang may now muster, as hinted at in the October 1999 editorial of his goy-hating rag. It goes without saying that if Griffin had acted in such a manner at that time, others would have come forward out of revulsion, or the story would have been leaked to the press, but not a whisper came out. Not a whisper.

No one is more conscious than Griffin of the other psychological games the Searchlight team has been playing over the past couple of years, in particular their game of divide and conquer between him and John Tyndall, which appears in part to have succeeded.

While many people have been smeared by Searchlight in the past, another smear of a homosexual nature is worth mentioning. In 1995, Searchlight’s European editor Graeme Atkinson published a lengthy diatribe in a German “anti-fascist” Internet newsgroup which attacked Larry O’Hara, myself and my colleague Mark Taha. Atkinson probably thought this wouldn’t come to our attention, but it did. He claimed here that Mark is a Nazi who has a penchant for propositioning young boys. This ties in neatly with an earlier, similar smear spread by another Searchlight “asset”, and indeed at a later date anonymous “anti-paedophile” stickers bearing Mark’s photograph were put up in several areas of London.

It goes without saying that none of the claims made about Mark has any substance in fact, likewise any Searchlight-sponsored or Searchlight-endorsed claims about Griffin. In addition to his being an unrepentant homosexual Martin Webster is an embittered man who has been planning to effect a bitter revenge on Griffin for more than a decade. He is though playing a dangerous game, because at the time he alleges he seduced Griffin, the age of consent for homosexual activity was 21 years, and Griffin was only 20. It would be ironic if other, genuine, victims of this sick, disgusting old faggot were to come forward and make similar allegations against Webster. If that were to happen he could well find his name on the new paedophile register.

One final thought the Searchlight team might like to bear in mind. Gable, Lowles and company may profess to hate homophobic bigotry, but in doing so they will curry no favour with other minorities. Although most people today take a tolerant attitude towards homosexuality, this tolerance does not generally include public displays or endorsements of this most foul of perversions. (5) As an American journalist once put it: “That word - homophobia - has always seemed a misnomer. Many people don’t fear the gay culture; they simply and unapologetically hate it. The idea of same-sex sex gives them the creeps.” (6)

Devout Jews in particular are deeply offended by the oft’ made comparisons by the homosexual lobby of the Nazi persecution of the Jews with the so-called Nazi “persecution” of homosexuals, and blacks have nothing but contempt for homosexuality, which they regard as a white man’s disease.

*****

Since publishing QUEER SCUM... I have received an E-mail circular from Webster in which, among other things, he lauds his chum David Irving and refers in glowing terms to Irving’s supposed libel action against Deborah Lipstadt. I will now make a prediction; if this action comes to court, Irving will either lose badly or else be awarded only derisory damages. During the course of this so-called trial he will either back down on or make certain concessions about the nature of the so-called Holocaust as predicted in my book THE CHURCHILL PAPERS. The only people who will come out of this trial smelling of roses are Lipstadt and Organised Jewry, but even though he will be hit with a massive bill of costs, Irving will continue to live well, jetting around the world and obtaining controversial if at times unfavourable coverage from the world’s media while true Revisionists like myself will continue to be occasionally derided but for the most part ignored.

Alexander Baron,
Sydenham,
South London

November 8, 1999

Updated November 18, 1999

To Notes And References
Back To Articles Index
Back To Site Index