Posts Tagged ‘Zinoviev Letter’

The Press and Accusations of Communist Influence/Infiltration in the Labour Party

June 5, 2016

Mark Hollingworth’s book, The Press and Political Dissent: A Question of Censorship, also does an excellent job of showing how the press, at just about every general election since the 1920s, repeats the lie that the Labour party has been infiltrated by Communists and others from the hard left, or that their policies hardly differ from those of the Communist party. He writes

Ever since the Labour Party have been in a position to form a government – by themselves or in coalition – Britain’s press have tried to portray them as being Communist wolves in sheep’s clothing. In their polling day edition for the 1923 general election, the Daily Mail produced the headline: ‘Moscow Funds For Rowdies – Labour Candidates Subsidized’. The paper alleged that Labour’s parliamentary candidates ‘received £300 apiece’ from Bolshevik sources. Two years later, on 25 October 1925, the Daily mail produced – ‘Civil War Plot by Socialist Masters-Moscow’s Orders To Our Reds’. the basis for this story was a letter supposedly written by Zinoviev, president of the Third Communist International in Moscow, to the British Communist Party which the Mail described as ‘the masters of Mr Ramsey MacDonald’s [minority Labour] government’. Despite clear indications that the Zinoviev letter was a forgery, the story was given uncritical coverage by all the popular papers. Six years later, in 1931, MacDonald and his supporters deserted the Labour Party and formed a National Government with the Conservative Party.

Very little has changed. At almost every election various lists of Labour candidates with alleged Communist or Marxist sympathies are displayed with great prominence on the front page of the popular papers. The 1983 campaign was no exception. In fact, Fleet Street tried harder than usual to show that the Labour Party was, as the Sun put, ‘penetrated at all levels by sinister Marxist forces’. This section of the chapter describes how the press repeated the claims of Douglas Eden, a member of the Council for Social Democracy, that 55 members of the Labour party, later expanded by the Daily Express to 70, had extreme left-wing, Marxist-Leninist sympathies.

The chapter also discusses the way the press decided that there were marked similarities between Labour’s manifesto and that of the Communists at the 1983 election.

That same day, 19 may, the Communist Party manifesto was published. The next morning ‘Red Shadows’ headlined the Daily Express editorial:

Pick up the Communist Manifesto and it might be Labour’s. The two have chilling similarities. From unilateral nuclear disarmament to withdrawal from Europe, from economic controls to nationalisation. The difference is that the Communists will not win a seat… The voters rumbled them long ago. That is why the clever Marxists have gone into the Labour party. Mr Foot is no Communist. Doubtless he finds their support thoroughly distasteful. But his policies have made him a tool of those who are foes of the democratic freedom he upholds.

This was not a sudden discovery by the Express. The paper produced an identical response to the Labour and Communist manifestoes in the previous general election in 1979. ‘The Red Face of Labour-Communists Pick Same Policies’, was the headline to a front-page news report by John Warden on 11 April 1979. ‘The Communist Manifesto made an astonishing appearance yesterday as the Red Face of Labour. This “carbon copy” of policies is embarrassing for Mr Jim Callaghan.

One of those smeared as a Communist was Robert Hughes, who was the MP for Aberdeen North, and a member of the left-wing Tribune group. The evidence for his supposed Communist sympathies was that he had written for the Morning Star, Marxism Today, and Labour Monthly and Straight Left, the last two pro-Soviet magazines. The Express also claimed he was a member of three other pro-Soviet organisations, the World Peace Council, British-Soviet Friendship Society and Friends of Afghanistan. In fact, the World Peace Council had made him a member unilaterally, without consulting him or even telling him. Hughes didn’t know anything about the two other organisations, nobody he asked knew either, and he concluded they didn’t exist. When Hughes contacted the Express, they claimed that he had also been a member of Liberation and Voice of the Unions, which they also stated were Communist front organisations. Hughes had indeed been a member of them, but they weren’t fronts for the Communist party. The only evidence that they were was the fact that some of the leadership were former members of the Communist party. Hughes took the Express to the Press Complaints Council, which issued an adjudication in his favour, ruling that it had published inaccurate information.

Under Tony Blair, the Labour party managed to avoid being smeared as being infiltrated by Communists, as Murdoch had switched sides and was backing the Neoliberal future warmonger. But they were back on course with the gibes at ‘Red’ Ed Miliband, and they’re repeating the smears against Jeremy Corbyn. Well, it’s nonsense – nasty, pernicious nonsense intended to scare the public, but still nonsense. And once you find that it’s been more or less tried against the Labour party at just about every general election the party has fought, the allegation soon loses its force.

The Fictional Roots of the Anti-Semitism Allegations

May 18, 2016

Okay, a few minutes ago I put up a piece from RT’s Going Underground show, in which the Jewish anti-Zionist writer and activist, Max Blumenthal, said that he was struck by the similarity of the controversy surrounding supposed anti-Semitic comments from Ken Livingstone, Naz Shah and others in the Labour Party, and the plot of the book A Very British Coup by the former Labour MP, Chris Mullens. The book concerns the plot to undermine a left-wing Labour Prime Minister, the former steelworker, Harry Perkins, by the establishment, the Fleet Street press, the intelligence services and the right wing of the Party. Perkins is very popular, so his opponents unseat him by manufacturing anti-Semitic quotes attributed to him.

It actually wouldn’t surprise me if the current attacks on Corbyn and other Labour MPs weren’t based on the plot of Mullens’ book. I never read it, but friends of mine did watch the Channel 4 adaptation when it was screened in the 1980s. The book is very roughly based on fact. In the 1920s the British press and intelligence services attempted to stop Labour winning the election with the publication of the ‘Zinoviev letter’. This was a forged letter from Zinoviev, the Soviet foreign minister, to the leadership of the Labour party encouraging them to overthrow capitalism and turn Britain into a Soviet state. Labour subsequently lost the election, although there is some debate over whether this was due to the letter.

In the 1970s there were various forgeries and allegations that the-then Labour prime minister, Harold Wilson, was also a Soviet spy. There is considerable evidence to suggest that these were also cooked up by MI5, but this has been consistently denied by establishment historians.

I find it credible that the allegations may have been manufactured following the plot of Mullen’s book, because affairs like it have happened before. Frederick Forsythe’s novel, The Dogs of War, is supposed to have formed the blueprint for one of the coups led by mercenaries against one of the African states. Forsythe has always denied it, though this is contradicted somewhat by the fact that many of the mercenaries nevertheless carried it in their back pockets. Forsythe also wrote another book, essentially rehashing in fictional form the ‘Zinoviev letter’. Written during the new Cold War of the 1980s, this is about the intelligence services’ attempt to prevent another dastardly coup by the evil Soviets. The Communists have infiltrated the Labour party, which is set to win the general election. When this occurs, the Communists will take over, and Britain will be another Soviet client state.

It’s pure bilge, of course, and shows the attitude of Frederick Forsythe towards the Labour party as a bunch of potential subversives. It also shows Thatcher’s as well, as she declared it to be her favourite novel. I also recall the Scum running a similar campaign against the Labour Party, again claiming that Labour had been infiltrated by Communists, who ready to take over if Labour were voted into office.

The British secret state and the media have a long history of using fiction to smear Labour, and this seems to be another instance of the forces of conservatism and neo-liberalism, quite apart from the Zionist lobby, to hold on to power by smearing the Labour left.

Vox Political on Cameron’s Lies at Tory Conference

October 7, 2015

Mike over at Vox Political has also written a piece attacking Cameron’s lies at the Tory party conference. In response to Cameron’s claim that he’s going to give the British people a government that supports them, and gives them a good home, a well paid job, a well-funded and operating NHS, access to childcare, effectively managed immigration, and so on, Mike shows how the Tories in practice have broken every one of these promises. And it’s a long list.

Mike also goes further, and tackles one particular lie: that Jeremy Corbyn thought that the US’ assassination of Osama bin Laden was unjust, with the implication that Corbyn somehow supported al-Qaeda.

I’ve already posted pieces about how Guy Debord’s Cat now has articles on his blog showing that the Tories are lying about Corbyn and his supposed support for terrorism, and the Tories own clandestine talks with the IRA. Not to mention their Unionist allies links to Loyalist paramilitaries in Ulster.

It seems I may have made a mistake, though. I thought given the Tories’ previous form of accusing Labour of sympathising with the IRA, they meant that Corby was a supporter of Irish Republican terrorism. No, apparently they would like us all to believe that he’s a supporter of Islamist terror.

Mike points out that this is another gross lie and misrepresentation of what Corbyn actually stands for. Corbyn opposed bin Laden’s assassination, not because he supported him, but because he wanted him captured and brought to trial for the deaths and destruction he and his wretched allies have committed. Corbyn condemned bin Laden’s killing by the US as unjust, because he wanted him to face justice in the form of a court of law. And if bin Laden had been captured, he would also be interrogated and we could glean valuable information that would help us act against al-Qaeda.

This is very different from Cameron ranting about how Corbyn supposedly has now time for the 3,000 or so who were killed in 9/11. But then, the Tories have always lied about Labour being somehow in cahoots with the enemy, whichever enemy that happens to be. They’ve done it going all the way back to the 1920s and the Zinoviev Letter, forms of which were re-run again by the Scum in the 1987 election, and then by the Times when it smeared Michael Foot as a KGB spy. Well, the Soviet Union had collapsed, and the government is busily trying to ingratiate itself with the capitalist giant that is ‘Communist’ China, so they can’t exactly run another Red Scare. So they’re trying to smear him as a supporter of Islamist terrorism.

This is part of a strategy Conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic have been running for about ten years or so now. A decade ago the Spectator carried a book review of a novel set in a future Europe, where the remains of the European Socialist parties have merged with Muslim organisations to seize power and begin a new holocaust against the Jews. One part of Republican propaganda, echoed by Tories like the Dorset MP, Daniel Hannan, and the bloggers at the Telegraph, is that the Nazis were Socialists. There is also endless discussion about the threat Islam poses to democracy, and how it is being promoted by ‘left wing enablers’. Like the Democrats in America, and the Labour party over here. And year in, year out, for most of Obama’s administration, they’ve been accusing him of being a Communist-Nazi Muslim infiltrator intent on destroying America from within. They can’t do that exactly to Corbyn, as he’s white with a British name and, unlike Obama, doesn’t come from a Muslim background. So, if they can’t accuse him of being a terrorist infiltrator, they’ve tried smearing him as a terrorist supporter.

It’s still lies and smears, and shows that the Tories really haven’t changed. It’s the same tactics they’ve always used.

But the observation Mike makes about bin Laden being a potentially valuable source of information to the US if he had been captured alive in itself raises some very, very unsettling questions. Of the 19 terrorists behind 9/11, 17 were Saudis. Bin Laden came from one of their leading business families. His family were in America at the time the atrocity occurred, and were allowed to fly back home to Saudi Arabia before the investigation started. This in itself has raised considerable suspicion amongst the Conspiracy fringe. You don’t, however, have to believe that the US secret state organised 9/11 to believe that there is something highly suspicious about the bin Laden being allowed to leave the country before the investigation. Saudi Arabia does support a number of Islamist terrorist organisations, including al-Qaeda, but no-one in the Western ruling elite really wants to admit or confront that fact. It looks to me that the bin Laden family were allowed to leave America in order to prevent them revealing anything politically inconvenient, like how far the Saudis were involved in supporting 9/11. And the same could be said about the assassination of bin Laden himself. Was he shot and killed in execution for his crimes, or simply because, if captured, he would have said too much about the support for his organisation back home in Saudi Arabia?

Mike’s article is at Go and read it to see how badly Cameron is lying.