Posts Tagged ‘Zinoviev Letter’

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.