me1511172 Very few people in public life actually want to wash their dirty linen in public. But all day, every day now, the dirty tricksters are out to smear their linen. This opener to what may become a regular piece aims to look at means and motive whenever somebody in the public eye is accused.

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤

There are several smears of choice among those who dedicate their lives to the mendacious destruction of their rivals and enemies. The key signs to look out for are accusations containing the following Top Ten elements:

  • That so-and-so is a racist/Nazi/fascist/Communist
  • The target is being helped by Russia
  • The victim is a paedophile
  • The patsie is a sex-pest or sex-addict or rapist
  • The fall-guy is being blackmailed
  • The opponent is very stupid
  • The man is a misogynist
  • The enemies are conspiracy theorist fantasists
  • They abuse nice, harmless people online
  • They use chemical weapons.

As the folks who churn out this excrement are process junkies with little imagination, there is only limited variation from the in-vogue smear at any given time. But occasionally, a new route is tried if one of the old ones is looking tired – even to the spectators who melded with the sofa decades ago.

The important thing to try and discern above all else is motive. Not easy these days (the slings and arrows are flying in both directions) but there are usually compelling signs of “convenience” are usually around to offer room for doubt.

___________________________________________________________

From smear to false flag via black ops and faked suicides, the practice of demonisation prior to destruction has a long and less than distinguished history. The Zinoviev Telegram of the 1920s was an early example in modern history. Unsurprisingly, the process began in military intelligence. But gradually, more and more of these uncivil servants were exposed to the political class and the media…..leading eventually to a degree of two-way employment. Airey Neave was MI6, and Con Coughlin has difficulty keeping his MI DNA out of articles he writes for the Telegraph and others. George Bush Sr was CIA from 1952 onwards, then a Congressman, then the President, then head of the CIA.

Probably the biggest single collaborator with the intelligence community is Rupert Murdoch. To divert attention away from his enormous surveillance-cum-hacking Empire, he conspired with the Met Police and Boris Johnson to try and get Hackgate strangled at birth; and when that failed, Murdoch dragged in senior Met Police officers, and conspired with them to smear Jim Davidson, Jimmy Tarbuck, Paul Gambaccini and others. All of the schemes they hatched were crude fit-ups partly designed to demonise his Great Satan, the BBC. All of the charges were quietly dropped. But Dave Lee Travis left the experience a broken man.

So by 2013, much of the UK media, the British police and the political class were using intelligence techniques….and have themselves become targets while targeting others. That’s why Britain is turning into a Kafkaesque nightmare with overtones of the Stalin Terror showtrials…..with an expansion of the MI remit adding the powerful stench of Orwellian levels of surveillance. This latter element has been enthusiastically taken on by the allegedly independent police, who have gone from switching their focus to tax collecting after 1980 to ridiculous threats and warnings given to private citizens on the basis of Islamophobia, homophobia, Trannyphobia and any other tiny minority they can send virtue signals to.

In 2003-4, Tony Blair began the neocon demonisation process and created the thin ice upon which the Iraq war was based. In 2013, the US Alt State targeted Basshar Assad – having already vassalised Egypt and Libya. Assad survived, and so now a joint CIA/MI5/EUNATO stitch-up led by Boris Johnson has produced another attempt to stop the Syrian leader defeating his fundamentalist rivals.

But Western audiences remain gullible. More doubting than they were – but gullible nevertheless.

So the point of this column – if it takes off – will be to get every objective, decent citizen getting one thing to guide their responses: whatever you see, hear, read or are told, remain open-minded until you get conclusive, validated evidence. If none is forthcoming, then be sceptical.

___________________________________________________________

CASE STUDY #1: Charges against Labour MP John Woodcock

John Woodcock will be the subject of a hearing before the party’s National Constitutional Committee later this year. A woman working for the MP from 2014-16 claims he harassed her and sent inappropriate texts and emails to her.

Two opening questions:

  1. Why now, two years on?
  2. When will we know (if ever) what the woman termed “harassment”.

Two potential motives for a smear:

  1. Mr Woodcock is hyper-critical of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership
  2. He has already been included in ‘potential deselection’ lists circulated last year, but their authenticity has not been proved.

What makes Woodcock an easy target:

  • His majority is only 205
  • He has suffered from depression
  • His current partner Isabel Hardman works for the Spectator, a Right-wing magazine.

What makes the charges against him open to doubt

  • We do not know the political affiliation of his accuser
  • He has no other ‘form’ in terms of sexual harassment
  • The hard Left in Woodcock’s local Party are at loggerheads with the MP
  • The local Party dissidents originated the complaint
  • The complaint was referred to the National Executive Committee, where he is universally loathed, and they have called for him to face an enquiry
  • He has campaigned vociferously against anti-Semitism in the Labour Party.

Keep your eyes on what happens from here on. It feels to me like it could well be a thinly-disguised exercise in deselection, but we shall see.

___________________________________________________________

CASE STUDY #2: Sunday Times vendetta against Jeremy Corbyn.

The last two Sunday Times front pages have led with a rabid attack on Corbyn’s ‘bully-boy’ tactics and ‘friends in Russia’ respectively. Today’s claim is that ‘Russian tweeters supported Corbyn’s bid for the Premiership’.

Two potential motives for a smear:

  1. The Sunday Times is owned by Rupert Murdoch, a 100% Tory supporter and Blairite
  2. The Conservatives are all over the place about the Windrush scandal, and local elections are looming.

What makes Jeremy Corbyn an easy target:

  1. He has a long past of opposition to NATO and support for Arab causes
  2. He is surrounded by hard-Left allies

What makes the charges against him open to doubt:

  1. ‘Colluding with Russia’ is the Alt State’s Number One weapon of choice at the moment
  2. The Sunday Times article says it conducted research in conjunction with Swansea University and identified 6,500 Russian accounts tweeting supportive messages for the party and denigrating the Conservatives. But it spectacularly fails to prove any link between the Kremlin and either Labour or Momentum.
  3. The piece tries to suggest that the Tweets were responsible for moving Labour’s support level up from 25% to 40%. The evidence suggests that this was achieved largely by well-orchestrated and Momentum-driven ‘He is our Saviour’ stuff, and a risibly robotic campaign from Theresa May.
  4. UKIP inexplicably stood on the sidelines in the election, and voting intention changes showed that most former Kippers went back to Labour.

We can expect more of this as time goes on. I think there are grounds for being suspicious of Momentum and the Corbynistas, and I know that John McDonnell is a Communist, because he admits it. I think the Labour Party is being hijacked, but I also firmly believe that the Blairites betrayed the Labour cause. I doubt if, ultimately, Corbyn is electable; but I also doubt that he knowingly received help from Putin.


Whichever way you cut it, the current crop of legislators (and many of their senior civil servants) have shown themselves ready and willing to lie to us, undermine our democratic rights, and restrict our liberties on flimsy bases.

They are all at the same game, they just have different paymasters – be those neocon geobots, TUC and Momentum Stalinists, or Brussels. They all have form, and none of them truly think they work for us. It’s only the backbench stars like Kate Hoey, Bob Stewart and the Bolsover Beast that still do that….and none of them are getting any younger.

___________________________________________________________