Wednesday 19th of June 2019

just how far our media has fallen in only thirteen years...


In 2006, to mark the 30th anniversary of Harold Wilson’s retirement, the BBC release the above documentary: The Plot Against Harold Wilson. It details how, throughout Wilson leadership, MI5 and the CIA were engaged in plans to undermine Wilson – even to the extent of having plans in place for a full-blown military coup should the need arise.

The tactics included attacking Wilson’s staff and key allies, accusing him of being compromised by the Kremlin, and labelling him as “soft on the IRA”.

These probably sound very familiar to anyone who pays the slightest bit of attention to British politics.

Given Mike Pompeo’s recent comments about America’s willingness to overthrow Corbyn, if they deem it necessary, these past events take on a new significance.

Perhaps the greatest lesson we can take from this is just how far our media has fallen in only thirteen years. 

The BBC was never the bastion of truth it pretended to be, but ask yourself: would the BBC make this documentary now? Would not this be deemed “conspiracy theory” in our modern media landscape?

Even Jonathan Freedland, writing in the Guardian in 2006, did not question the truth of this. Instead, deeming it “Britain’s Watergate”, in his usual incredibly subtle way.

And yet, that same man has systemically taken part in very similar manoeuvres to undermine both Jeremy Corbyn and Donald Trump. Smearing both as “antisemite” and “tool of the Kremlin” respectively, and even throwing around words like “traitor” and “treason”. These are moves straight out of the CIA playbook.

We know for a fact that the Israeli embassy had agents trying to undermine Corbyn, and that the US Secretary of State outright stated they would removed Corbyn from power. There’s even been rumblings of potential anti-Corbyn military coups in the past.

None of these received the coverage that the anti-Wilson plots did, just 13 years ago.

So what has happened to our media? Did they change their minds? Were they brainwashed? Bought off? Was the appearance of impartiality always just a thin veneer?

It’s impossible to say.

One key difference, of course, is the time elapsed. Writing about something that happened 30 years ago, is very different from writing about something that’s happening right now. Writing about the past, one can take the “thank god we’re not like that anymore” angle, “haven’t things improved”, “wasn’t Nixon dreadful” etc.

Writing about topical Deep State operations actually puts the agenda at risk, and that’s something the media are totally unwilling to do. They will question old narratives, but not current ones.

I wasn’t alive in 1976, but I can guess there was very little media coverage of these ideas then. I don’t know if they threw around the “conspiracy theory” epithet with the gusto they do today, but I can guess anyone suggesting the Deep State was trying to bring down Wilson’s government probably found it difficult to get column inches in the mainstream press.

It’s now a matter of record, uncontested by the British press, that the US/UK Deep State attempted to destabilise the elected government of the United Kingdom in the 1970s, they may well have succeeded in driving Wilson out of office.

It’s also a fact that the current Secretary of State has said they would do the same again against Corbyn. The increasingly controlled corporate media has shown they would be an ally in this.

It falls to the public, and the alternative media, to prevent this the only way we can. Spreading awareness. Telling the truth.

Please share widely.

WATCH: The Plot Against Harold Wilson

2006 BBC Documentary Newly Relevant In Wake of Pompeo Leak

Kit Knightly


Read more:

Cartoon at top from Gus' Collection of stuff (old London Evening Standard)

a vaudevillian trick loosing traction...

Brexit is the reason the Conservatives are choosing a new leader, yet the competition has become a race to change the subject. Candidates are being judged not by any probability of success in taking the UK out of the EU, but by the ability to comfort fellow Tories that there is life for their party on the other side, once the deed is done.

How to get there is a side issue.

Boris Johnson is the frontrunner because he is a master of misdirection – the conjuring technique for steering an audience’s eyes away from sleight of hand, deception passed off as magic. The whole “Boris” persona – carefully careless hair and linguistic prestidigitation – is a vaudevillian trick that Johnson plays on British politics, manipulating debate away from his lying incompetence, idleness, philandering self-obsession and intellectual vacuity.

Johnson’s only credentials for the leadership are a charismatic energy that makes grassroots Tories feel good, and their belief that this power extends to other voters. It is a nebulous proposition (and an electorally questionable one) unrelated and ill-suited to the job of completing Brexit.

But it is also a pitch that Johnson’s rivals struggle to defeat, since none of them has a more credible plan for getting Britain out of the European Union before the 31 October deadline. Their manifestos are all based on the same rhetorical pivot – a gymnastic manoeuvre that launches off from the current intractable situation and lands with a flourish in a place where Brexit has already been “delivered” to a grateful nation. There is a missing middle section in the routine that involves contact with other countries and parliament.



Read more: