John Simkin

March 20, 2010

Part 2

The peace movement in Euope continued to try to bring the First World War to an end. In the UK, two pacifists, Clifford Allen and Fenner Brockway, formed the No-Conscription Fellowship (NCF), an organisation that encouraged men to refuse war service. The NCF required its members to "refuse from conscientious motives to bear arms because they consider human life to be sacred."

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TUallen.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TUbrockway.htm

The group received support from figures such as Bertrand Russell, Philip Snowden, Bruce Glasier, Robert Smillie, William Mellor and Arthur Ponsonby.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TUrussell.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/REsnowden.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TUglasier.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TUsmillie.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TUponsonby.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JmellorW.htm

Other active members included Guy Aldred, Alfred Salter, Wilfred Wellock, Maude Royden, Max Plowman, Cyril Joad, John S. Clarke and Arthur McManus.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SPaldredG.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRsalterA.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWwellockW.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWroydenM.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Jjoad.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRIclarkeJS.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/ARTplowmanM.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRImcmanus.htm

Over 3,000,000 men volunteered to serve in the British Armed Forces during the first two years of the war. Due to heavy losses at the Western Front the government decided to introduce conscription (compulsory enrollment) by passing the Military Service Act. At first only single men were called up but by 1918 married men of fifty were being conscripted into the army. After the passing of the Military Service Act, the No-Conscription Fellowship mounted a vigorous campaign against the punishment and imprisonment of conscientious objectors. About 16,000 men refused to fight. Most of these men were pacifists, who believed that even during wartime it was wrong to kill another human being.

C. H. Norman, the treasurer of the Stop the War Committee and a member of the National Committee of the No-Conscription Fellowship, was arrested and on 27th June 1916, The Times reported that Norman had been confined to a straightjacket and was being forced-fed through a nasal tube. Norman was transferred to a detention centre in Dartmoor. On 8th February 1917 Norman was back in court charged with persuading other conscientious objectors detained at Dartmoor from carrying out their work. Found guilty of organizing a strike he was sentenced to a year with hard labour.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRIMEnorman.htm

Martin Ceadel has argued that after the introduction of conscription the No-Conscription Fellowship changed "from being a small propaganda body it became a substantial movement - though never as substantial as implied by its grossly exaggerated boast of 15,000 members in the summer of 1916 - and the acknowledged voice of the whole conscientious objection movement."

About 7,000 pacifists agreed to perform non-combat service. This usually involved working as stretcher-bearers in the front-line, an occupation that had a very high casualty-rate. Over 1,500 men refused all compulsory service. These men were called absolutists and were usually drafted into military units and if they refused to obey the order of an officer, they were court-martialled.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWncf.htm

March 20, 2010

Part 1

The Second International was an organization of socialist and labour parties formed in Paris on July 14, 1889. It was a time when socialism appeared to be the future. Unfortunately, at the time, working people did not have the vote and so their socialism could not become a reality. One of their concerns was that that over the centuries, working-men had been forced to fight in wars organized by the ruling class. It was therefore agreed that the Second International should organize a world general strike if their rulers ever tried to start a world war. The Second International campaigned for universal suffrage, including equal rights for women, and a 8-hour working day.

At the beginning of the 20th century the leading European nations were busy building up their empires. It seemed inevitable that this would result in war. The Second International decided that it would call on all its members to commit itself to a worldwide workers' strike against war. It was argued if the workers refused to fight, then there would be no war.

Most of the leaders of the socialist and labour parties were pacifists. This included Keir Hardie (UK), Jean Léon Jaurès (France), Camille Huysmans (Belgium) and Hugo Haase (Germany). Jaurès was assassinated on 31st July 1914, by Raoul Villain, a 29 years old French nationalist. (Villain was tried but acquitted).

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWjaures.htm

The media successfully created a mood where the pacifists were forced from office. Hardie, Haase and Huysmans were all removed from power. They attempted to organize a world-wide strike but the workers were caught up in war fever and they were unable to bring a halt to the conflict.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRhardie.htm

The USA also had a fast growing socialist movement under the leadership of the pacifist Eugene Debs. However, this was not a factor as the USA intially kept out of the war. However, when the USA entered in 1917, Debs and his fellow pacifist leaders were imprisoned for making speeches against the war. It was claimed they were violating the Espionage Act. Debs himself was sentenced to ten years in Atlanta Penitentiary.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAdebs.htm

March 20, 2010

I will, however, add some things - not sure if you've already noted - but a nice introduction. A Guardian site expose into much the same things as you have delved, they add some colour to the mystery of Blair's money and his scam companies Windrush etc.
Guardian Site Dedicated to Balir's Post PM Ventures and Monies

The Mystery of Tony Blair's Finances

The Guardian's Self Praising Solution to the above!

Thank you for that. It is true the Guardian is the one of the few newspapers to make an issue of this. I always thought the Tory dominated press would make it very difficult for a Labour MP to get away with this kind of corruption. However, they seem fairly uninterested in it. The BBC has been especially poor in reporting on Blair's money-making schemes.

March 19, 2010

Although few other members seem interested in this subject I note it has over 66,000 page views.

March 18, 2010

Some of those reacting to his ouster with jaws agape, I think, are being a little hypocritical. This is an almost exact replay of the Tim Gratz imbroglio. Tim was, for several years, the forum's most active member. He was a conspiracy theorist, but a right-winger, and a resident of Southern Florida, where anti-Castro feelings run high, and so had a gut reaction to the assassination that told him Castro was somehow behind it. Tim pushed this like an Amway salesman and would never back down on this. A number of forum members assumed from this that he was some sort of disinfo agent. One researcher looked into Tim's background and found out he was a long-time attorney, who for some mysterious reason had been disbarred. This led to discussions not unlike the recent discussions about Peter--when is the revelation of embarrassing personal information about a forum member appropriate, etc.
When it was exposed--by myself, if I recall--that Tim was a minor Watergate figure, and a former associate of "turdblossom" Karl Rove, suspicion of Tim only increased. Occasionally he would step across a line--such as cruelly criticizing a young female forum member who'd acknowledged having an abortion--that forced him further and further into isolation. His attempts at dumb humor proved futile.

Then one day, Tim was discussing something with John, and all hell broke loose. As I recall, Tim wrote something, and John misquoted Tim while criticizing him. While, for most, this would be a "gotcha" moment, whereby one would let loose a "you know I'm right or you wouldn't have to misquote me" or some such thing, Tim's reaction was totally out of line: he accused John of "setting him up" and threatened to sue him for damages. Sound familiar? At that time, I tried to step in and be the voice of reason. I tried to talk Tim down. But no, he said, he'd had enough of John's condescension, etc., and didn't feel like backing down. So, naturally, he was banned. (Some time later, he was allowed to return, but never fully did so.)

Anyhow, at that time, most everyone on the forum was on John's side. John was the left-winger, and Tim the right-winger, so they felt no loss when Tim left. Only the late Tim Carroll, as I recall, left the forum for awhile in protest at Tim's treatment.

Just a few points about this piece of Education Forum history. Tim Gratz joined the forum and got involved in the discussions about Watergate and other conspiracies without revealing his role in these events. Nor did he explain why he was such a fan of Karl Rove. This is a brief summary of Tim’s activities.

As a student, Tim Gratz was a member of the Young Americans for Freedom. At the time it was an extreme right-wing organisation that campaigned against Civil Rights legislation brought in my LBJ.

On 18th December, 1971, Tim Gratz received a phone call from a man calling himself Don Simmons. In fact, his real name was Donald Segretti. Apparently, Dwight Chaplin had hired Segretti to disrupt the Democratic campaign. Gratz later recalled: "Simmons said he was interested in running a "negative campaign" in Wisconsin. He explained that the purpose of the campaign was to create as much bitterness and disunity within the Democrat primary as possible.... He also said he was interested in planting spies in the Democrat candidate's offices."

Donald Segretti offered Gratz $100.00 per month, plus expenses, to co-ordinate these projects. Gratz agreed to work on the project and he was given an advance payment of $50.00. Gratz later told Anthony Ulasewicz that "although the whole incident seemed strange" he agreed to help "as most of the ideas he suggested seemed like they were worth doing anyway". However, Gratz claimed he told Karl Rove, Chairman of the College Republican National Committee, about this dirty tricks campaign. We now know that Rove himself was part of Segretti's campaign. In fact, he probably played a leading role in this dirty tricks operation. Rove had become friends with CIA asset, Robert F. Bennett in 1968. According to one report, Bennett became a "mentor of Rove's".

In 1970, Karl Rove used a false identity to enter the campaign office of Democrat Alan J. Dixon, who was running for Illinois State Treasurer, and stole 1000 sheets of paper with campaign letterhead. Rove then printed fake campaign rally fliers promising "free beer, free food, girls and a good time for nothing," and distributed them at rock concerts and homeless shelters, with the effect of disrupting Dixon's rally.

It is also significant that Rove put Gratz in touch with Anthony Ulasewicz. We now know that Ulasewicz, was in charge of Operation Sandwedge. This was a highly secret operation that has never been fully revealed. In fact, as Ulasewicz points out in his autobiography, The President's Private Eye, the Senate Committee looking into the Watergate Scandal, avoided all questions on Sandwedge.

Donald Segretti later told the Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities (3rd October, 1973) the main objective was to discredit Edmund Muskie as he was the candidate that Richard Nixon feared the most. As one political commentator pointed out: "he seemed unstoppable; he had had ample financial backing, name recognition, experience, image, endorsement, and top standing in the polls."

Other targets included Edward Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey and Henry Jackson. It was decided that George McGovern was the candidate that Nixon wanted to face in the presidential election. Gratz was one of 28 people hired by Segretti to carry out this smear campaign.

During the New Hampshire primary, the Manchester Union Leader, published a letter that claimed Muskie had made disparaging remarks about French-Canadians. The newspaper also attacked the character of Muskie's wife Jane, reporting that she drank heavily and used bad language during the campaign. Muskie made an emotional speech defending his wife. The press reported he had broken down in tears and this damaged his image as a calm and rational politician. Although Muskie won the New Hampshire primary, this incident had raised doubts about his ability to be a strong president.

As Keith W. Olson (Watergate: The Presidential Scandal That Shook America) has pointed out: "Segretti carried out his tricks to the fullest extent in Florida". Patrick J. Buchanan told John N. Mitchell and H. R. Haldeman on 2nd January, 1972, "clearly, the Florida primary is shaping up as the first good opportunity and perhaps the last good opportunity to derail the Muskie candidacy".

One of Segretti's agents stole Muskie campaign stationery and mailed a fraudulent letter to 300 supporters of fellow contenders, Hubert Humphrey and Henry Jackson. This letter claimed that Jackson had fathered a child with an unmarried teenager and that the police had arrested him on homosexual charges. It went onto claim that Humphrey had been arrested while in the company of a prostitute, for driving under the influence of alcohol. It was assumed that Muskie was behind this smear campaign and his credibility as a honest politician was severely damaged.

Other dirty tricks in Florida included a naked girl running through Muskie's hotel claiming that she was in love with the Democratic contender. Segretti's agents, posing as Muskie supporters, telephoned voters in the middle of the night asking them to support their candidate.

George Wallace, won 42% of the vote in the Florida primary. Hubert Humphrey came in second, with 18.6%, then Henry Jackson with 13% and the the pre-election favourite, Edmund Muskie, finished fourth with 8.9%. This result added support to Segretti's claim that his dirty tricks campaign had the ability to remove people like Muskie from the race.

Segretti and his team of agents, including Gratz, now began to concentrate on the Wisconsin primary. Dirty tricks included distributing leaflets that appeared to have been produced by Muskie's campaign team. One of these invited Milwaukee's black residents to a free lunch and beer picnic at which they could meet Coretta Scott, the widow of Martin Luther King and famous television stars. When they arrived their excitement turned to anger when they found "no celebrities, no lunch, and no beer."

Once again this dirty tricks campaign worked. On 4th April, 1972, George McGovern won the Wisconsin primary. George Wallace came second with Edmund Muskie in fourth position. A few days later, Patrick J. Buchanan reported to John N. Mitchell and H. R. Haldeman that "our primary objective, to prevent Senator Muskie from sweeping the early primaries.... and uniting the Democratic Party behind him for the fall has been achieved." Buchanan then recommended that they concentrate on assisting McGovern's bid to be the presidential candidate "in every way we can".

During their investigation of the Watergate Scandal the journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein discovered that Donald Segretti had attempted to smear leading politicians such as George McGovern, Edward Kennedy, Edmund Muskie and Henry Jackson. This included the letters sent during the Florida primary elections. The FBI had also revealed that the letter that had been sent to the Manchester Union Leader during the New Hampshire primary was also a forgery.

On 27th October, 1972, Time Magazine published an article claiming that it had obtained information from FBI files that Dwight Chaplin had hired Donald Segretti to disrupt the Democratic campaign. The following month Carl Bernstein interviewed Segretti who admitted that E. Howard Hunt and Gordon Liddy were behind the dirty tricks campaign against the Democratic Party.

It is not known what role J. Timothy Gratz played in this dirty tricks campaign. However, in his book, The Taking of America, Richard E. Sprague argued that Gratz was involved with Donald Segretti and Dennis Cassini in supplying money to Arthur Bremer before he attempted to assassinate George Wallace. William Turner has also linked Tim Gratz with the Bremer attempt to kill Wallace (at the time Wallace as third candidate posed a serious threat to Nixon's chance to beat McGovern).

I put this information on a web-page on Tim Gratz.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKgratzT.htm

Strangely, Tim Gratz did not threaten me with lawyers about this web page. Instead, he threaten to sue me because I accused him of lying about his involvement in Nixon’s dirty tricks campaign (a word I should not have used).

Tim Gratz was later allowed to rejoin the Forum. He participated in smearing Democratic candidates for president but stopped posting when it became clear that the Republicans were leaving office.

Tim Carroll might have claimed he left the forum over the banning of Tim Gratz. Tim Carroll was a good researcher, however, he had a problem with alcohol and sometimes posted under the influence. This resulted in him making some very inappropriate posts. As a result he was placed on moderation. He continued to post until Tim Gratz was banned. He then used this as an excuse to leave the Forum. Tosh has been threatening to leave the Forum for several years. Like Tim Carroll he has used this opportunity to resign from the Forum. However, like Tim Carroll, he will return to post when it suits him. (Tim Carroll died a couple of years ago).

March 18, 2010

Ah dear. My turn now is it?
Jim, I don't think you've been paying attention. Tell you what. I'll leave that little conundrum to you. The only member on the Forum I've personally met is John Simkin.

He will now be really convinced that you are an undercover agent.

March 18, 2010

With the possible exception of Hoover, I don't think those names were who John Simkin was referring to
as "the people behind the murder of JFK."

I believe that Hoover was involved in the cover-up but not the assassination. I suspect that of the list, only John Martino, Frank Fiorini/Sturgis and David Atlee Phillips had anything to do with the assassination.

March 18, 2010

I find these comments extremely offensive. Andy and myself did discuss this complaint when it was originally made. The problem was the complaint was made at a time when we were discussing whether Peter Lemkin should be made a moderator. I was concerned that Peter was a target of a smear campaign. Without being sent copies of the offensive emails it was impossible to ban him from the forum for a crime that we did not have enough evidence to convict him of.

Then why not bring him back and start with a clean slate on both sides?

Kathy C

Over the years I have constantly defended Peter’s right to post on this forum. So much so that I have damaged long-term friendships. But enough is enough. His recent posts on the Deep Politics Forum and his abusive emails have gone too far. While I own this forum he will never be allowed to be a member of this forum. Nor will other members be allowed to post on his behalf. If that happens again, the member concerned will be placed on permanent moderation.

I now go back to my original post of a few days ago. John and all; Cancel my membership and take me off your roll. I can not abide by your one sided rules, censorship, personal grudges, and setups. As I have said I do not always agree with Peter and his positions and have went head to head with him more than once. But I do know that he is honest in his beliefs and has worked diligently in his research and has tried to be a benefit to this forum and other researchers. With that said... "so long Its been good to know yA'".

You said that by email several days ago. Yet you continued to post on threads where you wanted to get your story out. I am sure that will be true again in the future.

March 18, 2010

Soon after he retired from office, Tony Blair set-up an obscure partnership structure called Windrush Ventures. All his multimillion-pound income gets paid into Windrush. The reason for this is that Windrush does not publish normal company accounts.

However, there is a business appointments watchdog committee that overseas payments made to former ministers. This is an attempt to stop politicians from receiving corrupt payouts for services rendered when they were in power. This is usually overcome by politicians like Blair receiving highly inflated payments for memoirs and speeches by organizations not directly related to the corrupt activities.

Yesterday, the watchdog published details of Blair's relationship with a a South Korean oil firm. The company concerned is UI Energy Corporation which has extensive business interests in Iraq. In July 2008 Blair signed a contract with UI Energy. However, it was not revealed how much he was paid by the organization. Blair asked the watchdog to keep the deal secret because of “market sensitivities”. The watchdog agreed to postpone this information for three months. Since then, the watchdog has asked Blair several times for permission to publish details of this contract. Each time he has asked for more time. They agreed until yesterday. However, we still do not know how much Blair has been paid for ordering the invasion of Iraq.

March 18, 2010

I find these comments extremely offensive. Andy and myself did discuss this complaint when it was originally made. The problem was the complaint was made at a time when we were discussing whether Peter Lemkin should be made a moderator. I was concerned that Peter was a target of a smear campaign. Without being sent copies of the offensive emails it was impossible to ban him from the forum for a crime that we did not have enough evidence to convict him of.

Then why not bring him back and start with a clean slate on both sides?

Kathy C

Over the years I have constantly defended Peter’s right to post on this forum. So much so that I have damaged long-term friendships. But enough is enough. His recent posts on the Deep Politics Forum and his abusive emails have gone too far. While I own this forum he will never be allowed to be a member of this forum. Nor will other members be allowed to post on his behalf. If that happens again, the member concerned will be placed on permanent moderation.

March 16, 2010

I was under stress when I posted about disinfro, as I was at my brother's house in another state and he is critically ill. I was trying to sooth Peter, as in "if it's any comfort, so-and-so thought this about the person you had a falling out with." I wasn't being passive-aggressive towards you. I was just being me. I'm still under Rich's spell and I still protest Peter Lemkin's exit. But I want to stay on this forum. At least Bernice is still here. When I joined, Kathy Becket told me I could join other JFK sites as well. Two days ago, I joined the Deep Politics forum. Do I have to choose between that forum and this one?

Of course you can be a member of both forums. I don't mind you passing on stories about me being a disinformation agent. The idea is so daft that it is funny. Rich took this view after I was booted of his forum for having the nerve to criticise the dominant ideology of his forum. This seems to be the normal strategy of JFK Forums. In the UK we take freedom of speech more seriously.

Shortly thereafter, she complained that Lemkin had become obtrusive and was presuming to make unwanted sexual overtures; I advised her to put him on her email block list. She said that he was still sending emails through the Education Forum and she’d brought up the matter to John Simkin, complaining that he hadn’t given much indication of doing anything about it. I explained that John was unusually laissez-faire on many subjects, might very well be amused if not a bit titillated on this one, and that she should contact Andy Walker instead – him being an honorable & no-nonsense fellow who was the man to see about getting anything done at the Education Forum. And there the matter rested, problem solved, taken care of, quite some time ago now.

I find these comments extremely offensive. Andy and myself did discuss this complaint when it was originally made. The problem was the complaint was made at a time when we were discussing whether Peter Lemkin should be made a moderator. I was concerned that Peter was a target of a smear campaign. Without being sent copies of the offensive emails it was impossible to ban him from the forum for a crime that we did not have enough evidence to convict him of.

March 15, 2010

Peirce maintained that the truth of any mystery can be found, IF INQUIRY CONTINUES LONG ENOUGH. It may not be in my lifetime or yours, but it will be found PROVIDED ONLY that inquiry continues.
http://www.textlog.de/4249.html

This issue is not about belief or philosophy. It is about the way intelligence services destroy evidence.

March 15, 2010

Another good review of the book is by the historian Joseph E. Green:

http://www.ctka.net/2010/voodoo.html

It includes the following:

By and large, this is not an evidential book. He doesn't address the major assassinations in any detail, apart from Kennedy. His entire take on RFK is summed up as: "And if you thought JFK had been killed by 'them,' then why not his brother, gunned down in California in 1968?" [6] Alas, in his chapter on the JFK assassination, although he does not rely on simple rhetoric for his attacks, the evidence he sites is vastly out of date. There is nothing new in his discussion, particularly in light of Bugliosi's recent Reclaiming History. If Bugliosi can't prove the Warren Commission thesis in 2600 pages, then Aaronovitch will not be able to do so in 30 or so. However, he at least gives it a try, which is more than we can say about his assessment of the other political murders.

Aaronovitch's point of view on Oswald is as follows:

If one reads the Warren Report, the circumstantial evidence that Oswald was the lone gunman seems overwhelming. He worked at the Texas School Book Depository, where, on the sixth floor, after the shooting, his rifle was discovered inside an improvised sniper's nest. People had seen a man at the sixth-floor window, had seen the rifle barrel, had heard the shots. Oswald was the only employee unaccounted for after the shooting, and he was picked up shortly afterward in a cinema, having just shot a policeman looking for someone of his description. The words 'slam dunk' come to mind. [7]

Did I say the author was trying? OK, maybe not so much.

Without going into the evidence for all of this (see Jim DiEugenio's series on Bugliosi [8] for a detailed rundown, as arguing with Aaronovitch is both redundant and silly given the scale of the other battle), note that he just restates the Warren Commission's conclusions. When one looks into the detailed evidence, the case falls apart. Aaronovitch isn't going to volunteer that the rifle was ordered under a different name, that the FBI initially failed to get prints off the rifle, that the FBI's own nitrate test cleared Oswald of the murder, that the rifle changed shape three times before settling into the form of a Manlicher-Carcano, and that the State would never have been able to make a case against Oswald for shooting the policeman J.D. Tippit, much less JFK. "The detail is overwhelming," he complains. [9] Yes, it is; such is the price for doing the investigative work. Unfortunately, if you don't do the work, you are going to end up ineffectually repeating the same balderdash that nobody believed in 1963.

And, of course, he does. He calls the idea that Oswald shot at General Edwin Walker "an incontrovertible fact," an embarrassing statement which he may want to delete in future editions. [10] He says of Norman Mailer's book Oswald's Tale that "It is suggestive that one of the eminent Americans who initially advocated the notion of conspiracy changed his mind when he began to study Oswald the man." [11] It is indeed suggestive of the fact that Mailer desperately needed money to help him with the IRS, but apart from that it is unclear just how liberal Mailer was in the first place. Having gone through a substantial amount of personal correspondence located at the Harry Ransom Center at the University of Texas, I can say that his political views were not consistent with his public statements; among other things, one of his best friends was G. Gordon Liddy.

The rest of his short JFK discussion, encased in a chapter entitled "Dead Deities," will convince no one but the already convinced. And anyone convinced by his evidence doesn't understand the concept.

March 15, 2010

I have come to the conclusion that we will never discover the truth about the people behind the assassination of JFK. I think in time, probably in about 2063, the US government will appoint a respected historian to examine the classified documents related to the case. They will then report that a conspiracy and a cover-up did take place but the available evidence makes it impossible to identify those responsible for these events.

This is what happened with the Labour Government decided to announce an investigation into the Zinoviev Letter that was published in 1924. For many years, people had been claiming that the letter was part of a conspiracy organized by British Intelligence and the Conservative Party.

On 10th January, 1996, Ken Livingstone, made a speech in the House of Commons naming the agents responsible for this conspiracy. It is believed that Livingstone got this information from agents within MI5 who were sympathetic to the Labour Party.

When the Labour Party gained power in 1997, the Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, announced that he had ordered the Foreign Office, to carry out an investigation into the case. He also put pressure on MI5/MI6 to open up their files on the Zinoviev Letter.

First, let me give you some background details on the case. In the 1923 General Election, the Labour Party won 191 seats. Although the Conservatives had 258, Ramsay MacDonald agreed to head a minority government, and therefore became the first member of the party to become Prime Minister. As MacDonald had to rely on the support of the Liberal Party, he was unable to get any socialist legislation passed by the House of Commons. The only significant measure was the Wheatley Housing Act which began a building programme of 500,000 homes for rent to working-class families.

In October 1924 the MI5 intercepted a letter signed by Grigory Zinoviev, chairman of the Comintern in the Soviet Union, and Arthur McManus, the British representative on the committee. In the letter British communists were urged to promote revolution through acts of sedition. Vernon Kell, head of MI5 and Sir Basil Thomson head of Special Branch, were convinced that the letter was genuine. Kell showed the letter to Ramsay MacDonald, the Labour Prime Minister. It was agreed that the letter should be kept secret but someone leaked news of the letter to the Times and the Daily Mail. The letter was published in these newspapers four days before the 1924 General Election and contributed to the defeat of MacDonald and the Labour Party.

Gill Bennett was the historian selected to carry out this investigation. She discovered Stanley Baldwin, the head of the new Conservative Party government, set up a Cabinet committee to look into the Zinoviev Letter. On 19th November, 1924, the Foreign Secretary, Austin Chamberlain, reported that members of the committee were "unanimously of opinion that there was no doubt as to the authenticity of the letter". However, eight days later, Desmond Morton, the head of the Secret Intelligence Service's Section V, dealing with counter-Bolshevism, admitted in a letter to MI5 that "we are firmly convinced this actual thing (the Zinoviev letter) is a forgery."

Morton also wrote a report for Chamberlain's Cabinet Committee explaining why the SIS originally considered the Zinoviev letter was genuine. According to Gill Bennett, Morton came up with "five very good reasons" why he thought the letter was genuine. These were: its source, an agent in Moscow "of proved reliability"; "direct independent confirmation" from CPGB and ARCOS sources in London; "subsidiary confirmation" in the form of supposed "frantic activity" in Moscow; because the possibility of SIS being taken in by White Russians was "entirely excluded"; and because the subject matter of the Letter was "entirely consistent with all that the Communists have been enunciating and putting into effect". Bennett goes onto argue: "All five of these reasons can be shown to be misleading, if not downright false."

The problem for Gill Bennett was that a lot of the relevant documents had been destroyed. It was therefore impossible to say who was really behind the forged letter and its publication in the press. However, she suspected that Desmond Morton was the key figure behind the Zinoviev Letter.

In 1998 Robin Cook reported back to the House of Commons that although the Zinoviev Letter was almost certainly a forgery, its precise authorship cannot be determined. Nor could it be confirmed that the SIS and the Conservative Party were part of a conspiracy to remove the Labour government.

In her published report in 1999 Gill Bennett was keen to distance herself from conspiracy theories: "The propagation of conspiracy theories is always unprofitable, as it is impossible to prove a negative.” However, she did argue that Desmond Morton, like other members of establishment, was appalled by the idea of a Prime Minister who was a socialist. She pointed out: "It was not just the intelligence community, but more precisely the community of an elite - senior officials in government departments, men in "the City", men in politics, men who controlled the Press - which was narrow, interconnected (sometimes intermarried) and mutually supportive. Many of these men... had been to the same schools and universities, and belonged to the same clubs. Feeling themselves part of a special and closed community, they exchanged confidences secure in the knowledge, as they thought, that they were protected by that community from indiscretion." If that is not a conspiracy I do not know what is.

During this same period, MI5 decided to open up its files to the historian, Christopher Andrew. In his book, The Defence of the Realm: The Authorized History of MI5 (2009), Christopher Andrew argues that on 9th October 1924 SIS forwarded the Zinoviev letter to the Foreign Office, MI5 and Scotland Yard with the assurance that “the authenticity is undoubted” when they knew it had been forged by anti-Bolshevik White Russians. Desmond Morton, the head of SIS, provided extra information about the letter being confirmed as being genuine by an agent, Jim Finney, who had penetrated Comintern and the Communist Party of Great Britain. Andrew claims this was untrue as the so-called Finney report does not make any reference to the Zinoviev letter. Andrew also argues that it was probably George Joseph Ball, head of B Branch, who passed the letter onto Conservative Central Office on 22nd October, 1924. As Andrew points out: “Ball’s subsequent lack of scruples in using intelligence for party-political advantage while at central office in the later 1920s strongly suggests” that he was guilty of this action.

However, like Bennett before him, Andrew discovered that most of the important documents surrounding the case had been destroyed. Therefore, it was impossible to name the “guilty men”.

Bennett thought it might be a good idea to write a biography of Desmond Morton. When she began examining the documents concerning his life she realized she had problems. It seems that Morton had used his position in SIS to destroy this evidence. This even included his time at Eton College and the Royal Military Academy.

Despite his statement in the House of Commons about the Zinoviev Letter, privately, Cook knew that the British intelligence services could not be trusted. Cook refused to believe the evidence provided by the intelligence services concerning WMD in Iraq. On 17th March 2003 he resigned from the Cabinet. Cook was of course right, unfortunately, he never got the chance to know this for certain as he died from a "heart-attack" on 6th August 2005. He would of course been the star witness in the subsequent inquiries into the background to the Iraq War.

I would argue that any opening of the classified files on the JFK case would follow the same pattern as that of the investigation into the Zinoviev Letter.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TUzinoviev.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SPYmorton.htm

March 14, 2010

Still unanswered is why ALL of Peter's posts here have been deleted.This was done in such away that all the threads he started, along with all the posts by other members on them have been rabbit holed as well. This is an justifiable erasure of a significant part of the forum's history.

I assume that Andy Walker will eventually explain why he did this.

March 14, 2010

I feel John Simkin is angered and has acted on that rage. Why not cool off and then make an intellectual decision?
Peter Lemkin is high strung. Are we going to lose him because of his temperament? I was surprised to read the following, Mr. Simkin:

"However, this is the democratic decision that has been made and there will be no turning back. If you don’t like it, you are free to join Peter on his Deep Politics Forum." -- John Simkin

Kathy C

I always surprised that you have been posting comments on the Deep Politics Forum suggesting that I am a disinformation agent. If you really believe that I am not sure what you are doing remaining a member of this forum.

The reason people post on this forum as it provides a large audience for their views. I suspect that while that continues they will continue to post of this forum while spreading lies about me on other forums. Enjoy.

March 13, 2010

Here in Tasmania we are constantly being told how wonderful Finnish education is and sending our "gurus" and bureaucrats on fact finding missions to discover the secrets. What they fail to ever acknowledge is what is mentioned here - we don't have sufficiently good teacher training, we don't respect teachers, we fill up the curriculum with peripheral stuff that parents should be teaching and we don't spend enough money to get it right. And we are a completely different culture with a different history and values just as America is. it's useless to keep pointing out what the Fins do right when governments expect it to all change on a shoestring budget with kids and parents who don't cooperate. As it says - simple but not easy.

The problem for our government is that they do not like the way Finland gets such good results. A fully comprehensive system with virtually no national testing and league tables.

March 12, 2010

Wall Street Journal

By ELLEN GAMERMAN

Helsinki, Finland

High-school students here rarely get more than a half-hour of homework a night. They have no school uniforms, no honor societies, no valedictorians, no tardy bells and no classes for the gifted. There is little standardized testing, few parents agonize over college and kids don't start school until age 7.

Yet by one international measure, Finnish teenagers are among the smartest in the world. They earned some of the top scores by 15-year-old students who were tested in 57 countries. American teens finished among the world's C students even as U.S. educators piled on more homework, standards and rules. Finnish youth, like their U.S. counterparts, also waste hours online. They dye their hair, love sarcasm and listen to rap and heavy metal. But by ninth grade they're way ahead in math, science and reading -- on track to keeping Finns among the world's most productive workers.

The Finns won attention with their performances in triennial tests sponsored by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group funded by 30 countries that monitors social and economic trends. In the most recent test, which focused on science, Finland's students placed first in science and near the top in math and reading, according to results released late last year. An unofficial tally of Finland's combined scores puts it in first place overall, says Andreas Schleicher, who directs the OECD's test, known as the Programme for International Student Assessment, or PISA. The U.S. placed in the middle of the pack in math and science; its reading scores were tossed because of a glitch. About 400,000 students around the world answered multiple-choice questions and essays on the test that measured critical thinking and the application of knowledge. A typical subject: Discuss the artistic value of graffiti.

The academic prowess of Finland's students has lured educators from more than 50 countries in recent years to learn the country's secret, including an official from the U.S. Department of Education. What they find is simple but not easy: well-trained teachers and responsible children. Early on, kids do a lot without adults hovering. And teachers create lessons to fit their students. "We don't have oil or other riches. Knowledge is the thing Finnish people have," says Hannele Frantsi, a school principal....

For the rest of the article go to:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120...A_20080330.html

March 12, 2010

The administrators (Andy and John S.) and moderators (Kathy, John G., Stephen, Antii, Gary, Evan, Don) receive a great number of complaints about member’s postings. Some mornings when I get up I get a message that my mailbox is full because there have been so many complaints overnight. We have tried to deal with these complaints as fairly as possible but we are constantly accused of bias. These complaints in themselves are often abusive and it has taken a great deal of persuasion on my part to stop them from resigning from what is a thankless task. In fact, it has been argued that the moderation system is itself a conspiracy. It has also been claimed that the majority of the administrators and moderators are anti-conspiracy theorists. This is not true, although the majority of moderators do not see everything as a conspiracy. The reason that these people were selected as moderators is that they were always polite to people they disagree with. However, to those who appear to be only able to argue their case by being abusive, they consider all other members, as being “anti-conspiracy”.

Evan had the idea that if we made one of these aggressive members as a moderator, they would see what it is like to be on the receiving end of this abuse. It might even convince them that the administrator and moderators were not part of a conspiracy. Evan suggested Peter Lemkin as a moderator. This was a brave suggestion as Evan had been a regular victim of Peter’s abusive behaviour. I foolishly thought this was a good idea. So did most of the other moderators. However, right from the beginning Andy predicted that it would end in tears. Although we realised it was a risky decision, on a majority vote, he was elected as a moderator.

It appeared to work at first but after a few weeks we began to get complaints about what Peter was saying to other members by PM. Peter was also breaking forum rules by questioning the motives of individual posters. This was usually targeted against new members who told me that they were now reluctant to post. Battle hardened members such as Len Colby can take the flack but new members cannot. They were also confused by the fact that it was a “moderator” who was behaving that way.

Andy took the view that Peter should be removed as a moderator. However, I argued that he should be given another chance. I informed Peter that we were going to take a vote on removing him as a moderator. I and I expect other moderators, now received a succession of abusive emails from Peter. This included threats of legal action against us for spreading rumours about him being guilty of sexually harassing a female member of the forum. In fact, it was Jack White, one of Peter’s supporters, who first mentioned this on the forum. Peter also threatened to remove all the posts he had posted on the forum. Peter also threatened to persuade members to leave the Education Forum and join the Deep Politics Forum. At this point I began to wonder if this is what this has been about all along. Andy also drew our attention to what Peter was saying about individual moderators on the Deep Politics Forum.

Despite these emails I did not change my views on whether Peter should remain as moderator. The majority agreed with me. However, these abusive emails continued. So did the attacks on the Deep Politics Forum including the description of us being a “slime-pit”. I therefore decided to call for another vote on Peter as a moderator. This time, only Evan, Don and myself voted for him to stay.

This triggered off more abusive emails from Peter. Even though I voted for him to stay as a moderator, I was also on the receiving end of numerous threats. You can imagine what the moderators who voted on his removal received. Peter is also threatening the Forum administrators with legal action. This appears to cover several issues but it did include postings about the claims of sexual harassment.

Tim Gratz threatened legal action against the Forum a few years ago. As a result he was also denied posting rights. The same thing will happen to anyone else who threatens me with legal action.

There was a case recently of a Forum owner who was successfully sued for a large sum of money after a member had posted comments about another member’s sex life. The judge pointed out that the Forum owner lost the case because they did not delete the offensive post when the member first made the complaint. Therefore, we have no choice but to delete all those threads where these accusations have been made.

I know Peter’s friends will be very upset by him being removed as a moderator. As a friend they will not have been on the receiving end of his abusive emails. However, this is the democratic decision that has been made and there will be no turning back. If you don’t like it, you are free to join Peter on his Deep Politics Forum.

March 12, 2010