Smear, Sabotage, Repeat
Controlled Opposition and the Battle for the Authentic Left
What is Controlled Opposition?
According to Google:
Controlled opposition is a political strategy where a group or party is presented as a legitimate opposition to a ruling power, but is secretly controlled or influenced by that power. This can be done to create the appearance of a democratic process or to neutralize genuine dissent by co-opting and controlling the very groups that are supposed to be opposing the government.
How I Interpret It
The controlled opposition is effectively bad actors trying to portray themselves as something they aren’t. A good example in today’s world would be paid reviewers who often flood Amazon with favourable reviews for products, often in return for the privilege of receiving said product. Social media influencers would be another example, and the clue is very much in the name - their role is to “influence” opinions rather than give honest feedback.
Alternatively, another good way to imagine it is if you have ever played/watched the social deduction game Werewolf - the game which the TV show Traitors is based on. The concept of the game is pretty much for the werewolves (traitors) to blend in with the villagers (faithful) and manipulate them to turn on one another until the werewolves (traitors) have parity and majority control. It’s a game of deception, manipulation, and control.
Right Wing Examples: Tommy Robinson and co.
The first example is probably one of the most well known across left wing activists - Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, aka Tommy Robinson.
Tommy Robinson didn’t just appear in a vacuum overnight as a grassroots figure; his rise was actually very artificial instead. Rather than go off into a tangent about Tommy Robinson, I’d rather be a bit more concise. Basically, to cut a long story short, Tommy Robinson has had links to intelligence services and individuals of power pretty much since his conception. He founded the EDL, for instance, with Paul Ray, who is an individual who worked for Israeli intelligence. He’s bankrolled and funded by many wealthy individuals across the Atlantic too. This isn’t an individual behaving organically. Instead, he’s a bought and paid for controlled asset used to influence right wing opinions.
To speculate further, but not to go into too much depth: various figures such as Laurence Fox, Andrew Tate, Katie Hopkins, Calvin Robinson, Graham Linehan, Joey Barton, etc., appear to largely be washed up celebrities who have suddenly become very politically engaged at some stage of their career - usually the back end. Or in cases such as Laurence’s he’s always been a bad actor by all definitions. Their main relevance and stream of profit nowadays appears to be through pushing divisive, bordering on extremist, right wing viewpoints on social media. It’s a bit like when I touched on “influencers” earlier and how they’re like controlled opposition when they give reviews for money. I’d suspect that many of these individuals make a tidy sum, which no doubt incentivises them to post what they do. Therefore, one then has to question how authentic they actually are. If one’s main income is through posting a particular set of political views, then one can easily become compromised, controlled and financially motivated.
In addition to the above, we also have to consider those who may also be coerced or blackmailed to do what they do too. Considering the Diddy tapes and the Epstein files, for instance, as well as historical phone hackings, use of software such as Pegasus to gain unauthorised access to personal devices, etc. Did Stephen Yaxley-Lennon know Paul Ray’s connections to Israeli intelligence, for instance, when he first formed the EDL, or did he learn about that at a later date when they already had leverage over him? I think it’s important that we question these things because no doubt there’s also individuals out there possibly under duress by their handlers.
Left Wing Examples: Labour under Corbyn
Turning back towards the left wing, a good example to focus on here would be Labour during Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. Now of course we should remember that the party has always been a broad church so of course we should expect a spectrum of different opinions. With that said it doesn’t excuse the various attempts by some to bring the party into disrepute during his leadership and actively work against their election campaign.
Two individuals in the Labour Party at that time, Ruth Smeeth and Keir Starmer, both had links to the USA. The former was once described as a “strictly protected” source for the US embassy, and the latter a member of the very elite Trilateral Committee, as well as having multiple undocumented visits to Washington while head of CPS.
Ruth Smeeth was, of course, one of the leading provocateurs and voices in the amplified and weaponised antisemitism crisis in Labour under Corbyn’s leadership. Keir Starmer, on the other hand, was the Shadow Brexit Secretary, who no doubt was one of the largest influences behind Labour’s very confusing and flimsy position on Brexit, where they were neither here nor there at times and absolutely cost them at the ballot box.
When you consider what Labour used to be a few decades ago compared to what they are now, it’s a very good example of what a “left wing” party can become when infiltrated with bad actors and controlled opposition over a prolonged period.
I should note that I’m only touching the tip of the iceberg with the above, there are many others who have already exhausted, in detail, the various sabotage attacks and smears within the Labour party during Corbyn’s premiership of the Labour party.
Jeremy Corbyn In The Media
I believe that besides a couple of leadership specials, Jeremy Corbyn has only been on Question Time twice or thrice despite being an MP for 40-odd years. Yet, on the other hand, one of the individuals to make the most appearances is Nigel Farage, who has only been an MP for just over a year. Of course if you were to speak to many people on the left they would also recognise or suggest Nigel is an establishment stooge. Unless someone has a reasonable explanation for Corbyn not appearing on Question Time as frequently as others, then it would suggest to me it’s because he’s absolutely not “controlled opposition” or else they’d gladly platform him.
Again thinking back from memory I remember various scandals with the BBCs reporting of Corbyn too. There was the time in the build up to the election on remembrance day and “anti british” Corbyn laid his wreath respectfully while Boris blundered and the BBC “conveniently” played the wrong footage.
Or there was the interview with Laura K in the aftermath of the Paris attacks. Where the footage of the interview was edited and they played Jeremy’s answers in response to different questions to purposely take them out of context and make him look bad. Of course the BBC came out and defended Laura over this, which is quite ironic considering their completely opposite approach on the recent Trump allegations.
I could keep going with more examples like the Russian hat photoshop thing etc.. but I can’t be arsed, you get the point. So if I go back to my thoughts about “the traitors/werewolf” game earlier in my rant. It’s important for the village/faithful to try to identify those who are acting in the best interests. Given Jeremy’s treatment in the media, treatment by his party, the various smear campaigns etc.. It feels very difficult not to see him as authentic as that’s alot of effort to discredit someone who wouldn’t be a threat to the establishment.
Jeremy Corbyn - Return of the Smears?
So this now brings me closer to the present day where I want to focus on the last 4 months especially. It feels that the long awaited and much anticipated new party was unfortunately wrapped in controversy from the very minute it was launched. From what can only be described as a seemingly unilateral rogue decision of one of the newest members.
What soon followed was a much too familiar smear campaign launched against Jeremy Corbyn and his associates:
From everything being controlled by one woman named Karie Murphy who was suddenly a core reason for Labours previous failings under Corbyn.
To then quickly turning into a sexist misogynist boys club nearly overnight which has a problem with women.
And of course going back and forth between the two depending on how the wind blew on any particular day. The lack of consistency suggests to me this were mostly smears rather genuine criticisms.
Of course there were also the other scandals of not saying “anti zionist”, someone being a landlord, Corbyn (and his circle) being the main person to blame for 2017/19 elections and transphobia too
Of course Novara Media particularly were very happy to oblige and take a nostalgic trip back to 2019 - I think we all would if we could. And just like that any criticism of Corbyn or anyone connected to him was well reported and promoted… on the rare occasion that Novara could take a break from their exhausting Polanski PR campaign.
But then came what can only be described as the phishing attack…
The Phishing Attack and Lack of Accountability
Some may dispute the title however from my understanding if one was to setup a fake website mimicking another one with the intentions of taking the money and data of individuals under false pretences - then that’s usually a phishing attack.
It’s also important to remember that there wasn’t just one individual involved in this but numerous. The four directors of MOU (Zarah, Beth, Andrew, James) of course especially being linked and no doubt countless others behind the scenes.
For such a serious breach and once again another rogue action spearheaded by Zarah, it was astonishing to see the lack of accountability. Instead there appeared to be an appetite to actually try to justify or “two sides” the story and effectively defend these actions.
Why any self respected left wing media outlet wouldn’t want to question the integrity of those involved in such a scandal, I do not know. The only observation I’ve noticed is that Andrew Feinstein is of course a director of Declassified and an associate of his, a very wealthy Cecil Hetherington, now also owns a large share in the Canary. So there is certainly a conflict of interests there on how these entities may report on such a damning incident which Andrew is connected to.
As for Novara Media. I’ve came to learn they have a long history and habit of smearing those who come across as genuine and authentic on the left. While seemingly going over board to promote and support those I tend to have reservations over. So the lack of accountability, which they held those associated to the phishing attack with, simply reassured me rather than make me question my own observations.
Who would want to sabotage Your Party?
I honestly can’t find any good reason why Jeremy Corbyn would want to sabotage his own party. I also see no good reason why, if he had bad actors associated to him, they would want it sabotaged. To me the goal of controlled opposition would be to infiltrate the party and take a controlling position. As they already were in that position - there’s no motive for them to create scandal.
Plus given that many of Jeremy’s new found critics repeatedly implied that the party was under the control of a certain Karie Murphy (when it wasn’t a boys club and under control of men depending on the wind), there’s absolutely little incentive to sabotage it.
There’s no fire without a match however and it’s difficult not to look past Zarah Sultana whom on multiple occasions was acting in a rogue and unilateral manner which brought the party into public disrepute. It all just feels far too similar to the same tactics which happened when Corbyn was leader of Labour and individuals worked against him.
The Zarah Sultana Paradox
As I said previously. There is no fire without a match and it’s extremely difficult for me to look back nearly every controversy being ignited by an action directly involving Zarah. I find it even more challenging to look past the many supposed journalists and political activists whom seem eager to excuse these actions.
While Corbyn has faced a purity test from those who criticise the weaponization of antisemitism but then proceed to weaponize antizionism. Zarah seemingly evades the same criticism for remaining in the Labour party during their Gaza complicity. It’s astounding and insulting to see some trying to potray one of the most outspoken supporters for Palestine for decades as not being supportive enough.
Talking about the Labour Party. I can’t understand why Zarah left the Labour party to join Your Party but then immediately within days of joining behave like a self indulged maverick. Joining a party which others have been working on for months to then within days just announce the party and yourself as a co leader on twitter with no consultation or unified communications. How is that not a severe red flag? Yet people again excuse it. There are some that would have you think the party would never launch without Zarah and it was critically imporant it was announced there and then. Why? I’ve actually always been of the feeling that Jeremy should have withheld launching till as late as possible because the longer a party of his is in the public domain - the more smears and attacks which will be used against it. And… well that’s exactly what happened when Zarah went rogue.
If you’re someone who wants a party to succeed would you really do that within days of joining? How much disrespect does that show to the others who have been working in the background too? I don’t see what was achieved by it and I don’t see why any individual whom was acting in good faith would do something so controversial and unprofessional either. It’s rather ironic that some of Zarah’s supporters seem to be fixated on democracy while hypocritically also supporting the individual who appears to have behaved the least democratically in the party.
Now of course there could be the fact that this was a one off or a misunderstanding and we give the benefit of the doubt. But it wasn’t, it became a repeated pattern over a series of months where Zarah continually behaved in a rogue manner.
When the weaponization of antizionism faded for Zarah and her assosciates, they were quick to utilise any other isms or labels they could get their hands on. Landlordism, transphobia, misogyny. Again very odd that someone joined a party but then seemingly opposes most of the people who founded it.
When you see Zarah and Zack getting along so well and seemingly having more in common politically than Zarah does with any of the Independent Alliance. You really have to question why she opted to join Your Party and not the Greens? Where was the appeal? Whatever the answer, both Zarah and The Greens appear to be the biggest benefactors of the Your Party shambles.
On the subject of The Greens
I’ve noticed a substantial push from certain social media influencers and media organisations to push alot of Green Party and Zack Polanski PR over the last 6 months. I say notice, what I really mean is it’s impossible to not notice no matter how hard you try.
It’s so unescapable that it’s actually given me this new found understanding in how so many people get taken in by the Tommy Robinsons of this world. If the algorithms and influencers wish to push a particular narrative then it becomes very hard to ignore.
I probably first began to notice the big Green PR push around April or May. Numerous accounts I followed all suddenly wanted to talk about the Green leadership campaign and Zack Polanski in harmony. Some of them I found quite peculiar too. Matt Kennard for instance who is often a vocal Nato critic has regularly shown his enthusiasm for Zack which just doesn’t make sense. Anyway it all felt a bit artificial and more like a PR campaign rather than people posting organically. It was too coordinated and far too much of a coincidence to see so many left wing “influencers” all posting similar stuff around the same time.
In terms of Zack Polanski I don’t trust him at all, and I’m astounded so many people do. It wasn’t so long ago that he was a Lib Dem smearing Corbyn and now we all have to forget his past and imagine he’s had this organic growth and political transformation into all the same policies which Corbyn pushed previously… when Zack was opposing him. Then there’s also his family too whom seem to be property tycoons. Of course we shouldn’t judge him solely on his background but when people seem up and arms about someone owning a couple of properties - I’m surprised nobody is concerned about Zack. Even Starmer and Corbyn had alot of reporting on their background and history - why are the media not interested in Zacks? Similarly there also seem to be little appetite to discuss Rachel Millwards airbnb rentals too. I actually challenged one of the prominent critics of Adnan over their lack of consistency (@NoJusticeMTG), my reward? I got blocked. So does she actually have an issue with landlordism - or is it just another term weaponised when it suits? Being opposed to landlordism I can understand, being against misogyny I can understand. However when these attacks are only applied selectively then you’re no different from those who weaponised antisemitism previously.
Another thing I’ve came across in the last few days was an interview between Zack Polanski and Rory Stewart. When Polanski was challenged on the economics which inspire his views he mentioned Gary Stevenson and Grace Blakely. Two individuals who I agree speak a very good game on economics. I understand Grace has been about for quite a while but Gary seemed to be more of an overnight sensation for me…
Gary Stevenson
I want to highlight Gary Stevenson. I love this guy; I feel he’s really engaging with his content and, through his work, has raised a lot of attention on inequality - I commend him for it.
But something doesn’t sit right here. I remember seeing one interview where he was wearing his tracksuit bottoms tucked into his socks. I’m a council estate lad myself, and yes, people did do that, especially when playing football, but I don’t think I’ve seen anyone do it since the 2000s. It felt a bit “try hard” and someone trying to cosplay as something they’re maybe not.
Then I thought back to his book where he discusses at one point how he went to university but still wanted to drink cider in the park instead. Yeah, we drank in parks as teenagers because no one had a free house or we weren’t old enough to get served or have a fake ID, but when we got of age, we didn’t go back to drink cider in parks instead. Just seemed a bit odd and something added in to make him appear more working class. Again maybe I’m the issue here looking for issues and nit picking.
My biggest question is: where was he between 2015 and 2020? If you search the word “Corbyn” on his Twitter, there is nothing. How can someone so passionate and outspoken about inequality make no reference to the man who inspired a generation to campaign against it? It feels too convenient that Gary has filled the void as the main voice on inequality just as it became a hotly debated and supported topic across the nation. If I were the establishment and witnessed 14 million people supporting Corbyn with inequality being a key topic - I absolutely would be wanting to get our own plant into that space to control the narratives surrounding inequality.
While Gary seemingly lived under a rock during the Corbyn years. There is however one party and one party leader who he isn’t reluctant to reference. That of course being the Green Party, which he supported in 2024, and Polanski, whom he also has shown support towards on Twitter. Maybe Gary and Zack were both living under the same rock when 14 million people were calling for everything they talk about now… 10 years ago. How great it would have been to have their support back then.
Another new individual who I noticed has also recently became quite popular is Jimmy The Giant. Who ironically I first came across when Gary promoted him on one of his YouTube videos as an individual who “used to be super right wing” but is now left wing sort of thing.
The reason I note that is because if Gary were to happen to be a bad faith actor or one knowingly or unknowingly under the influence of those whom wish to control the left rather than have it’s best intentions at heart. Then I would also seemingly query Jimmy too seeing as Jimmy’s break in the “leftie political” sphere for me seemed to coincide with his promotion by Gary.
What suddenly inspired someone who admittedly spent much of their adult life dossing of their dads money to suddenly want a more equal society? I know he’s been desperately trying to launch a youtube for a long time. What came first - the longing to be a youtube star and influencer. Or the longing to improve the lives of the many?
The Traitors/Werewolf Analogy
Again, I go back to the game called The Traitors/Werewolf (also called Mafia). If you’re not familiar with it, Google it.
If you have played or watched the show, you know it’s in the interests of the traitors to make their fellow traitors appear legitimate.
Likewise it is equally important for the traitors to make the faithful appear to be acting in bad interests and set them up as traitors. As well as attempting to manipulate and deceive faithful and take them under their sphere of influence.
So if I take Zarah Sultana for instance. Well you can see her connections to MOU. From MOU you can look at Andrew/Jamie/Beth and the different fringe groups they’re connected to. You can look at the likes of Declassified and The Canary which are both directly or indirectly linked to Andrew too. And soon you see how far the network can actually spread. And how a small group of individuals can actually have a much greater reach and influence than first thought.
Zarah for instance could be a good faith actor but maybe under the poor influence of someone such as Andrew. Who in turn is maybe using his wider network to exert power and control across different fringe groups and media outlets. I’m not suggesting Andrew is or isn’t bad faith, I’m simply saying these are the sort of networks we need to explore and ask questions of. I say we, ideally any creditable journalist on the left should be exploring this too. Unfortunately though none of them seem interested in it so you’re stuck with a techy trying their best to fill that void and report on it instead.
The more you look into things the more you see the different connections. The StatsForLefties account which is regularly quoted amongst the Left is actually a former Novara journalist for instance. Max Shanly who is linked to Democractic Socialist Your Party faction used to do podcasts on Novara, he’s also a friend of Zarah’s from Labour Youth and was heavily involved in Momentum too. Ben Timberly was an account with a low following which seemed to have a new scandal every day but when you look back at whom was quoting him… you begin to see the individuals whom wanted his theories to appear in our feeds.
I think that’s an important question we always need to ask too. Where did this account come from? How did it end up on my feed? Who follows it? Who engages with it? Who promotes it? In this increasingly scripted world, less and less happens by chance. If something sounds too good to be true - ask why it is? Why would GB News want to promote Fiona Lali and Aaron Bastani for example?
My Thoughts and Conclusions
There’s no motive or reason for Jeremy Corbyn or those closely associated to him to sabotage Your Party. There are however motives and reasons for the establishment to sabotage Your Party or infiltrate it.
Unfortunately Zarah, someone I was once incredibly fond of, has cried wolf one too many times for me and I struggle to believe that she’s been acting in good faith or in Your Party’s best intentions.
I find the media reporting of the whole ordeal rather astounding to say the least. I’m especially surprised by the amount of politically engaged and educated folks who appear not to be able to see the smears and sabotage others do. I’m also yet to see any convincing argument or justification for Zarah’s actions either.
Novara Media I guess is one of the few things which hasn’t surprised me and I commend them on their consistency. The Canary on the other hand has unfortunately lost much credibility and given the new capitalist ownership model it shows that they now very much do have a conflict of interest too.
The one thing Jeremy Corbyn has what Zarah, Zack, Novara, Greens etc.. don’t is being able to get through to working class brits especially in previously red wall communities. If you want to be able to beat Reform you need to be able to speak the same language as them and connect and relate to them too. Jeremy had that and by focusing on policies which unite the working class and being pragmatic - Your Party had the potential to provide a real authentic working class left wing party.
Unfortunately as things so happen the party seems to be dead before it’s begun with barely a fag papers difference between it and the Green Party. The Greens should of course be proud of their 2 million odd votes last election. However if you think Green party policies and becoming a carbon copy of the Green Party is going to win an election or threaten Reform in any way then you’re badly mistaken. Even the Independent Alliance managed to elect more MP’s last election than the Greens.
With the above said. If certain individuals were potentially bad faith actors then all is not lost and instead it’s a cause for celebration (for them). Your Party has been compromised and infiltrated and now poses much less threat to Reform or the establishment as a result. Rather than having the working class member led party some called for we instead have a party largely led by the same organised groupuscules which have been involved in left wing politics for years. While it’s certainly impressive the amount of political theory they can recite in their echo chambers, it means very little when they can’t communicate or influence the masses. Same shite different name.
This was my round table and these are my accusations. Now let’s start banishing some traitors!
Disclaimer
I’m just an average guy on twitter who closely follows left wing politics in the UK. While the above may be observations which I’ve picked up on over the last few years - it doesn’t necessarily mean they are correct.
With that said I absolutely think it is an area which we should be exploring more on the left and I hope that my article maybe inspires others to try and look at things from different perspectives and scrutinise more and ask more questions.
As the great Socrates would say “I know that I know nothing”.
Great article. I've observed many of the same things and you've reminded me of some i'd forgotten.
And this us something I wondered about certain people during the Corbyn years:
"Maybe Gary and Zack were both living under the same rock when 14 million people were calling for everything they talk about now… 10 years ago. How great it would have been to have their support back then."
A charitable explanation would be: they could see the vicious smears against Corbynites especially re antisemitism, perhaps they fell for them or perhaps they just feared the same being done to them, so they didn't speak up. Ignorance or cowardice maybe, but also normal human behaviour.
But yeah, it could be that these people are plants, either consciously or unconsciously: a controlled opposition, leading left wing voters and activists down a rabbit hole where they can't harm the establishment.
Wasn't 'breadtube' a government funded op? So it's not exactly farfetched to suspect these characters who overnight become powerful influencers on the left.
Fiona Lali I would single out as being particularly suspicious. You can read some allegations about her party here: https://thecommunists.org/2024/09/01/news/what-exactly-is-rcp-and-why-so-heavily-promoted-trotskyism/
Like you I don't know what's really going on but I'm very curious to see how the Revolutionary Communist Party thing plays out because it just looks fake.