The Madhouse Update

Marketed as Nutrasweet, Equal and Spoonful, almost all "low-calorie, diet or no-added sugar drinks" now contain the artificial sweetner, aspartame.

Since it was introduced in 1981, Aspartame has been the subject of a great many of the complaints reported to the adverse reaction monitors of the US Food and Drug Administration. Coca-Cola knew of the dangers of Aspartame because it originally opposed approval by the FDA. It said that it was inherently unstable and breaks down into methyl alcohol, formic acid, formaldehyde and other toxins.

And yet, aspartame is now to be found in every diet coke can.

When news leaked out alleging that G.D.Searle, who owned Aspartame, had falsified test results, congress pledged $60,000,000 for the prosecution of the firm's Chairman. However, the Reagan administration closed ranks and prevented the trial of one of their own from taking place.

The chairman of G.D. Searle at the time was none other than DONALD RUMSFELD, George Bush's infamous Defence Secretary and one of the leading Neoconservative "hawks" that forced Gulf War II upon the world.

G.D. Searle is now a subsidiary of MONSANTO.

Anone out there think I'm a conspiracy theorist? You do? Well, check out what Roger Williams, the Lib Dem MP for Brecon and Radnorshire, had to say on the floor of the House of Commons on 14 January 2005:

“For almost a year, I have been looking into the safety of the artificial sweetener, aspartame, and I WAS TRULY HORRIFIED BY WHAT I DISCOVERED. WHEN I began my research, I was unconvinced by the off-the-wall internet conspiracy theories. I am a man of science, not of the internet. However, a number of eminent academics from the UK and further afield have persuaded me beyond doubt that ASPARTAME REPRESENTS A SERIOUS HEALTH PROBLEM.

There is strong scientific evidence that THE COMPONENTS OF ASPARTAME AND THEIR METABOLITES CAN CAUSE VERY SERIOUS TOXIC EFFECTS IN HUMANS. THERE IS ALSO A WEALTH OF SUBJECTIVE EVIDENCE THAT SUGGESTS A RANGE OF ADVERSE NEUROLOGICAL REACTIONS TO ASPARTAME… LONG-TERM ASPARTAME USE CAUSES CANCER IN RODENTS. THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION RECOGNISES SUCH FINDINGS IN RATS AS HIGHLY PREDICTIVE OF CARCINOGENIC RISK FOR HUMANS.

The history of Aspartame's approval is mired in controversy, not least because of the likes of DONALD RUMSFELD ‘CALLING IN HIS MARKERS’ TO GET IT APPROVED. THE SCIENCE THAT SUPPORTED ITS APPROVAL WAS BIASED, INCONCLUSIVE AND INCOMPETENT. ASPARTAME IS IN A HIGHER CATEGORY OF RISK THAN SUDAN 1, THE UK'S FASTEST RECALLED FOOD SUBSTANCE. HOWEVER, BAD SCIENCE, BAD REGULATION AND BAD POLITICS HAVE LEFT THE BIGGER OF THOSE TWO THREATS IN EVERYDAY PRODUCTS ON OUR SUPERMARKET SHELVES.

ASPARTAME IS CONSUMED EVERY DAY BY AN AVERAGE OF ONE IN 15 PEOPLE WORLDWIDE, MOST OF WHOM ARE CHILDREN. How many children in Britain do not consume Walker's prawn cocktail crisps, Orbit or Airwaves chewing gum, Robinson's fruit squash, Lucozade or Diet Coke? Aspartame is even found in Centrum Kidz multivitamins, Lemsip cold and flu sachets for children, and Nurofen Meltlets for children. Those are the very products that are designed to cure our children when they are sick.

The economic reality of a sweetening agent that costs one third of the price of sugar means that IT IS PRESENT IN NO FEWER THAN 6,000 FOODS, DRINKS AND PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS IN OUR SUPERMARKETS. The history of the approval of this ubiquitous product puts PUBLIC HEALTH REGULATORS AND POLITICIANS TO SHAME. Crucial questions that have been largely repressed since the early '80s hang over aspartame's safety.

When journalists attempted to tackle those questions, THEIR NEWSPAPERS WERE THREATENED WITH INTIMIDATING LETTERS FROM THE INDUSTRY'S LAWYERS. I am duty-bound by the immunity afforded to me under parliamentary privilege—and as a servant of the public—to initiate A DEBATE THAT HAS BEEN SILENCED FOR OVER TWO DECADES.

I believe that aspartame should never have been licensed for use as a low-calorie sweetener in foods and drinks, and that THERE IS COMPELLING AND RELIABLE EVIDENCE FOR THIS CARCINOGENIC SUBSTANCE TO BE BANNED FROM THE UK FOOD AND DRINKS MARKET…

The chemical breakdown of aspartame reveals three basic components: a methyl ester and two amino acids; phenylalanine and aspartic acid… When aspartic acid enters the bloodstream… (it) becomes an excitotoxin, A TOXIC MOLECULE THAT STIMULATES NERVE CELLS TO THE POINT OF DAMAGE OR DEATH…

If both of the amino acids in aspartame are potentially very harmful to humans, the third component—methyl ester—is the most harmful and potentially lethal component. As soon as it is ingested, the methyl ester is metabolised by the body into methanol. METHANOL IS A WELL-KNOWN POISON.

In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency defines safe consumption of methanol as no more than 7.8 mg per day. That means that ANYONE DRINKING THREE CANS OF A DRINK SWEETENED WITH ASPARTAME IS CONSUMING ABOUT 56 MG OF METHANOL, EIGHT TIMES THE EPA LIMIT… Then comes the alarming part: methanol is unstable in the human body AND SO GETS CONVERTED INTO FORMALDEHYDE… Let us be clear that FORMALDEHYDE IS A CLASS A POISON, which was used to prevent dead bodies from decaying.

Do we really want our children exposed to an embalming fluid? Some of the formaldehyde accumulated in the body will be converted into FORMIC ACID, A POTENT TOXIN, WHICH CAN CAUSE CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM DEPRESSION AND, IN SUFFICIENT QUANTITY, COMA AND DEATH. Many human studies show the adverse effects from chronic, low-level formaldehyde exposure. Crucially, in 1998 Trocho demonstrated that, even when consuming small doses, severe problems occur from the gradual accumulation of formaldehyde in the body, which cannot be excreted.

A working group looking into the toxicity of chemicals in humans found that EXPOSURE TO FORMALDEHYDE INDUCED LEUKAEMIA—A CANCER OF THE WHITE BLOOD CELLS—AND CANCER OF THE NOSE AND THROAT. Surely, if aspartame metabolites have been shown to cause cancer in humans, we should be more concerned about the safety of the entire product. HOW CAN THE GOVERNMENT, FACED WITH THOSE FACTS, STILL HOPE TO REASSURE REGULAR CONSUMERS OF DIET COLA AND OTHER PRODUCTS CONTAINING ASPARTAME THAT THEY DO NOT RUN A SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER RISK OF DEVELOPING CANCER AS A RESULT OF DRINKING THEM?…

Hon. Members will no doubt remember the scandal in February this year, when Sudan 1 dye found in food in the UK led to possibly the biggest and fastest ever food recall that this country has ever known. A human being would have had to consume 3 tonnes of Worcestershire sauce every day for two years for potentially harmful effects to occur from tiny doses of Sudan 1 in foods. Despite that minimal risk, however, it was removed immediately.

Sudan 1 was found to be carcinogenic in 1975, but despite that it was placed in the least dangerous of the three WHO categories of carcinogenic substances. ASPARTAME, WHICH IS FOUND IN 10 TIMES MORE PRODUCTS IS, ON THE BASIS OF THE GROUND-BREAKING RAMAZZINI STUDY, IN WHO CATEGORY 2, WHICH IS POTENTIALLY FAR MORE DANGEROUS TO HUMANS.

The Ramazzini study, to which I will return in depth later, revealed a repeated incidence of malignant tumours in rats after moderate regular consumption. WILL THE MINISTER EXPLAIN WHY THE TREATMENT OF ASPARTAME, WHICH IS STILL IN 6,000 SUPERMARKET PRODUCTS TODAY, HAS BEEN SO DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF SUDAN 1?

The toxicity of aspartame's individual components is surely sufficient for us to be alarmed about its widespread use in the products that we and our children consume every day. But consumers and scientists alike have shown there is cause for concern from the regular consumption of products containing aspartame. The US Food and Drug Administration website lists more than 9,000 aspartame-related health complaints, but THIS COULD BE JUST THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG.

Health professionals are often unable to diagnose a case of aspartame toxicity when they see one—after all, doctors are not currently trained to recognise it—and a number of cases have been misdiagnosed. A number of independent studies have shown that ASPARTAME TOXICITY MIMICS CONDITIONS SUCH AS MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS, PARKINSON'S DISEASE, ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE, ARTHRITIS, CHRONIC FATIGUE SYNDROME, PANIC DISORDER, LUPUS, DIABETES, LYMPHOMA, DEPRESSION AND OTHER PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDERS…

The conclusions of the Ramazzini study deserve painstaking dissection… This vast study demonstrated that aspartame administered at varying levels in feed causes a statistically significant increase of lymphomas and leukaemias, malignant tumours of the kidneys in female rats and malignant tumours of peripheral and cranial nerves in male rats. Such tumours occurred even in two of the doses that were well below the acceptable daily intake recommended by regulatory authorities in the EU and the US.

There has been a wealth of compelling and rigorous research showing aspartame to be harmful, which culminated in last month's comprehensive Ramazzini study. How has the industry responded to such an overwhelming volume of sound science? I met industry representatives in October and if they were not scientifically illiterate, they were certainly very misinformed as to the credentials of the Ramazzini study, which they presented as worthless, unpublished and un-peer-reviewed.

Holland Sweetener, Ajinomoto and NutraSweet must think that they are very convincing when THEY CLAIM THAT ASPARTAME IS THE SAFEST PRODUCT ON THE MARKET by virtue of the 500 studies attesting to its safety. One can test a product 4,000 times, but if the tests are badly conducted AND PLANNED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO YIELD THE DESIRED RESULTS, ITS SAFETY WILL ALWAYS BE QUESTIONABLE. In reality, THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE QUALITY OF THE SCIENCE IN THE RAMAZZINI STUDY AND THE INDUSTRY STUDIES COULD NOT BE MORE CLEAR OR MORE DAMAGING TO THE INDUSTRY.

Serious doubts have been raised that suggest links between the results of scientific research and the body responsible for funding it. Professor Ralph Walton, who is present today, demonstrated in 1996 that of the 166 studies conducted on aspartame's safety deemed relevant to humans, 74 WERE SPONSORED BY THE ASPARTAME INDUSTRY and 92 were independently funded. OF THE 92 NON-INDUSTRY SPONSORED STUDIES, 92 PER CENT. IDENTIFIED ONE OR MORE PROBLEMS WITH ASPARTAME'S SAFETY. The industry-sponsored studies, on the other hand, found unanimously in favour of aspartame's safety…

On the question of who to trust on the competing scientific tests—be they on diabetes or aspartame safety—the track record of the industry should leave us in no doubt. The history of aspartame's approval is one in which sound science and proper regulatory and political independence seem to be notable by their absence. Aspartame was first licensed in the United States in 1981. SEARLE, THE CHEMICAL COMPANY THAT DISCOVERED IT, submitted a host of tests to the FDA in the hope of getting it approved. It was granted a provisional licence in 1974. However, when flaws were revealed in the science behind another Searle product—Flagyl—later that year, aspartame's impending licence was brought into question.

The FDA set up a taskforce to investigate 15 of the key aspartame studies submitted by Searle. Dr. Bressler was commissioned to investigate three of those studies. Due to insufficient funds, the FDA submitted the other 12 studies to be analysed by a body called universities associated for research and evaluation in pathology, which was under contract with Searle and which unsurprisingly declared all 12 studies to be authentic. Aspartame was recommended for approval.

Meanwhile, Dr. Bressler reported to the FDA in early 1976. He found no fewer than 52 major discrepancies in Searle's clinical conduct of its toxicological studies. They included no clear record being kept of the doses fed to rats; antibiotics being given to animals showing symptoms but not being reported; TUMOURS CONTRACTED BY RATS DURING THE EXPERIMENT BEING SURGICALLY REMOVED BEFORE DISSECTION AND NOT REPORTED; AND, ABOVE ALL, NO CLEAR RECORD OF DEATH. One record shows an animal was alive, then dead, then alive, then dead.

Yet despite the 52 major discrepancies, FDA scientists were overruled by the FDA's administration, which seems to have been more concerned with safeguarding the institution's reputation after having been initially misled by unreliable data…

It is quite clear that Searle's scientists breached even the most basic understanding of sound laboratory science. However, the real tragedy is that IT WAS ON THOSE 15 DEEPLY FLAWED STUDIES THAT THE FINAL DECISION TO APPROVE ASPARTAME IN THE US WAS MADE, AND MANY OTHER COUNTRIES SOON FOLLOWED SUIT. Today, those same highly questionable studies still underpin the science attesting to aspartame's safety.

Aspartame's approval incorporates not just bad science but bad politics. ON THE POLITICAL SCENE, DONALD RUMSFELD WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN SECURING ITS APPROVAL. AS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF SEARLE FROM 1977, HE PUBLICLY PLEDGED TO CALL IN HIS MARKERS TO GET IT APPROVED…

When Ronald Reagan was inaugurated as President in 1981, Donald Rumsfeld was on his transition team. PRESIDENT REAGAN SEALED THE LID ON THE ASPARTAME CONTROVERSY. ON THE VERY DAY OF HIS INAUGURATION, REAGAN PERSONALLY WROTE THE EXECUTIVE ORDER SUSPENDING THE FDA COMMISSIONER'S POWERS ON ASPARTAME. REAGAN REPLACED THE COMMISSIONER ONE MONTH LATER WITH ARTHUR HAYES JR., WHO GRANTED THE OFFICIAL LICENCE FOR ASPARTAME.

The history of its approval is littered with examples showing that IF KEY DECISION-MAKERS FOUND AGAINST ITS SAFETY, THEY WERE DISCREDITED, IGNORED OR REPLACED BY INDUSTRY SYMPATHISERS, WHO WERE IN TURN RECOMPENSED WITH LUCRATIVE JOBS…

I have raised some of the most important questions about aspartame's safety ever discussed in this place. THERE IS SOLID EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT ITS REGULAR LONG-TERM USE CAN CAUSE CANCER AND A RANGE OF OTHER HEALTH PROBLEMS. EMERGENCY ACTION IS NOW NEEDED TO REMOVE THE TOXIN FROM OUR OWN AND OUR CHILDREN'S DIETS.

Aspartame has caused concern among the public and the scientific community for more than 30 years. Better information or better product labelling simply is not enough at this point. Today, I am giving the Government a chance to set right what previous British, European and international health authorities have so dismally failed to do.

A TOTAL BAN IS THE ONLY WAY TO PROTECT THE BRITISH PUBLIC.”

Seven years on, Aspartame is still to be found in many of our 'foods, drinks and pharmaceutical products'.

The politicians never did ban it.

On 3 November 2009, the New Labour MP, Kim Howells, wrote the following in The Guardian:

“Seven years of military involvement and civilian aid in Afghanistan have succeeded in subduing al-Qaida's activities in that country, BUT HAVE NOT DESTROYED THE ORGANISATION OR ITS LEADER, Osama bin Laden. Nor have they succeeded in eliminating al-Qaida's protectors, the Taliban. THERE CAN BE NO GUARANTEE THAT THE NEXT SEVEN YEARS WILL BRING SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER SUCCESS…

It would be better… TO BRING HOME THE GREAT MAJORITY OF OUR FIGHTING MEN AND WOMEN and concentrate on using the money saved to secure our own borders, gather intelligence on terrorist activities inside Britain, EXPAND OUR INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS ABROAD, CO-OPERATE WITH FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SERVICES, and counter the propaganda of those who encourage terrorism…

WE WOULD NEED TO REINVENT OURSELVES DIPLOMATICALLY AND MILITARILY. Treaties and international agreements would have to be renegotiated. In particular, relationships with our Nato partners, ESPECIALLY WITH THE AMERICANS – our most trusted and valued allies – would alter fundamentally.

LIFE INSIDE THE UK WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE. THERE WOULD BE MORE INTRUSIVE SURVEILLANCE in certain communities, MORE POLICE OFFICERS ON THE STREETS”.

Would it just be the Muslims you’ve been importing for more the forty years now that the boys-in-blue and the Thought Police would be watching, Mr Howells?

Or would the native population fall foul of your intrusive surveillance as well. Thought so. Howells continued:

“If media reports are true, the British public is becoming increasingly hostile to the notion that any of our service personnel should be killed or wounded in support of DIFFICULT OUTCOMES AND FLAWED REGIMES IN FARAWAY COUNTRIES”.

The 'British public' has always been 'hostile' to the predictably 'difficult outcomes' foist upon them by their parliamentary betters, Mr Howells. Seven years too late such as yourself have decided to take notice of that hostility. Howells continued:

“THE SIZE OF THE AFGHAN CONFLICT MIGHT GROW, RATHER THAN DECREASE… I doubt whether the presence, even of another 40,000 American troops… will guarantee that the Taliban and their allies will no longer be able to terrorise and control significant stretches of countryside, rural communities and key roads. Recent attacks in Kabul and other centres suggest that THE PRESENT BALANCE OF TERRITORIAL CONTROL IS AT BEST LIKELY TO REMAIN – OR, MORE LIKELY, TO SHIFT IN FAVOUR OF THE TALIBAN…

I had hoped that by now a degree of stability might have returned to Afghanistan. I ASSUMED, WRONGLY, THAT A DESIRE AMONG ORDINARY AFGHANS FOR PEACE WOULD PREVAIL over the prospect of continued war and the spectre of being ruled by a tyrannical theocracy in one of the world's poorest and most backward countries…

In a Commons debate some months ago, I expressed the view that a deadly combination of ANTI-DEMOCRATIC ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM, CORRUPTION AND THE PROXIMITY OF SAFE PAKISTANI HAVENS FOR TERRORISTS ALL MILITATED AGAINST THE NOTION THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO CONTINUE CONVINCING THE BRITISH PEOPLE THAT THEY SHOULD PREPARE THEMSELVES FOR A ‘30-YEAR’ CAMPAIGN.”

The 'anti-democratic Islamic fundamentalism, corruption and the proximity of safe Pakistani havens for terrorists' were all there in 2001, Mr Howells. You know, when you and the other New Labour and Tory warmongers voted to go slaughter the Afghans. Howells continued:

“They are the views of someone WHO SUPPORTED THE DEPLOYMENT OF OUR FORCES TO AFGHANISTAN. I was convinced that, given the opportunity offered to them by the UN-led intervention, the Afghans would display the resolve, skills and courage to tackle the problems that have blighted Afghanistan for so long".

The 'problems that have blighted Afghanistan for so long' are the foreign powers that keep on invading their country and blowing their world to bits. The Afghans have 'displayed' the same 'resolve, skills and courage' against the coalition forces that they’ve shown numerous times during the last three centuries against all the previous invaders of their country.

Thing is, Mr Howells, as I've already said, the 'outcome' was as predictable in 2001, when you voted to make war upon them, as it is now. The Russians couldn’t beat them. We couldn’t beat them when Britain was the most powerful nation on earth. The clue was in the 'Islamic fundamentalism, corruption and the proximity of safe Pakistani havens for terrorists' , Mr Howells. Pity you didn’t pick up on it back when it mattered. A lot of innocent people would have been alive to day if you had.

Howells continued:

“Sooner rather than later A PROPERLY PLANNED, PHASED WITHDRAWAL OF OUR FORCES FROM HELMAND PROVINCE HAS TO BE ANNOUNCED. If it is an answer that serves, also, to focus the minds of those in the Kabul government who have shown such A POVERTY OF LEADERSHIP OVER THE PAST SEVEN YEARS, then so much the better."

Who installed the 'Kabul government?'

The Bushes, the Blairs, the bought media and the US-Jewish Neoconservatives who instigated and guided the whole process. That’s who.

Kim Howells is a longstanding member and a former Chairman of New Labour Friends of Israel.

He is also a former representative of the Communist Party of Great Britain.
As was his father. Howells was in charge of the NUM's Pontypridd office during the miners' strike. Taxi driver David Wilkie was killed during it.

Two striking miners dropped a concrete block off a bridge onto his taxi as he took a non-striker to work. On being told of the incident, Howells immediately destroyed a large number of relevant papers. He was afraid the cops might raid the Union's offices and unearth something that might be used in evidence against him, one presumes.

Howells was a Minister of State at the Departments for Transport and Education and Skills in Tony Blair's government. He now chairs the Intelligence and Security Committee.

In February 2009, the former Communist pictured below was appointed to the Privy Council.

On 6 November 2009, Sue Reid’s remarkable exposé, ‘How the Kremlin hijacked Labour: Diary of a Kremlin insider reveals the hold Soviets had over Labour politicians’, appeared in The Daily Mail.

This is it:

“The Lancashire blacksmith's son and leader of the Communist Party of Great Britain stood in front of the group of high-flying young Left-wingers at Cambridge University.

Harry Pollitt told them:

'Don't join us. Work hard, get good degrees, JOIN THE ESTABLISHMENT AND SERVE OUR CAUSE FROM WITHIN.'

It was a few years after World War II and they took Pollitt at his word. Within a decade, the Communist Party foundered (its membership peaked at 60,000 in 1945) as Pollitt's bright young devotees infiltrated the Establishment.

THEY WERE SOON EXERCISING CONSIDERABLE INFLUENCE IN UNIVERSITIES, THE STATE EDUCATION SYSTEM, PUBLISHING HOUSES, THE LEGAL HIERARCHY AND THE CIVIL SERVICE. BUT IT WAS IN POLITICS THAT THESE HIGH-FLYING MEMBERS OF THE LEFT ESTABLISHED THEIR GREATEST POWER-BASE, BOTH IN THE LABOUR PARTY AND THE TRADES' UNION MOVEMENT.

Just how deep the tentacles of communism reached into the heart of British government has now been revealed with the emergence of an extraordinary diary by Anatoly Chernyaev, the Soviet Union's contact man with the West at the icy height of the Cold War. Meticulously detailed and written by hand on lined notepaper, the diary has come to light in the U.S. National Security Archive.

IT TELLS THE STORY OF A 'SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP'… BETWEEN THE BRITISH LABOUR PARTY AND SOVIET COMMUNISTS.

It was a relationship that lasted more than 30 years, right up to Margaret Thatcher's arrival as Prime Minister in 1979 and beyond. Indeed, one of the most shocking of the diary's many revelations is how LABOUR LEADERS MICHAEL FOOT AND NEIL KINNOCK COLLUDED WITH THE SOVIET COMMUNISTS to try to beat their 'common enemy', Margaret Thatcher.

But more worrying, perhaps, is the fact that the document shows in stark detail how THE POLITICAL IDEOLOGY OF SO MANY OF THOSE WHO GOVERN US TODAY WAS SHAPED BY THE UNSPEAKABLE COMMUNIST CREED OF THE SOVIET UNION.

The unpalatable truth is that many ministers in Government today rose through the ranks of A BRITISH SOCIALIST MOVEMENT THAT WAS HEAVILY INFLUENCED - AND EVEN CONTROLLED - BY THE KREMLIN IN MOSCOW.

Svetlana Savranskaya, Director of Russia Programmes at the U.S. archive, describes Chernyaev's diary as 'the single most authoritative source on Soviet policy-making in the last 20 years'. Its explosive contents have only just emerged because the pre-1985 entries remained untranslated until now.

Chernyaev was deputy in the Soviet International Department and later an adviser to President Mikhail Gorbachev. Today, he is 88 and lives in obscurity outside Moscow. And while many senior members of the Labour Party and union movement will be appalled at his revelations, the old KGB hand himself is delighted his memories are being published.

The intimate co-operation between Moscow and the trades unions which nearly brought the country to its knees in the Sixties and Seventies has been an utterly taboo subject…

TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION LEADER JACK JONES - WHO RECEIVED EFFUSIVE PRAISE FROM PRIME MINISTER GORDON BROWN WHEN HE DIED IN APRIL THIS YEAR - WAS A PAID AGENT FOR THE USSR. In exchange for information, he used to take cash handouts from his Soviet handler in London, Oleg Gordievsky, even as late as the 1980s.

But this diary reveals that the cosy relationship between the Kremlin and Labour was far more widespread than previously thought - and had been going on for years.

One of the key figures in this murky affair was RON HAYWARD, THE LABOUR PARTY'S GENERAL SECRETARY between 1972 and 1982, who died in 1996. He told Chernyaev at meetings in Moscow and London that he was determined to provide a 'genuine socialist government' for Britain.

'To achieve that, he believes he must break the Labour Cabinet,' recorded Chernyaev at the time.

It is clear from the diary that HAYWARD ENVISAGED A REAL SOVIET-STYLE SYSTEM IN BRITAIN, with the Party General Secretary (ie Hayward himself) - not a Prime Minister selected by MPs - at the very top. He would refer to himself openly as the 'party leader'.

More specifically, he informed the Soviets that he wanted to develop a cadre of young activists to prepare for Communist rule.

'I AM THE FIRST LABOUR LEADER IN BRITISH HISTORY WHO IS NOT AFRAID TO COME OUT ALONGSIDE COMMUNISTS WITH THE SAME AGENDA', he said, boasting that he prepared like-minded young people, put them in the right places and helped them to become prominent.

In 1974, when Harold Wilson was Labour Prime Minister, Hayward smuggled Chernyaev into the heart of the Labour Party conference to try to spread the Kremlin's influence still further…. Chernyaev records in his diary how he and Hayward ran into Edward Short, the Labour Party deputy leader who had been with a Labour delegation to Moscow the year before.

'He stared at us for a moment,' Chernyaev writes in the diary, 'then he pretended he did not see us. That is very English. Apparently, he instantly guessed these were Hayward's games.'

Games, of course, they were not. In those years, the Labour Party was tightly controlled (and largely financed) by its affiliated trades unions, which chose dozens of candidates for safe Labour seats. And it was in the unions where Chernyaev's International Department aimed to infiltrate the deepest. THE REGULAR TO-ING AND FRO-ING BETWEEN UNION LEADERS AND MOSCOW WAS COMMONPLACE - even in 1980 after Mrs Thatcher's Tories were in Government.

That year, the diary says, the TGWU's deputy leader Alec Kitson turned up drunkenly at a meeting with Chernyaev in the Russian capital. He had been drinking with his Soviet trade union counterparts for hours beforehand. 'There was a f*** in every sentence that came out of Kitson's mouth,' the diary records.

But when Kitson sobered up, he and Chernyaev concocted a plan to send a team of Russians to the Scottish TUC conference 'TO DELIVER THE SOVIET POINT OF VIEW'. They arranged another brainwashing session with union leaders in London. Later in 1980, in Blackpool in October, Chernyaev openly attended a TGWU-sponsored drinks reception on the eve of the Labour Party conference.

The diary says that Jenny Little, then secretary of the international group of the Labour's National Executive Committee, which oversees policy-making, played a pivotal role in Chernyaev's extraordinary access. During the 1980 party conference, 'she tried to sit me down next to Jim Callaghan (the former Prime Minister who was then Labour leader), but he bypassed me as if I was a column. She herself was embarrassed'.

Party leaders such as the donkey-jacketed MICHAEL FOOT AND THE WELSHMAN NEIL KINNOCK WERE AT TIMES DEEPLY REVERENTIAL TO THEIR RUSSIAN 'COMRADES', the diary reveals.

In 1981, Foot led a big delegation to Moscow, to discuss multilateral disarmament with the Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev. 'Dear Comrade Brezhnev,' Foot said while holding Brezhnev's hand in both his own.
IN DECEMBER 1984, KINNOCK WENT TO MOSCOW ACCOMPANIED BY, AMONG OTHERS, THE YOUNG CHARLES CLARKE AND PATRICIA HEWITT - both to become ministers in Blair's government - to see Brezhnev's successor, the senile Constantin Chernenko.

Chernenko read his brief to them and listened indifferently to Kinnock's verbose response. However, the Russian promised he would help in the Labour Party's attempts to oust Margaret Thatcher from power.

Chernyaev notes that IN 1985, KINNOCK AGAIN TURNED TO MOSCOW FOR SUPPORT, sending a shadow minister to the Kremlin for advice on how to topple Thatcher, who was in her second term in office. The diarist recorded: 'WE HAVE DISCUSSED EVERYTHING WITH HIM. I TOOK IT UPON MYSELF TO PROMISE HIM EVERYTHING THEY WANTED FROM US, to beat Thatcher and get to power.'

It is not just the Left's close connection with the Soviet Union, but the lasting influence of that connection that should concern us all. ONE OF JACK JONES'S BRIGHTEST PROTEGES, AFTER ALL, WAS GORDON BROWN. THE DECISION TO GIVE THE YOUNG SCOTSMAN HIS FIRST AND ONLY SAFE SEAT, DUNFERMLINE EAST, WAS MADE BY TWO TGWU SENIOR OFFICIALS - ONE OF THEM WAS JACK JONES, THE OTHER THE DRUNKEN ALEC KITSON. BOTH WERE FRIENDS OF THE KREMLIN.

THE UNION'S PATRONAGE WAS UBIQUITOUS. NEIL KINNOCK AND TONY BLAIR, AS WELL AS CABINET MINISTERS MARGARET BECKETT, HARRIET HARMAN AND JOHN REID, WERE ALL SPONSORED BY TGWU AND MADE THEIR LABOUR PARTY CAREERS THANKS TO IT.

The control the Soviets had over Labour, its leadership and aspiring politicians, is still having a profound impact on Britain. As the Spectator says: 'Indeed, NEW LABOUR, WHICH HAS GOVERNED SINCE 1997, CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD UNLESS THESE COMMUNIST INFLUENCES ARE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. Many of New Labour's characteristics - its deep suspicion of outsiders, its STRUCTURAL HOSTILITY TO DEMOCRATIC DEBATE, ITS SECRECY, ITS FAITH IN BUREAUCRACY, THE EMBEDDED PREFERENCE FOR STRIKING DEALS OUT OF THE PUBLIC EYE, AND ITS RUTHLESS RELIANCE ON A SMALL GROUP OF TRUSTED ACTIVISTS, RESULT FROM THE LENGTHY DETENTE WITH THE KREMLIN.'

Yet even with the emergence of this diary, we still do not possess a full picture of how deep the dangerous Moscow penetration really went. Only as more truths trickle out of Russia will we learn the entirety of the betrayal.

As for Harry Pollitt, the British communist who played such a vital role in the Soviet infiltration of this country - encouraging the acquiesence of those in powerful places on the Left - he is better known in Moscow, where he is proclaimed as a hero, than here. In 1970, some years after his death, THE USSR ISSUED A POSTAGE STAMP WITH POLLITT'S PICTURE ON IT.

A year later, IN 1971, HIS DEVOTION TO THE SOVIET CAUSE AND TO THE SPREAD OF 'INTERNATIONAL COMMUNISM' WAS FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGED BY MOSCOW. THE SOVIET NAVY LAUNCHED A NEW BATTLESHIP AND NAMED IT AFTER HIM.
MEANWHILE, HIS MANY DISCIPLES IN THE FIFTH COLUMN HE CREATED IN BRITAIN CONTINUE TO EXERT THEIR MALIGN INFLUENCE.”

THEY are at war with us, Ladies and gentlemen.

And THEY have been at war with us for some considerable time.

Haven't THEY?

On 21 November 2009, The Tony Rennell article, 'This isn't the Britain we fought for' say the 'unknown warriors' of WWII’, was published by The Daily Mail.

This cited many of the comments of WWII veterans, as they surveyed what the world they fought so hard for had become, as featured in the book, The Unknown Warriors by Nicholas Pringle.

Here is what a Commando who took part in the disastrous Dieppe raid (4,000 men were lost) thinks of New Labour:

“MORE OF A SHAMBLES THAN SOME OF THE ACTIONS I WAS IN DURING THE WAR”!

He added:

“THOSE COMRADES OF MINE WHO NEVER MADE IT BACK WOULD BE APPALLED IF THEY COULD SEE THE WORLD AS IT IS TODAY. THEY WOULD WONDER WHAT HAPPENED TO THE BRAVE NEW WORLD THEY FOUGHT SO DAMNED HARD FOR.”

A former Durham Light Infantryman wrote:

“OUR BRITISH CULTURE IS DRAINING AWAY AT AN EVER INCREASING PACE,' 'AND WE ARE ALMOST FORBIDDEN TO MAKE ANY COMMENT.”

A widow from Solihull blamed the Thatcher years “when WE STARTED TO LOSE ALL OUR INDUSTRY AND PROFIT BECAME THE ONLY AIM IN LIFE'.

Speaking of her husband, a veteran of Dunkirk and Burma, she said:

“It is 18 years since I lost him and AS I LOOK AROUND PARTS OF BIRMINGHAM TODAY YOU WOULD NEVER KNOW YOU WERE IN ENGLAND… He would have hated it. He also disliked the immoral way things are going. I don't think people are really happy now, for all the modern, easy-living conveniences.

I DISAGREE WITH SAME-SEX MARRIAGES… RUBBISH TV PROGRAMMES, SO-CALLED CELEBRITIES AND, MOST OF ALL, UNLIMITED IMMIGRATION. I AM VERY UNHAPPY ABOUT THE WAY THIS COUNTRY IS BEING TRANSFORMED.

I go nowhere after dark. I don't even answer my doorbell then.”

A Desert Rat who fought at El Alamein and in Sicily, Italy and Greece added:

"THIS IS NOT THE COUNTRY I FOUGHT FOR. POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, LACK OF DISCIPLINE, COMPENSATION MADNESS, UNCONTROLLED IMMIGRATION - THE ‘DO-GOODERS’ HAVE A LOT TO ANSWER FOR.”

A former 'Land Girl'had this to say:

"In my day, DRUGS WERE UNKNOWN, FAMILIES REMAINED TOGETHER, DIVORCE WAS A RARITY AND CHILDREN FELT SECURE. WE'RE NOW CONTROLLED BY GERMANY AND FRANCE. WHAT A SAD IRONY! WERE OUR SACRIFICES MADE SO HOOLIGANS MAY RUN WILD AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOUR BE ACCEPTED AS THE NORM BY TV INTERVIEWERS AND SOCIETY IN GENERAL?”

Here’s the rest of the article:

“Sarah Robinson was just a teenager when World War II broke out. She endured the Blitz, watching for fires during Luftwaffe air raids armed with a bucket of sand. Often she would walk ten miles home from work in the blackout, with bombs falling around her.

As soon as she turned 18, she joined the Royal Navy to do her bit for the war effort. Hers was a small part in a huge, history-making enterprise, and her contribution epitomises her generation's sense of service and sacrifice.

Nearly 400,000 Britons died. Millions more were scarred by the experience, physically and mentally. But WAS IT WORTH IT? Her answer - and the answer of many of her contemporaries, now in their 80s and 90s - is a resounding NO.

THEY DESPISE WHAT HAS BECOME OF THE BRITAIN THEY ONCE FOUGHT TO SAVE. IT'S NOT OUR COUNTRY ANY MORE, THEY SAY, IN SORROW AND ANGER.

Sarah harks back to the days when 'PEOPLE KEPT THE LAWS AND WERE POLITE AND COURTEOUS. WE DIDN'T HAVE MUCH MONEY, BUT WE WERE CONTENTED AND HAPPY. People whistled and sang. There was still the United Kingdom, OUR COUNTRY, WHICH WE HAD FOUGHT FOR, OUR FREEDOM, DEMOCRACY. BUT WHERE IS IT NOW?!'

The feelings of Sarah and others from this most selfless generation about the modern world have been recorded by a Tyneside writer, 33-year-old Nicholas Pringle. Curious about his grandmother's generation and what they did in the war, he decided three years ago to send letters to local newspapers across the country asking for those who lived through the war to write to him with their experiences. He rounded off his request with this question:

'Are you happy with how your country has turned out? What do you think your fallen comrades would have made of life in 21st-century Britain?'

What is extraordinary about the 150 replies he received, which he has now published as a book, is THEIR VEHEMENT INSISTENCE THAT THOSE WHO MADE THE ULTIMATE SACRIFICE IN THE WAR WOULD NOW BE TURNING IN THEIR GRAVES…

'I sing no song for the once-proud country that spawned me,' wrote a sailor who fought the Japanese in the Far East, 'and I wonder why I ever tried.'

'My patriotism has gone out of the window,' said another ex-serviceman.

In the Mail this week, Gordon Brown wrote about 'our debt of dignity to the war generation'. But the truth that emerges from these letters is that THE SURVIVORS OF THAT WAR GENERATION HAVE NOTHING BUT CONTEMPT FOR HIS GOVERNMENT. They feel, in a word that leaps out time and time again, 'BETRAYED’…

Nor can David Cameron take any comfort from the elderly. His 'hug a hoodie' advice was scorned by a generation of brave men and women now too scared, they say, to leave their homes at night. Immigration tops the list of complaints.

'PEOPLE COME HERE, GET EVERYTHING THEY ASK, FOR FREE, LAUGHING AT OUR EXPENSE,' was a typical observation.

'We old people struggle on pensions, not knowing how to make ends meet. If I had my time again, would we fight as before? Need you ask?'

MANY WRITERS ARE BEWILDERED AND OVERWHELMED BY A MULTICULTURAL BRITAIN THAT, THEY SAY BITTERLY, THEY WERE NEVER CONSULTED ABOUT NOR FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH.

'OUR COUNTRY HAS BEEN GIVEN AWAY TO FOREIGNERS WHILE WE, THE GENERATION WHO FOUGHT FOR FREEDOM, ARE HAVING TO SELL OUR HOMES FOR CARE AND ARE BEING REFUSED MEDICAL SERVICES BECAUSE INCOMERS COME FIRST.'

But then POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS ANOTHER THING THEY TAKE STRONG ISSUE WITH, ALONG WITH POLITICIANS GENERALLY - 'LIARS, INCOMPETENTS AND SELF-AGGRANDISING CHARLATANS' (WITH THE REVEALING EXCEPTION OF ENOCH POWELL).

The loss of British sovereignty to the European Union caused almost as much distress.

'NEARLY ALL VETERANS WANT BRITAIN TO LEAVE THE EU,' wrote one.

Frank, a merchant navy sailor, thought of those who gave their lives 'for King and country', ONLY FOR BRITAIN TO BECOME 'AN OFFSHORE ISLAND OF A EUROPE WHERE FRANCE AND GERMANY HOLD SWAY. IRONIC, ISN'T IT?'

As a group, THEY FEEL FURIOUS AT NOT BEING ABLE TO SPEAK THEIR MINDS. THEY SEE THE LACK OF DEBATE AND THE DAMNING OF DISSENTERS AS RACISTS OR LITTLE ENGLANDERS AS DEEPLY UPSETTING AFFRONTS TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH…

It is the fundamental change in society's values which they find hardest to come to terms with.

BRING BACK BIRCHING AND HANGING, the sanctions they grew up with, they say. Put more bobbies back on the beat.

'WE WERE RIGIDLY TAUGHT GOOD MANNERS AND RESPECT FOR OLDER PEOPLE,' said a wartime WAAF, 'but the nanny state has ruined all that. Television programmes are full of violence and obscene language. THIS LAND OF HOPE AND GLORY IS IN REALITY A LAND OF YOBS, DRUG ADDICTS, DRUNKARD YOUTHS AND TEENAGE MOTHERS WHO THINK THEY ARE OWED ALL FOR NOTHING.'

Aged 85, she has little wish to go on living.

A crofter's son from Scotland who served on the Arctic convoys taking supplies to Russia found the immediate post-war years hard.

'In those days we had no welfare support from any source. It was as though WE HAD SERVED OUR COUNTRY TO THE FULL AND WERE THEN FORGOTTEN. However, we were very resilient and determined to make a go of it, and many of us, including myself, succeeded. How TIMES HAVE CHANGED NOW, WITH THE COUNTLESS MANY CLAMOURING TO GET WELFARE BENEFITS FOR THE ASKING.'

A medic who made it through Dunkirk and D-Day thought THE FALLEN WOULD BE APPALLED BY THE LACK OF MANNERS IN MODERN LIFE AND THE WORSHIP OF CELEBRITIES, PLUS 'THE PATENT DISHONESTY OF POLITICIANS'…

A grandmother, the widow of a Royal Marine who took part in the D-Day landings, felt the National Health Service had descended into chaos but… just being alive was a bonus. 'Although I hate what is happening to our country, I am so happy to be here, grumbling, but remembering better, happier days,' she wrote.

But one of the bitterest complaints of the veterans was that THEIR TRENCHANT VIEWS ON MANY OF THE MATTERS AIRED HERE WERE CONSTANTLY IGNORED BY THOSE IN AUTHORITY. THEIR LETTERS OF COMPLAINT TO COUNCILLORS AND MPS WENT UNANSWERED. IT WAS AS IF THEY DIDN'T MATTER, EXCEPT WHEN WHEELED OUT FOR THE RITUALS OF REMEMBRANCE DAY…

The overall impression any reader of the letters gets is that THIS GENERATION FEEL UNHEARD, UNWANTED AND UNIMPORTANT…

They may be deemed beyond their sell-by date… but, by their deeds of 60-plus years ago, they have won the right to be listened to and their disillusionment noted with respect.

In one letter in this collection, an RAF mechanic quoted a poem about comrades who fell in battle:

'I mourned them then, But now surviving IN A WORLD, INDIFFERENT TO THEIR HOPES AND DREAMS, I GRIEVE MORE FOR THE LIVING’.”

I grieve for the living too.

We want our country back, don't we? If you want it too, ladies and gentlemen, you’re going to have to stop voting for those who stole it!

It’s as simple as that.