Marxist “slave” cult carried out “anti-fascist” assault

Prof. Hans Eysenck (above) was violently attacked in 1973 by an “anti-fascist” mob, one of whose leaders has now been accused of keeping “slaves” in his London home.

Earlier today London newspapers caught up with the news first revealed shortly after midnight last night on this website: naming the chief suspects in the sensational London “slavery” case as Marxist cult leader Aravindan Balakrishnan (known on the 1970s far left scene as “Comrade Bala”) and his wife (known as “Comrade Chanda”).

Police spokesmen had earlier stated only that Scotland Yard detectives’ rescue of three women – allegedly kept as slaves for thirty years – was linked to a political organisation.  Late on Sunday evening the Telegraph website gave certain details (though without naming the group concerned). This enabled H&D to identify the case as relating to a Maoist commune in Brixton known as the Workers’ Institute, which broke away from the Communist Party of England (Marxist-Leninist) in 1974. We were therefore able to break the story in the early hours of this morning.

Once the news had broken on our website, Scotland Yard’s press department confirmed to London journalists that the suspects were indeed Comrades Bala and Chanda, who had been living with their remaining Marxist cult members in “social housing” provided by Lambeth Council for more than three decades. The London Evening Standard labelled its story about the couple as an ‘Exclusive’, though in fact we had been the first to publish it here at H&D the previous night. The Daily Mail then published an online version, much of it blatantly lifted from our article.

Click here to read our original story about the Marxist “slave” cult.

Police and social services are now facing many questions about their knowledge of Balakrishnan and his gang since the 1970s.

In particular, Heritage and Destiny is interested in a violent attack on Prof. Hans Eysenck, while he was giving a lecture on “Current Theories of Intelligence” at the London School of Economics, on 8th May 1973.  This attack was carried out by about two dozen members of the CPE (M-L), including Balakrishnan who was then a leading activist in this Maoist group. (He split from them a year later.)

Prof. Eysenck, then 57, was widely demonised by the left and “anti-fascist” groups because of his views on the genetic role in intelligence.  Similar demonisation has been practiced against organisations such as American Renaissance and writers such as Jared Taylor and Dr Roger Pearson.

“Comrade Bala” and his fellow hoodlums pulled Prof. Eysenck to the floor, where he was punched, kicked and spat upon.  He was left with broken spectacles and cuts to his face, and was later treated at the Maudsley Hospital, Denmark Hill.

The Maoist gang, who included several bussed in from Birmingham, went on to attack some of their fellow leftists. One of the leaders of the Birmingham gang was Paul Rowe.

Loyalist commandos from the UVF identified INLA terrorist links to Balakrishnan’s fellow Maoists.

The CPE (M-L) – both during Balakrishnan’s involvement and after the 1974 split – did not confine its violent proclivities to punching middle-aged academics.  In July 1975 they were exposed by the Ulster loyalist journal Combat as the “most violent Communist organisation in the UK”. In March of that year members of the Ulster Volunteer Force had discovered letters from Paul Rowe and other members of the group to Michael Adamson, a terrorist from the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA), whom they had just shot dead at his home in Clifton Road, North Belfast.

Ironically Adamson had been identified following a tip-off from his former comrades in the so-called “Official IRA” after a split in the Marxist wing of Irish republicanism the previous year. The INLA and its political wing (the Irish Republican Socialist Party) went on to develop very close ties to violent “anti-fascists” in England and Scotland, which have been documented in several Heritage and Destiny articles.

All of this goes to show that Balakrishnan and his ilk should have been very well known to the British authorities. So if the latest police charges concerning “slavery” prove accurate, why was he allowed to get away with it for so long? Did it suit the British state to indulge violent “anti-fascists” with Irish republican links?

And why on earth was Balakrishnan effectively subsidised for so long by the hard-pressed ratepayers of Lambeth?

UPDATE: One of the CPE (M-L) recruits at the London School of Economics, where the attack on Prof. Eysenck took place, was a young Welsh law student called Sian Davies, whose daughter is the youngest of the alleged “slaves” in the current criminal investigation. After the 1974 split Sian Davies followed Balakrishnan and his faction into the Brixton commune, where she remained until her mysterious death after falling from an upstairs window on Christmas Eve, 1996.  The Daily Telegraph, ITN News and the Daily Mail have just posted reports about Sian Davies and these will doubtless appear in the print editions of Tuesday’s papers, though like other mainstream media sources they are (so far) too shy to mention the British Maoist cult’s involvement with violent anti-fascism and Irish republican terrorism.

By the way, the latest Telegraph report, in suggesting that Balakrishnan had joined “the Communist Party” in the 1960s before forming his cult, reveals a pretty basic ignorance of the British political fringe, and the Daily Mail is equally wrong to suggest that he was part of “an English branch of the Communist Party”.

What he joined was not the long-established pro-Moscow Communist Party (CPGB) or anything to do with it, but a pro-Chinese (and hence anti-Moscow) group founded by an Indian Maoist called Hardial Bains. The London wing of the international movement founded by Bains was called the Communist Party of England (Marxist-Leninist), and as we have explained Balakrishnan was one of the leaders of the CPE (M-L) until breaking away in 1974 to form his Brixton-based Workers’ Institute commune.

The fundamental enmity between the CPGB and the CPE (M-L) was reflected in their relationship to Irish republican terrorism.  While the Maoists (as explained above) were for a time close to the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA), the pro-Moscow Communist Party would have backed the group from which INLA broke away – the ‘Official IRA’ (commonly known as the “Stickies” because of the stick-on Easter Lilies they sold to commemorate the 1916 Easter Rising).

Comments are closed.

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter