Archive | Jeremy Corbyn RSS feed for this section

Bob Blackman: British MP Unapologetic About Links to antiMuslim Hindu and English Nationalists

28 Oct

[Published 28 October, 2017]

Tory_MP_Bob_Blackman_Hosts_Anti_Muslim_Hindu_Extremist_in_UK_Parliament_1

Bob Blackman, a Tory MP and patron of the Campaign Against AntiSemitism, recently hosted a Diwali celebration event in the UK’s House of Commons with extremist, Tapan Ghosh.

The event was also attended by Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, who issued an immediate apology.

Ghosh, a Hindu Nationalist, has previously called for the genocide of Muslims in Kashmir, as well as praising the forced displacement and ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Myanmar.

Ghosh, also founder of the Hindu Defence League, has also been praised by former English Defence League founder, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, who is more well-known by the name, Tommy Robinson.

Did Blackman apologise or distance himself from Ghosh?

Answer: No.

In response to questions and criticism of attending an event and meeting with Ghosh, and despite having organised it, Blackman shrugged it off, simply saying he was not aware of who was invited and did not see what all the fuss was about.

In a statement, he gave to the press, he also defended Ghosh, stating that his presence was relevant to the event taking place. Blackman did state that he would have challenged Ghosh had he made any similar comments but that free speech was paramount.

However, it now transpires, that Blackman is also associated with Robinson, having interacted with him and apparently shown agreement with his views on social media. In one such interaction, Blackman retweeted a tweet in which Robinson states that Hindus in Bangladesh are surrounded by Muslims.

What neither Blackman nor Robinson seem to have grasped is that it was the brutalism of British colonialism and policy of divide and rule, which has created and exacerbated religious tensions and the unequal religious makeup of Bangladeshi society; first after the partition of India and then, when Bangladesh became its own country after civil war with and separation from Pakistan.

Blackman and Robinson also seem to ignore nor the fact that it is Bangladesh which is bearing the brunt of the ongoing refugee crisis of the Rahimyar Muslims – who are being driven out of Rakhine and over the border by the Myanmar government – which is arguably adding to the tensions and religious divide.

Blackman’s links with and apparently ardent support for Hindus does not go unmissed or without some questioning as to where his loyalties may lie.

A quick view of Blackman’s expenses, shows that he was paid several hundred pounds to attend an anti-Iran event organized by the National Council of Resistance of Iran and the Welle Association, which supports and explicitly promotes regime change in Iran.

In addition, he also receives regular donations from two Hindu businessmen; a significant donation received from the former hedge fund manager, Lord Fink for undisclosed remunerations; and a donation from a property company to attend a conference in Israel.

There is an even larger donation received from the Indian High Commission.

India, incidentally, conspired with Bengali and Hindu Nationalists, for the civil war that brought about the creation and establishment of Bangladesh, which was also funded and supported by Israel and British governments.

Not directly, but by repeatedly ‘liking’ and ‘retweeting’ criticism and hatred toward Muslims, Blackman, indirectly, shows himself for who he really is and who he supports.

Rajnish Kashyap, Director of the Hindu Council of Britain, was asked to comment and condemn the invitation of Ghosh to the House of Commons event hosted by Blackman, but has failed to respond.

And, whilst the Campaign Against AntiSemitism maliciously and wrongly accuses the European Forum for Ethnic Minority Individuals, Communities, Individuals, and Organizations of creating tension between Sikhs and Muslims, it has so far refused to remove Blackman as its patron.

All the while, Campaign Against AntiSemitism, has recently called for the Palestine Solidarity Campaign to remove as a patron and disassociate itself from the Jewish comedian, Alexi Sayle, following an interview with Sky News in which he claimed that all allegations of antisemitism “amongst supporters of Jeremy Corbyn are a complete fabrication.”

Presumably, Blackman remains as a patron of the fake charity, Campaign Against AntiSemitism because of his support and associations with and for Hindu Nationalists against Muslims, which, naturally, serves Israel’s interests best.

Watch this space for the Campaign Against AntiSemitism to come back with a smear, making false accusations of antiSemitism.

Sadly, it would appear that Muslims are now under attack from all sides of the fascistic spectrum.

Since publishing this blog, Blackman has sadly blocked on Twitter.

Author: Jason Schumann

Advertisements

EXPOSED: Luke Akehurst, Saudi Arms Sales, Shai Masot, and the Israeli Lobby

29 Jul

Screen Shot 2017-07-29 at 19.44.51.png

[The above collection includes images available from the internet of Luke Akehurst speaking on behalf of the Zionist Federation, an image of a girl disfigured by use of Saudi White phosphorous, a Stop Arming Saudi image, and an image of the efforts to silence critics of Israel]

This blog article is about Luke Akehurst and the extent of his involvement against the will of the British people and collusion with the State of Israel to undermine British politics and democracy.

You should be aware that Luke Akehurst has been a Labour member for many years; is known to dislike the current party leader, Jeremy Corbyn; and is a very active supporter of the Israeli government in the UK.

We’ll go into his work and professional background, other activities, as well as links to the nefarious Israeli lobby, shortly, but let’s first start with what initially necessitated this blog exposé on his involvement.

On the 26 July, 2017, Luke tweeted the following:

Screen Shot 2017-07-29 at 17.44.06.png

It was in direct response to a tweet by Green Party Leader, Caroline Lucas, calling for the complete cessation of arms sales to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Luke replies that supporting Saudi’s assault on Yemen is justified in his view, because (and I quote): “I absolutely do not want Iran to win in Yemen or anywhere else.”

Luke’s view of Iran, ‘as a common enemy of Western society’, is essentially a Zionist and Israeli one, but not entirely unjustified.

His comments were made in reference to current war efforts and activities by the Saudi regime in Yemen.

To be clear, Iran is not currently active in Yemen.

Rather, the UAE, Israel, and the US, currently run secret torture centres there, and the country is under constant joint military bombardment, including use of White phosphorous.

Use of White phosphorous has long been banned under international law, but you can see in one of the images above (girl to the right), that it is still in use and the damage and suffering its indiscriminate use causes.

Since 2015, in excess of 2,000 children have been murdered by the Saudis in Yemen and now Amnesty, UNICEF, and others report major outbreaks of cholera and potential famine.

Hichem Yezza, Editor-in-chief at Ceasefire Magazine, called Luke’s support for Saudi repugnant and ill-informed.

Luke’s response was to first question Hichem’s credentials on the matter and then seemingly ignore the costs of orchestrated proxy wars, claiming that selling arms to Saudi is right and proper because it protects British industry and jobs.

For the record, it is no secret that the Saudi war with Yemen is a proxy war and part of Israel’s so-called Yinon plan, to establish a greater Israel, and wipe out its Muslim and Arab enemies in the Middle East.

According to international law, Israel is not permitted to have any nuclear weapons; but it does, and has the fourth largest military in the world.

The fact of the matter is, countries like Turkiye, Iran, and Pakistan, help keep Israel and its plans in check. Without which, Israel’s activities would go unchecked, with disastrous outcomes for the whole of humanity.

Nonetheless, Israel continues to do all it can to work around and undermine these safeguards.

Despite knowing this, Luke refuses to publicly admit any of it, claiming that it’s all a conspiracy.

However, on closer inspection, when you ask Luke about his work and affiliations, he goes quiet all of a sudden.

For example, Luke is employed as a director for the British-based ‘We Believe in Israel’ Campaign (WBiIC).

WBiIC is a campaigning organisation founded and set up by BICOM, known as the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre, which was founded by the Israeli billionaire, Chaim Poju Zabludowicz.

Zabludowicz acquired his fortune via his father, Schlomo, an arms dealer.

Poju Zabludowicz was recently required to give evidence in corruption charges laid against Netanyahu and is known to have given former British Prime Minister, David Cameron, significant, undisclosed personal donations and gifts.

BICOM and the ‘We Believe in Israel’ Campaign are lobbying organisations, but neither are registered as such, which is a legal requirement in accordance with UK lobbying regulations.

Luke denies that either BICOM or WBiIC are involved in lobbying activities, but you can see the evidence here for yourselves.

Further evidence of lobbying can be found here.

Chaim Poju Zabludowicz is also closely linked with the Community Security Trust founder, Gerald Maurice Ronson, who is a convicted fraudster and suspected tax avoider.

The ‘We Believe in Israel’ Campaign published a claim on its website to have gathered the support of 200 plus UK Members of Parliament, to support the activities and efforts of the State of Israel as part of their individual candidacy and election commitment in the 2017 General Election.

This is a clear breach of electioneering and lobbying regulations.

After some persistent questioning, Luke confirmed that BICOM pays his salary as director of WBiIC.

Luke also confirmed that he has met with the former Israeli diplomat Shai Masot.

For those unaware, Masot was sent back to Israel, after he was exposed by Al Jazeera, for attempting to infiltrate and subvert British politics and democratic processes.

When questioned as to when he last met with Masot, Luke answered that he last met with him in 2016.

Luke was pushed further, to provide exact details, of what he last discussed with Masot, but refused to answer.

Similarly, when asked to give the name of his new contact and handler from Israel at the British Israeli Embassy, Luke also refused to answer and simply blocked the Twitter account asking him these questions.

[Watch and listen from 2mins 40secs]

Interestingly, Luke has not expressed any concern regarding the girl (see header image) who was disfigured by the use of White phosphorous.

Not that you care, Luke, but her name is Walaa Hussien al-Hutroum, aged 9, from Sanaa, Yemen. The photo was taken on the 25 April, 2015.

Luke is also implicated in the false smears of antiSemitism instigated by Ruth Smeeth, MP, former staff member of BICOM against Labour activist Mark Wadden.

Luke is also a member and supporter of the World Zionist Organisation and proactively works to counter and criminalise the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement.

160511-luke-akehurst.jpg

Note: all of this is going to your Labour branch CLP, the Charity Commission, the Electoral Commission, Momentum, and the Office of the Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists.

[If you are reading any of this, Luke et al, I have scraped your websites, so delete away, as I have copies of everything!]

Author: Jason Schumann

Stephen Silverman and the Sickness of Jewish Privilege – Grenfell Towers Fire

16 Jun

[Published 16 June, 2017] 

Stephen-Silverman

[Image source: HERE]

In recent months, I’ve posted several blogs concerning Zionism, Jewish privilege and victimhood, and the Israeli Lobby; so, the last I want to do – following the fire that engulfed Grenfell Towers, which has resulted in the needless loss of in excess of more than 100 lives – is write a blog about a Zionist and prominent member of the UK Jewry, who unwisely thought it wise to make light of the tragedy, by shamelessly seeking to point score against one of his perceived enemies.

Now, please don’t get me wrong on this. Like any human being, I am the first to admit, that I have occasionally taken a swipe at, and derived amusement and satisfaction, from seeing those whom I have reason to dislike, get their comeuppance, so-to-speak.

However, the last thing I would ever do, is seek to derive pleasure from their death, an injury, or suffering. Neither would I intentionally or otherwise, seek to trivialise and weaponise a tragedy such as the Grenfell Towers fire, and certainly never in order influence someone else’s opinion, belittle, or express a particular repulsion or dislike for someone.

In this case, Stephen Silverman, aka Mr. Slitherman, aka @bedlamjones, and the ‘enforcer’, who is the ‘Director of Prosecutions and Investigations’, for a so-called nefarious fake charity, Campaign Against AntiSemitism (CAA), sought to denigrate Jeremy Corbyn, Leader of the UK Labour party, purely to further the Jewish cause of perpetual victimhood and the Jewish communities’ general dislike for him, because of his peaceful stance in the ongoing Israel-Gaza conflict.

For those that do not know, Slitherman is a known harasser of women on social media, which he was recently forced to admit in open court, at Westminster Magistrates, in December 2016, in what has turned out to be a failed and misconceived attempt by CAA, to criminalise valid criticism of Israel’s war crimes and human rights abuses. The case was sponsored by the Israeli government itself and has since been dropped.

In a now deleted post on Twitter, Slitherman’s cheap and – quite frankly, what can only be described as a despicable pot-shot – claimed that Corbyn’s proposals to support the Grenfell Towers survivors – who are now homeless and the families of victims of the fire – was “a grotesque, self-serving cynicism.”

IMG_pqo4qd.jpg

Slitherman posted this comment in the wake of the fire and Corbyn’s condemnation of Theresa May’s inaction and alleged coverup of the tragedy.

The condemnation, concerning May’s unwillingness to meet residents; that her government purposely sat on a fire safety report, that could have prevented this tragedy had the report’s recommendations been implemented; and the suspicion and concern that her government is micromanaging the aftermath of the tragedy, including withholding details on the total number of deaths.

What Slitherman was referring to, when posting what he did, were Corbyn’s subsequent comments in Parliament and, unlike May’s refusal to do so, his willingness to visit local residents, as if he was conducting a public relations exercise.

Anyone who knows Corbyn, knows that this is simply not so and utterly outrageous to even suggest it.

One individual, who commented on the post, also suggested that Slitherman was attempting to smear Corbyn with a wrongly attributed quote that was actually made by Winston Churchill. The quote concerned the requisitioning privately owned property, to rehouse people who were made homeless after WWII. It was the reviled Daily Mail that published Churchill’s quote as Corbyn’s. Slitherman, either knowingly or otherwise, was repeating the smear in order to compound it.

Screen Shot 2017-06-17 at 17.46.58.png

For absolute clarity, the quote in question – was, in fact – made by Churchill.

Before deleting his callous and mendacious smear of Corbyn, however – which was not his first, and which he only did… after it was pointed out him how despicable it was – Slitherman’s post had 16 retweets, 20 favourites, and various follow-up posts by those in apparent like-minded awareness and agreement with his intentions in posting what he did.

For the record, I, myself, have been on the receiving end of Slitherman’s bile, and it was not pleasant. Clearly, the only person guilty of being “grotesque” and of “self-serving cynicism” here, is Slitherman himself.

It truly despairs and pains me to say this – but Slitherman, like so many other Zionists and anti-Corbynites – are truly pernicious and resentful specimens, who will use any means at their disposal to discredit their self-created enemies.

As a closer to this blog, it is also worth noting, that 72 members of May’s government are landlords of private and/ or social housing – all of whom, voted against and filibustered a proposal by Corbyn – to recommend installation of sprinkler systems in all or most high-rise residential buildings.

A proposal that – had it  been passed – could have prevented the deaths of the victims in the Grenfell Towers fire.

Perhaps Slitherman should consider “whispering” more quietly next time!

Author: Jason Schumann

London Terror Attack: A False Flag or Gross Incompetence?

3 Jun

WATCH ALL CLIPS AND CLICK ALL LINKS!

[Published 04 June 2017]

Just as the Youtube clip below was a staged event of a fake terrorist attack in Syria, so yesterday’s terror attack in London was a false flag.

For those who do not know, a false flag is an incident that occurs, but was in fact a staged event. The specific intention of a false flag is for the purpose of spreading propaganda and/ or to instil fear in us.

To be absolutely clear: to say that an incident, such as an act or terrorism is a false flag should not detract from the panic and fear it instills and the harm or loss of life it causes to victims and their families.

It is no less tragic or abhorrent.

In the case of the Manchester attack the week before, the person who committed this atrocity, Salman Abedi, was known to the authorities for more than five years. Yet, despite warnings from the FBI and members of his local community, including, allegedly, his own mother, the security services and British authorities were apparently completely unaware of either his extremist views, his movements leading up to the attack, or his intentions to carry out the attack.

We already know from sources including the media, that Abedi planned to martyr himself, using what has been described as a sophisticated explosive device; for which he would have likely required technical expertise, as he did not possess the know-how or expertise himself.

Abedi’s attack just so happened to occur at the very same time as a general election in the UK; in which the Labour party opposition leader, Jeremy Corbyn, was, and continues to be, harangued by the current government and the media in baseless smears and accusations regarding his non-existent support for the IRA and Hamas.

Immediately following the Manchester attack, Theresa May’s government announced that it was increasing the security threat of another imminent attack, from “severe” to “critical”.

The authorities also claimed, that Abedi was part of a terror cell and had made repeated trips to Syria and Libya.

IMG_20170604_121813.jpg

More than 30 terror related arrests were subsequently made in the Greater Manchester area, including reports of a woman being shot by armed police, whose name has not yet been released and neither have her family members spoken out or been interviewed.

The police, government, and the security service, have since confirmed that Abedi was a lone wolf — and not part of any terror cell.

The terror threat level was dropped back to severe less than a week later.

What has also come to light, is that Abedi, plus several members of his family, were also on the payroll to overthrow Qadafi in Libya and latterly Assad in Syria by British security services.

As noted by John Pilger, the British government maintained “assets”, who were cultivated by MI5 handlers.

Some have called Abedi’s act of terrorism blowback for British Foreign policy.

Remarkably, it was French authorities who informed the media of Abedi’s travels to Syria. When asked to confirm how they knew this, French Interior Minister, Gerard Collomb, said British authorities had made them aware.

It begs the very serious question: why would the British authorities ask the French to make an announcement to the press about something they were already aware.

Despite the multiple arrests of more than 20 suspected associates of Abedi, why has every single one been released without charge?

Now, on the very eve of the London attack, several pertinent things happened on social media, at the scene, and in the immediate aftermath of the attack.

First, we have footage taken at the scene on the eve of the attack of police officers and apparent ‘crisis actors’ – yes, you heard that correctly – stripping down to their underwear in the street and changing clothing in shop doorways.

In the footage below, some of the officers appear to be putting on riot gear, but pay attention to the officer on the far left who takes of his uniform and puts on a pair of camouflage trousers.

As is very clearly indicated and shown in the image below, the officer who puts on a pair of camouflage trousers is actually shown as one of the so-called terrorists, later reported and photographed as being shot dead by police.

He is wearing the same t-shirt and the same camouflage trousers with his right leg raised, despite being apparently shot dead.

In a further post on social media, we also have evidence posted by a Ryan Hooper, not less than an hour before the first media reports of a terrorist attack, that both London Bridge and Borough stations were closed.

Screen Shot 2017-06-04 at 22.57.52.png

Second, Amber Rudd, the current Home Secretary, appearing at hustings… to persuade voters to allow her retain her seat in the upcoming general election, was filmed censuring one of her rival candidates, Nicholas Wilson.

Wilson is standing as an independent and recently exposed Rudd’s connections and financial dealings in the Panama Papers. Nicholas Wilson has also been relentless in pursuing HSBC for defrauding its customers, tax avoidance, and financial crimes, for the last 10 years.

In the Youtube clip above, Rudd is clearly seen passing a note to the Chair of the hustings, asking for Wilson  to be silenced.

Why?

Because, as above, Wilson had previously exposed her links to organised financial crime, a series of bankrupt businesses, and links to individuals convicted of financial crimes.

Before being silenced at the hustings, Wilson was speaking of the UK government’s involvement in illegal arms sales and trade to fund and support terrorism and its efforts to destabilise Middle Eastern countries.

Wilson’s references to Rudd on the matter, related to her role as Home Secretary, in her visits to broker arms sales with the Kingdom of Saud, that in all likelihood contravene international law.

Less than an hour later, on news of the attack coming to light, the media and the police reported that there were three separate attacks in London.

Early reports listed the attacks as having taken place at London Bridge, Borough Market, and Vauxhall.

In the early hours, however, that the story had changed.

The socalled attack in Vauxhall was subsequently reported – both by the police and the media – as a non-terrorist incident.

Borough and London Bridge stations were closed, remember? So why not close Vauxhall station, even as a precautionary measure?

Reports were already coming in of three men in a white van, who were reported as being seen driving erratically at speed across London Bridge, who then exited the van and ran toward Borough Market, stabbing and slashing at people on the streets who were out socialising.

No one has captured any footage of this white van.

Yet, in December 2016 a ferrari mounted the pavement in Battersea, injuring seven.

Similar non-terrorist incidents have occurred in Islington and Brentwood in recent months.

One onlooker, Gerald, recounted to the media, that he saw the attackers stabbing people indiscriminately and considered throwing a stall from the market at them.

Really, Gerald?

Borough Market is closed at that time of night, so how and where would you have obtained a stall to throw at these attackers?

There is no camera, mobile phone, or street camera footage of the white van driving erratically across London Bridge or of the attackers stabbing people in Borough High Street or near the market.

In a further contradictory report, a photographer, Gabriele Sciotto, speaks with the media regarding his doubts that the attack involved explosives and that he was suspicious or doubtful that the images he took of two of the attackers wearing canisters that could be detonated, were in fact fake in his opinion.

Scroll back up to the Youtube clip filmed and uploaded of the police crisis actors.

When asked by a BBC journalist how many victims there were, a senior Metropolitan police officer on the scene, said that he had not been told.

This was some three hours after the attack and; at this point, no deaths (other than those of the attackers), had been reported or confirmed.

We now know that the explosive canisters shown in the photo taken by Sciotto, strapped to two of the dead attackers have been confirmed as fake.

Screen Shot 2017-06-04 at 22.01.50.png

The Independent newspaper has also reported that a member of the public was fleeing the scene with a glass of beer in hand.

The following morning, authorities reported a total of seven deaths, including the three attackers.

If indeed this latest attack was neither a hoax nor a false flag, then the authorities, including Theresa May’s government, have some big explaining to do to the public.

Afterall, Theresa May was Home Secretary prior to becoming Prime Minister and has had seven years to tighten and increase surveillance of terrorist suspects.

Since the attack, however, Theresa May has chosen this attack to call for a new plan to counter extremism and terrorism; including unprecedented and unwarranted access to all communications on everyone’s mobile phone apps, such as Whatsapp and internet browsing history.

Trump has joined her in this call.

This is the second of two attacks in the UK in twelve years, so why does Theresa may want complete control of the internet and access to all our data now?

Interestingly, Theresa May, until the eve of this attack, was three points behind in the election polls – and again, within hours of the attack – Jeremy Corbyn was being attacked by politicians and under fire from the media for simply supporting peace with the IRA.

On the BBC’s Question Time programme two nights before the London attack, two of the audience were later discovered to be Tory plants, whose purpose on the programme was to smear and humiliate Corbyn. One of whom, pretended to be a poor student, who was in fact extremely wealthy and wearing a Ralph Lauren jumper on the programme.

Whether this latest attack is just a timely opportunity, or it was indeed pre-planned and the government and security services were aware and party to it – always remember, there is no such thing as coincidence – as desperate times always call for desperate measures.

Did Theresa May allow the London attack to happen, or were the authorities completely clueless and incompetent in gathering or acting on intelligence about this attack?

The fact remains, that Theresa May told the press in an interview four days before the attack, that security services were aware of another imminent attack, which begs the question: why reduce the threat level from critical to severe and not arrest the suspects before the act?

Only this evening, the authorities have announced that they know the names of the now dead suspects, but refuse to release further details at this time.

The evidence is here before you, so seek it out, digest it, and make up your own decision or choose to believe what they tell you and want you to believe.

Stay woke, or be one of the sheep!

Author: Jason Schumann

General Election Special: Boris Johnson Smears Jeremy Corbyn and is Spectacularly Caught Out

28 May

Take note of the screenshot here.

Screen Shot 2017-05-28 at 15.27.09

[Published 28 May, 2017]

For those who are either unaware, do not know, or particularly care, Boris Johnson is, miraculously, the current British Foreign Secretary.

Let’s briefly go through the backstory leading up to this momentous calamity before explaining the point of this blog article.

Before Theresa May was Prime Minister, it was Boris Johnson.

After David Cameron stood down – to effectively cut and run before his expenses, offshore investments and private donors could be made public once he became an ordinary MP again – Johnson (Cameron’s Etonian school chum) was briefly made Prime Minister before he also cut and ran.

This left the reins to Theresa May; in what some would describe, as the poison chalice, of managing the Brexit negotiations.

To utilise another apt analogy: Johnson left May holding the baby, so-to-speak.

Typical of so many men really!

Just so you get the measure of this oafish, crass, and incompetent buffoon – yes, Johnson, like so many other men – is that oblique and cowardly.

Fast-forward to the last 24 hours, and in his usual audacious and clumsy manner, Johnson wades in feet first and is promptly handed his ass to him after being caught red-handed in an orchestrated smear campaign of the Labour Leader, Jeremy Corbyn, by posting the following on Twitter:

“I genuinely think it is important people know Corbyn claimed in recent days he never met the IRA. You cannot trust this man!”

This, do not forget, is within 24 hours of Krishnan Guru-Murthy, on Channel 4 News, spectacularly exposing a clueless effort by Sir Michael Fallon, another Tory minister, who has previously been exposed for his links with Syrian Leader, Bashir Assad, also trying to smear Jeremy Corbyn, by attributing comments that were actually made by Johnson to Corbyn.

As Guru-Murthy slapped down Fallon, Johnson did not reckon on the savviness and intelligence of the general public, and so they gave him a similar slap down.

As noted in the following screenshot of a post by @ChrisMcCusker67, Johnson’s smear of Corbyn, as a traitor and enemy of the British people, was an out-and-out lie and factually wrong.

Screen Shot 2017-05-28 at 15.49.18.png

Another Twitter user, @nickh1877, was also quick to point out that Theresa May has met with the IRA.

Screen Shot 2017-05-28 at 15.48.58.png

To be clear, Corbyn only met with members of the IRA after the peace process negotiations had begun. Any and all meetings with the IRA, prior to the start of the peace process in Northern Ireland, were conducted by Tory ministers.

Some of those meetings were conducted in secrecy.

So, ask yourself, if anyone is an enemy of the people and a traitor, who is it?

It is certainly not Corbyn. In fact, Corbyn only became involved in the peace process at the request of Mo Mowlam. 

That said, if the path to peace and conflict resolution indeed must come through “jaw-jaw and not war-war”, to quote Winston, can we really blame Corbyn, or label him a traitor or an enemy, even if there were evidence that he had met with sitting members of the IRA?

The truthful answer is a resounding, NO!

It appears that the Tory campaign to win the General Election 2017 is genuinely on its last legs and that they are willing to try anything, including throwing the kitchen sink at Corbyn, a long with any decency and integrity, in order to do so at all costs.

Can Corbyn win? Yes, he can!

Will Corbyn win? Well, that is entirely up to you guys!

Remember: This election is not about the British people; it’s about keeping a Tory government in power for the next 20 years.

Just think about that for a moment: A Tory government for the next TWENTY years!!? 

Stay woke, people!

Author: Jason Schumann

The Future of UK Labour: Why Jeremy Corbyn Must Go

14 Feb

labourFar from being a hypocrite, I have always stated that Corbyn is an interim party leader.

Despite protestations from anti Corbynista or Corbynite naysayers, I have never believed that he has either the gravitas or image to be a world leader.

He appeals to my values, but I consider him to be simply too bland and aloof and never quite on the ball or in the loop. If not also too harsh, Corbyn reminds me of the person who arrives at the party when it’s just finished and everyone is leaving.

I am certain, however, that he is thoroughly principled and humanitarian, in his values and politics, and that is what attracts me to him. But in the politics of today, being principled will never be enough to win hearts and minds, without presence and some charisma.

It is with sadness that his convictions and principles just aren’t enough to sate today’s often ill-informed, MSM-influenced, and style-over-substance electorate. I also do not believe he is capable of winning over new voters. He is viewed as too left-wing, which is why he is bête noire to many on the right.

Rather like an obese father, too lazy to fetch his own slippers, Corbyn must go; first, because he did very little or nothing to support the remain campaign in the Brexit vote. In fact, he was hardly anywhere to be seen.

It’s true that politics are also fickle; but also, that Corbyn genuinely seems to shy away from the public eye, and he most certainly does not like journalists, TV cameras and MSM.

But can we blame him when more than 70% of the coverage they print and report about him is all negative?

No, of course not!

In Corbyn’s favour on Brexit, there are some suggestions his own party supporters conspired against him to ensure he couldn’t campaign. If so, we can also blame the lack of positive media coverage by Murdoch’s imposed blackout on him and the factory of negative briefings churned out against him by the Number 10 press office, as they did with his predecessor, Ed Miliband.

Just as they did with Ed in 2015, Labour supporters turned their back on Corbyn and the remain campaign, largely due to orchestrated fears, played out by leave campaigners around ‘foreigners invading our country and taking our jobs’ and ‘an unelected EU taking our money, and making our laws.’

Corbyn failed to do a single thing to enlighten, inform, or change the minds of those even from within his own party wanting to leave the European Union.

Neither was he, or those close to him, it appears, aware of just how big the swell to vote leave would turn out to be.

Rightly, Corbyn recognised the benefits of EU membership (to protect trade, investment, the environment, farming, our freedoms and rights), but he failed to convey this to supporters, and seemed completely unconcerned about the potential outcomes of not doing so.

Importantly, it goes to show just how out of touch he is; with the values, and expectations, of young people, traditional Labour voters, & his own grass roots supporters. It was as if he was either purposely asleep at the wheel, or derelict in his duty. That, or his chauffeur drove him in the wrong direction.

It is also clear to me that his deliberate, almost conceited unwillingness to engage in public debate, has helped in his undoing. He also now appears to be proving himself to be an autocratic leader, who is dismissive of the valid criticisms of his failure to lead, rightly laid at his feet.

At the start of his leadership of the party, he had already removed several of his detractors from their shadow leadership roles, informing the press that he isn’t going anywhere. This is arrogant and dictatorial of him. Perhaps also a red rag to bull. You don’t remove someone just because you don’t get on with him or her, or they don’t like you, especially if they are good and effective at what they do.

Corbyn should have been more diplomatic, statesman-like, and proactively sought to galvanise and inspire his party and supporters. In sum, well below the expectations of an effective opposition leader and he has shown neither foresight nor strategy. All of these have served to harm Labour’s future and counter the destructive efforts to diminish rights and privatise everything, as is the current course of the incumbent party.

As Brexit unfolds and becomes more clear, right-wing supporters in the Tory party will slowly repeal the laws that were agreed by all EU member states and designed and enacted, primarily to protect citizens from exploitation and and greater inequality. Without a doubt, things will become worse for the majority, but minorities in particular. We can see the beginnings of this already being evident in the resurgence of the Far Right and increases racism.

Corbyn’s inaction has effectively given the likes of Gove, Hunt, May et al, carte blanche, to repeal the HRA, DPA, FoIA, worker’s rights, privatise the National Health Service & more.

Perhaps more worrying, is that Theresa May is worse. Well, of course she is, especially as it is her clear intention to carry on where Margaret Thatcher left off. But what she lacks in ability and confidence as a sheepish head of state, is masked by her image and taste for designer clothing. More importantly, her longer term aims to diminish what few rights we have remaining. 

As little thanks, we can take small comfort in the fact that the UK Independence Party that began much of this is now disintegrating from within. 

 

 

Author: Jason Schumann

 

 

 

Jeremy Corbyn: Vilified by UK Jewish Media?

10 Sep

corbyn.jpeg

According to Jeremy Corbyn’s Wiki biography, he has, in the past: ‘mobilise[d] opposition to the Afghanistan War…. [and] was fiercely opposed to the Iraq War in 2003.’

He is a member of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, and Stop the War Coalition, and campaigned against conflict in Gaza.

Corbyn, has been strongly criticised for some of the humanitarian and political causes he has supported, including; having met with IRA members, prior to the Northern Ireland Peace Accord (known as the Good Friday Agreement), which was signed on 10 April 1998.

Now, he has come to prominence as likely to be that next leader of the Labour Party, perhaps his skeletons have come of the closet? Particularly, his associations with pro-Palestine groups, criticism of Israel, and those, many Jews and the Israeli government deem their enemies.

Former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who won three successive General Elections from 1997–2005, stated: “We discovered winning successively. And now we have re-discovered losing successively…You don’t win from a traditional leftist position.”

In the past few days, after being attacked and railed by so-called ‘Blair-ites’, his views on the subject of Israeli/ Palestinian relations, appear to have culminated in an all out attack in much (if not all) of the Jewish press in the UK, Israel and elsewhere. Jewish lobby organisations have also joined in the attack to vilify Corbyn.

In the JC on the 13 August 2014, Daniel Finkelstein wrote: ‘the election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader [of the Labour Party] would not be a problem for the Labour Party. It would be a debacle. A catastrophe. A calamity. A disaster.’

Finkelstein added: ‘He [Corbyn] shares the virulent anti-Zionism of the hard left. One that seeks to make Israel a pariah state. One that treats Israel as if it were the central cause of all foreign affairs problems. One that treats with Hamas and is friendly to Hizbollah (sic).’

The JC also claimed he would be an ‘enemy’ of the Jewish community, if he didn’t answer their questions ‘immediately’ and support Israel’s expansionism, which would likely be to the detriment of Palestine and Palestinians.

Its editor, Stephen Pollard, reiterated the key points (and threat) made in the article, by denouncing one challenger of the demands made in the article, for posting what Pollard considered “an idiotic tweet.”

On the Jewish Chronicle view of Corbyn, as early as 2012, Ben White wrote of ‘How the Jewish Chronicle is trying to smear Jeremy Corbyn MP.’ Similarly, as published via Order — Order, in mid-July 2015, Media Guido posted that he: ‘understands that Corbyn’s people approached the Jewish Chronicle offering them a clear-the-air interview, realising he was not exactly JC readers’ number one choice given his ‘friendship‘ with Hamas and his support for the anti-Semitic Islamist Raed Salah.’ Corbyn subsequently withdrew when told the interview would be conducted by the Neo-Con, Oliver Kamm.

On Hezbollah and Hamas, in a Q & A for the New Statesman, Corbyn said: “Look, you don’t make peace unless you talk to everybody . . . There has to be a conversation. Over Hezbollah and Hamas, yes, I’ve met [the Hamas leader] Khaled Meshal. I’ve met people from all these groups, actually, with a number of other people; Tony Blair has [too].”

One can understand, perfectly well, why Corbyn withdrew from an interview with the JC, especially as it would appear, so abundantly clear, that Kamm is vehemently opposed to Corbyn’s political beliefs and style of politics, and would not have given him a fair and impartial opportunity, or right to reply, to criticism laid against him.

Some 200 hundred tweets by Kamm, about Corbyn, in less than a year, is pretty obsessive, would you not think?

The JC has published no less than 100 articles on Corbyn; all of which appear to portray him negatively.

The Jewish Post recently published an article calling Corbyn ‘the far-left candidate.’ For a far Lefty, Corbyn recently said on the monarchy: “Listen, I am at heart, as you very well know, a republican.” It [JP] also posted, that he is defender of a so-called 9/11 anti-Israel conspiracy theorist, Rev. Stephen Sizer.

Although acknowledging his ‘clear vision’, the JP wrote that Corbyn was a ‘fully-paid up member of the Ken Livingstone generation.’ They also criticised his support of a Palestinian state, appearing to ask its readers to ask him if he felt the same of Israel.

Even in the Times of Israel, no fewer than 30 articles have been written about Corbyn.

The headline of its article, published on the 13 August 2015, was, ‘UK Labour front-runner scrutinized for ties to anti-Semites, extremists.’ The Times [of Israel] added, that he [Corbyn] supported the likes of Deir Yassin Remembered, and had made donations to the group. ToI could not substantiate this with any proof other than hearsay by Paul Eisen.

Corbyn’s campaign denied this claim, saying “Paul Eisen clearly holds some of the most extreme views that are entirely his, and Jeremy totally opposes them and disassociates himself from them.”

Prominent Jewish organisations such as the Board of Deputies, the Far Right-linked European Jewish Parliament, and European Jewish Congress have all accused Corbyn of being anti-Jewish, and is a supporter of Hamas.

UK’s young writer, Rabbil Sikdar, says Jeremy Corbyn could be the leader British Muslims (2.8 million) have been waiting for, which is an anathema to many Jews, so many of whom, are themselves, vehemently anti-Muslim and anti-Palestine.

James Forsyth, writing in The Spectator, said that, Corbyn is ‘unelectable’ now appears, almost certainly, to have been a gravely premature misjudgement, on his part.

Whether Corbyn is the right person to aid Labour’s recovery, from the orchestrated and devastating hatchet-job carried out by David Cameron, and the Conservative government, pre-election 2015, only time will tell.

Your thoughts?

End Notes:

1. For the purpose of clarity, the only reason the word ‘Jewish’ has been used in the headline of this article, is due to the fact that two of the newspapers attacking Jeremy Corbyn have the word in the title of their publications. To be clear, conflation of the word Jews/ Jewish with Zionism serves Zionism. The smear campaign detailed in this article was orchestrated by Zionists, not Jews.

2. Following publication, it was brought to my attention that Oliver Kamm and Stephen Pollard have known each other very well since at least 2006. It follows, that any article written by Kamm and published by the JC (about Corbyn) would have been malicious in its intent.

Article by: Jason Schumann, aka @debatingculture

%d bloggers like this: