Tag Archives: Politics

Zionist Lobby: Tim Farron, Liberal Democrats Party Leader, and the Sacking of David Ward, MP

27 Apr

[Published May 2017]


On the 26 April, 2017, Tim Farron, leader of the UK Liberal Democrats, announced on Twitter that he had ‘sacked’ David Ward from the party.

Initially, Farron was reported as having stated that he was unable to intervene in local party politics or selection processes. Ward was to stand for election in the parliamentary seat of Bradford East on the 08 June, 2017.

However, after pressure from Sir Eric Pickles, the UK’s Special Envoy to Israel and Chair of Conservative Friends of Israel, and the ‘behind-the-scenes’ intervention of the nefarious and meddling Campaign Against AntiSemitism (CAA), Farron decided to do an extraordinary u-turn, calling Ward ‘unfit to stand and represent the Party.

Ward is known to be very critical of the apartheid state of Israel and his comments have been somewhat hard-hitting and possibly unpleasant to some sensitive ears. For example, the year before Israel’s Protective Edge slaughtered more than 2,400 Palestinian including 500 children with the illegal use of White Phosphorus, Ward said:

“Am I wrong or are am I right? At long last the Zionists are losing the battle – how long can the apartheid State of Israel last?”


Prior to Farron’s u-turn on the matter, Mark Wallace, editor of Conservative Home, called his decision not to sack Ward “bullshit”. Not content with attacking Farron, Wallace then went on a tirade of abuse aimed at Ward, saying: “maybe fuck-off now, you weapons-grade scumbag” and posting a link to his blog about him.

Sadly, Wallace is under some illusion (a spell or cognitive dissonance?) and claims Ward’s comments about the insidiousness of Zionism, the Lobby, and Israel’s persistent Human Rights abuses amount to racism.

Possibly knowing that he or a colleague would be attending a meeting with the Liberal Democrats to discuss Ward, Stephen “Slitherman” Silverman, director of prosecutions and investigations for CAA, and a known harasser of women, was on hand to comment on Wallace’s abuse, suggesting he already knew what would happen to Ward.

Screen Shot 2017-04-27 at 15.25.58.png


Slitherman and CAA also enlisted the assistance of Martin Greig, a Liberal Democrat councillor in Scotland, the day before the announcement of Ward’s sacking.

Greig offered to intervene and act as go-between between CAA and the Liberal Democrats in a separate matter. As you can see in the above screenshot, CAA asked Greig to contact them by email regarding the meeting to discuss Ward as well as others matters.

We can reasonably assume, therefore, that Ward’s sacking was as a direct consequence and outcome of CAA’s meeting with the Liberal Democrats, Pickles challenging Farron in Parliament; and perhaps to a lesser extent, Greig’s role as an intermediary.

CAA was set up as a fake charity in 2014 by Gideon Falter after Israel’s Operation Protective Edge assault on Gaza. As stated earlier, Protective Edge massacred 2,400 Palestinians to further Israel’s efforts to legitimise its suppression of the Palestinian peoples’ right to self-determination and illegal expansionism and occupation of Palestine.

By lobbying in this way, to sack a member of a political party and prevent him from standing as a member of parliament, CAA is in fact in breach of charity law, as charity law clearly prevents such lobbying.

In addition, as it would appear that CAA is very much involved in lobbying activities, there is also a legal requirement for it to be registered as a lobbying organisation.

Notably, the charity, Greenpeace, was recently fined £30,000 for refusing to register as a lobbying organisation.

Screen Shot 2017-04-27 at 16.12.32.png


There is currently no evidence to confirm that CAA is also registered as a lobbying organisation, so it is also in breach of its requirement to register under the Administration Act of 2014.

CAA is part of an offensive to shut down any form of debate, criticism, or challenge to Israel’s Human Rights abuses and illegal occupation and ongoing settlement expansion programme. It is directly linked to the World Zionist Organisation and has been tasked specifically with the purpose of shutting down free speech in Britain under the guise of false claims of antiSemitism.

It also actively seeks to impose a definition of antiSemitism which prohibits any criticism of Israel and comparison of Israel to the Nazis or an apartheid/ fascist state.

CAA also actively lobbied for the expulsion of Baroness Jenny Tonge from the Liberal Democrats Party.

Author: Jason Schumann

















What is rape: Assange and Galloway Affair

12 Sep

For several months now, we have had a tirade of public and media speculation and opinion regarding claims of rape made against the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange. Most recently, the Respect MP, for Bradford West, George Galloway has waded in, making remarks that Salma Yacoob, the Party Leader, found “deeply disappointing and wrong”. Briefly putting aside claims of rape or sexual assault against Assange, Galloway’s remarks were, precisely, that consent was not always required. You might think this, as many have, quite an outrageous statement to make; but the fact is, it is true.

In many sexual encounters and relationships, acquaintances and partners participate in a sexual act and do not always ask; they simply initiate the act, and the other obliges or refuses. Once the threshold has been crossed in “refusing” consent, then we can talk about rape and/ or sexual assault. The fact is, in returning to the claims against Assange, consent was not refused by either of the women, so there is no case for either rape or sexual assault. Therefore, the only claim against Assange is in regard to the failure to use a condom and initiating a sexual act whilst the other was asleep. In regard to the former, this author’s understanding is that the use of a condom was discussed between Assange and the woman with whom he was in bed, and that Assange gave assurances it would be safe.

Indeed, if Assange knew his STD/ HIV status to be negative to give such assurances, it would, in my view, throw out of the bed, completely, any possible claims or entitlement for prosecution based on having unprotected sex. You may argue there is a case for coercion; but this is not a sexual assault, and certainly not rape. Further, if not convinced of his status, the women in question could have chosen to refuse her consent. In regards to the claims of sex whilst the woman was asleep, surely the women would have awoken upon being penetrated. Again, at this point, the women could have also refused; but court records and the transcripts of the Swedish police show that she did not refuse. Therefore, the can be no claim in this regard either.

If you have been with your partner for a number of years, there will have been numerous occasions when you have both had sex several times throughout the day or night. Neither of you will have always sought the others permission to do so. Even in a one-off sexual encounter of meeting someone the night before, you may have sex that evening and then again in the morning. In this instance, one of you may well have been asleep and the other will most certainly have initiated a sexual act that wakes you, unless you are in state of drug or alcohol-induced coma. As such, the fact is, that unless you refuse consent, there is no case to answer, for either rape or sexual assault.

In conclusion, George Galloway’s remarks and comments are/ were entirely valid, and you should neither be offended nor outraged. If you are, then you clearly do not understand the definitions of rape or sexual assault, and you are clearly too overly sensitive to comments made by a public figure with whom you do not necessarily have any favour or liking. This is the “deeply disappointing and wrong” point of view such people hold, as well as your/ their failure to understand the nature of sexual encounters and relationships.

Author: Jason Schumann

Tags: Cultural Analysis, Debating Culture,Julian Assange, Freedom of Expression, George Galloway, Rape, What is rape, Twitter, Consenting sex, Politics, WikiLeaks, Sweden,Respect Party,Salma Yaqoob, bad sexual etiquette, Swedish Police

Iran: International outcast and nuclear bad boy

30 Mar

Yes, Iran and Syria are, or appear to be, the bad boys in the international school playground. What with accusations of funding terrorism, persecuting citizens, antagonizing neighbours and the international community, reported attempts at stalling the middle east peace process, and generally not playing ball. For Iran, international concerns are centred on terrorism funding- to disrupt peace in the Middle East and other regions- and its ongoing nuclear proliferation programme. We should acknowledge that the former is more hush-hush from public view, for obvious diplomatic reasons, but it is always referred to when mentioned in conjunction with the latter.

One of the primary incendiaries for such contention is in the possible implosion of the Middle East process and, more importantly, the position and proximity of Israel in the region and the perceived threat of Islamic state sponsored terrorism to destabilize the Israeli government in efforts to free Palestinians from its grasp. A little simplistic, but it basically covers a key point of the causes of instability and disagreements between Middle Eastern countries when adding the presence of Israel to the equation. Of course there are other major factors contributing to discord in the region, including religious and cultural divisions between Jews, Arabs and Muslims alike.

Though, of the five or so “official” nations with nuclear capability- Iran is not one of them- and no one wants it to be either. Neither is Israel an “official” nation with nuclear capability, for that matter. However, let’s not forget that Iran’s nuclear programme got off the ground with the help and support of the United States. That is, until that United States switched sides to Israel after the Iranian revolution, and continues to promote the efforts and interests of Israel in light of recent Islamic terrorist threats. This is not to say that such threats are perpetrated by those such as Syria and Iran, but that Iran’s nuclear capability would certainly tip the balance- in further threatening the position and sovereignty of Israel as a lone state in the region full of Arabs, tribal groups, and Muslim factions.

Israel’s position is, therefore, to maintain its sovereignty which, no doubt stems from a persistent insecurity and block thinking of continued persecution that Jewish people have suffered throughout history at the hands others who would deny Israel its right to existence. Incidentally, we could blame the British and the Americans for all of the present situation. After all, it was Britain and the United States that gave Israel and the Jewish people their independence after the Second World War, much to dissatisfaction of the Palestinians and others in the region.

Israel’s attempts to prevent the nuclear proliferation of Iran are perhaps valid, but to what extent? Does the international community condone Israel’s assassinations of Iran’s scientists, engineers, and politicians? There is much evidence of this, including Israeli threats to launch rocket attacks on Iran. If so, then why is it more outrageous that Iran should defend itself in the same way?

Surely, the Middle East peace process should be brought to its conclusion through negotiation? Could it not be then, that Israel and Iran, both having nuclear capability, can be an instrument and key factor in forcing a peaceful conclusion? As far as the laws of the playground go, it would appear that, whilst Israel thinks it is the victim, it is the international community that is actually treating Iran as the victim.

There is no simple answer, as to how best to resolve this situation, but it is certainly not to deride and make Iran appear the bad guy, especially when Israel may be considered just as guilty of wrongdoing. This is purely a case of, we can have nuclear, but you cannot, in this author’s view, anyway. Time to grow up, kids! Put down your weapons and play nicely!

Author: Jason Schumann

Tags: Cultural Analysis, Debating Culture,Iran, Syria, Israel, China, United Nations, Middle East, Terrorism, Nuclear proloforation, Politics, Hamas, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Western sanctions, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Islam, Nuclear Security Summit, international atomic energy agency, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

Douglas Murray and Neoconservatism

15 Dec

In short, Murray is an Imperialist Conservative and an extremely conservative one at that. His candour is often superior and dismissive, though this likely stems from an insecure childhood, possibly due to bullying and ill health. Murray is the sort who steps over a homeless person when leaving the theatre.
If this seems like a character assassination, then it is! I cannot stand this individual! Notice I do not call him a man, or a human being!
His views on other cultures and non-Christian faiths are simply that of Conservatism in a different guise. This is partly evident in comments he made on an episode of BBC 1’s Question Time programme, in which he stated that westerners behave better than those in the Middle Eastern countries.
Although he is thought to have been referring to Islamic Fundamentalists, one might aver that he was in fact referring to all in Middle East, and that the British in particular, are the better behaved and more civilized. ;
We might call this ‘Murray’s burden’ to cleanse the world of Islamic extremism and bring civilization to the disparate people of the Middle East. The short answer is that we are neither better behaved, nor more civilized.
(During the showing of Question Time, I might add that I sent him an email (in quite a drunken state) issuing a fatwa against him, although I am not Muslim or Arabic, which I later apologized for when I sobered the next morning) ;
In any event, his hatred of Islam is clearly evident. We only need look at the constant references and comparisons he makes between Islam and Nazism. Further, he states, Middle Eastern countries “are presently run by despots, crackpots and crime-syndicate families”.
(One might secretly think that he longs for Hitler to be resurrected as a modern day messiah, so that he can wipe out the scourge that is Islam).
We might also question Murray as to how “philosophical” and “moral” and righteous it is of him to perpetuate such tripe of religious and cultural division, in his diabolical generalisations of millions of people residing in the East and the West. ; I must say, the only thinking in Murray’s “thought-world” that has gone bad, is his own, and his pernicious vitriol (if unchallenged) will turn others thoughts bad or worse.
By his own assertion, he is a traditionalist, who prefers the status quo, that is, one akin to the ideals of the fallen and forgotten British Empire. Rather than embrace the processes and cultural artefacts of increasing globalization, he prefers the ‘not-in-my-backyard’, unless on my terms approach. Well, sorry Murray! There is now a new world order, and it does not involve Britain or the United States in the driving seat.
Murray also appears to applaud the atrocities committed by acts of rendition on the frontline (as with the US soldiers who photographed themselves encouraging their captives to sodomize and perform tricks on each other) and the beatings and water-boarding that took place in Guantanamo. Does Murray really think this kind of treatment makes westerners better than anyone else?
His apparent idea that the West is somehow superior is also defined by his constant references and unnerving animosity toward Islam and the Middle East as being the “enemy”. That the West is now on a path to “auto-self-destruct”, is one of its own making. The truth is that, it is the West that has created these “fissures”, and it is Murray who is perpetuating them.
That Murray deludes himself, and others, that we are “are winning comprehensively on the field of foreign battle; but we are losing this war at home”, is a further example of his imperialist intentions and nihilism of anything that is not Christian and therefore more civilized. Where are his words of compassion, of understanding, of acceptance, community, and of peace?
These important attributes and ideals ought to be the foundations of our co-existence. They are not, so-called signs of “dhimmitude”, as Murray would have everyone believe. The key fact to note here, is that the advocation of such human qualities, are not signs of capitulation or subjugation. They are signs of a progressive and civilized society. It is certainly not the belief that “all cultures are equal”, but, that “all cultures should be equal”.
As Murray said, “Grievances become ever more pronounced the more they are flattered and the more they are paid attention to”. So, do not pay him any attention, unless we wish to divide societies and cultures ever more.

Author: Jason Schumann

Tags: Cultural_Analysis, Debating Culture, Douglas Murray, Centre for Social Cohesion, Imperialism, Politics of Co-existence, Islamism, dhimmitude, Fundamentalism, Neoconservatism, Henry Jackson Society, BBC Question Time, Terrorism, Islamaphobia, Murray’s Burden, Middle East, thought-world

%d bloggers like this: