Britain

Nazism is a Colonialism; Zionism is a Colonialism

Churchill's KarmaLeave a comment

A Refutation of an aspect of the IHRA’s Working Definition of Antisemitism

A worldwide initiative driven by Western experts and talking heads is afoot to silence any comparison between the Zionist state (i.e “Israel”) and the Nazi German regime of the 1930s-40s. Even in the midst of the current Zionist genocide in Gaza, the comparison draws the ire of western contemporary mainstream political sensitivities. This de facto taboo was given immense credence by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) organisation which claimed, “criticism of Israel similar to that levelled at any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitism”. Yet confusingly adds that an example of antisemitism in “public life” is to compare “contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.” This essay argues, at the very least, there is a common denominator which underpins the territorial ambitions of the Nazi German regime and the British Imperial foundations of the contemporary Zionist state….

…It is quite clear that a certain aspect of the IHRA working definition of anti-semitism lacks historical literacy. The IHRA’s definition doesn’t consider both the global historical context of the emergence of the Nazis as led by Adolf Hitler and also how Zionism became manifest in the hands of the British Empire during its occupation of Palestine…

To read the full essay click here.

***

©Nu’man Abd al-Wahid

Please click here to support my work. Thank you in advance.

Nu’man Abd al-Wahid is the author of “Debunking the Myth of America’s Poodle”. The book conclusively shows that British militaristic foreign policy, during the so-called ‘War on Terror’ is rooted in the history of British imperialism’s own historic militarism and not because of any subservience or kowtowing to United States’s foreign policy. His X account is @NumanAbdalWahid

Time to Ditch Britain’s ‘America’s Poodle’ Hoax

Churchill's KarmaLeave a comment

Against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of world’s inhabitants, American and British imperialist forces, led respectively by George W. Bush and Tony Blair, invaded Iraq twenty years ago on a poisoned puree of allegations and claims revolving around Saddam Hussein, the leader of Iraq, possessing weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The British political and media establishment produced some of the most fabulous lies in the run-up to the Iraq war. Among the most famous fabrications for the case for war was that Iraq could deploy WMDs within “45 minutes” and that Iraq had made ‘Uranium purchases from Niger’. For the warmongers in the imperial metropole, both these fabrications proved Iraq was an imminent threat to “world peace” and both were quickly proved to be false after the invasion.

As short-lived as these fabrications proved to be, another fabrication about Britain’s role in imperialist warmongering has stood the test of time. That is, the notion that Britain is United States’ “poodle”. That is, contemporary British military intervention is a result of Britain’s subservience to United States foreign policy. To read more click here.

Tectonic shifts in the “Middle East” and the American Revolution of 1776

Churchill's KarmaLeave a comment

Between President Biden’s presidential campaign and Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman recent courting of China, much has been written in the Western and Gulf media about major “tectonic” changes in the “Middle East”, or to use the region’s non-colonial name, West Asia…. 

In conclusion, as the settler-colonialist in North America came to the fore to continue slavery and ethnic cleansing in the 1770s, and performed an “American Revolution” in order to do so, the Gulf states are now coming to the fore to consolidate the Sykes-Picot colonial order in West Asia. 

Read the full article at al-Mayadeen by clicking here.

Cordoning Yemen: A Saudi War at British Geopolitical Bidding?

Churchill's KarmaLeave a comment

The latest reports of British special forces injuries fighting in the Saudi led war on Yemen once again provides further evidence the British political establishment are the main Western backers behind the war launched in March 2015. It’s not for the first time British elite forces operating in Yemen are reported to have been injured. Yet western commentary, especially before these injuries became known, largely blames the United States as the main instigator behind the current destruction of Yemen. For example, former British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband’s latest article on the humanitarian crisis in Yemen claims that the war is a “strategic failure” and only the United States possesses the might to put it right. Above all else, he implies the US is the nation most responsible for the dire situation.  Last year, the same Miliband was forthright and declared after a visit to Yemen, that the United States, has a “threefold responsibility” for the crisis in Yemen without mentioning the British role in assisting the Saudis. But in the light of these latest reports of British injuries how accurate is it to say or imply that the United States is the main global power behind the war on Yemen? Continue reading →

Why are some People of Colour Activists apologists for White Activists?

Churchill's KarmaLeave a comment

Several years ago, it occurred to me how pitiful the state of anti-imperialist activity in England had become. A certain character (i.e. “political activist”) parading under the name of Daniel Renwick delivered a speech on an anti-imperialist platform just after the Nato-Jihadi operation to unseat the government of Libya was completed with the public lynching of the Colonel Muammar al-Ghadhaffi which the British media welcomed by gloating and celebrating his martyrdom.

On this platform, Renwick declared that Britain had become, culturally speaking, an anti-imperialist country. He supported this falsely ridiculous assertion by correctly informing the attendees at the meeting that British people have grown an appetite for foreign food and also because Manchester City Football Club (MCFC) employs a culturally diverse selection of football players from around the world. Hence, MCFC were “global” and therefore anti-imperialist, whereas a football club such as Liverpool, which at that time presumably did not employ a diverse squad, was not. What I eventually found most disturbing Continue reading →