Nèdeem Elmahjoub's blog

The Britons who can’t afford to retire

“Any supposed peace dividend from the end of the Cold War, always more talked about than experienced by voters in the UK, was now over, Shapps argued. We are not in a ‘post-war world’ but a ‘pre-war world’, the defence secretary told his listeners.”  “In a phrase worthy of Dr Strangelove, he said that we cannot assume that ‘the strategy of mutually assured destruction that stopped wars in the past will stop them in the future’. “The majority of its [Britain’s] citizens have had more sense than to approve the imperial follies of the post-Cold War hot wars.”  I am not sure about that. Rees must provide evidence. John Rees is from the Socialist Workers Party. Publishing on the Middle East Eye means Rees and MEE have to replace the term imperialist with ‘imperial’ and neocolonial power with ‘post-colonial power’ .

  The Hundred Years' War on Palestine by Rashid Khalidi

Support for the brutal, indiscriminate bombardment of Gaza finds its roots in the historical context of western settler-colonialism

Under the header “They mustn’t forget why they struck down Allende,” the magazine announced in October 1973 that: “The junta has been the victim of a campaign of organised hostility in the west as well as of its own mistakes”. The article continued: “Perhaps the imposition of martial law, the mass interrogations and the summary execution of snipers would not have aroused so much criticism if there were a clearer understanding of the events that precipitated the coup.” The magazines Latin American editor Robert Moss would go on to become a speechwriter for Margaret Thatcher, who  described  Pinochet as Britain’s “staunch, true friend” and praised the former dictator for having “brought democracy to Chile.” The Economist’s and Britain’s role in the coup of 1973 against Allende Related Liberalism at Large The World According to the Economist

Slavery, Capitalism and the Industrial Revolution

“The future of Britain under Starmer looks like an outdated 90s tribute act to Blairism and Thatcherism.”

“From the point of view of the regime, it may well be that riots are welcome , for they guarantee  renormalisation , they permit social ‘bantustans’ to remain such, and they deflate discontents that could otherwise be perilous. Naturally, for them to perform this stabilizing function they must be subject to outward condemnation: vandalism should be denounced, violence should spark indignation, looting should cause disgust. Such reactions justify the ruthlessness of the repression, which becomes the only means to beat back the tide of barbarism. It is under these conditions that riots serve to ossify social hierarchy.” “A social system is not only characterised by its internal structure, but also by the reactions it provokes: a system founded on commandments can, in certain moments, imply reciprocal duties of aid carried out honestly, as it can also lead to brutal outbursts of hostility. To the eyes of the historian, who must merely note and explain the relationships between phenomena,

Let’s not forget that state and social movements relation are governed by the political economy of a given period and how confident – and far – could the state go in repression and beyond the daily oppression. We should also differentiate between security states where regimes use all necessary means to survive and the advanced capitalist states where maintaining the status quo means rotation of governments, which have significant resources at their disposal, powerful media and interest groups that marginalise and vilify dissent. That also apply globally where international capital, international institutions and organisations and states work together to support or divert and co-opt this or that social movement when it suits their interests.  ‘ How elites are crushing dissent ’ in Britain or France should be read differently from how regimes in Egypt, Iran or Russia exercise repression. After all, the title of the article does not apply to Britain, Germany, or even to France, where ther

How slavery changed the Guardian, Britain and the world

Note that Avi Shlaim uses the mainstream description ‘the Palestinian-Israeli conflict’ although he asserts that Israel’s origin is settler colonialism. How was there ethnic cleansing, as Shlaim asserts, and one can still call it a conflict? Shlaim mentions how “ The last five Conservative prime ministers, starting with David Cameron, have all been staunch supporters of Israel.” Why, I wonder, did he exclude Blair’s New Labour, not to mention previous Labour governments? He also states something I find disturbing: “ The British mandate for Iraq, the French mandate for Syria, and the French mandate for Lebanon were all about preparing the local population for self-government.” ‘ An unbroken thread of duplicity, mendacity, chicanery and skulduggery’ Related It is not a conflict

The UK has the oldest, draughtiest and least energy-efficient homes in Europe yet they are ‘fetishised’, says the philosopher Julian Baggini. I like the emphasis on class in an article by the FT.

I could have written the comment below reflecting on a conversation I had with an English man when the British Prime Minister Liz Truss resigned. It was part of a very short exchange in a coffeeshop in north London. The English man said that Boris Johnson was better after all. I jumped in saying that he was a racist, and that the problems in Britain were not about one man, but about the form of the political economic policies. classes, etc. The man disagreed with me, saying : “But everybody wants to come to this country. You, where do you come from?”  I asked him to stick to the argument rather than speaking about where I come from. He refused. Our short conversation ended abruptly there. *** “Where are you from?” is not necessarily a racist question, but for those of us with brown skin, it’s a loaded one. We answer it uneasily, unsure if the conversation is going to unravel into something more distressing, as the encounter between Lady Susan Hussey and Ngozi Fulani did on Tuesday at B

Buying up chunks of Britain

Fellow Citizens A wicked and unjust war is now being waged by the ruling and propertied classes of this country, with all the resources of civilisation at their back, against an ill-armed and semi-barbarous people whose only crime is that they have risen against a foreign oppression which those classes themselves admit to have been infamous. Tens of millions wrung from the labour of workmen of this country are being squandered on Arab slaughtering; and for what: 1) that Eastern Africa may be ‘opened up’ to the purveyor of ‘shoddy’ wares, bad spirits, venereal disease, cheap bibles and the missionary; in short, that the English trader and contractor may establish his dominion on the ruins of the old, simple and happy life led by the children of the desert; 2) that a fresh supply of sinecure Government posts may be obtained for the occupation of the younger sons of the official classes; 3) as a minor consideration may be added that a new and happy hunting ground be provided for military

‘People are much angrier now’

 “ The cases constitute the most widespread miscarriage of justice in British legal history. ” –the BBC

Note: A British nation has never existed. A sharp critique of David Edgerton’s Britain

Welcome to Britain!

“A Saudi Arabian takeover of Newcastle United is close to being agreed.  Approval from the Premier League could possibly come in the next 24 hours after a consortium proved the Saudi state would not have control of the club.  Instead the Public Investment Fund (PIF), which is set to provide 80% of funds for the £300m deal, will be seen as separate to the state and therefore allow the takeover to pass the Premier League owners' and directors' test.” — the BBC “The  Public Investment Fund  is the  sovereign wealth fund  of  Saudi Arabia . It is among the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world with total estimated assets of at least $500 billion.  It was created in 1971 for the purpose of investing funds on behalf of the government of Saudi Arabia. It has been characterized as among the least transparent sovereign wealth funds in the world. In 2016, the  Wall Street Journal  noted that none of the fund's investments were named.” — Wikipedia