Thomas Sankara: A Point Of Reference For National Liberals

“While revolutionaries as individuals can be murdered, you cannot kill ideas.”

Thomas Sankara

Thomas Sankara (1949 – 1987) has variously been described as a revolutionary, a progressive nationalist, a Marxist, and a pan-Africanist. He was the former President of Burkina Faso (from 1983 until his assassination in 1987) and in that short period of time he promoted land redistribution, a move towards food self-sufficiency, health initiatives, women’s rights & environmental initiatives. We feel that he represents a worthy ‘Point of Reference’ for National Liberals.
Picture Credit: https://ordaf.org/somurgecilige-direnen-devrimci-burkina-fasonun-lideri-thomas-sankara/

IT’S PROBABLY fair to say that many of those who National Liberals regard as a ‘Point of Reference’ hail from many years ago.

Here, we think of people like Hilaire Belloc (1870 – 1953), G. K. Chesterton (1874 – 14 June 1936), G. D. H. Cole (1889 – 1959), John Hargrave (1894 – 1982), Leslie Hoare-Belisha (1893–1957), Guiseppe Mazzini (1805-1872), Robert Owen (1771 – 1858) and William Morris (1834 – 1896).

However, it would be a mistake to think that we’re only interested in those from centuries ago. A more recent ‘Point of Reference’ is Thomas Sankara, once dubbed the ‘African Che Guevara.’

Before we examine his life, it’s worthwhile restating how we define a ‘Point of Reference’. By this we mean that they’ve said or done something that we find of great interest.

It should also be noted that one doesn’t even have to agree with a ‘Point of Reference’ to find that what they say or do is of great interest.

It’s important to look right across the political spectrum – including those who promote ideas we may totally disagree with – with a dispassionate eye & not react to how they label themselves.

It’s also essential not to put anyone who is a ‘Point of Reference’ on a pedestal, so to speak.

So who was Thomas Sankara – and why do we regard him as a Point of Reference?

Thomas Sankara is remembered as one of Africa’s most visionary, principled, and charismatic leaders. As we noted earlier, the former President of Burkina Faso (from 1983 until his assassination in 1987) has been dubbed the ‘African Che Guevara.’ We’ve seen Sankara described variously as a revolutionary, a progressive nationalist, a Marxist, and a pan-Africanist.

(We also believe that, in some respects, it’s fair to describe him as a National Liberal. His commitment to various forms of self-determination was very strong. Hopefully we’ll return to this theme sometime in the near future).

To some extent, these political descriptions don’t really matter. What does is that – during his brief time in office – Sankara transformed the course of his country and inspired generations across the continent and beyond.

EARLY LIFE, MILITARY CAREER & THE ROAD TO REVOLUTION

Thomas Isidore Noël Sankara was born on December 21, 1949, in Yako, a town in colonial Upper Volta (now Burkina Faso). He was raised in a modest family—his father was a gendarme, and his mother managed the household.

Sankara was the third of ten children, and his parents stressed the importance of education, discipline, and social justice. He excelled academically and attended a seminary, where he considered joining the priesthood before deciding on a military career.

In 1966, he joined the military academy of Kadiogo, where he was introduced to politics and the works of anti-colonial revolutionaries. His training took him to Madagascar, where he witnessed major student uprisings and the fall of a government, events that profoundly shaped his worldview. Exposed to socialist philosophy, Sankara returned to Upper Volta with a deep sense of political purpose.

By the late 1970s, Upper Volta was a country mired in poverty, corruption, and political instability. The nation gained independence from France in 1960, but it remained economically dependent and politically fragmented. The military frequently intervened in politics, and Sankara quickly rose through the ranks, earning a reputation for discipline, integrity, and intelligence.

In 1981, he was appointed Secretary of State for Information in a new government. However, he soon resigned in protest over government repression of striking workers. He became Prime Minister in 1983 under President Jean-Baptiste Ouédraogo but was dismissed and placed under house arrest for his outspoken views and criticism of the government’s policies.

It was during this period that Sankara’s popularity soared, especially among young people, students, workers, and the poor. On 4th August, 1983, with the support of fellow officers and the backing of leftist groups, Captain Thomas Sankara led a coup d’état that overthrew the government, establishing the National Council of the Revolution (CNR).

DIGNITY, SELF-RELIANCE & JUSTICE

Once in power, Sankara embarked on a radical transformation of the country. He renamed Upper Volta as ‘Burkina Faso,’ (meaning ‘Land of Upright People’ in the local Mossi and Dioula languages). This symbolic act marked the beginning of a new era, focused on dignity, self-reliance, and justice.

From the start, his government launched an ambitious program of economic, social, and cultural renewal. He aimed to break the chains of colonial dependence and eliminate corruption at all levels. Some of his most significant reforms included:

Land Redistribution and Food Self-Sufficiency: Sankara confiscated land from feudal landlords and redistributed it to peasants, greatly increasing agricultural productivity. His Grow What You Eat and Eat What You Grow campaign led to a dramatic rise in food production. Indeed, Burkina Faso became nearly self-sufficient in staple foods by 1986.

.
Vaccination and Health Initiatives: In one of the most successful public health campaigns in Africa, Sankara’s government vaccinated between two – three million children against meningitis, yellow fever, and measles in just a few weeks.
Women’s Rights: Sankara was a tireless advocate for gender equality. He outlawed forced marriages and female genital mutilation (FGM), promoted female education, appointed women to prominent government positions, and encouraged women to work outside the home and join the military. He famously declared, “The revolution and women’s liberation go together. We do not talk of women’s emancipation as an act of charity or out of a surge of human compassion. It is a basic necessity for the revolution to triumph.
Environmental Initiatives: Recognising the looming threat of desertification, Sankara launched a massive tree-planting programme, creating “green belts” to combat the desert and conserve the environment. (It’s thought that around ten million trees were planted during this initiative.)
Infrastructure and Public Works: The government built railways, schools, health clinics, and water reservoirs, largely through mass mobilisation and voluntary labour. It’s said that Sankara wanted to build a railroad to develop a rare-earth metal mine in Burkina Faso. However, the World Bank refused to loan the money. Therefore, he got a pick and shovel and started building the railroad by hand himself!
Anti-Corruption Measures: Sankara led by example, reducing his own salary, banning government limousines, and selling off the fleet of Mercedes cars for more modest Renault 5s. Civil servants were required to swear an oath of honesty, and government waste was drastically reduced. In particular, he curtailed the traditional powers of tribal chiefs, who were seen by many as corrupt.

All of the above measures would’ve attracted the unwelcome attention of the usual imperialist powers. To make things worse (for those imperialist powers, and ultimately Sankara himself) was Sankara’s staunch opposition to neo-colonialism and foreign domination.

For instance, he rejected foreign aid that came with conditions, arguing that it fostered dependency. He called on African nations to refuse to pay their foreign debts, which he saw as a tool of exploitation.

His bold stance earned him admiration from radical movements worldwide, though it also isolated Burkina Faso from Western powers and the conservative regimes of neighbouring countries.

His simple lifestyle, fiery speeches, and unwavering commitment to justice made him an icon among the youth and marginalized of Africa. He played the guitar, cycled to work, and encouraged self-reliance at every level of society. His government was among the first to promote women’s rights, environmentalism, and anti-corruption as core state policies in Africa.

ASSINATION & AFTERMATH

On October 15, 1987, Thomas Sankara was assassinated during a coup led by his former friend and colleague, Blaise Compaoré. Many believe the coup was backed by foreign interests – we have no doubt that France, the US & UK would’ve been close to the action – threatened by Sankara’s uncompromising stance on debt and foreign meddling. After his death, many of his reforms were rolled back, and Compaoré ruled for nearly three decades.

Despite his short time in power, Thomas Sankara’s legacy endures. He is revered by many across Africa and the world as a symbol of honesty, self-sacrifice, and revolutionary change. His speeches and policies continue to inspire activists fighting for social justice, pan-Africanism, and anti-imperialism.

Festivals, documentaries, books, and even hip-hop music have kept his memory alive. Statues and murals honour his legacy in Burkina Faso and abroad. In recent years, the Burkinabé people (as the people of Burkina Faso are called) have sought justice for his assassination. In 2022, Blaise Compaoré and several others were convicted in absentia for their roles in Sankara’s murder.

We believe that Thomas Sankara’s story is a testament to the transformative power of visionary leadership, selflessness, and courage. Though his time was brief, his ideals live on. With all this in mind, we feel that Thomas Sankara is indeed a worthy ‘Point of Reference’ for National Liberals.

Date: August 13, 2025

Categories: Articles

Stop Discriminating Against Cash Users At Self-Checkouts – Sign The Petition!

OUR ATTENTION has been drawn to an online petition which may be of interest to our readers.

We believe that consumers must be able to choose what payment method they want to use.

The petition – Stop Discriminating Against Cash Users At Self-Checkouts– calls on UK supermarkets to stop limiting cash payments at self-checkouts, ensuring that all customers, such as the elderly and people with disabilities, have equal access to payment options.

As National Liberals we believe that consumers must be able to choose what payment method they want to use.

Therefore, we have absolutely no problem if someone wants to live their life paying by card. However, we feel that consumers must always be allowed the option to pay by cash.

We realise that many people believe that paying by card is quick & easy. However, we remain wary of the intentions of large corporations who may use card payment schemes as an excuse to get rid of workers.

We feel that these corporations have a moral & social responsibility to their customers, the local community & their workforce.

The petition reads:

We, the undersigned, are calling on UK supermarkets to stop limiting access to cash payments at self-checkouts.

More and more stores are installing banks of card-only self-checkouts, with just one or two accepting cash – or none at all.

This creates a two-tier system that unfairly penalises:

• Older people who rely on cash

• People with disabilities or mental health conditions who need to budget manually

• Those on Universal Credit or without full access to banking

• Anyone who prefers cash for budgeting, privacy, or safety

Cash remains legal tender. Yet supermarkets are quietly making it harder – and slower – to use.

We are not against digital payments – we’re against having no choice. No one should be forced into a cashless system.

We demand:

• That all self-checkout areas include a fair number of cash-accepting tills – not just one token machine

• Clear signage showing where people can pay with cash

• A commitment from supermarkets to protect freedom of payment for all customers

• Money is money. Inclusion matters. Choice matters.

• Sign this petition to stand up for equal access and payment rights – and to say no to cash discrimination.

• You can sign the online petition here: https://www.change.org/p/stop-discriminating-against-cash-users-at-self-checkouts

Date: July 23, 2025

Categories: Articles

Distributism: An Alternative Approach to Economic Justice

Hilaire Belloc (left) and G.K. Chesterton (right) were the main advocates of the alternative economic idea known as distributism. They were opposed to capitalism – where property & assets are in the hands of a few – and socialism and communism – where property & assets are in the hands of the state (and party bosses). Distributism stands in favour of property and productive assets being in the hands of the many.
(Picture Credits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilaire_Belloc#/media/File:Hilaire_Belloc_(side_view,_1910).jpg & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#/media/File:Gilbert_Chesterton.jpg Fair Use)

DISTRIBUTISM is an economic philosophy and doctrine. It advocates for a more widespread distribution of property and productive assets among individuals. It stands in opposition to capitalism – where property & assets are in the hands of a few – and socialism and communism – where property & assets are in the hands of the state (and party bosses).

Distributism has its roots in Catholic social teaching. It was developed primarily in the early twentieth century by thinkers such as G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc. Distributism offers a ‘third way’ between laissez-faire capitalism and state socialism. Its central aim is to create a society in which individuals and families are empowered to own and manage property, thereby fostering economic justice, personal freedom, and social stability.

HISTORICAL ORIGINS

Distributism arose as a response to the social and economic upheavals of the Industrial Revolution and the rise of both aggressive capitalism and collectivist socialism.

These two dominant economies of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries had (in the eyes of Chesterton & Belloc) failed to address the needs of the vast majority of people. They believed that capitalism led to the accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of a small elite or corporations. Socialism, on the other hand, risked stifling individuality and personal responsibility through excessive state control.

The philosophical foundation of distributism is found in Catholic encyclicals, particularly Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum (1891) and Pope Pius XI’s Quadragesimo Anno (1931). These documents emphasized the dignity of work, the rights and responsibilities of property ownership, and the perils of both unbridled capitalism and state-controlled economies.

KEY THINKERS

As we noted earlier, distributism is normally associated with G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc. So, who were they?

G.K. Chesterton (1874 – 1936) was an English writer and philosopher. He provided a passionate defence of distributism, arguing for the preservation of small property and the importance of family, community, and tradition.

Hilaire Belloc (1870 – 1953) was a prolific historian and essayist, Belloc critiqued both capitalist and socialist systems for their dehumanising effects, advocating instead for a society of owners rather than wage slaves.

PRINCIPLES OF DISTRIBUTISM

Distributism is characterised by several fundamental principles that distinguish it from other economic models:

Widespread Property Ownership. The core of distributist thought is that productive property (land, tools, businesses) should be owned by as many people as possible, rather than concentrated in the hands of a few or the state.

Support for Small Businesses and Cooperatives. Distributists oppose monopolies and oligopolies (a market structure where a few firms control prices and output). Instead, they support a vibrant economy made up of small businesses, family farms, and worker-owned cooperatives.

Family and Localism. The family is seen as the natural and fundamental unit of society. Policies and practices should support family stability and enable families to own property and earn a living.

Subsidiarity. Decisions should be made at the most local level possible. Here, communities are empowered – rather than distant authorities or centralised corporations.

Harmony with Nature. Distributism encourages stewardship of the environment and responsible land use, often aligning with agrarian or ecological principles.

Ethics in Economics. Economic actions are viewed through a moral lens. Here, the focus is on justice, human dignity, and the common good (as opposed to outright greed).

DISTRIBUTISM IN PRACTICE

While distributism is primarily a philosophy, it has inspired practical movements and policies. Its influence can be seen in various cooperative and credit union movements, land reform initiatives, and localist economic strategies. Some concrete examples include:

Worker Cooperatives. Enterprises owned and managed by their employees, sharing profits and decision-making.

Credit Unions. Financial institutions owned by members, providing community-oriented financial services.

Community Land Trusts. Organizations that acquire and steward land for the benefit of local residents, ensuring affordable housing and local enterprise.

Smallholder Agriculture. Support for family farms and local food systems as opposed to industrial agribusiness.

CONTRASTS WITH OTHER ECONOMIC SYSTEMS

Distributism is distinct from both capitalism and socialism:

Versus Capitalism. While capitalism values private property, in practice it tends to concentrate ownership and create wage dependency. Distributism seeks to decentralise ownership and encourage economic self-sufficiency.

Versus Socialism. Socialism often involves state ownership or control of productive assets. Distributism, by contrast, insists that property and productive assets should remain in private hands but be widely distributed.

CRITICISMS

Distributism, like any other economic system, has its critics. Some argue that its vision of an economy dominated by smallholders and cooperatives is unrealistic in a modern, globalised world characterised by economies of scale and technological complexity.

Others point out potential difficulties in preventing the re-concentration of wealth over time, as well as challenges in transitioning from existing economic structures to a distributist model.

Nevertheless, supporters argue that distributism provides an alternative & persuasive way of addressing rising inequality, environmental degradation, and the erosion of community and family life.

Distributistism reconsiders economic priorities and values in a novel way. It strongly emphases that economies exist to serve people – and not the other way around.

LEGACY

While not widely adopted as an official economic policy, distributist ideas have experienced periodic revivals. Thos is particularly ao in times of social or economic crisis. The 2008 financial crisis and subsequent debates about inequality and corporate power brought renewed interest in distributist principles, especially among those seeking alternatives to both neoliberal capitalism and statist solutions.

Contemporary advocates often emphasise the compatibility of distributism with movements for economic democracy, sustainability, and community resilience. In the United Kingdom, parts of Europe, and North America, distributist thought influences discussions around localism, cooperative economics, and ethical business practices.

CONCLUSION

Distributism stands as a unique and morally grounded alternative to dominant capitalism & communism/socialism. It values broad property ownership, family and community life, subsidiarity, and ethics in economics. In doing so, it seeks to build a more just and resilient society. While it faces significant practical challenges, distributism’s vision remains relevant for those who seek to build an alternative economy.

Date: July 1, 2025

Categories: Articles

For Self-Determination & Peace!

TWO DAYS AGO, Nations without States – NwS – held a very successful conference, in Slough, Berkshire.

Some of the speakers & delegates – representing different nations and peoples – at a recent ‘Self-Determination & Peace’ conference. Nations & peoples are rooted in positive aspects – such as ancestry, heritage and ethnicity. Therefore, self-determinists reject negative aspects, like colonialism, imperialism & forced migration (which are ultimately driven by capitalism) as well as all forms of hatred. True self-determinists are motivated by love & not hate.

The ‘Self-Determination & Peace’ conference was jointly organised with the New World Human Rights Watch & the Mustaqbill Foundation.

The meeting included speakers & delegates representing different nations & peoples including Ahwazi Arabs (from Iran), England, Kashmiris, Sikhs, & Tamils.

The meeting – which sought to promote the idea that self-determination is the only way to achieve peace – featured several speakers.

One of the most well-known was Dr. Sockalingham ‘Yogi’ Yogaligam, who is the President of Movement for Self-Determination of Tamil Eelam (MSDTE) & a Committee Member of Nations without States.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION

Speaking specifically about the plight of the Tamils (of North & East of Sri Lanka) Yogi noted that their ‘fundamental right to self-determination has been denied, suppressed, and violently resisted.’

He continued by stressing that the ‘Tamil people of the island of Sri Lanka are a distinct nation. We have our own language, our own homeland, our own historical consciousness.’

All those who support the concept of self-determination will know that a common language, homeland & historical consciousness form the building blocks of any nation.

Nations & peoples are rooted in positive aspects – such as ancestry, heritage and ethnicity. Therefore, self-determinists reject negative aspects, like colonialism, imperialism & forced migration (which are ultimately driven by capitalism) as well as all forms of hatred.

Echoing this theme (and once again using the plight of the Tamils as an example) Yogi stated that peace ‘must be built on truth, accountability, and recognition. Recognition of the Tamil nation. Recognition of our right to decide our future. Recognition that reconciliation cannot be built on denial.’

TRUTH IS ON OUR SIDE

He concluded by stressing that gaining self-determination can be a long and difficult journey. However, ‘truth is on our side. And truth, when pursued with determination and unity, cannot be extinguished’.

As we’ve previously noted, Yogi’s speech specifically related to the Tamils & their quest for nationhood. It’s something that all self-determinists can relate to. To illustrate this, the ‘Self-Determination & Peace’ conference was held in Berkshire, England. Yet England is the only ‘Home Nation’ that isn’t self-governing! (Scotland, Ulster & Wales all have their own assembly or parliament. Westminster, whilst located in England, is not an English parliament but a UK one.)

The meeting concluded by unanimously passing the following resolution:

‘We the attendees of Self-Determinist (SD) Conference in Slough 15/06/25 agree that the greatest contribution to Peace right now in the world is the peaceful implementation of SD everywhere e.g. a referendum on Khalistan (in India) and a plebiscite in Kashmir as mandated by the UN.’

Date: June 17, 2025

Categories: Articles

The House Of Lords – Should It Stay Or Should It Go? Part 7

There are 650 seats in parliament. In the 2019 general election, the Conservative Party – under the leadership of Boris Johnson – won 43.6% of the vote. This gave them a majority of 80 seats. In the 2024 general election, Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour Party won 411 seats. This represented a massive 174-seat majority. To stop any government with a super majority bulldozing legislation through a series of checks & balances is required. But is the House of Lords up to the job?
Picture Credits:
Boris Johnson https://www.thelist.com /928949/boris-johnsons-former-staffer-reveals-gruesome-secrets-about-the-partygate-scandal/
Sir Keir Starmer Picture Credit: https://www.indy100.com/politics/keir-starmer-tuition-fees-university

WE FEEL that a majority of people would agree that there needs to be a series of checks & balances on the House of Commons. This is particularly so when one party has such a majority that it can literally bulldoze legislation through.

However, many people believe that the body set up to run these checks & balances – the House of Lords – is a ‘controversial’ institution.

With the above in mind, we’ve been running a series of articles looking at the constitutional & historical reasons why the Lords was established as well as examining both the pros & cons of the institution itself.

‘CONTROVERSIAL’

So, why do some people believe that the House of Lords is controversial? There are many reasons – but most centre on issues relating to democracy, accountability, and tradition versus modernisation.

They include:

• DEMOCRATIC LEGITIMACY. Unlike the House of Commons, the members of the House of Lords are not elected by the public. Instead, many are appointed, or are given seats due to their status or contributions.

This raises concerns about whether it is fair or appropriate for unelected individuals to have a say in making or revising laws that affect everyone.

• INHERITED PRIVILEGE vs. MERITOCRACY. The presence of hereditary peers — those who inherit their seats — has been criticised as an outdated practice that favors privilege and family background over merit.

This debate often reflects broader philosophical questions about whether modern governance should be based on merit and expertise or tradition and inheritance.

• POTENTIAL FOR UNDERMINING DEMOCRACY. Some argue that having an unelected chamber with the power to amend or delay legislation passed by the elected House of Commons can undermine the will of the people and democratic accountability.

• COST & EFFICIENCY. Critics also point to the financial cost of maintaining the House of Lords and question whether it is necessary in a modern democracy.

Some advocate for a unicameral (single-chamber) system, believing it would be more efficient and cost-effective.

• ROLE & PURPOSE. While supporters say the House of Lords provides valuable expertise and a check on the elected government, its exact role and influence remain a topic of debate.

Proposals have included transforming it into an advisory council without legislative power or abolishing it altogether in favour of a single legislative chamber.

ABOLISH THE HOUSE OF LORDS?

Those who have concerns about the Lords tend to fall into two camps: Reformists and Abolitionists.

Last month we looked at the main proposals of those who want reform. They included transforming the House of Lords into an elected Senate, creating an independent commission responsible for appointing non-partisan members of the upper chamber & gradually phasing out the hereditary peerage system.

PROPOSALS

We will now look at the proposals of those who want to completely abolish the House of Lords. Here, there seems to be two main strands of thought:

• ESTABLISH AN ADVISORY COUNCIL. One radical alternative is to transform the House of Lords into an advisory council with no legislative power.

This body would consist of experts, former politicians, and distinguished individuals who would provide advice and recommendations on proposed legislation.

While they would not have the power to amend or reject bills, their insights could inform debates in the House of Commons and enhance the quality of the legislative process.

Those who promote the idea of an advisory council believe that it could preserve the expertise and experience of the current House of Lords without undermining democratic accountability.

• SINGLE LEGISLATIVE CHAMBER. Some advocates argue for a unicameral system (1). This would eliminate the need for an upper chamber altogether. Under this model, the House of Commons would become the sole legislative body, with all members elected by the public.

Those who support this idea claim that it’ll streamline the legislative process, reduces costs, and ensure that all political power is derived directly from the electorate (as all members of the single chamber are typically elected by the public). This approach is seen as promoting more efficient governance and a straightforward democratic framework.

• To be continued.

(1) A unicameral system is a type of legislative structure in which there is only one legislative chamber or house. In this system, all legislative responsibilities—such as debating, amending, and passing laws—are carried out by a single body, rather than being divided between two separate chambers, as is the case with a bicameral system (like the UK Parliament’s House of Commons and House of Lords).

• THIS ARTICLE should be read in conjunction with the following:

The House Of Lords – Should It Stay Or Should It Go? Part 1 https://nationalliberal.org/the-house-of-lords-should-it-stay-or-should-it-go-part-1

The House Of Lords – Should It Stay Or Should It Go? Part 2 https://nationalliberal.org/the-house-of-lords-should-it-stay-or-should-it-go-part-2

The House Of Lords – Should It Stay Or Should It Go? Part 3 https://nationalliberal.org/the-house-of-lords-should-it-stay-or-should-it-go-part-3

The House Of Lords – Should It Stay Or Should It Go? Part 4 https://nationalliberal.org/the-house-of-lords-should-it-stay-or-should-it-go-part-4

The House Of Lords – Should It Stay Or Should It Go? Part 5

https://nationalliberal.org/the-house-of-lords-should-it-stay-or-should-it-go-part-5

The House Of Lords – Should It Stay Or Should It Go? Part 6 https://nationalliberal.org/the-house-of-lords-should-it-stay-or-should-it-go-part-6

Date: June 3, 2025

Categories: Articles

From The Liberty Wall – Nations without States – Nasser’s Grandson Warns Of US-Led Neocolonialism

NATIONS WITHOUT STATES recently came across this interesting article which featured on RT (Russia Today). It takes the form of an interview with Gamal Abdel Nasser Jr., who is the grandson of the former Egyptian President, Colonel Gamal Abdel Nasser (1918 – 1970).

As self-determinists we regard Colonel Nasser as an important ‘point of reference’. By point of reference, we mean that he said (and did) things that we find of great interest.

He was an Arab Nationalist who had a deep & genuine love for – and loyalty to – his nation and people. He promoted social justice & modernisation in Egypt & encouraged Arab unity.

He was also opposed to colonialism & imperialism (which are ultimately driven by capitalism). This brought him into conflict with Britain, France & Israel who wanted to redraw the map of the Middle East and bring about regime change in Egypt.

Self-determinists believe that ‘what is right for me is right for you’. Therefore, we’d encourage readers to carefully consider what Gamal Abdel Nasser Jr. says, particularly in respect of the globalist elites & the way they want to control the natural resources of the Middle East & Africa.

The original interview can be found here https://www.rt.com/africa/618119-us-neo-colonialism-africa/

& we invite readers to leave their comments on the National Liberal Party Facebook page here https://www.facebook.com/NationalLiberalParty or on the National Liberals Facebook page here https://www.facebook.com/groups/52739504313

It goes without saying that Nations without States understands that RT is a state-controlled media outlet. To us, it’s effectively the Russian equivalent of the BBC. It also goes without saying that there are no links between RT, Gamal Abdel Nasser Jr. & Nations without States.

From The Liberty Wall – Nations without States – Nasser’s Grandson Warns Of US-Led Neocolonialism

A new form of empire created by globalist elites continues to oppress Africa through sanctions, finance, and media, Gamal Abdel Nasser Jr. has told RT

The US has evolved from a former colony into a leading neocolonial power, Gamal Abdel Nasser Jr. has told RT.

Egyptian President, Colonel Gamal Abdel Nasser (top) & his grandson Gamal Abdel Nasser Jr. (below). President Nasser was an Arab Nationalist who loved his people & nation. He was opposed to colonialism & imperialism which brought him into conflict with Britain, France & Israel.
His grandson tells of how a new form of empire is being created by globalist elites who want control the natural resources of the Middle East & Africa.
(Picture credits: Colonel Gamal Abdel Nasser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Gamal_Abdel_Nasser#/media/File:Stevan_Kragujevic,_Gamal_Abdel_Naser_u_Beogradu,_1962.jpg Fair Use. Gamal Abdel Nasser Jr., https://www.rt.com/ africa/618119-us-neo-colonialism-africa/ Fair Use.)

In an exclusive interview ahead of International Africa Day, the grandson and namesake of Egypt’s second president and leader of the 1952 Revolution warned that today’s empires no longer rely on direct conflicts, but dominate through international institutions, sanctions, and economic control.

According to Nasser, the legacy of anti-colonial resistance must be revived in the face of modern Western domination, which disguises itself under terms like ‘progress’, ‘human rights’, and ‘globalization’.

”My grandfather shattered the myth that the West’s authority was absolute,” he said, recalling how the 1956 nationalization of the Suez Canal was not just about infrastructure, but about “reclaiming national dignity” and challenging imperial power. “He broke the mental monopoly that had long told our people they cannot resist… cannot rule their own destiny.”

He went on to say that “a new form of dominance” has returned through media, schools, and international institutions that dictate values and erase cultural heritage. He argued that today’s Western “globalist elites” have replaced the colonial powers by telling nations how to live, what to believe, and trying to “rewrite culture, biology, and morality.”

He stressed that the US – once a colony – has now inherited the role of imperial enforcer, particularly in the Middle East and Africa. Nasser accused Washington of using international policy, sanctions, and military operations to intimidate or replace those who have power to suit its own needs.

He went on to say that every recent US campaign in the region has been linked to natural resources, including in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Gaza, which US President Donald Trump recently suggested turning into a Middle Eastern Riviera under Washington’s control. According to Nasser, these are all examples of resource-driven agendas masked as humanitarian intervention.

”The notion that America could just own a sovereign territory further adds to the suspicion that there is a strong neocolonial tendency on the part of the US and its old colonial allies,” Nasser said, adding that this new Western “tyranny… will one day collapse.”

“The revolutionary spirit must rise again… A new generation is awakening, proud of their roots, unafraid to speak, and unafraid to think freely. The monopoly of minds, like the colonialism before it, will surely fall. And when it does, the world will remember that freedom begins with the courage to say no,” he stated.

Date: May 27, 2025

Categories: Articles

Categories

Recent Blog Posts

“While revolutionaries as individuals can be murdered, you cannot kill ideas.”

TWO DAYS AGO, Nations without States – NwS – held a very successful conference, in Slough, Berkshire.

From The Liberty Wall – Nations without States – Nasser’s Grandson Warns Of US-Led Neocolonialism