Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

analysis of affairs in Mauritania

Expand Messages
  • thekoba@aztecfreenet.org
    ... Dear Eric, ... occupation of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, with the scandalous collaboration of the Ugandan government. The French know from
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 8, 2003
      >Dear Kevin,
      >Good luck with the job interview, though failing to
      >give you the address does not bode well. Another
      >scatterbrain at the very least.
      >I was searching for information on Mauritania and
      >tomorrow's newspapers don't have anything more,
      >really. It would have been better if the rebels had
      >got on the radio to broadcast that they were in
      >control, to call for popular support or something.
      >That tends to help tip the way the military initiative
      >can run.
      >Particularly as I'm sure Paris and Washington are busy
      >with this, and Tel Aviv too, I suppose. The regime in
      >Nuwakashout has some sort of defense agreement with
      >the French and it's not even impossible that Paris
      >would want to send in troops to "protect the
      >innocent," while reinstalling the Jewish-imperialist
      >puppet on his throne.

      Dear Eric,

      >From what I've read, Paris is busy with a military
      occupation of the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
      with the scandalous collaboration of the Ugandan
      government. The French know from experience what a
      hyperextended military can mean (shades of Dien Bien
      Phu). Unlike Bush, Chirac seems to be an imperialist
      with some common sense.

      >But who knows? In a poor place like that, maybe a
      >radio address wouldn't do as much as actual street
      >politics or something. I just hope that this Salih
      >walad Hananah has more than a few tanks behind him.
      >I suppose it could be worse. He could have pledged his
      >undying loyalty to the US and France in a bid to get
      >their support for his coup. Since he did not, we must
      >take that as a positive political sign, I suppose, at
      >least regarding his intentions.
      >Now we need a sign that he can manage the situation.
      >Anyhow, searching for Mauritania information, I found
      >a website for a Marxist-Leninist Moroccan party. They
      >seemed mildly interesting, but pretty old-fashiond and
      >"typical" as leftists. For example the word "Arab"
      >didn't appear on any of their pages that I looked at -
      >it was all "Moroccan." That suggests an old-fashioned
      >dogmatic leftist aversion to Arab nationalism, when
      >Arab nationalism is simply an aspect of decolonisation
      >applied to the Arab nation. So my feeling was that
      >they probably have a way to go.

      It sounds bad, but I'm given to understand that Morocco
      has a substantial Berber minority. Perhaps they didn't
      want to offend them, just as Iraq is not called an "Arab"
      republic so as not to offend Kurds, Assyrians, Turks and

      >On something of a plus side, rather than link to the
      >Iraqi Communist Party or some other CP, they had a
      >link to an interview with the PFLP's General
      >Secretary, Ahmad Saadat, that I hadn't read. So there
      >might be hope for that Moroccan party, eventually.
      >The Saadat interview (eight pages) was good but a
      >typical statement from him. So in addition to
      >lambasting the Road map, he again called for
      >supplanting the US with the United Nations and
      >international law and the UN resolutions that speak of
      >a Palestinian state with secure borders.
      >I can't see the use in all that. We all know that if
      >the UN defined those borders they would at best be the
      >borders of 1967 and that would mean that any
      >transgression against 1948 "Israel" would thereafter
      >be doubly forbidden.
      >We might have stomached that sort of resolution back
      >during the Soviet days but now this is silly. The US
      >runs the UN and determines what international law is.
      >Saadat called for the UN to force "Israel" to comply
      >with UN resolutions! In Soviet days that would mean
      >that the USSR would need to push the UN to do
      >something against the will of the US. So it was in
      >the realm of the very difficult but not totally
      >Today, though, who is going to push the UN to disobey

      A bunch of double-talking liberals who are either too
      stupid to know better or too hypocritical to care.
      Saadat should know better. I have some sympathy for
      him, because he's imprisoned under terrible conditions,
      but he should know better that to talk such nonsense.

      >Taking political positions is not a matter of being
      >"correct" in some philosophical, abstract sense, but
      >in finding out how to get from where we are to where
      >we want to be. Talking about the UN now is not such a
      >way. It is hiding from the real problem under a cover
      >of rhetoric.
      >I think this whole thing is part of the PFLP's effort
      >to win support among western leftists. They talk
      >about the need to do that. But putting the matter
      >that way makes it a lost cause.
      >What they need to do is stake out their just position
      >and then let western "leftist" people follow or not as
      >they chose.
      >If they really are progresive, they will join the
      >Palestinian people in saying that the resolutions of
      >the UN that created "Israel" in 1947 and 1948 were
      >colonialist resolutions born of a colonialist epoch
      >and justified by the holohoax lies.
      >They will realise if they are materialists that the
      >fact that the USSR participated in creating the Jewish
      >racist state and participated in perpetrating the
      >holohoax lies is an embarrassment, a mistake, but like
      >all errors, it is not something that we want to
      >reproduce over and over again. Half a century of
      >experience should have taught us something. If not,
      >if we think it is just fine to regurgitate UN
      >resolutions of 1948 that justified a Jewish colonial
      >state, then we are not materialists.
      >As to those "leftists" and "progressives" who have to
      >be placated by limiting Palestinian liberation to a
      >small section of Palestine occupied in 1967, or who
      >insist that the Jewish people have an equal right to
      >live in Palestine with the native population, such
      >people are in the enemy camp -- objectively if not
      >subjectively. There is no advantage gained in winning
      >them over because the price is to hobble the
      >Palestinian struggle, indeed not hobble it, but chain
      >it precisely to the Jewish state.
      >That, also does no favour to genuine western leftists,
      >few of such people though there may be, who are
      >interested in freeing themselves and their people of
      >the yoke of capital, including of Jewish capital,
      >which has its own particular methods and role. The
      >sooner the left understands the role of Jewish
      >supremacy as a part of the globalist capitalist ruling
      >order, the sooner they will be able to work out
      >pathways and coalitions that can facilitate their
      >Right now the left is mainly concerned with proving to
      >the Jews that they are not "anti-Semitic." That is
      >worse than a waste of time. It is actually a sort of
      >Uncle Tom-ing by gentiles towards the Jews. The Jews
      >are a part of the ruling imperialist class. They are
      >not an oppressed minority.
      >But because the western left is busy tying its destiny
      >to the Jewish people, it can never free the western
      >masses from capitalism, because even if they could
      >eliminate all of gentile capital, they would pass by
      >the offices of the Jewish capitalists, apologising if
      >they made too much noise out in the hallway.
      >Oh, by the way, I checked out David Irving's website
      >and found the reference to Lenni Brenner and also to
      >some Canadian Jew whom Irving invited and who also
      >replied with an obscenity.
      >Did you get Irving's German remark back at that guy,
      >the quote from Hitler about some of his generals?
      >"You nice folks appear to inhabit a very small, small
      >world, mit dem Horizont eines Klosettendeckels."
      >It basically means, I believe, "with the horizon of a
      >flushtoilet." :-) Very apt!

      Thank you for explaining that remark. I did not understand
      enough German to comprehend it.


    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.