analysis of affairs in Mauritania
>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
>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.
>From what I've read, Paris is busy with a militaryoccupation 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 aIt sounds bad, but I'm given to understand that Morocco
>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.
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 theA bunch of double-talking liberals who are either too
>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
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 beingThank you for explaining that remark. I did not understand
>"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
>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
>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!
enough German to comprehend it.