Sunday 20th of June 2021

the gaddafi chronicles...

gaddafigaddafi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In 2011, the West declared war on Gaddafi, under the pretext of saving “his” people whom he had gone to fight against. The people that Gaddafi was fighting against were Jihadists, extremists and Al Qaeda that had declared war on him. Gaddafi has been the “bête noire” of the West for a long time while various leaders from Blair to Sarkozy used Gaddafi as a prop/foil. We know that Sarkozy got many million of dollars from Gaddafi to be used illegally in his campaign to be reelected President of France. Sarko is still before the French courts…. 

 

Gaddafi was a very clever man. He had led Libya into the 21st century with ideas that were contrary to the US Empire. He was accused of many sins, including the Lockerbie bombing which is unlikely that he ordered it. Meanwhile the Empire bombed his palaces in "measured retribution” and killed (say murdered) some of his heirs. Gaddafi was astute enough to “live under a tent which was rarely in the same place twice” making raids on his persona somewhat difficult. So why did the West (say the US Empire) hate Gaddafi to the point of helping Al Qaeda and other extremists in 2011? The Empire did not send troops on the ground, but used these terrorists groups as proxies, while the Empire bombed Gaddafi’s armies, from the air. 

 

Meanwhile the Western media had done their job since day one parroting the CIA and Pentagon mantra that Gaddafi was a bad guy. So why did the West (say the US Empire) hate Gaddafi so much? There are several reasons:

 

Under Gaddafi, Libya was “independent” of the Western debt system imposed on developing countries through the IMF and the World Bank. This annoyed the Empire… Libya was making a lot of money by selling its oil. 

 

Gaddafi was turning Libya into a model for other African countries to follow. This was a no-no…

 

At some point, Gaddafi started to make gel a Pan-African conglomerate, akin to the European Union. This was anathema to the Empire. Divide and conquer… 

 

As well, Gaddafi, was about to create a Pan-African currency, free of the clutches of the US dollar. Saddam Hussein had also tried to free Iraq from the US dollar influence and we know what followed. Saddam was eradicated in an illegal war waged by a “coalition of willing” under FALSE PRETENCES OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION in which Australia played a very shameful game (with glory of course — read the epitaphs on the war memorials — Australia being very good with spending cash on war memorials). 

 

Gaddafi at some stage was also accused of trying to get his hands on uranium to make bombs, but by 2003, he made a deal with Blair that he would give up his quest (by fudging the stock he did not have)… Then Gaddafi continued to make Libya progressive to the annoyance of “traditionalist” (I was going to say "backwards" but this would have been too kind) Muslims. More about this later on...

 

Gaddafi was using a lot of African people to help build modern Libya. Their low pay was enough for them to live well in Libya and send cash to their relatives in their countries of origin. When the bombing started to prevent Gaddafi from winning (which he was) the civil war engineered by the West through their terrorist friends, the Saudis/Wahhabis/Sunnis/Al Qaeda, etc., the Africans in Libya ended up with a terrible choice of which becoming refugees in Europe was the best, even if they would drown in large number while attempting the crossing… 

 

One wonders if this was not another part of the US Empire game to flood Europe with a “refugee” problem… and create discord in between the EU members as well. This eventually led to BREXIT… Think about it…

 

When the West started to do the same capers in Syria, the Russians stepped in. Our Western media are crap. We know this through countless stories of disinformation that cropped up everywhere, from the “decent” trustworthy New York Times to the Guardian, Le Monde, etc and of course the Murdoch media. The spatula of fake information was working overtime, including “Assad gases his own people”… 

 

Russian intervention was somewhat surgical and helped get rid of the main terrorists, Daesh, ISIL, ISIS and other “moderates” rebels that the US had created, supported and armed… There could still be (there are) a lot of “rebels” (mostly terrorists from other Arab countries) in Syria that the US army is protecting in “refugee” camps and that the Turks are protecting in Idlib. Meanwhile the USA are stealing as much as possible of the Syrian oil to fund these rebels groups, including the Kurds (which the Turks treat as terrorists).

 

Had the rebels in Syria been allowed to win, many of the “other ethnic groups” (including Christians — they are used to be martyred, don’t they) would have been eradicated. This is a given. The Russians went to help the Syrian government on several levels. One was a moral obligation to protect a friendly country under attack from the Empire, by terrorist proxies... Another front was to protect their own interests in the regions such as the Tartus Harbour which is the only Med Russian base. The next level was to test their military might/hardware on a small scale, including defence of Damascus with S300 and powerful radar network, plus precision bombing of terrorists from high up with supersonic bombers and other planes. The destruction of the rebel tunnel networks (build with Lafarge cement) has been phenomenal.

 

Meanwhile, the Americans carried on playing a dirty double game — even the Australian airforce bombing the Syrian army “by mistake”, allowing for the rebels to retake the ruins of Palmyra, ever so briefly, from the Syrian forces… 

 

By then the instigators of these US wars in other countries were trying their hands at becoming “President” of the Empire. Let’s name one, Hillary Clinton, whose emails showed her dirty work, but the Western media were not going to indulge these because THEY LOVED THEIR FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT… Her flipflop about Benghazi should have been enough to get rid of her candidacy, but the liberal media was all too forgiving… 

 

Enter Rupert Murdoch and Trump gets the gig. All hell breaks loose in the liberal media. Russiagate, Ukrainegate, Capitolgate just to name a few of the “liberal” Democrat attempt to get rid of Donald via impeachments… As well, we had racistgate, BLMgate, Idiotgate, whatever could hurt Donald was thrown at him. In regard to the Ukrainegate impeachment, it is Joe Biden who should have been in the dock. Joe and his son HUNTER did the dirty in Ukraine to foster the influence of the Empire in that country, where Nazism still exists and was SUPPORTED BY THE USA  to create a “colour” revolution as they call these events fomented by outsiders… Gaddafi himself had been victim of such “colour” revolution. Here we must mention Gaddafi’s religious beliefs. 

 

Gaddafi proclaimed he was a Muslim, but for the extremists he was not “Muslim enough” despite having published his “Green Book” on the subject. A recent book exposes the possibility that Gaddafi was an existentialist — a philosophical position that would have pissed off everybody from the Christian US Empire to the Muslim Salafist/Wahhabi/Saudi hegemony. Read on...

 

GL.

Rabid atheist.

 

See also:  

hot deal...

 

 

Free Julian Assange Now *!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the outsider...

 

The Outsider

 

Gaddafi the scapegoat may not just be seen as a fellow traveler of existentialism, but as a late emanation of European Romanticism.

 

Gaddafi, Existentialist by Charlie Nash (Independent: 2021), 100 pages.

 

On October 20, 2011, the four-decade rule of Muammar Gaddafi came to a brutal end when Libyan rebels, supported by NATO bombers and Predator drones, captured, tortured, and killed the fugitive leader. A few days later, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took credit for his downfall with an infamous boast: “We came, we saw, he died.” But instead of the new democratic dawn envisioned by Western governments, Libya descended into prolonged, bloody civil war. Amidst the chaos, human trafficking and even open-air slave markets flourished. There’s a case to be made that the dream of liberal internationalism perished along with Gaddafi that day.

 

Gaddafi’s ignominious demise abruptly erased him from Western consciousness, where he had been a spectral presence for decades. The media alternated between presenting him as a buffoonish megalomaniac and as a dangerous madman. Under the Reagan administration, he took the blame for a series of terrorist attacks against the West, culminating in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. In his 2016 documentary HyperNormalisation, filmmaker Adam Curtis argued that U.S. propaganda had exaggerated Gaddafi’s role for strategic reasons: Libya’s relative isolation and distance from Western allies, especially Israel, made it a more convenient target for reprisals than other state sponsors of terror like Syria’s Hafez al-Assad. In the context of Cold War geopolitics, the man known as “The Colonel” took on the mythic role of the scapegoat king: the powerful insider who was at the same time an eccentric and despised outsider, and could therefore assume culpability for all manner of iniquities.

In his brief new biographical study, Gaddafi, Existentialist, journalist Charlie Nash offers an intriguing new perspective on his subject’s perpetual outsider status. At minimum, Nash demonstrates, Gaddafi was aware of existentialist philosophy and alluded to it in his writings and speeches. But perhaps, he speculates, Gaddafi was also a crypto-existentialist whose sensibility and governing philosophy was shaped by this intellectual tradition. Nash might have rendered the stakes of this line of inquiry more explicit—that is, why it would matter if Gaddafi was an existentialist. Instead, he frames the matter more as a personal obsession. The appeal of the book may therefore depend on the reader’s degree of curiosity about Gaddafi, existentialism, or both.

 

As Nash acknowledges, some will find the Gaddafi, Existentialist hypothesis implausible. Indeed, the Colonel himself preemptively rejected it, stating in one speech that existentialism “looks for the secret of existence, while we understand this secret and we do so through religion.” Gaddafi’s best-known articulation of his broader political philosophy was his “Green Book” (the title a nod to Mao’s “Little Red Book”). The “Third International Theory” he elaborated there was a variety of “third positionism” that claimed to use Islam to transcend the limitations of capitalism and communism. As Nash concedes, Gaddafi repeatedly insisted that the influences on his thought were not Western thinkers, but Islamic philosophy and the homespun wisdom of his native Bedouin culture. Nash’s inquiry into Gaddafi’s existentialism therefore runs up against his subject’s own denials of any debt to this (or any other) decadent Western philosophy.

Nevertheless, Nash reveals several elements of Gaddafi’s career that point to a relationship with existentialist thought. First, he examines several journalists’ and observers’ reports that the Libyan leader’s favorite book was Colin Wilson’s 1956 bestseller The Outsider, a primer on existentialism that rooted this philosophical tendency in the experience of social alienation. It’s plausible, Nash suggests, that he encountered Wilson’s book during his time studying in England in the mid-1960s, a stay in which he reportedly experienced the predicament examined by Wilson: the isolation and anomie of the inhabitant of the modern urban metropolis. But Gaddafi might just as easily have encountered the book before that. The Outsider was translated into Arabic soon after its publication. Its success made Wilson a cult figure in the Middle East, and toured Lebanon and Syria. According to a friend of Wilson’s interviewed by Nash, Gaddafi also invited the cult author to Libya, but he turned down the invitation.

 

This brings us to another piece of evidence for Gaddafi’s possible existentialism: the pervasive influence of this school of philosophy across the Arab world by the 1960s. Not only Wilson’s Outsider, but works by Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, and others were bestsellers in Arabic translation, and Sartre cultivated ties with radical Arab intellectuals. On this subject, Nash quotes Yoav Di-Capua’s book No Exit: Arab Existentialism, Jean Paul Sartre and Decolonization: “by the 1950s the Arab world boasted of having the largest existentialist scene outside of Europe.” If the Arab nationalist milieu that incubated Gaddafi was teeming with existentialists, that suggests he may have been affected by their ideas. On the other hand, if he was as much of an outsider as Nash suggests, he might also have been aloof to this trend. Regardless, the existentialist themes of freedom and authenticity resonated with the concerns Gaddafi shared with the Arab nationalists of the immediate post-colonial era.

The principal non-circumstantial evidence Nash offers for Gaddafi’s existentialist leanings is the latter’s single published literary work: a collection of short stories published in English translation under the title Escape to Hell (surprisingly, with a complimentary foreword by the JFK confidant and California Senator Pierre Salinger). The stories in Escape to Hell, Nash demonstrates, express an alienated sensibility of the sort we might associate with existentialist texts like Dostoevsky’s Notes from Underground, Camus’s The Stranger, and Sartre’s Nausea. Islam and the traditional lifestyle of the Bedouin people, which Gaddafi claimed were the source of his values, appear in these stores as the only means of escape from the hell of the modern world.

 

The ethos conveyed in Gaddafi’s foray into literature suggests we might see him not just as a fellow traveler of existentialism, as Nash argues, but as a late emanation of European Romanticism, which idealized the uncontaminated rural life of the authentic Volk as a counterweight to a corrupt civilization. Ironically, like all modern nationalisms, Gaddafi’s was at its most Western precisely in the moments when it rejected the West in favor of the autochthonous. We might add that his “socialist Jamahiriya” was bankrolled by the export of petroleum to the industrial economies he detested. A surreal late illustration of his contradictory relation to the West came during a 2009 visit to the U.N. General Assembly in New York, when Gaddafi paid a hefty fee to pitch his Bedouin tent on a suburban estate. The man who rented him the land was Donald Trump.

One broader implication of Nash’s analysis of Gaddafi, as I suggested previously, is that in the course of his career he attained a status comparable to that of the scapegoat kings of myth and legend. That is, he became the latest in the long line of alienated outsiders who managed to ascend to a position of power, only to be made to function as scapegoats. In Gaddafi’s case, both by the Western powers who bombed and sanctioned him and later, by his own people, who killed him in a sort of spontaneous sacrificial act that aimed to regenerate the nation, but led to the opposite result. As Nash notes, Gaddafi foresaw his fate in the title story in Escape to Hell, which reflects on the fate of leaders who fall victim to the populace that once adored them.

While Gaddafi was never taken seriously by most intellectuals, Nash’s book shows that his political philosophy was one of a variety of efforts to forge an ideological basis for a modern nation state by fusing Islamic and local traditions with European intellectual frameworks. From this perspective, his dabbling in existentialism was not entirely out of place, as Nash demonstrates. Gaddafi’s nation-building enterprise provoked fear and hostility from Western governments in its heyday, but it looks far more benign now that Libya and other states in the region have descended into civil war, helping give rise to the nihilistic death cult of ISIS. Like Gaddafi, the ideologues of ISIS claim to be returning to an authentic Islamic politics. But their reactionary fantasies, like his, are crucially shaped by European Romanticism’s rejection of a corrupt modernity. In Gaddafi’s time as much as now, the spectral terrors the West projects onto the exotic Middle East are a denial of the extent to which the region’s political history is intertwined with our own.

 

 

Geoff Shullenberger is a senior lecturer at NYU. His writing has appeared most recently in the Washington Examiner, the Chronicle of Higher Education, American Affairs, and the New Atlantis. His blog and podcast is Outsider Theory (outsidertheory.com). 

 

 

Read more:

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-outsider/

 

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW $%%%%%%%%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

gaddafi's return...

The son of former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi is reportedly eyeing his country’s highest office a decade after his father was overthrown and murdered by NATO-backed rebels, triggering years of civil unrest.  

Saif al-Islam Gaddafi has begun to reach out to Western and other diplomats as he seeks to re-enter public life, the Times reported. Once viewed as his father’s successor, he is preparing to stand in Libya’s December 24 presidential contest. Speaking to the paper via telephone, he said he was in good health, and confirmed his relationship with a team of advisers acting on his behalf. Gaddafi is expected to publicly announce his political ambitions in the near future. However, it is still unclear whether he will be allowed to run, as a new election law currently being drafted could potentially exclude him from participating. 

The 48-year-old was captured and imprisoned by militants in 2011. He was freed by his captors six years later under an amnesty agreement. Since then, he has remained in hiding. He still faces an arrest warrant in Libya, and, according to the Times, is also wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC). Several of his siblings remain in prison either in Libya and abroad.

Sources who spoke with the Times said the ICC warrant could be withdrawn, but that Gaddafi would likely run for office even if it were not. The paper speculated that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who was a vocal proponent of the NATO campaign in Libya, would likely oppose the idea of Gaddafi’s son running for office. 

Saif al-Islam Gaddafi made headlines in 2018, after Bloomberg reported that Russian diplomats had spoken to him via a video link shortly after he was released from prison. A family spokesperson said around that time that Gaddafi wanted to run for president. 

 Moscow responded to the Bloomberg report by stating that no one should be excluded from Libya’s political process, adding that it kept in touch with various groups in the country in an effort to help facilitate peace negotiations. Libya has seen years of civil war and political turbulence following the NATO-backed intervention. It is inching towards a settlement between the Tripoli-based Government of National Accord and a separate governing body supported by military commander Khalifa Haftar, which controls the country’s east.

Both the GNA and the Haftar-backed administration have agreed to back a central government. In March, Libya’s parliament appointed Prime Minister Abdul Hamid Dbeibeh to lead an interim government until December’s election.

 

Read more:

https://www.rt.com/news/526290-gaddafi-son-election-libya/

 

Note: Blinken is a mad psychopath/sociopath who is employed by the Empire because he appears sane enough. Blinken is somewhat worse than mad (John?) Bolton who wants to declare war on everything that moves...

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW 0987654321234556 !!!!!!