Print this post Print this post

The Decline & Fall of Muammar el-Qaddafi

718 words

Translations: Portuguese, Czech, French, Ukrainian

Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi ruled Libya for 42 years. He came to power in a military coup against Libya’s King Idris, who was basically the satrap of international capital, ensuring that the exploitation of the country’s oil wealth benefited foreign oil companies and himself, but not the Libyan people. 

Qaddafi forced the oil companies to share their wealth with the Libyan people. He funded schools, clinics, and infrastructure. Literacy, health, and life-expectancy soared. But he did not want Libyans to become lazy and corrupt like the citizens of the oil-rich Gulf States. He constantly reminded Libyans that the oil would run out someday and they would have to work to become self-sufficient.

Qaddafi seems daffy to most westerners, but his political philosophy and practice were actually quite consistent: he rejected homogenizing modernity. He saw both capitalism and communism as essentially the same in their materialism, globalism, and leveling. He advocated a third way in which traditional forms of life, which are ineradicably plural and particular, might selectively embrace modernity. He funded national liberation groups such as the PLO and the IRA. He supported anti-globalization movements and leaders like Hugo Chavez. He enjoyed thumbing his nose at the United States. After the fall of the USSR, he did everything he could to frustrate the emergence of a completely unipolar pax Americana. He was as nationalistic as any leader can be when saddled with a universalistic religion.

Qaddafi committed many crimes. He indulged in many expensive follies. He had terrible taste.

But perhaps Libya would be at peace not in ruins, and perhaps Qaddafi would be alive and in charge today, if he had not made a single fatal error: he decided to play patty-cake with America. After 9/11, he shared intelligence on Al Qaeda with the United States. He agreed to abandon nuclear weapons research, even though a nuclear deterrent is the only way a country can maintain its independence in the world today. He tortured Muslims on behalf of the United States and the UK so they could, with typical Anglo-Talmudic hypocrisy, maintain their pretenses of legality.

He referred to Condoleeza Rice as “Leeza, Leeza, Leeza,” and vowed that he “loved her” as if he were a star-struck hairdresser not a serious head of state. Perhaps he was auditioning for Inside Edition. As far as I know, he never hosted Saturday Night Live or made it on Oprah.

Throughout most of his rule, Qaddafi was both loved and feared. He was loved because he increased the well-being of his people and because of his increasingly eccentric charisma. He was feared because he dealt harshly with his enemies. But one can retain power while being feared. In fact, it helps. One cannot, however, rule while being held in contempt. And by truckling with America, Qaddafi made himself contemptible in the eyes of his people.

Becoming a whore for America might have compensated Qaddafi for the loss of his people’s esteem if it had won him a faithful friend and stable ally. But America is incapable of such friendship. All alliances are, of course, conditional on serving the self-interest of all parties. But America is given to infantile fits of moralistic enthusiasm which trump considerations of national self-interest. America’s leaders really believe their bullshit.

So when the Arab world was all atwitter about “democracy” and “change” and overthrowing “dictators,” all calculations of national self-interest, all realism about prospects for democracy in Arab countries, even the ultimate good (namely Israel’s self-interest) went out the window. Qaddafi had to go, under a round-the-clock barrage of liberal pieties and bombs.

I don’t know if Qaddafi ever regretted his opening to the “West,” but his defiance right up to the end almost redeemed him in my eyes.

The lessons should be clear to other Arab rulers who are being targeted by the same forces: one can afford to be feared and hated, but one can never risk becoming contemptible in the eyes of one’s own people by seeking the friendship of the United States. The United States, moreover, is a fickle and worthless friend, unworthy of betraying one’s own people to court. The only path to safety in this world is that of North Korea and Iran. A nuclear deterrent is the sole guarantee of sovereignty left on this planet.

 

If you enjoyed this piece, and wish to encourage more like it, give a tip through Paypal. You can earmark your tip directly to the author or translator, or you can put it in a general fund. (Be sure to specify which in the "Add special instructions to seller" box at Paypal.)
This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , , . Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

32 Comments

  1. Jaego Scorzne
    Posted October 21, 2011 at 4:30 pm | Permalink

    He also supported a world wide Negro power surge – saying things like the Black Man would triumph in Libya. This kind of grated on the Caucasian Tribes of Libya who have no love for the Blacks. Also he was always theatening to swamp Europe with Blacks even more than was already happening. He was loved by Marxists and American Blacks who hate us. His depose is Just, a victory for the Caucasian Tribes of Libya. Now they can begin to create an Islam Republic as Egypt is doing. In other words, we are not going to have a good relationship with these people. Our Elite have no idea what they are doing. Yesterday I head the old phrase “nation building” again. It wont work – no matter how much we spend. Why don’t we rebuild our own Nation instead?

    • Jaego Scorzne
      Posted October 22, 2011 at 9:11 am | Permalink

      Power structures seem to have developed a habit of using Blacks to keep their own people in line. Perhaps some people haven’t noticed…. This tendency “not to notice” or care is Ivory Tower Elitism and it is killing the West. Doesn’t matter? Tell that to all the victims of Black barbarism or to the families of those killed.

      Amazing. White Nationalism begins to get a little high brow and it immediately begins to think globaly and forget locally. Throw the People under the bus and make them shut up – we are important and have important things to talk about.

      He was also a Global Terrorist responsible for the death of scores of Euro-Americans as well as being a brutal dictator. The West helped the Eastern Tribes overthrow him, but we didn’t create the hatred – that was already there, red hot.

      I don’t support our actions – any of them, anyplace, since they are based on a false self image of Americanism and Globalism. I merely state that he was a threat to Europe and to the Caucasians of Libya. A Scoundrel through and through, complete with his Black Female Body Guards.

  2. FWM
    Posted October 21, 2011 at 4:37 pm | Permalink

    “The United States, moreover, is a fickle and worthless friend, unworthy of betraying one’s own people to court.”

    Damn straight. I bet this is confusing to the Freepers.

  3. Lew
    Posted October 21, 2011 at 8:29 pm | Permalink

    Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons yet, and they’re working hard to keep it that way. They have really escalated the anti-Iran rhetoric lately and married that rhetoric to new threats that would pretty much destroy the country. I assume everyone here saw that dubious story in the news recently about the foiling of an alleged Iranian assassination plot. High-level Iranian officials supposedly hatched a plan to kill a high-level Saudi official on American soil. A wildly implausible claim, I know, but that’s their story. So a new threat has been made; the threat is do to Iran what was done to South Africa. The plan is to deny the Iranian central bank access to the world’s financial system and to make it illegal for any American entity to do business with any entity that engages in business with or in Iran.

    The US government can destroy via military power or via the global financial system. The only way nations other than Russia and China can ensure sovereignty is to withdraw from the financial system and have nuclear weapons.

    • Chip Farley
      Posted October 22, 2011 at 1:25 am | Permalink

      ‘The plan is to deny the Iranian central bank access to the world’s financial system and to make it illegal for any American entity to do business with any entity that engages in business with or in Iran.’

      That is going to be really difficult given that Iran has close ties to both Germany and China.

      The Fatherland will simply have Iranian goods shipped over-land through Russia into Germany-proper, circumventing any American sanctions. (Russia and Germany have good relations right now as well, Gerhard Schroeder even moved to Russia to work for Gazprom!)

      ‘Trade

      Around 50 German firms have their own branch offices in Iran and more than 12,000 firms have their own trade representatives in Iran. Several renowned German companies are involved in major Iranian infrastructure projects, especially in the petrochemical sector, like Linde, BASF, Lurgi, Krupp, Siemens, ZF Friedrichshafen, Mercedes, Volkswagen and MAN (2008).[26]

      In 2005 Germany had the largest share of Iran’s export market with $5.67 billion (14.4%).[27] In 2008, German exports to Iran increased 8.9 percent and comprised 84.7 percent of the total German-Iranian trade volume. The overall bilateral trade volume until the end of September 2008 stood at 3.23 billion euros, compared to 2.98 billion euros the previous year.[26][28] The value of trade between Tehran and Berlin has increased from around 4.3 billion euro in 2009 to nearly 4.7 billion euro in 2010.[29]

      The German Chambers of Industry and Commerce (DIHK) has estimated that economic sanctions against Iran may cost more than 10,000 German jobs and have a negative impact on the economic growth of Germany. Sanctions would especially hurt medium-sized German companies, which depend heavily on trade with Iran.[26] There has been a shift in German business ties with Iran from long-term business to short-term and from large to mid-sized companies which have less business interests in the US and thus are less prone to American political pressure.[30]‘

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Iranian_relations#Current_relations

      China will have Irans oil shipped over-seas to China through the Indian ocean. China is building a massive blue-ocean fleet to protect this sea-lane. America, in probably one of the dumbest geo-political goofs of the last 20 years, closed down Subic Bay, from where submaries could be used to potentially harass such traffic.

  4. K R Bolton
    Posted October 21, 2011 at 9:37 pm | Permalink

    A primary factor was that Libya had a state owned bank that issued credit at 0%. His Green Book and Third Universal Theory were a synthesis of nationalism and socialism, or what can be called ‘Arab Socialism’ in the tradition of Nasser. From the broad historical perspective, criticizing him for his pro-Black sentiments doesn’t mean jack-shit.

    For all his failings he was one of the few remaining thorns in the side of plutocracy. With the mopping up of North Africa, and scum itching to get at Iran, would someone please tell me why anyone on the Right should celebrate the death of Qadaffi? Because he was liked by some American Blacks and made pro-Black Power sentiments? Good bloody grief.

    Hugo Chavez won’t be long for the chop by a ‘spontaneous popular revolt’, but then, he’s only a damned commie Injun.

    • Denys Picard
      Posted October 22, 2011 at 5:22 am | Permalink

      That is agreat comment Mr. Bolton. I myself am in disbelief at the reaction by the republican leadership to this assasination. And in fact, I sometimes believe that in these columns some may sometime prefer brutality to white nationalism, because it expresses a “deep” understanding of darwinistic spontaneous forces.

      I had quite an appreciation of Qadaffi. He did exactly what many hope their american government will do for them, build a country for its citizens.

      The ruthlesness he demonstrated has to be taken in context where Africa, in this domain, has a millenary tradition. He could not have survivded and persisted without this ruthlessness. But what he build had a lot more to do with western tradition, in terms of infrastructure and quality of life than any of his neighbors. As bGreg underlines, universal healthcare, free education, litteracy, access to education and professions for women, transport, communications, the 80% extent in life expectency etc…

      The core of the current conflict, why the west brought him down, from my point of view, had to do with Gaddafi desire to break US dollar hegemony by creating, with the arab and persian states a new hard currency. That was the current werstern rage lead by western jewish culture. And the message was clear to any of the other Arab world leaders who would want to persist in this direction. The plan was to use all of the arabs world gold reserves to back a new “petrodollar”.

      But Greg is right in underlying the huge resentment that the Eastern tribes had towards and that went increasing in the last few years because of Gadaffi’s complicity with western governments. But early on after Gaddafi’s coup, the Eastern tribes were quite happy with Qaddafi’s decision to leave them alone in their own geographic ‘reservation’. But the tribes having mostly criminal endeavours in the meditarenean and the middle east as economic pillars, they could not stop themselves to push their criminal activity outsid eof their area and in the remainder of Libya. And this Gaddafi never permitted. All tribe members attempting to bring their criminal activities into the remainder of Libya were heavily persecuted. The pinnacle of this is when there was a revolt or riot some 15 years ago in the prisons and Qaddafi forces went on and killed 1200 of the Eastern tribe inmates. From then on, there was the deep desire for vengeance. NATO leaders and western diplomats new this and this is why they took these Al-Qaida associates drug dealing thugs to destroy Qadaffi.

      The revolts of Egypt and Tunisia were, I always believed from the onset, instigated by western intelligence to ensure that Libya could not find any neighboring allies. When you look at what is going in these 2 countries now, I believe it proves me right. They were no Arab spring but the continuation of western imperialistic inititives towards the oil rich countries of the arab and middle east areas, the desire to maintain US dollar hegemony, this tied to Africacom, the greatest ressources grab ever attempted and affected.

    • White Republican
      Posted October 22, 2011 at 6:38 am | Permalink

      I’ve recently been reading about Norberto Ceresole, a former advisor of Hugo Chavez. From what I’ve read about Ceresole on Wikipedia and Jewish websites, I find much to like about him and his views, which have been characterized as a “potent mix of nationalism, populism, and anti-Semitism.” Some people would probably call him a fascist. All the more reason to like him.

  5. White Republican
    Posted October 22, 2011 at 12:03 am | Permalink

    I haven’t closely followed the media regarding Libya during what we are told to believe was an “eight-month popular uprising,” but it seems that that while the media regularly showed and interviewed rebel forces, they never did this with loyalist forces. I find that very suspicious.

    The “popular uprising” couldn’t have been very popular if it took eight months to succeed.

    In La subversion (Paris: C.L.C., 1976), Roger Mucchielli examined the techniques that have been applied in the “coloured revolutions” sponsored by the U.S. In one particularly significant passage, he wrote (pp. 34-35):

    “A radical change seems to have taken place for around twenty years: a new conception of international warfare has little by little blurred the traditional conception, and in this new form of warfare, subversion has become the principal weapon. In effect, today’s strategy of total warfare excludes the recourse to armed international intervention: instead of engaging soldiers on the frontiers of the nation to conquer, one generates, in the interior of this state, and through the action of trained subversive agents, a process of disintegration of authority, while small groups of partisans, presented as ‘coming from the people itself’ and ‘spontaneously’ formed, enter a new type of struggle on the ground with the declared intention of starting a ‘revolutionary war of liberation,’ and with, in fact, the intention of accelerating the process of disintegration of the state in the targeted country, then of taking power.

    “The classic conception used subversion and psychological warfare as devices of war among others during times of hostilities, which were stopped at their end. The states of today, inhibited by this archaic distinction, have not understood that psychological warfare has broken the classic distinction between war and peace. It is an unconventional war, foreign to the norms of international law and the known laws of war, it is a total war which disconcerts the jurists and which pursues its objectives without interference from their code. As Mégret says: ‘The classic distinction between peace and war would be, from that moment, put in check by psychological warfare . . . freed from barriers of time, of place, and conventions, an immaterial force and, from this fact, elusive, susceptible to all incarnations and all metamorphoses.’ (La guerre psychologique, Paris, PUF, 1963, p. 20.)

    “The goal of war remains the same — territorial expansion and occupation of another country, or the installation of an allied or submissive government within this country — but the means have changed.”

    I should note that I took some liberties with the above translation, which I found it tricky to translate.

    Mucchielli exaggerated when he said that “today’s strategy of total warfare excludes the recourse to armed international intervention.” One thinks of the picture of a B-52 bomber with the caption: “If you don’t come to democracy . . . democracy will come to you.” But Mucchielli was right to observe that subversion has become a major weapon of war, and that it has destroyed the distinction between war and peace. It might be interesting to compare Mucchielli’s ideas with those of Carl Schmitt.

  6. Chip Farley
    Posted October 22, 2011 at 1:33 am | Permalink

    ‘He funded national liberation groups such as the PLO and the IRA.’

    Am in deep mourning for the lose of this great man.

    Those of us on the Far-Right have rightly praised Muammar Qaddafi (pbuh) for years!

    ‘Writing for Bulldog in 1985, Griffin praised the black separatist Louis Farrakhan,[21] but his comments were unpopular with some members of the party.[22] He also attempted to form alliances with Libya’s Muammar al-Gaddafi and Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini,[23]‘

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Griffin#1970s.E2.80.931990

    ‘Ultranationalist Serbs Organize Pro-Qaddafi Campaign

    BELGRADE — As the NATO bombing of Libya continues, Serbian ultranationalists are trying to stoke support for Muammar Qaddafi by portraying both Tripoli and Belgrade as twin victims of Western aggression.

    The pro-Qaddafi campaign comes as Serbia today marks the 11th anniversary of the start of NATO’s bombing campaign to end the Serbian crackdown on Kosovo. To mark the anniversary, air-raid sirens sounded out across Serbia today.

    The efforts to link Serbia and Libya as victims of Western aggression is spearheaded by leaders of ultranationalist parties’

    http://www.rferl.org/content/serb_ultranationalists_rally_for_qaddafi/2348963.html

  7. Verlis
    Posted October 22, 2011 at 2:16 am | Permalink

    For all his failings he was one of the few remaining thorns in the side of plutocracy. With the mopping up of North Africa, and scum itching to get at Iran, would someone please tell me why anyone on the Right should celebrate the death of Qadaffi? Because he was liked by some American Blacks and made pro-Black Power sentiments? Good bloody grief.

    There may be no good reason to celebrate his death, but neither is there good reason to celebrate his life.

  8. HWDK
    Posted October 22, 2011 at 3:00 am | Permalink

    The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend. Qaddafi may have been a torment to the nwo, but he was also very much a torment to his own people.

    Due to his crazy desire to be ‘King of Africa’ and unite ‘African brothers’, he squandered untold resources funding and buying ‘gifts’ for corrupt black dictators. Worse, he flooded the country with black subsaharans. In 2000 the Libyan people had enough of the invasion and attempted to drive the ‘migrants’ out of the country. Read this comment from a Libyan in 2000:

    As a Libyan I fully support the revolts that are taking place against Gaddafi’s “imported” criminals. Our society, culture and economy is being raped. Ask Mr. Gaddafi: Where is the 350 billion dollars of our national budget missing?
    Abdesalam Zoueh, Tripoli, Libya.

    Qaddafi eventually brutally suppressed the anti-migrant protesters, labeling them ‘racists’. Following this, he accelerated the pace of subsaharan immigration in the ultimate attempt to ‘elect a new people’.

    Perhaps this is the reason he decided to ally with the US and EU in the end, because he shared the same basic desires as ‘our’ leaders: to steal and squander the nations wealth, elect a new people, and give themselves grand titles and awards.

  9. Frank
    Posted October 22, 2011 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

    Will Counter-Currents or Arktos take on the task of translating and publishing “La Subversion” in English?

    Can we start a fund to underwrite this. I’ll donate. Of course, I’ll want a “free” copy !

    • Stronza
      Posted October 23, 2011 at 10:54 am | Permalink

      I second the motion. If someone starts a fund I will give a few shekls, too. Anything over $100 = “free copy”. What do y’all say.

    • White Republican
      Posted October 24, 2011 at 6:20 am | Permalink

      Roger Mucchielli’s La subversion is an important little book. If necessary, I might translate it myself, although this would be a measure of last resort and such a translation would be rough. The aim of such a translation would be to make the ideas of La subversion available to an Anglophone audience and thereby enable their further development.

      As I’ve previously noted, La subversion has several limitations. First, because it is a pioneering work, it has the theoretical defects and limitations common to such works. Second, because it is a short work and addresses subversion in general terms, it is somewhat schematic and simplistic. Third, because it was published in the 1970s, it is somewhat dated. Fourth, some of the views expressed and positions taken are questionable (for example, Mucchielli uncritically accepted the received opinion that “democracy” is a good thing). None of this means that La subversion shouldn’t be translated, but it does mean that such a translation should be regarded as a foundation for further work. Translating it would be a first step. Other steps should follow.

      The ideas of the work have several applications:

      First, they can be applied to the subversive establishment. While Mucchielli focused on subversion conducted by foreign states against other states, and by groups within a state hostile to the state, his ideas can also be applied to subversion conducted by the state against its own people. Mucchielli examined, in terms of social psychology, how minorities can effectively paralyze majorities. One can draw a parallel with the wasps that paralyze the spiders into which they lay their eggs. The spiders are alive but cannot move while they are devoured from within.

      Second, they can be applied to the “coloured revolutions” used to integrate states into the “New World Order.” Ahmed Bensaada’s Arabesque Americaine: Le rôle des États-Unis dans les revoltes de la rue arabe (Michel Brule, 2011) might be informative concerning the sponsors and methods involved in the “Arab spring.” It’s tempting to think that Jewish wire-pullers sprung the Arab spring.

      Third, they can be applied to fourth generation warfare.

      Fourth, they can be applied to contestation below the level of armed resistance.

      I’ll look at the works on social identity theory, for they might be relevant to Mucchielli’s ideas on social psychology. The works of Gustave Le Bon and Carl Schmitt might also be relevant.

  10. Greg Paulson
    Posted October 22, 2011 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

    I have heard (although I cannot verify this) that the Libyan economy had zero, or close to zero debt. And that he chose to keep his country’s wealth in physical form, such as Gold and commodities. If that is true, his more or less opting out of the global financial system alone would be enough motivation (and probably one of the main ones, if not the main motivation) behind the global elites causing his downfall.

    On a separate note, Bolton makes a good point,

    For all his failings he was one of the few remaining thorns in the side of plutocracy. With the mopping up of North Africa, and scum itching to get at Iran, would someone please tell me why anyone on the Right should celebrate the death of Qadaffi? Because he was liked by some American Blacks and made pro-Black Power sentiments? Good bloody grief.

    It is lunacy to celebrate or engage in any form of support for the downfall of States that threaten the globalist plutocracy. That’s why I wrote an article (of poor quality though it may be) in admiration of North Korea. Do I want to live in North Korea, Iran, or Qaddafi’s Libya? Hell no! But you don’t have to agree with any of them on an intellectual, moral, economic, or philosophical basis to understand that we are all threatened by a much more powerful enemy and that it would be in all of our best interest to refrain from wasting even an ounce of our energy against one another. It would be in all of our interest to see the globalist system (the source of their power) collapse. The current system cannot tolerate States deviating from the global dependency model, regardless of how different these independent States may be from one another. We need to recognize these comparably small and considerably less powerful States are no threat to us and if anything, should be seen as potential political allies.

    Let me ask you a question. Say we somehow gained power in a region and founded an ethnically homogenous State (let’s just say in the Pacific Northwest since there doesn’t seem to be any other real alternatives at this point), or even if we just gained steam and had a decent shot of having an independent State. Who do you think would be likely to sell us petrol and other functional necessities? Other countries completely dependent and subservient to global interests (controlled by a tribe who is committing genocide against our people), or considerably more independent States that likely don’t agree with our philosophy?

    • Fourmyle of Ceres
      Posted October 23, 2011 at 10:03 am | Permalink

      THEIR GOAL IS GENOCIDE. OURS. WHAT’S YOURS?

      Greg Paulson in blockquote:

      Let me ask you a question. Say we somehow gained power in a region and founded an ethnically homogenous State (let’s just say in the Pacific Northwest since there doesn’t seem to be any other real alternatives at this point), or even if we just gained steam and had a decent shot of having an independent State. Who do you think would be likely to sell us petrol and other functional necessities? Other countries completely dependent and subservient to global interests (controlled by a tribe who is committing genocide against our people), or considerably more independent States that likely don’t agree with our philosophy?

      Great question, and one that Harold Covington has addressed at length, using the example of embargoed Rhodesia, where they made almost everything they needed.

      Remember, once you strip away From from Substance, an entire range of economic solutions present themselves, whether it is synthetic gasoline, made for about$1.25 a gallon with the Fischer-Tropsch Process, or thorium reactors, with HYPERION reactors being used until the India-Russia developed thorium reactors become available. Thorium is cheap, very abundant, and can not be used to create fissile grade materials. Further, Admiral Rickover demonstrated a working thorium reactor ot Eisenhower, specifically mentioning national energy independence as being possible, starting right then. Eisenhower looked a little bit disturbed at that remark. As well, we can easily convert exist dams, at the end of their engineering life, to hydropower for their replacements/upgrades. Give me electricity, and I’ll give you a railroad. We can make our railroad cars down in Hamilton, and upgrade from there.

      This is while we are developing superinsulation initiatives for commercial and residential real estate. Is a solar tower a possibility? Certainly worth looking into. Spain has one running around the clock, so the technology is certainly there. Supercrete, the long-life concrete made with fly ash, lowers our repair costs for damns, bridges, and roads dramatically. Iif we need refined petroleum distillates, I don’t see much of a problem there. Look due North, and there’s something called Alberta.

      That’s for openers, and will call forth the opportunity to develop new economic models, based on ecological economics.

      We can run a very successful economy on the damn WASTE of the Western economy!

      What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!

      • Posted October 23, 2011 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

        @ “Who do you think would be likely to sell us petrol and other functional necessities?”

        Thanks to Western stupidity, the whole Maghreb will probably become fanatically Islamic with the Muslim Brotherhood leading at least Egypt. Iraq, which a few years ago was governed by a comparatively secular state, might also radicalize.

        Once the Northwest Republic declares it is Judenfrei territory and issues its own currency, say a penny with the face of Hitler, the Muslim world that hates Israel will consider us allies and will trade their oil.

      • Greg Paulson
        Posted October 25, 2011 at 8:29 am | Permalink

        Fourmyle of Ceres,

        I know all about thorium reactors and many of the (ecologically sound) alternatives that are right at our fingers from energy independence. Furthermore, I have listened to most of Covington’s podcasts (and read all his Northwest novels), so I am aware of his positions. I also understand and support economic “Third Position” theories such as Corporatism and the system utilized under National Socialist Germany (which was almost identical in practice to the transitional economic system of Corporatism in Italy, and the end goal is actually mentioned as a corporatist system by Hitler in Mein Kampf…but this is totally off topic ).

        What I was referring to was during and immediately after gaining independence. All of these alternatives and systems will take time to develop. Before we attain economic independence we will have no choice but to trade and utilize older methods of energy. Besides, there are other things we might want to trade for during this crucial years.

        Even ignoring that, I personally feel it would be beneficial to all peoples on the earth to overthrow the monstrous parasite of global capitalism and its Jewish masters. I think we should be open to alliances with any countries that are not a direct threat to our well being and are a threat to this system, at least within the context of fighting a stronger enemy.

  11. Gladiator
    Posted October 22, 2011 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

    Friends, I would like to take this opportunity to put my two cents worth and reflect on the recent happenings in this part of the Globe. The death of the ‘Mad dog of the Middle East’ as President Regan had called Gaddafi, brings closure not to just the people of Libya but as well to other neighbouring countries, heads of states, politicians, business people, and all those for whatever their motives and reasons had kissed or bowed to this mad man and enhanced his ultra ego. The tiny republic island state of Malta, which lies just 224km away from the cost of Libya, was no exception.
    Personally my first connection with the country of Libya started sometime in 1958 when my older brother took employment with British Petroleum. By 1969 when the 1st September revolution came about, a second brother had joined the first. I recall his statements about Libyans and recounting his days in that country during the coup d’état of the young army captain – Gaddafi. In my brother’s words, he couldn’t wait to get the hell out of there faster than the plane which serviced the daily flight back to Malta. His comments were, “those Libyans, are as close to an unpredictable savage, who you’ll never know whether they are going to embrace you are kill you.”
    Come May 1971, a close general election in Malta had brought to government the Labour Party, lead by none other than the sordid, uncompromising, Socialist Prime Minister, Dominic Mintoff. Quickly a semi matrimonial relationship mushroomed with the young Colonel across the sea. Whether it was the Colonel’s petro dollars or his brand of Socialism which attracted these two henchmen together, no one can ever tell. Neither the people Malta or the Libyans which of squalid socialism or investments earned them to elevate them from their third world status, in spite of the torrid amounts of bi-lateral, cultural, and commercial treaties that were signed between the two strategic pieces of lands. Furthermore all this was being staged while the chess game of the two super powers was going on in the Mediterranean Sea both the Soviet ships and the US Sixth fleet keeping a close watch. Though both Mintoff and Gaddafi who by 1979 had a fall out over drilling rights between the Italy, Malta and Libya channel, made sure not to antonagize either one. Only later Gaddafi would invoke the wrath of the USA. And we all know which episodes I am referring to. As a matter of fact in 1975, the Island of Malta was proclaimed a republic and an amendment in the constitution declared the Island will never again be accessible to any foreign country to host armed forces, and to be used to wage war on any other sovereign country. In simple words neutrality was enshrined in the constitution which somehow it was flaunted on several occasions by past and present governments to suit their needs! As was evident during these last 8 months by NATO bombers, using the island as a stop over after incurring difficulties or running short on fuel, so we were all told? As well Malta offered humanitarian help to the besiegers of Misruta. Many wounded Libyans were brought over to Malta’s only already overcrowded major hospital.
    Fast forward to the present, while the Libyans were killing and maiming each other, the Nationalist Party who happens to be presently in government in Malta and their counter parts the Labour Party, were too busy distancing themselves through their monopolistic media of their past dealings with the Colonel. Even going further as to try and cast dark shadows on each other and accusing one another who slept who, where and in which bed! Just a week before Gaddafi sent his thugs to shot on the demonstrators, Malta’s Prime Minister, Dr. Lawrence Gonzi, posed for photographs as the last head of state to embrace the Colonel. Strange fates awaited both gentlemen. As usual, Malta’s prime Minister always returned empty handed every time he and his governmental delegations, for one request or the other. Case in point of most importance the right for Malta for offshore drilling for oil and the continuous issue of illegal immigration, albeit in this, Gaddafi always held the Maltese governments, in competent and hostage to his wheeling and dealing.
    The final curtain came down on Malta’s relationship with the old Libya, just as that shot was fired and hit the Colonel in his temple. The island had been heaped with praise for its role in this drama, by none other than Hillary Clinton as she mentioned that now the people of Libya await a new chapter in their search of freedom and democracy, so will the people of that tiny island who happen to be too close to comfort as to what this new Libya will look like?

  12. Lara
    Posted October 23, 2011 at 7:54 am | Permalink

    The Zionists plan, “Operation Clean Break,” was sold to Zionist Christian fool, Bush, who dutifully took out Saddam Hussein; now they have their trained monkey, Obama, in there, acting like typical negro thug, irrespective of the law, taking out Mubarik, Bin Laden (braggingly alleged), Anwar al-Awlaki and now Gaddafi – We in Russia see what they are doing and we know they have their site set on more. I see this – I hear Western White men’s frustration. There are Russian women, like me, who know what’s going on and want to help (could be great team mates for White Nationalist man).

  13. Andrew Hamilton
    Posted October 23, 2011 at 9:04 am | Permalink

    I wonder where this killing of Middle Eastern leaders is going to stop—along with the bizarre public chortling over their deaths.

    Steve Sailer at VDare indicates that US Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.), in the wake of Qaddafi’s murder, even issued veiled threats to Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s leaders! Whenever that nut job opens his mouth, one assumes he’s speaking for at least one faction of the Establishment.

    David Irving wrote in Hitler’s War that by 1944 German foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop had fallen out of favor with Hitler. Nevertheless, Ribbentrop (here quoting Himmler deputy Walter Schellenberg’s notes) “announced to the Führer his willingness to sacrifice his own life, if he could save Germany thereby. His plan was to do all he could to lure Stalin once more to the conference table; then he would gun him down. For a long time the Führer had turned this over in his mind, and then finally replied, ‘No. I don’t like anything like that. It would be asking for trouble from Providence.’”

  14. PC
    Posted October 23, 2011 at 11:53 pm | Permalink

    This You Tube video explains most likely reasons for his murder. (There big English words splashed on the screen to help you understand the video.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJURNC0e6Ek

  15. Sam Davidson
    Posted October 24, 2011 at 7:33 am | Permalink

    But perhaps Libya would be at peace not in ruins, and perhaps Qaddafi would be alive and in charge today, if he had not made a single fatal error: he decided to play patty-cake with America.

    You got it.

    Qaddafi should have told Bush and his Zionist backers to piss off when they started escalating the conflict in the Middle East. Rather than allowing the Zionists to take down Afghanistan, then Iraq, then Libya, and now Syria and Iran – it would have forced them into 3 conflicts at once.

    The Jewish-American hegemony likes to pretend that “if you just give in a little bit” it’ll leave you alone. Wrong. The international power of Jewry and their puppet-states is geared to break down all independent regimes. The question is, will the world recognize what’s happening, or will it get slow-boiled like a frog in a pot?

  16. Posted October 24, 2011 at 10:16 am | Permalink

    As usual, you’ve quite thoroughly summed up my own thoughts on this, Greg.

  17. Posted October 24, 2011 at 10:59 am | Permalink
  18. Armor
    Posted October 24, 2011 at 3:28 pm | Permalink

    So, why did they decide to take Gadhafi out? Because they could? Newspapers are now informing us that “Libya’s new leaders say they will make Islamic Sharia law the main source of legislation”.

    I think the neocons may have been taking Libya for a joyride.

    Here is what Greg Johnson said to Matt Parrott in an interview at Voice of Reason last June:

    “My feeling is that America has been hijacked. And the people who are running it are not concerned with the long term viability of the system.
    (…) The people who run America today basically are just borrowing the country. Or, to use something from Alex Linder: basically they’ve stolen America, and they are joyriding in America. America is like a stolen car, and they are taking it for a joyride, and when the thing crashes into a ditch, they are just going to be pumping on the gas, and spinning the wheels, and cursing the car for failing them. And then they will get out, and they will go somewhere else, and hijack somebody else’s car. And so, the people who are riding this society are riding it into the ground, because ultimately, it’s not their society.”

    I think the same goes for Libya.

    • Franklin Ryckaert
      Posted October 25, 2011 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

      Your metaphore of “hijacking a society” is an adequate one.But are you also willing to NAME the people who do the hijacking?Can I help you?IT’S THE JEWS!
      They have done this kind of thing for more than 3000 years,America is only the last in their series of nation wreckings.Right now they are already thinking about their next victim : China.Nation wrecking is in their nature,they can’t help themselves.

  19. Mr. Dithers
    Posted October 24, 2011 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

    The American governing elite have become as reckless, murderous and hubristic as Israel and white, gentile Americans are for all intents and purposes pseudo Jews in their world outlook. This is the result of allowing Jews to amass immense power in all sectors of society.

    The only way for nations to forestall American aggression in the form of “regime change” is to acquire nuclear weapons. North Korea has threatened to incinerate the Western U.S. seaboard on several occasion yet nary a peep from D.C. officialdom, boob O’Reilly and the rest of the FOX News twits and neoconservative screamers.

    Threaten America and it’s much ado about nothing. Threaten Israel and Joe and Jill six pack are ready to go to war for the chosen people.

  20. Lew
    Posted October 29, 2011 at 7:29 pm | Permalink

    Some interesting facts about Libya under Gaddafi:

    1. There is no electricity bill in Libya; electricity is free for all its citizens.

    2. There is no interest on loans, banks in Libya are state-owned and loans given to all its citizens at 0% interest by law.

    3. Home considered a human right in Libya

    4. All newlyweds in Libya receive $60,000 Dinar (US$50,000) by the government to buy their first apartment so to help start up the family. Is this what you call a dictator Traditional wedding in Tripoli, Libya

    5. Education and medical treatments are free in Libya. Before Gaddafi only 25% of Libyans are literate. Today the figure is 83%.

    6. Should Libyans want to take up farming career, they would receive farming land, a farming house, equipments, seeds and livestock to kick-start their farms are all for free.

    7. If Libyans cannot find the education or medical facilities they need in Libya, the government funds them to go abroad for it is not only free but they get US$2,300/mth accommodation and car allowance.

    8. In Libyan, if a Libyan buys a car, the government subsidized 50% of the price.

    9. The price of petrol in Libya is $0.14 per liter.

    10. Libya has no external debt and its reserves amount to $150 billion are now frozen globally.

    11. If a Libyan is unable to get employment after graduation the state would pay the average salary of the profession as if he or she is employed until employment is found.

    12. A portion of Libyan oil sale is, credited directly to the bank accounts of all Libyan citizens.

    13. A mother who gave birth to a child receive US$5,000 14. 40 loaves of bread in Libya costs $ 0.15

    15. 25% of Libyans have a university degree

    16. Gaddafi carried out the world’s largest irrigation project, known as the Great Man-Made River project, to make water readily available throughout the desert country.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/21/1028596/-16-Things-Libyans-Will-Never-See-Again

  21. Posted November 4, 2011 at 8:25 am | Permalink
  22. TR
    Posted November 12, 2011 at 4:32 pm | Permalink

    Let’s say there was an armed black movement in the United States or Europe which sought to use terrorism and violence to force whites to redistribute their wealth to blacks. Would this have been the kind of movement likely to get ol’ Mummar’s support?

    Qaddafi was just as big of a globalist as the ruling world elite. His only problem with the elites was that they weren’t anti-white and socialist enough.

    By the way, a few years ago I read the Qaddafi was offering financial incentives to Libyans to marry black Africans in order to “Africanize” his country. Libyans apparently didn’t take to this. I can’t for the life of me find a source for this though. I wonder if anyone can help.

  • Video of the Day:

  • Kindle Subscription
  • Our Titles

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    The Lightning and the Sun

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Demon

    Proofs of a Conspiracy

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    The Wagnerian Drama

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    Notes on the Third Reich

    Morning Crafts

    New Culture, New Right

    An eagle with a shield soaring upwards

    A Life in the Political Wilderness

    The Fourth Political Theory

    The Passing of the Great Race

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Fighting for the Essence

    The Arctic Home in the Vedas

    The Prison Notes

    It Cannot Be Stormed

    Revolution from Above

    The Proclamation of London

    Beyond Human Rights

    The WASP Question

    Can Life Prevail?

    The Jewish Strategy

    The Metaphysics of War

    A Handbook of Traditional Living

    The French Revolution in San Domingo

    The Revolt Against Civilization

    Why We Fight

    The Problem of Democracy

    The Path of Cinnabar

    Archeofuturism

    Tyr

    Siege

    On Being a Pagan

    The Lost Philosopher

    The Dispossessed Majority

    Might is Right

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance