James Joyce made it clear: The nature of social control is purely operant!

I place here the following little precious jewel from Joyce’s “Dubliners” as my New Year present to all friends of behaviorist socialism not only because it (being “happy end”-ed) makes a nice New Year’s story, but first and foremost because it clearly demonstrates that the forces which shape us as social animals are based exclusively on operant reinforcement (both positive and negative).

Joyce’s talent shows us clearly that all hopes and fears of his characters are nothing but the expectations of their counterparties’ actions and other social sanctions, and their behavior is shaped by its expected consequences. This short story depicts interpersonal relations and social life in general as a sort of chess game where no figure has overwhelming power and, moreover, sheer weakness and vulnerability can in skillful hands become a source of influence and power.

The world of Joyce’s “Dubliners” of the beginning of 20th century is very different from ours: “Dublin is such a small city: everyone knows everyone else’s business”, as one character laments. But exactly its parochial tightly-knit social fabric makes his characters humane and their everyday life filled with meaning, in contrast to the alienating modern world of the global tyranny of utterly criminal and anti-human capitalist mega-corporations where human beings are powerless and irrelevant. Capitalist mass-society is on its way to degenerate into the new Dark Age of computerised billionaires’ absolutism where human beings will have no more democratic liberties than chickens in some large-scale poultry factory.

And here is what the behaviorist-socialist alternative promises to give back to everyone who decides to join it: the dignity and social significance of a common “little” human being in his / her everyday life. And that is why grass-roots democracy should be parochial to be genuine, having no chances to be large-scale: this new world of behaviorist socialism should necessarily be small enough to allow every, even the weakest voice to be heard by the rest of us. This world should be quite different from the centralized “Brave New World” of total manipulation and surveillance the global empire of Western capitalism imposes upon us. It should be NOT the global concentration camp Uncle Sam builds for us, but a cozy home we build for ourselves.

Wishing a Happy New Year to all

but to the bunch of global thieves of the City of London and Wall Street, N.Y. and the pack of their hired global terrorists and mass-killers of Langley and Pentagon, VA.

Sincerely yours,

behaviorist-socialist

And now “complete and unabridged”

THE BOARDING HOUSE

by James Joyce

Mrs Mooney was a butcher’s daughter. She was a woman who was quite able to keep things to herself: a determined woman. She had married her father’s foreman and opened a butcher’s shop near Spring Gardens. But as soon as his father-in-law was dead Mr Mooney began to go to the devil. He drunk, plundered the till, ran headlong into debt. It was no use making him take the pledge: he was sure to break out again a few days after. By fighting his wife in the presence of customers and by buying bad meat he ruined his business. One night he went for his wife with the cleaver and she had to sleep in a neighbour’s house.

After that they lived apart. She went to the priest and got a separation from him with care of the children. She would give him neither money nor food nor house-room; and so he was obliged to enlist himself as a sheriff’s man. He was a shabby stooped little drunkard with a white face and a white moustache and white eyebrows, pencilled above his little eyes, which were pink-veined and raw; and all day long he sat in the bailiff’s room, waiting to be put on job. Mrs Mooney, who had taken what remained of her money out of the butcher business and set up a boarding house in Hardwicke Street, was a big imposing woman. Her house had a floating population made up of tourists from Liverpool and the Isle of Man and, occasionally, artistes from the music halls. Its resident population was made up of clerks from the city. She governed the house cunningly and firmly, knew when to give credit, when to be stern and when to let things pass. All the resident young men spoke of her as The Madam.

Mrs Mooney’s young men paid fifteen shillings a week for board and lodgings (beer or stout at dinner excluded). They shared in common tastes and occupations and for this reason they were very chummy with one another. They discussed with one another the chances of favourites and outsiders. Jack Mooney, the Madam’s son, who was clerk to a commission agent in Fleet Street, had the reputation of being a hard case. He was fond of using soldiers’ obscenities: usually he came home in the small hours. When he met his friends he had always a good one to tell them and he was always sure to be on to a good thing - that is to say, a likely horse or a likely artiste. He was also handy with the mits and sang comic songs. On Sunday nights there would often be a reunion in Mrs Mooney’s front drawing-room. The misic-hall artistes would oblige; and Sheridan played waltzes and polkas and vamped accompaniments. Polly Mooney, the Madam’s daughter, would also sing. She sang:

“I’m a...naughty girl.
You needn’t sham:
You know I am.”

Polly was a slim girl of nineteen; she had light soft hair and a small full mouth. Her eyes, which were grey with a shade of green through them, had a habit of glancing upwards when she spoke with anyone, which made her look like a little perverse madonna. Mrs Mooney had first sent her daughter to be a typist in a corn-factor’s office but, as a disreputable sheriff’s man used to come every other day to the office, asking to be allowed to say a word to his daughter, she had taken her daughter home again and set her to do housework. As Polly was very lively the intention was to give her the run of the young men. Besides, young men like to feel that there is a young woman not very far away. Polly, of course, flirted with the young men but Mrs Mooney, who was a shrewd judge, knew that the young men were only passing the time away: none of them meant business. Things went on so for a long time and Mrs Mooney began to think of sending Polly back to typewriting when she noticed that something was going on between Polly and one of the young men. She watched the pair and kept her own counsel.

Polly knew that she was being watched, but still her mother’s persistent silence could not be misunderstood. There had been no open complicity between mother and daughter, no open understanding but, though people in the house began to talk of the affair, still Mrs Mooney did not intervene. Polly began to grow a little strange in her manner and the young man was evidently perturbed. At last, when she judged it to be the right moment, Mrs Mooney intervened. She dealt with moral problems as a cleaver deals with meat: and in this case she had made up her mind. It was a bright Sunday morning of early summer, promising heat, but with a fresh breeze blowing. All the windows of the boarding house were open and the lace curtains ballooned gently towards the street beneath the raised sashes. The belfry of George’s Church sent out constant peals and worshippers, singly or in groups, traversed the little circus before the church, revealing their purpose by their self-contained demeanour no less than by the little volumes in their gloved hands. Breakfast was over in the boarding house and the table of the breakfast-room was covered with plates on which lay yellow streaks of eggs with morsels of bacon-fat and bacon-rind. Mrs Mooney sat in the straw arm-chair and watched the servant Mary remove the breakfast things. She made Mary collect the crusts and pieces of broken bread to help to make Tuesday’s bread-pudding. When the table was cleared, the broken bread collected, the sugar and butter safe under lock and key, she began to reconstruct the interview which she had had the night before with Polly. Things were as she had suspected: she had been frank in her questions and Polly had been frank in her answers. Both had been somewhat awkward, of course. She had been made awkward by her not wishing to receive the news in too cavalier a fashion or to seem to have connived and Polly had been made awkward not merely because allusions of that kind always made her awkward but also because she did not wish it to be thought that in her wise innocence she had divined the intention behind her mother’s tolerance.

Mrs Mooney glanced instinctively at the little gilt clock on the mantelpiece as soon as she had become aware through her revery that the bells of George’s Church had stopped ringing. It was seventeen minutes past eleven: she would have lots of time to have the matter out with Mr Doran and then catch short twelve at Marlborough Street. She was sure she would win. To begin with she had all the weight of social opinion on her side: she was an outraged mother. She had allowed him to live beneath her roof, assuming that he was a man of honour, and he had simply abused her hospitality. He was thirty-four or thirty-five years of age, so that his youth could not be pleaded as his excuse; nor could ignorance be his excuse since he was a man who had seen something of the world. He had simply taken advantage of Polly’s youth and inexperience; that was evident. The question was: What reparation would he make?

There must be reparation made in such case. It is all very well for the man: he can go his ways as if nothing had happened, having had his moment of pleasure, but the girl has to bear the brunt. Some mothers would be content to patch up such an affair for a sum of money; she had known cases of it. But she would not do so. For her only one reparation could make up for the loss of her daughter’s honour: marriage.

She counted all her cards again before sending Mary up to Mr Doran’s room to say that she wished to speak with him. She felt sure she would win. He was a serious young man, not rakish or loud-voiced like the others. If it had been Mr Sheridan or Mr Meade or Bantam Lyons her task would have been much harder. She did not think he would face publicity. All the lodgers in the house knew something of the affair; details had been invented by some. Besides, he had been employed for thirteen years in a great Catholic wine-merchant’s office and publicity would mean for him, perhaps, the loss of his job. Whereas if he agreed all might be well. She knew he had a good screw for one thing and she suspected he had a bit of stuff put by.

Nearly the half-hour! She stood up and surveyed herself in the pier-glass. The decisive expression of her great florid face satisfied her and she thought of some mothers she knew who could not get their daughters off their hands.

Mr Doran was very anxious indeed this Sunday morning. He had made two attempts to shave but his hand had been so unsteady that he had been obliged to desist. Three days’ reddish beard fringed his jaws and every two or three minutes a mist gathered on his glasses so that he had to take them off and polish them with his pocket-handkerchief. The recollection of his confession of the night before was a cause of acute pain to him; the priest had drawn out every ridiculous detail of the affair and in the end had so magnified his sin that he was almost thankful at being afforded a loophole of reparation. The harm was done. What could he do now but marry her or run away? He could not brazen it out. The affair would be sure to be talked of and his employer would be certain to hear of it. Dublin is such a small city: everyone knows everyone else’s business. He felt his heart leap warmly in his throat as he heard in his excited imagination old Mr Leonard calling out in his rasping voice: “Send Mr Doran here, please.”

All his long years of service gone for nothing! All his industry and diligence thrown away! As a young man he had sown his wild oats, of course; he had boasted of his free-thinking and denied the existence of God to his companions in public-houses. But that was all passed and done with ... nearly. He still bought a copy of Reynolds’s newspaper every week but he attended to his religious duties and for nine-tenths of the year lived a regular life. He had money enough to settle down on; it was not that. But the family would look down on her. First of all there was her disreputable father and then her mother’s boarding house was beginning to get a certain fame. He had a notion that he was being had. He could imagine his friends talking of the affair and laughing. She was a little vulgar; sometimes she said “I seen” and “If I had’ve known.” But what would grammar matter if he really loved her? He could not make up his mind whether to like her or despise her for what she had done. Of course he had done it too. His instinct urged him to remain free, not to marry. Once you are married you are done for, it said.

While he was sitting helplessly on the side of the bed in shirt and trousers she tapped lightly at his door and entered. She told him all, that she had made a clean breast of it to her mother and that her mother would speak with him that morning. She cried and threw her arms round his neck, saying:

“O Bob! Bob! What am I to do? What am I to do at all?”

She would put an end to herself, she said.

He comforted her feebly, telling her not to cry, that it would be all right, never fear. He felt against his shirt the agitation of her bosom.

It was not altogether his fault that it had happened. He remembered well, with the curious patient memory of the celibate, the first casual caresses her dress, her breath, her fingers had given him. Then late one night as he was undressing for bed she had tapped at his door, timidly. She wanted to relight her candle at his for hers had been blown out by a gust. It was her bath night. She wore a loose open combing-jacket of printed flannel. Her white instep shone in the opening of her furry slippers and the blood glowed warmly behind her perfumed skin. From her hands and wrists too as she lit and steaded her candle a faint perfume arose.

On nights when he came in very late it was she who warmed up his dinner. He scarcely knew what he was eating feeling her beside him alone, at night, in the sleeping house. And her thoughtfulness! If the night was anyway cold or wet or windy there was sure to be a little tumbler of punch ready for him. Perhaps they could be happy together...

They used to go upstairs together on tiptoe, each with a candle, and on the third landing exchange reluctant good-nights. They used to kiss. He remembered well her eyes, the touch of her hand and his delirium...

But delirium passes. He echoed her phrase, applying it to himself: “What am I to do?” The instinct of the celibate warned him to hold back. But the sin was there; even his sense of honour told him that reparation must be made for such a sin.

While he was sitting with her on the side of the bed Mary came to the door and said the missus wanted to see him in the parlour. He stood up to put on his coat and waistcoat, more helpless than ever. When he was dressed he went over to her to comfort her. It would be all right, never fear. He left her crying on the bed and moaning softly: “O my God!”

Going down the stairs his glasses became so dimmed with moisture that he had to take them off and polish them. He longed to ascend through the roof and fly away to another country where he would never hear again of his trouble, and yet a force pushed him downstairs step by step. The implacable faces of his employer and of the Madam stared upon his discomfiture. On the last flight of stairs he passed Jack Mooney who was coming up from the pantry nursing two bottles of Bass. They saluted coldly; and the lover’s eyes rested for a second or two on a thick bulldog face and a pair of thick short arms. When he reached the foot of the staircase he glanced up and saw Jack regarding him from the door of the return-room.

Suddenly he remembered the night when one of the music-hall artistes, a little blond Londoner, had made a rather free allusion to Polly. The reunion had been almost broken up on account of Jack’s violence. Everyone tried to quiet him. The music-hall artiste, a little paler than usual, kept smiling and saying that there was no harm meant; but Jack kept shouting at him that if any fellow tried that sort of a game on with his sister he’d bloody well put his teeth down his throat, so he would.

Polly sat for a little time on the side of the bed, crying. Then she dried her eyes and went over to the looking-glass. She dipped the end of the towel in the water-jug and refreshed her eyes with the cool water. She looked at herself in profile and readjusted a hairpin above her ear. Then she went back to the bed again and sat at the foot. She regarded the pillows for a long time and the sight of them awakened in her mind secret, amiable memories. She rested the nape of her neck against the cool iron bed-rail and fell into a revery. There was no longer any perturbation visible on her face.

She waited on patiently, almost cheerfully, without alarm, her memories gradually giving place to hopes and visions of the future. Her hopes and visions were so intricate that she no longer saw the white pillows on which her gaze was fixed or remembered that she was waiting for anything.

At last she heard her mother calling. She started to her feet and ran to the banisters.

“Polly! Polly!”

“Yes, mamma?”

“Come down, dear. Mr Doran wants to speak to you.”

Then she remembered what she had been waiting for.

OPEN LETTER TO MRS. EVA GOLINGER

Dear Eva,

I have some points to make and would greatly appreciate your comments. Therefore I do it with an open letter, not an e-mail which could be lost in the deluge of spam. I really “have no secrets” (Bob Dylan) and anyway our “best friends” in the CIA can read all e-mails they wish to.

First, I do enjoy translating into Russian and posting at my blog http://correodelorinoco-ru.blogspot.com the articles of my choice from the „Correo del Orinoco International“. Thank you very much for your consent and approval. I do this translation work in a professional way, so that phrases which were botched in the English

(e.g.: „Here we are, 40 years later in the eye of the hurricane, in the middle of a peaceful and democratic revolution in which you aspiring cadets will have a very important role“ in the recently published article „A jogging Chavez advances towards 2012 reelection, reminisces“)

remain botched in a similar way in my translation into Russian.

Now, here is my request: please publish in the COI more translations into English of authentic Chavez speaking to the people, say, after audio files posted at the RNV site. I enjoy listening to his plain way of speaking - for example, his recent speech about his intention to launch the new Mission „Madres del Barrio“ containing the pun: „A socialist dare not be a machist, a socialist must be a feminist“. It is really good and Russians should get his authentic words. But it is far too much for me alone to try to make a transcript of some low-quality audio record in Spanish (where sometimes I cannot tell the words) and then to translate it into Russian.

The next point is political. You know that the West and USA in particular are growing more and more shameless, brutal and criminal in waging wars of aggression against independent states (the last example being the rape of Libya). Now the same gang of fascist thugs (USA-Israel-NATO) threatens Syria and Iran. I have no doubt that the same „humanitarian“ massacre is also being planned against Venezuela.

What I think could help to stop this imperialist state terrorism is mobilizing decent people of the World in a global grass-roots campaign „Yankee go home“ - the way the protesters against Vietnam war did it in the 1970-ies, when these words were adorning walls and fences all around the world. The same clear demand everywhere: „Yankee+NATO go home“, to counteract mass-media lies. It would be great if this proposal appears in COI.

And at last, the most important point: it concerns the things Marxists call „ideology“. For me (being a behaviorist-socialist) „ideology“ is nothing but empty talk, therefore I address here not „ideology“ but the behavior of people and the technology of modifying it (social engineering). I hope you could kindly put the following to the attention of Mr. Chavez:

I.m.h.o., his approach to dealing with the capitalists and all other enemies of socialism is more like that of late Mr. Allende of Chile than that of Mr. Castro of Cuba. This tolerant approach in emergency needs a lot of active and efficient support of his government by the people, as the horrible fate of the Unidad Popular and personally Mr. Allende demonstrated quite clearly.

I am afraid that such support is not secured by the present one-way relation between the Chavista government and the people which is somehow akin to the relation between Santa and kids. Certainly, oil revenues make it possible, but is the welfare state the same as the socialist society? I hate to tell you that it is not. As it was quite correctly expressed in the „Venceremos“:

„Sembraremos las tierras de gloria,

socialista sera el porvenir,

todos juntos seremos la historia:

a cumplir, a cumplir, a cumplir...“,

viable socialist society is everyone’s active participation, working and giving in/for/to the common new way of life, and this behavior should be actively reinforced (in the behaviorist meaning of this word) by the government.

Contrary to socialism, the welfare state means for the people to be passive recipients of dole and gifts distributed by the bureacracy. As it seems to me, it is what unfortunately happens in Venezuela now: poor individuals get handouts from Good Santa Chavez, go shopping and then crawl into the solitude of his/her cabin to munch arepas. And obviously it will be the same with the „Madres del Barrio“ benefits. OK, you can give poor single mothers money - but don’t forget that some of them are drunkards... and the money given will do no good to their kids.

Money benefits should be used only as a conditional reinforcer, as an incentive and reward for active socialist work for the good of the community (barrio) and the country as a whole. Socialist work should not be considered as „wage employment“ simply because its fruits go largely to those working! There can be a lot of useful community projects where socialist work can be applied, instead of hiring business contractors. Everyone can propose plenty of them, but nothing is being done because wage earning make people unwilling to work „for free“, so that there should be (at least initially) some extra incentive which can later be thinned out (this procedure of variable-rate reinforcement was studied in detail by Prof. B.F.Skinner).

This is the only way the operant framework of socialist society can be built. Behavior research established without any doubt that non-conditional reinforcement (i.e. handouts with no strings attached) is the most dangerous misunderstanding of socialism. It makes people passive, idle and expecting to get more - for nothing. It is the behavior science that proved that the „self-help“ view of socialism developed by Proudhon and Owen is practicable, whereas the Marxist blind faith in „class consciousness“ leads to utter failure and inevitable dead-end, as the Soviet experience has demonstrated.

You know, there is one thing kids need very much which we had in the Soviet Union. Namely, we had „Palaces of Young Pioneers“ (in big cities) and „Houses of Young Pioneers“ (local). It was the Soviet version of „Scouts“. You could go there every day after school and do all sorts of things - sports, mechanical and electric engineering, DX-radio, car driving, robotics, music, chemistry, biology (gardening, pets etc.), etc. under the tutelage of professionals who were paid a small salary. For us, kids, it was totally free.

It was many years ago and we had no computers, but now kids can (instead of playing moronic computer games) use them for many fascinating activities: searching through „Wikipedia“, making pen-friendships via e-mail with kids all around the world... certainly, under the guidance of knowledgeable instructors. I do not like the antieducationalist rhetorics of Ivan Illich, but he was right saying that kids need the opportunity and encouragement to explore the world, not the compulsory school „education“. This is what I believe should be done for all kids in Venezuela, and especially for the kids from poor families (certainly, after making sure that they are not hungry).

That’s all for today.

Yours very sincerely,

Alex (behaviorist-socialist)

MY SHORT FLIRT WITH "BEHAVIOROLOGY"

It was quite by chance that I found three months ago the following reference in a long "Google" searchlist:

Ulman, J. D. (1991). Toward a synthesis of Marx and Skinner. Behavior and Social Issues, 1(1), 57-70

I was pleasantly surprised to discover that there is someone else who also thinks that behaviorism can and should be applied for the creation of socialist society. Therefore I contacted Dr. Ulman. Here is the short exchange of e-mails that followed:

"Mr. Jerome D.Ulman

Dept. of Special Education

Ball State University

Re.: Your article “Toward a Synthesis of Marx and Skinner” - copy request

Berlin, August 14th, 2011

Dear Mr. Ulman,

I was very pleased to discover by purest chance your aforementioned article on the Web. Unfortunately, all sites which supposedly contain it in full, are journal or database sites and require subscription for reading it. The best I could find on the Web is a summary of it, made by Mr. Jim Farmelant, together with his critique. Would you kindly send me your original article via e-mail as a .pdf or .doc file?

This article opened my eyes on the fact that I am actually “inventing a bicycle” - my, as I call it, “behaviorist socialism”. But I enjoyed realizing that I am not alone. Please do me a favour and look through my sites:

http://behaviorist-socialist.blogspot.com in English (sorry, nothing new lately) and

http://behaviorist-socialist-ru.blogspot.com in Russian (I am a Russian).

A couple of lines to introduce myself. I graduated Moscow State University in biochemistry many years ago, but since moving to Germany in 1983 I work as a technical translator, a photographer and earlier as a construction team manager. That is the way the life goes... After 1990 I devoted much of my leisure time to find out what was wrong with the Soviet system and Marxism and why they failed.

In the course of my (re)search I came across Dr. Skinner’s writings via my old memories of what I was taught at the University about Dr. Pavlov and his dogs. I read actually everything the university and public libraries in Berlin have on the subject of behaviorism, and my further enquiries among German „psychologists“ convinced me that Skinner is either forgotten or „despised“. That is why I was so pleasantly surprised seeing the first reference on your work in a rather hostile article.

I would greatly appreciate your e-mail reply, with a copy of the requested (and/or some later article or essay of yours on the same subject) attached. It would be of big help and honour for me to remain in contact with you, because - frankly - I have many questions concerning Skinnerian behaviorism and the behaviorist technology of social engineering.

Yours very sincerely,

Alexei

-- - - -- - -

Hello Alex,

It is indeed a pleasure to receive you request. Thank you for your kind words. Apparently, we have been following the same path (including travel to Cuba). A little about me: I have been interested for many years in relating Skinner and Marx. Just as you have discovered, the interpretations of both writers are so varied as to result in a large mass of confusion. Regarding Skinner, I consider myself a behaviorologist (please see the article I coauthored with Ernest Vargas on the International Society for Behaviorology website (http://web.me.com/eavargas/ISB/Home.html). And as for Marxism, for the most part I follow the political perspective of Leon Trotsky. The most penetrating materialistic analysis that I have found of what happened to the Soviet Union is his book, Revolution Betrayed (available from www.pathfinderpress.com). You may also be interested in Fertile Ground: Che Guevara and Bolivia. In brief, this is my last year at Ball State University where I have been teaching for the last 36 years. In my retirement I look forward to continuing work on this project.

I have attached the article you requested along with a related book chapter titled "Marxist Theory and Behavior Therapy." I quickly scanned through your website and found it to be quite intriguing. Most striking for me were the viewpoints we share in common (especially concerning Skinner) along with the differences we have in how to go about making the world a nicer place for humanity. I would be delighted to remain in contact with you, Alex.

Most sincerely,

Jerry

- - - -- - -

Mr. Jerome D.Ulman

Dept. of Special Education

Ball State University

Dear Jerry,

once again, many thanks for your kind reply. I hope not to abuse your time and readiness to stay in contact with me by bringing today the following to your attention:

1) Searching the English-language Wikipedia for “Behaviorology” results in an automatic redirection to the “Ethology” article which is about a totally different kettle of fish. (Please see the screenshot attached). I do not feel myself either authorised or competent enough to write on the subject of “Behaviorology”. Remember, I learned this word just a couple of days ago. Now I am ploughing through the saga of the recent battles of behaviorologists against “behavioral psychologists”, attached as references to the Wikipedia article on “Los Horcones”. Well, I hope you already have some text which could be easily adapted to post it as the still non-existent Wikipedia article on “Behaviorology”. As soon as it is posted, I can (if you wish) translate it into Russian and post it at the Russian-language Wikipedia.

2) The word “contingency” (of reinforcement) is still confusing for me, especially when I translate behaviorist texts (I posted translation into Russian of several fragments from books by Skinner at my Russian language site). I certainly could resort to writing “contingency” with russian letters, but it would be a dishonest trick which is far too often used by incompetent translators. This trick is also the plague of Russian science: it creates swarms of parrots repeating fashionable foreign words without “understanding the meaning”. Then, there is the following definition of “contingency” in “Behavior principles”, 3^rd ed., by Charles B. Ferster & Stuart A. Culbertson, in the “Glossary”:

“Contingency of reinforcement: The circumstances under which a specified performance will or will not be followed by specified reinforcers. The contingency of reinforcement specifies the relationship between a peformance and its outcome.” Do you agree?

I translate “contingency of reinforcement” as FAKTOR PODKREPLENIJA, this Russian “factor” being a rather more general term than the English “factor”. It is more like German “Faktor” and “Umstand” = English “factor” AND “condition” but NOT the same as Russian USLOVIJE = English “condition”, as in “conditional reflex” = USLOVNYJ REFLEKS. I would greatly appreciate your comments and suggestions!

3) You know, Germany is a relatively cosy country - but the contingencies here are purely antisocial. I miss being again together with the people excited with the vision of socialism - like some (not all) Russians of my childhood - the short-lived Khrushchev era: Sputnik, Gagarin, development of Siberia and Central Asian Steppe... Later, at the University, I met some Chileans. They had the same precious, noble elan - which again was short-lived, smashed by the CIA & Pinochet.

I would like to participate in opening the eyes of the Chavistas on the enormous potential of radical behaviorism for building the “21^st century socialism” they dream of. That would be an achievement to be extremely proud of. Without it the socialist experiment risks once again, this time in Venezuela, to end up in the dead alley of noncontingent reinforcement and compulsion. It is tragic that only capitalism makes use of contingent positive reinforcement - certainly, in its specifically vicious “sucker-punching” way.

So please let me know whether anyone (I mean, any behaviorologist) has any serious plans to start some behaviorology-flavoured project of the Sandinista-sandalista sort in Venezuela. I tried to contact Venezuelans (Chavistas) directly and via their Embassy in Berlin. Alas, the reply was always the notorious Latino “manana” and later no reply at all...

4) What I see differently from Skinner and you (“Synthesis of Marx and Skinner”, p. 14) is:

“Behaviorologists reject both the conscious and the unconscious as inner causal agents. Thus, "to increase a person's consciousness of the external world is simply to bring him under more sensitive control of that world as a source of stimulation" (Skinner, 1974, pp. 153-154).“

Well, operant behavior should be unconscious to proceed smoothly. Only when the actual situation does not fit the contingencies of some already „known“ operant response well enough, then „consciousness“ wakes up as the agent which makes men (or animals) to „procrastinate“ or to „reflect“, being in effect the time used for producing an operant „skeleton key“ which would eventually match the situation and „solve“ this non-habitual „problem“.

Therefore “to know” is actually “to be certain = to believe”. And “to think” is actualy “to be uncertain, i.e. NOT to know”. I believe here is the point which makes many people behaviorism haters: our “knowledge” DECREASES our “consciousness” of the reality of the world. If social manipulation or, as Guy Debord put it, “The Spectacle”, is performed professionally and follows the track of habits, we accept it as “natural” despite all its artificiality. But as soon as “consciousness” interferes (say, you suddenly get “thoughts” about lung cancer when seeing the fascinating cowboy image of a “Marlboro” ad), then the magic of the image disappears, the “knowledge” = “certainty” that “There Is No Alternative” (the notorious TINA of Mrs. Thatcher) is lost!

Now the bitter truth about society: this destructive nature of “thought” necessitates the society, in order NOT to be screwed up by “ideas”, to be divided into those who really (and conservatively) control the social environment and OTHERS (the majority) who only believe = “know” to be in control of it. This is the essence, the precondition of every sustainable society. Or, as George Orwell put it, “All animals are equal. But there are animals who are more equal than the others.” As soon as the contingencies of social life come under scrutiny, they are rejected, as a bank-note discovered to be bogus. The bloody Western mass-society exists only because it 1) is protected by mass-media from mass-criticism and 2) timely eradicates all alternatives.

As an elderly guy I would not object socialism to be a gerontocracy, i.e. the manipulation of young generations by the older ones. Actually it is the way it works in traditional societies. Or as someone said (I do not remember who): “Education is the warping of unsuspecting, immature minds into a meticulous system of superstitions.” But maybe you have a better (more egalitarian) solution of this Huxleyan “Brave New World” problem of socialist “cultural revolution” made by behavior control?

5) You have certainly noticed looking through my site that I am a passionate Marxism-basher... Therefore please allow me to discuss with you OTHER points - those which hopefully unite, NOT divide us. Namely, that the radical behaviorism (or behaviorology) is THE future of socialism and communism which can and should be put into practice. As an individual I am far too weak to make alone any noticeable progress in this direction. I would like to join forces with you and other behaviorologists - to promote our common ideals and pursue common aims.

With best regards,

Yours very sincerely

Alexei

----

Dear Alexei,

On the contrary—your questions, requests, and suggestions are most welcome. I will be happy to address each one in order.

1. I would not be surprised what you find when you search the Internet using the term behaviorology. First, you are liable to encounter the names Lawrence Fraley and Stephen Ledoux. Along with Ernie and Julie Vargas, and me—among others, these two gentlemen were founders of The International Behaviorology Association in 1989. Over the next several years an irreconcilable difference of views emerged, largely concerning our relationship with the discipline of psychology. We all agreed that the fundamental difference between behaviorology and psychology is the positing of hypothetical agencies within the organism (e.g., attitudes, egos, etc.—those concepts that Skinner called explanatory fictions). Where we differed is in how we were to relate to psychology. Fraley and Ledoux were adamant that we must attack psychology as a pseudoscience, whereas the rest of us saw as our priority the building of a scientific community of behaviorologists to advance this new science. Eventually a schism developed and we ended up going our separate ways. The other group that identifies with behaviorology is, as you found, Los Horcones. This is a small behaviorally oriented commune in Mexico. In fact, in 1990, we held one of our conventions there. The scientific community we formed following the split is the International Society for Behaviorology. Your suggestion about posting an article on Wikipedia is an excellent one, something that we should have considered some time ago. Thank you for that and for the offer to translate in into Russian. However, it just so happens that we have a website on which is posted a brief article authored by Ernie Vargas and me that describes behaviorology. Moreover, one of our members, Aleksandr Federov, a faculty member a Novosibirsk University, translated it into Russian. This translation is also posted on our website:

http://web.me.com/eavargas/ISB/Behaviorology__Ulman_Vargas%E2%80%94Russian.htmlI highly recommend that you read it. You will probably want to look at the rest of the website too. Meanwhile Ernie and I will look into the possibility of have the English version, or summary thereof, posted on Wikipedia.

2. Concerning the matter of translating the term contingency into Russian, please let me know if you have any questions or comments after reading the Russian translation of our article.

3. This section is somewhat of a challenge to address adequately without writing a long manuscript on the subject. I will try to be brief, combining my socialist and radical behavioral perspectives. First, I do not have much hope for your project of “opening the eyes of the Chavistas on the potential of radical behaviorism for building a 21st Century socialism in Venezuela. The primary reason being that Skinnerian science focuses largely on the variables that control the actions of individuals (but see below). A clear example of this focus in in Skinner’s book, Science and Human Behavior (which is free to download from the B. F. Skinner Foundation website:

http://www.bfskinner.org/BFSkinner/PDFBooks.html.

I think you will also enjoy looking through this website. What Ernie an I have been working on lately is an exploration of what a school of heterodox economists—that is, institutional/evolutionary economics—have to offer for examining human behavioral phenomena behaviorologically at the institutional level of analysis. This is new work that we hope to eventually develop into a book. What interests me in particular is that among these evolutionary economists are some who are Marxist oriented to varying degree. In short, without a “macroscopic” perspective based on the science of behaviorology, I don’t think that radical behaviorism (today behaviorologists use the term behavioral materialism) will accomplish much in changing society. As you can probably guess, I am not a strong believer in the viability of piecemeal reform. But that’s just me speaking. Along this line of inquiry in developing a behaviorological “macroscope” is a concept that I have been working on for a long time--with Ernie’s invaluable collaboration: the macrocontingency, defined as the conjoint actions of two or more individuals under common contingency control. In analyzing institutional arrngements, macrocontingency relations function as "behavioral glue"—giving an institution coherence and endurance over long periods of time. My point here is that I believe an appropriate conceptual framework will be needed to approach the issue of a socialist experiment, one that is based on the science of behaviorology (i.e. the analysis of contingency and macrocontingency relations). Does that make sense?

4. I find that I cannot effectively reply to you comments in this section. Specifically, terms such as unconscious, procrastinate, believe, ideas, and the like are foreign to behaviorology; they are agency terms (explanatory fictions) that cannot account for human actions within a natural science framework. What is required to approach what you have shared in this section is a very thorough operant analysis of verbal behavior. I see that you listed Skinner’s (1957) book Verbal Behavior on your website. We consider that book his most important work. In it he deals with such phenomena as thinking, etc., but purely in term of verbal and mediating behavior under the control of contingency relations. I think it is here where we will need to resume our discussion of matters in this section.

5. When I consider your learning history I can readily understand why you are a “passionate Marxist-basher.” I take into account all of those years living under the dictatorship of Stalinist parasites and their privileged and lavish lifestyles obtained at the cost of the labor of Russian farmers and workers, a privileged caste resting on a grotesque caricature of Marxism. My candid opinion is that as a result you were horribly mis-educated politically—if you will forgive my boldness in saying so. I have been a revolutionary Marxist since 1975 and continue to be active politically, so I will leave for another day our discussion of Marxism. I do want to end here by pointing out that Ernie is not at all a Marxist, yet he and I have for many years been able to collaborate on our scientific writing in a most amicable way. With that in mind, I look forward to continuing my communication with you.

Best regards,

Jerry

-- - -- - --

Jerome D. Ulman, Ph.D., BCBA-D

Graduate Program in Applied Behavior Analysis

Professor, Department of Special Education

Ball State University

Muncie, IN 47306

Dear Jerry,

First of all, please let me know the e-mail address of Mr. Alexander Fedorov at Novosibirsk State University. I need to get in contact with him directly before making any comments on his translation.

Second, my interests mainly follow pragmatic approach - NOT that of “fundamental science”, but that of humble engineering. I am interested in simple, primitive things which WORK, and that is why I consider myself a behaviorist, not a “cognitivist” or “marxist” with all their high-flown “theoretical” bla-bla-bla which never worked. I adore Skinner just because he managed, when experimenting with a rat, to see through the non-existent “learning curve” and find a real working thing - the operant - in its place.

The problem is that behaviorism nowadays is a pariah of “scientific community”, whereas cognitivism-mentalism attracts many bright people who discover interesting things despite the blinders of obligatory ideology, just like alchemists discovered alcohol, black powder, amalgams, acids etc. Therefore if there is a FACT, I won’t sacrifice it to the glory and purity of “THE theory”. If there ARE “terms such as unconscious, procrastinate, believe, ideas,“ which were and are used by billions, including such keen observers as Dickens, Flaubert, Turgenev etc., I will be with them, NOT with Prof. Skinner.

(Actually, his book „Verbal Behavior“ disappointed me. I started reading it in a hope to find there a clear refutation of Chomski’s „generative grammar“ and other structuralist nonsense. But I did not find it there. Hundreds of pages filled with obscure neologisms like „mand“ etc., and - sorry - nothing one can apply as a ready-to-use instrument of social engineering.)

In the meantime cognitivists get funds - both from governments and capitalists - and have to deliver. For example the fact I mentioned in my previous letter that “our “knowledge” DECREASES, not increases our “consciousness” of the reality of the world” they “explain” in their typical way of putting a label on it. The label in this particular case is “framing”. See, for example, Susan Fiske & Shelley Taylor, “Social Cognition”. This is really an interesting book; but what is needed is to see (and show others in a SIMPLE and convincing way) that this “framing” actually describes verbal operants and how they WORK. Just admit that verbal operants are constructed by mass-media, public relations, advertising agencies etc. using PREDOMINANTLY mentalist “explanatory fictions“ (as you brand them). Exactly these „fictions“ are very efficient operant tools of propaganda, but you wish to throw them overboard and forget about them...

The power of capitalism lies in its sophisticated manipulative use of positive operant reinforcement. (By the way, exactly this makes „proletarians“ as wage earners NON-revolutionary, quite contrary to marxists visions). Hence I see my task as a behaviorist-socialist in putting forward the socialism based not on „revolutionary“ compulsion and marxist thoroughly mentalist illusions like „class consciousness“, but on positive reinforcement.

Best regards,

Alexei"

...

As I sent my last e-mail two months ago and there was no reply whatsoever, the reasonable thing to suppose is that the whole affair is finished and the only thing remaining to be done is to draw the necessary conclusions. Here they are.

The fact that the whole (very successful and prolific) scientific carreer of Prof. Skinner was devoted to experiments with caged animals (mice, rats, pigeons etc.) made his attempts to build a bridge between behaviorism as the experimental science of animal behavior and the sociology of humans to result in an utter failure. Prof. Skinner was a genius of observing and manipulating the behavior of caged animals, but human society is by far more tricky business than operant training of small animals.

Skinner's understanding of human society ignores all conflicts and contradictions which are obvious for an unbiased observer exactly because he attempted to "scientifically reduce" the perplexity of "condition humaine" to unambigous experimental data of operant conditioning, obtained on pigeons locked in famous "Skinner's boxes".

It is a pity that (as I stated in my e-mails to Dr. Ulman) behaviorism did not attract a new generation of talented followers who could be able to take up further innovative development of skinnerian radical behaviorism. It seems that the attempt to achieve this under the contorted name of "behaviorology" which unfortunately smacks of "scientology" and similar rip-off-cult names can already be counted as a failure.

And the half-hearted attempt of Dr. Jerome Ulman to cross-breed his Skinnerian "pure behaviorology" with marxist dogmatics failed exactly because both these doctrines have proven their inability to see the conflicts of interests, the competition for reinforcement and the active struggle for influencing fellow human beings as the essence of social life and the meaning of life of every socialized individual.

In fact, Skinner imprinted radical behaviorism with his conservative and even absolutist views of human society, most akin to the Hobbesian "Leviathan". Exactly these views make his utopian novel "Walder Two" so dull and boring. Both for Hobbes and Skinner the essence of social life is imaginary harmony created by supreme force, be it Hobbesian "god-given" absolutist monarch or Skinnerian "Planners" practicing behavioral engineering. All conflicts are seen only as malfunctions of society, which is imagined to be nothing but a sort of a clockwork - to be repaired, cleaned, wound up and adjusted to function properly.

It is exactly this elitist totalitarian view of society as a bunch of passive alienated subjects which made Skinner's preaching of behavioral engineering so hated by all sorts of intellectuals, compelling them to reject the scientific principles of behaviorism and to embrace the bogus "science" of mentalism-cognitivism. Even the most keen observers of social life and institutions with all inherent conflicts and contradictions, such as Erving Goffman, saw no other alternative than to interprete and generalise their observations invariably in the vague idealistic terms of cognitivism.

Conflicts, rivalries and other dramatic situations which are the fabric of everyday operant interactions between individuals, make the attainment of paradisiac serenity on Earth an extremely complicated task. This reality was vividly depicted by Goffman, but his analysis is cast in the form of nebulous idealist allegories, epithets and metaphors of mentalism-cognitivism and should be reinterpreted in behaviorist terms. And the readiness to see human beings as they are and not as abstract carriers of mythical "class conscience" is the only way to use the scientific approach of radical behaviorism for the creation of the applied technology of social engineering which can serve as a fool-proof instrument of building the socialist society on the solid rock of operant behavior, NOT on the sand of abstract "ideas".

This point can be clearly demonstrated if we take for example the often-quoted concluding passage of Goffman's "The Underlife of a Public Institution":

"Without something to belong to, we have no stable self, and yet total commitment and attachment to any social unit implies a kind of selflessness. Our sense of being a person can come from being drawn into a wider social unit; our sense of selfhood can arise through the little ways in which we resist the pull. Our status is backed by the solid buildings of the world, while our sense of personal identity often resides in the cracks".

If we try to find out what sort of social reality is hidden behind Goffman's highly poetical abstractions, we can discover that they apply only to hierarchical institutions which are divided into rulers and their subjects, the privileged and the dispossessed, the oppressors and the oppressed, the exploiters and the exploited. Thus Goffman's "little ways" are nothing but the attempts of the oppressed and the exploited to reclaim their fair share of positive reinforcement or at least to obtain some illusory compensation for being confined in their "cracks". The so-called "underlife" is in essence the striving of the dispossessed for social justice, denied to them by the oppressive and exploitative hierarchical social order.

Reading just a couple of pages from the immortal "The Good Soldier Svejk" by Jaroslav Hasek (Yaroslav Hashek) gives a clear idea of how a common man can defy oppressive social order by mocking overcommitment to the duties imposed upon him, and by playing an innocent fool when threatened with punishment. Unfortunately this widely used strategy of passive resistance is of no help for creating the alternative, i.e. egalitarian and libertarian social order.

This quite obvious absence of egalitarian and libertarian habits and patterns of social behavior in hierarchical societies means the necessity of introducing them artificially in the course of cultural revolution which should accompany political revolution. But these habits and behavior patterns are actually chains and networks of operants! That is why only behaviorist socialism can put into practice the communist democracy proclaimed by Vladimir Lenin in chapter V of his famous "The State and the Revolution": "Every person should be fully enabled to participate in governing the state".

I have a very strange feeling when reading - again and again - this marvellous book which Lenin wrote on the eve of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution. It gives the most clear-cut understanding of social revolution ... but puts forward - strictly following the marxist tradition - an utter fiction and figment of imagination: the so-called "proletariat" as the revolutionary protagonist. This ghostly "revolutionary proletariat" was most conspicuous by its NON-involvement in ALL successful social revolutions: the Bolshevik in Russia, the Maoist in China, the Castroist in Cuba etc. etc. Therefore I agree with Lenin in all points up to this traditionally marxist obsession with the "revolutionary proletariat". Every time I see this hollow phrase I want to replace it with something real, for example: "the exploited and the dispossessed victims of capitalism and imperialism in their grass-roots struggle against the oppressors and the privileged". Exactly this "lower classes" multifarious multitude was always the most revolutionary force in all anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist revolutions.

Ergo: behaviorist socialism is the urgently required application of scientific methods of behavioral engineering for the benefit of the revolutionary grass-roots struggle of "lower classes" for communism or - if you dislike this word - for the old good revolutionary "liberte, egalite, fraternite". It should be the OPPOSITE of the instrument of subjugating the mankind under the manipulative rule of some pretendedly "benevolent" tyranny of elitist "Planners" - be it globalist "Bilderberg" billionaires, technocratic bureacracy of the "new left", etc. etc. -, piously praised by Skinner in his "Walden Two".

This application of behavioral engineering which makes socialism genuinely scientific is urgent precisely because Western imperialists routinely and SUCCESSFULLY apply it now in their struggle AGAINST socialism. All so-called "colored revolutions" are NOT "of the people, by the people and for the people", but of the US imperialism, by the US imperialism and for the US imperialism. CIA is the true protagonist of all of these revolting pro-Western pro-capitalist "revolutions": from the first unsuccessful ones - 1953 in East Germany, 1956 in Hungary, 1968 in Czechoslovakia - to the latest imperialist bloodbath in Libya.

Stop NATO bombing in Libya! - Email campaign

Stop NATO bombing in Libya!

Email campaign

before critical UN review on Sept 19th 2011

http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2011/09/12/please-help-stop-the-nato-bombing-in-libya-email-campaign/

Human rights investigations

Please help stop the NATO bombing in Libya: email campaign

Human Rights Investigations supports the email campaign to stop the NATO bombing in Libya, to prevent massacres such as we have already seen in Zlitan and NATO supported ethnic cleansing in places such as Tawergha and to protect the people of Sabha, Zlitan and the south of Libya from further death and destruction.

On September 19th there will be a review by the UN Security Council of UN Resolution 1973 which has been abused by NATO to provide justification for the bombing. We are asking you to send the suggested email below to the non-belligerent members of that body.

SEND YOUR E-MAILS NOW!

Please pass this on to your friends, family and contacts around the world! For Italian, French and Spanish versions of the appeal (with email in English) please go to: www.interculture.it/libia

Please paste the following addresses into the recipient box of your “Stop the War in Libya” e-mail:

ChinaMissionUN@Gmail.com, rusun@un.int, India@un.int, portugal@un.int, contact@lebanonun.org, chinesemission@yahoo.com, delbrasonu@delbrasonu.org, siumara@delbrasonu.org, bihun@mfa.gov.ba, colombia@colombiaun.org, pmun.newyork@dirco.gov.za, perm.mission@nigerdeleg.org, aumission_ny@yahoo.com, presidentrsa@po.gov.za, info@new-york-un.diplo.de, dsatsia@gabon-un.org, LamamraR@africa-union.org, waneg@africa-union.org, JoinerDJ@africa-union.org, gabon@un.int, Nigeria@un.int, unsc-nowar@gmx.com

In the e-mail’s subject box:
PLEASE PUT A STOP TO NATO WAR IN LIBYA – APPEAL TO NON-BELLIGERENT UNSC MEMBERS

Body text:

“PLEASE PUT A STOP TO THE NATO WAR ON LIBYA!”

WE APPEAL TO NON-BELLIGERENT MEMBERS OF THE U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL

•to put an end to the misuse of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 to influence the internal affairs of Libya through warfare, by revoking it, and

•to press for a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Libya, backing the African Union’s central role in this context.

We thank those countries that have tried, and are still trying, to work towards peace.

Our appeal is based on the following:

•the military intervention in Libya undertaken by some NATO members has now gone far beyond the provisions of Security Council Resolution 1973, and is based on hyped-up accounts of defenseless citizens being massacred by their government, while the truth is that, in Libya, there is an on-going and intense internal armed conflict;

•we are aware of the economic and geo-strategic interests that lie behind the war in Libya and, in particular, behind NATO support of one of the two armed factions;

•NATO military intervention in Libya has killed (and is continuing to kill) countless civilians, as well as harming and endangering the civilian population, including migrants and refugees, in various other ways;

•the belief, at this stage, that only non-belligerent countries – and particularly those with U.N. Security Council voting rights – can successfully bring a peaceful end to the conflict through negotiations and by implementing the opening paragraph of UNSC Resolution 1973, which calls for an immediate ceasefire.

Respectfully yours,

Name (or association)

Address (optional)

Promoted by Rete No War and U.S. Citizens for Peace & Justice – Rome

„YES, I’M SAYING IT’S ALL LIES“ - A NOBLE NEW VOICE FROM ICELAND REVIVES THE HIGH STANDARD OF A GENUINELY DEMOCRATIC JOURNALISM LONG-FORGOTTEN BY THE

So, my dear friends in the USA and Western Europe, you probably still imagine that you have the „Liberty For All“ and „The Government of the People, by the People, and for the People“? - Don’t kid yourself, it all has long perished.

And the ugly truth which all of you suspect but don’t dare to acknowledge openly, is: we are the subjects of the tyrannical rule of the global plutocracy of Wall Street and City, the oligarchy of VERY big money bags - the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds, etc, the royal houses of England, Netherlands, Saudi, etc, Gates, Soros, and the rest of the super-rich scumbags organized into the Bilderberg Club. This oligarchy bought up lock, stock and barrell all parliaments, administrations and political parties, and turned them into a pathetic puppet-muppet show, utterly disgusting in its permanent lies and hypocrisy. And this bullshit is called... „democracy“!!!

We suffer the economic crises and wars because these plutocratic oligarchs, these super-rich rulers of the World make profits from these terrible events. Their profits are really huge. And in addition they rob the treasuries both of the aggressor states (the USA and the NATO countries), and those of their victims, e.g. Iraq and Libya.

It is possible because the corporate media employ thousands of creepy bastards of the sort of Hitler’s Propaganda Minister Dr. Goebbels, to keep the deluge of mind-boggling lies flowing. There is no genuine freedom of speech in the mainstream mass-media. They crowd out and stifle the genuine public opinion and replace it with their falsified published opinion. The corrupt presstitutes hired by the corporate bosses do their best to fool us and to turn us into apolitical idiots.

Absolute dictatorial power of the super-rich global plutocrats is based on their limitless supply of money. But what is the source of their limitless wealth? - It is the owning of banks and all other financial and insurance corporations. Banks in their turn are the owners of the central banks (with a few exceptions like Cuba, Venezuela and till quite recently Libya) all around the world. The activities of the banks are well-coordinated by the institutions like IMF guarding the interests of the gang of the super-rich. Banks do NOT compete against each other; they are like different tables in a huge rigged casino where suckers (we) are free to loose our hard-earned money. And the super-rich are quite different from us, because the banking system they own CREATES fiat money from NOTHING, or, as it was said before the invention of electronic banking, they „print money“.

And if you print money, you can afford buying a sandwich for 1 $, for 10 $, for 100 $ etc. The price makes NO difference for the super-rich. The only price limitation is their desire, that all those who serve them this REAL sandwich, remain poor and obedient. Therefore a stock market rally does not mean that the economy is recovering, it simply means that the super-rich are again at it - buying real assets with the „money“ they have just „printed“ on their computer keyboards. They grab real assets and then collect rent, or sell them at inflated prices on credit and collect both principal and interest. And if the borrowers default, the banks (i.e. the super-rich) get bailed-out by their subservient political puppets.

There is nothing really new about their globalist „New World Order“. It is just a fancy name for the old corrupt rule of those who INHERITED extremely big fortunes combined with the REAL political power. It should be properly called FEUDALISM - the system under which ALL political power and ALL property is in the same hands - of a king or a duke. As the „Sun-King“ of France, Louis XIV, proudly used to say: „L’etat - c’est moi“. The difference is: the gang of the super-rich has learned to conceal its absolutist political power behind the puppet theatre of fake „democratic governments“ and under the cover of corporate mass-media lies, and its new feudalism is global and amalgamated (i.e. works as a combination of an elite club and a joint-stock company).

But in essence it is the same system of feudal bureacratic absolutism which the peoples of the World are fighting against since 1789 - the year of the Great French Revolution, which proclaimed „Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite“ - Liberty, Equality and Fraternity of the People. Only those who fight for these lofty causes are called democrats (fighters for liberty), socialists (fighters for equality) and communists (fighters for fraternity). All other uses of these words are simply dirty lies and propaganda disseminated by the super-rich.

Summing up, these are the three pillars of the plutocratic global „New World Order“ dictatorship:

-- the limitless capital and assets of the super-rich, i.e. their absolute financial and economic power,

-- the corrupt quasi-democratic institutions of politics and government, which obediently execute the orders of the super-rich, and

-- the corrupt corporate mass media which tell only the lies ordered by the super-rich.

Well, many suckers believe the tales about billionaires who started life as shoe polishers and newspaper boys, or about nice Cinderellas marrying princes. It is all bloody rubbish. The super-rich fend-off outsiders, they deliberately ruin successful up-starts and marry only the insiders in order to prevent dispersion of their wealth and power. Because of this in-breeding many of them are pathetic morons, psychos, degenerates and monsters. They can’t fool the Nature which selects against in-breeding. The fact that some of them are more or less normal is due to the escapades of their mothers who smuggle fresh blood into elite families. The super-rich hate this inconvenient truth and therefore are ardent supporters of all junk „theories“ about the „master race“ - fascism, racism and „eugenics“. These jerks hate the rest of Mankind; that’s why we have to finish them off.

NOW LOOK: all the above, although perfectly true, are just bare statements which require substantiation with facts. I spoke out my mind - but I did not give you any FACTS as proof! That is how propaganda works. On the other hand, the Icelandic fellow writing at the Web site „gagnauga.is“ not only put forward brilliant arguments, but he also delivered more than sufficient proof with SOLID FACTS. In my opinion, reading his article is a must for everyone who needs a true eye-opener.

Several readers of the original icelandic web site expressed the wish to get a crash-proof „light“ version of the text in English. Therefore I put this text here, the only deliberate change being the replacement of the whole lot of embedded pictures and videos - which cause browser crash without a high-speed access to the web - with deactivated (mute) links. There is a couple of videos from which I didn’t manage to extract the link address, so please check with the original at

http://gagnauga.is/index.php?Fl=Greinar&ID=169

Yes, I’m saying that it’s all lies if you can.

Full respect and many thanks to you, dear „gagnauga“! Please go on writing (preferably in English).

Yours sincerely,

behaviorist-socialist

tags: gagnauga, plutocracy, Bilderberg, imperialism, colonialism, NATO war against Libya, the rape of Libya, mass-media, mass-media lies, Qaddafi, Gaddafi, The Green Book, behaviorist socialism

„YES, I’M SAYING IT’S ALL LIES

Yes. You heard what I said. All of it. It's all a bunch of lies. I know that it is a shocking claim to many, that our trusted officials in concert with our reliable mass media actually participated in deliberate deception designed to get us to accept war, but deal with it. I'm making it.

Our biggest moral obligation is ensuring that wars are not waged against people under false pretenses. War is the most disgusting and horrible thing you can inflict on any person.

As you read this article I am sure you will find there are a number of things that will surprise you. After researching the situation for months I assure you I have investigated as many sides of the story as possible. But I did reach a clear conclusion and I will not shy away from openly expressing the views that I have formed during this process.

What we have been seeing recently in the media, this time with a special emphasis on the online community, is the most sophisticated propaganda firework display we have ever witnessed. It’s no surprise so many people have been duped.

But a lie can travel the world before the truth has tied it’s shoe laces. But I believe that once the laces have been tied and the truth starts walking, eventually it’s gonna get to people.

There are at least two sides to every story

None of us could possibly have avoided hearing NATO’s side of the story and the reasons and justifications given for Gaddafi’s removal and how military intervention is necessary to protect Libyan citizens.

But are you sure you’ve heard both sides? Have you heard Gaddafi’s perspective on this issue? Or have you just heard “his side” as represented by the mainstream western media? If so I can start by telling you that his words, and the words of his son, Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi have been deliberately misinterpreted and edited out of context to create simple soundbite propaganda to influence people.

You will find that there is a completely different side of this story that is being completely ignored. It is not even being debated for it's merits, it simply is not talked about at all in the mainstream media.

Think about it. How much do you really know about Libya? Did you in all honesty know anything about the country before these events started unfolding? If I would have asked you back in February 10 questions about Libya and it’s affairs, how many do you think you would have answered correctly? And how much do you honestly know about what is going on there now?

I often find it intriguing how people tend to think they are qualified to give their view on things that in reality they know next to nothing about. They might have vague ideas generated by the mainstream media, biased textbooks and general pre-conceived notions, but not an actual thorough understanding of the country and it’s people and customs.

I had a discussion with a guy at a local bar the other day and I began the conversation by asking if he could tell me on what continent Libya was. Neither he nor his friend could answer correctly, picking Europe and Asia as their educated guesses. For some reason this guy still felt that his take on the situation was more accurate than mine, even as I told him I had been spending weeks investigating the matter. For those of you confused the correct answer is Africa.

I want to ask a simple question to make a simple case? Can you name me one current Libyan government official? You’re not allowed to say Gaddafi. Who holds the position of “Secretary of the General People’s Assembly” a position comparable to that of prime minister, although with a slightly different emphasis as he does not represent a political party and does not alone hold significant power. Did you even know that such a position exists in Libya and that he is elected by the people?

The less you know about something, the easier it is to deceive you.

My intention for exposing your potential and likely ignorance on this subject is not an attempt to show that I’m smarter or better than you. As I found out myself researching this article I knew remarkably little about Libya. And that is my point.

The mainstream media is focusing entirely on a set of news stories that have the specific intention of gathering support for military action and actively suppressing any story that would lead to people opposing it. This pattern will be exposed clearly as this article progresses.

It’s no wonder we don’t know much about Libya. Of course it gets confusing with all the different stories we hear of dictators and tyrants oversees. It is difficult to be an expert on all nations in the world. Just consider how many nations have existed and how long and rich each of their history is and how complex and unique the situation in each country is today.

When this is combined with a relentless, precise and extremely well organized propaganda blitz against one nation that is being targeted by an army, it’s all too easy to tag along.

I would also like to add that this article has proven difficult and this is the third version of it. Well actually it's the fourth considering that this translation is updated from the third, final Icelandic version. Yet it is of vital importance to me that it is as comprehensive and convincing as possible, because the more I wrote and the more I researched, the more clear the magnitude and the scale of this massive deception campaign became. Most people, unfortunately have not developed the type of immunity to this kind of propaganda and are simply put, still to gullible in the face of such force.

I am not going to be answering comments about me being arrogant or one sided or any other remarks unrelated to the specific points I raise in this article. My only goal is to speak truly and freely how I feel about this after my research and you are welcome to make of it whatever you want.

I will not pretend to be neutral when it comes to the deliberate killings of innocent civilians and the attempted destruction of a great, unique nation whose people want nothing but peace and independence.

"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.

- Bishop Desmond Tutu

My goal is obviously not to achieve popularity or attention as Gaddafi is certainly not the most popular man in the world right now. Thanks to the media mind manipulation machines most now see him as a crazed dictator who kills peaceful protesters, schedules mass rapes and supports terrorism. And I’m taking "his side" ? Good luck me…

If the only thing I achieve with this article is to show that there is such a thing as Gaddafi's side and that it has been blacked out by the media, then it will have been worth it. As that should be of deep concern to us all.

Ultimately of course, the question is not about Gaddafi. This is what the propaganda machines manage to do so successfully. With their Hollywood formula they create the image of a bad guy that has to be stopped by the good guy and all other sides of the arguments can be ignored as long as that is perceived to be the case.

But don’t think for one second I will just sit by as this next blockbuster bloodbath unfolds and not do my best to expose it for what it is.

Unfortunately this is not a subject that can be covered in the fast food style of the gossip, profit driven mainstream media garbage. I do not take their example in aiming my writings at the lowest common denominator, rather I am trying to appeal to those who are genuinely interested in researching this topic with the goal of understanding it. There is simply put far too much that needs to be addressed and I assure you, every word is there for a reason. Except for these five words.

I sometimes get comments that my articles are too long and that no one will bother to read them. It reminds me of a story I heard of Bob Dylan. This slick record executive came to the studio after hearing an album, and said “ I love this song, but you need to make a short version so we can get it played on the radio. “This is the short version” Dylan replied and I would say the same.

Don’t be so naive as to think you can be knowledgable about a subject after reading a few mass produced news stubs.

I would also like to point out that if you think this article is long, just think how long it took me to write it. I promise you, I am saving you a lot of trouble. What took me months to research, you can read in a few hours. And for that I am getting no money from anyone. I don’t do it for fun either as I know of many more fun ways to spend my time than browsing through pictures and watching videos about war and death.

I do this solely out of responsibility for my own conscience. And even after this article and all the research I did, I still have questions.

You don’t need to finish the entire article now, it will be here, but I highly recommend finishing it eventually.

I will provide links and sources as we go and I encourage anyone to challenge their contents, or the arguments I make. Let’s hope I’m not wrong after all the work I’ve put into this.

Now, some of you won’t need to read any article to know that the war on Libya is based on lies. You just know by experience not to trust the mainstream media and to know that the military powers NEVER take on such a mission for simple humanitarian reasons. They know that all such rhetoric by those in power is empty and meaningless and only meant to camouflage other reasons that include geo-political strategy, resources and control.

If you are one of those people I still recommend that you continue reading, I am positive you will understand more thoroughly the nature and scale of this particular deception, in this particular war.

My goal in this article is to deconstruct every single argument and justification being made for the bombing and potential ground invasion of Libya. It is divided in these 6 chapters:

1st chapter: Gaddafi is an evil dictator

2nd chapter: Human Rights violations in Libya

3rd chapter: We must protect peaceful protesters

4th chapter: LIES LIES LIES

5th chapter: History of Libya

6th chapter: Motives

1st chapter: Gaddafi is an evil dictator

Pick any mainstream news story about Libya and this will be stated as given. He is one of those corrupt third world dictators, of course he is! He’s been in power for far too long! But wait a minute…

It is not even officially acknowledged that this claim is being heavily disputed. What is also not being reported is an even more stunning fact, not only is he not an evil dictator, he is not even a dictator at all.

He holds no official power. I think I am going to repeat this cause it is staggering how loud this has been screamed while being completely ignored:

LISTEN CLOSELY! GADDAFI HAS NO OFFICIAL AUTHORITY IN LIBYA

If this statement is true you will immediately notice that all the talk you have heard about “removing him from power” is just a farce.

In fact, Gaddafi has only an honorary title as “the father of the revolution” and is also dubbed “the leader of the revolution” hence the common reference to him as leader of Libya. He has influence, as anyone with such a status and reverence in a country would have. But by no technical or logical definition can he be described as a dictator.

A dictator is someone who has the official authority to make all decisions facing a country. He has final and official authority over the army, laws and courts. Plenty of such figures exist. Gaddafi has no such authority so how can anyone claim he is a dictator? That can only be considered a conspiracy theory.

In the few instances this has been addressed it is claimed that despite this “everyone knows” that he is really in charge. Of course. But when I say a powerful group of bankers is really in charge of the US government you call me crazy. Maybe “everyone” doesn’t know that yet, but I have a feeling it won’t be long.

So who is in power in Libya, if not Gaddafi? This is where things start to get interesting.

We have to bring democracy to Libya!

Oh really? What kind of democracy? Representative democracy such as the one currently being employed in most western countries? A two party system such as the one in the US?

People in Iceland have been talking a lot lately about democratic reforms. What these discussions usually revolve around is more emphasis on people’s participation, more national voting and big matters being discussed in big meetings.

Direct democracy is very similar to the system we used in Iceland during our founding years. Almost exactly the same. The idea is basically this, get people together in conference halls open to discuss specific issues relating to neighbourhoods and vote on them. Choose representatives to go a more centralized meeting to discuss matters relating to larger areas and then finally do this for the entire country. This is the general idea and it seems pretty simple.

But oh yes, excuse me, I was supposed to be talking about the dictatorship in Libya but just started rambling on about democratic reforms in Iceland.

No, in fact I just trolled you, I am talking about Libya. Direct democracy has been employed in Libya ever since when Gaddafi relinquished all official power and resigned to the symbolic position he has today in 1977. Let me repeat this fact that is also being completely ignored by the mainstream media.

ATTENTION! LIBYA HAS A FUNCTIONING DIRECT DEMOCRACY

Or at least they did until the western powers started their “operations”.

Do you understand what I am saying? That despite how many times you have heard Gaddafi being referred to as a dictator, it is still false? Either because someone is lying to you or have themselves been lied too?

In this Orwellian world we find ourselves in it is actually quite difficult to find reliable information concerning this, especially from the mainstream media who some people still, unfortunately see as the official certifiers of truth.

But do not despair. Valiant internet knights have managed to dig up excellent footage that completely contradicts the narrative being currently fed to us.

One of the best information regarding this whole situation is in fact, just an amateur video put together by a random youtube user that had about a 100 views when I discovered it.

I always think it’s a bit funny when people try to discredit certain types of information by alluding to it being “something you picked up from the internet’” while simultaneously hailing the internet as one of the most wonderful technological achievements of history.

These people have seen stupid videos online, we all have. They conclude that since you believe something that to them seems so far fetched, it must mean you’ve watched one of those videos and fell for it without researching it using “solid sources”.

A lot of people also seem to think that we "can't" know what's really going on, since you can't trust any of the media. Well, we can and should trust ourselves in piecing together the information available and draw an informed conclusion, or at least educated assumptions.

Meanwhile this trust that the large media networks have as the only “solid sources” is being systematically abused to favour the military and Wall Street.

And the fact is that the internet invites anyone to become an independent journalist.

You can record your own material or edit together relevant clips from different sources to make extremely interesting and informative videos.

Often these videos will include small bits from these so called “solid sources” that have revealed discrepancies in the official line and put them into proper context.

This video I am posting is a prime example of that and includes extremely relevant information relating to Libya’s democratic system.

Please take a quick break from reading to watch these videos. If you have any genuine interest in knowing the truth and are sincere in your respect for justice you will watch them. Trust me, it’s worth it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMXyCqdPPoU&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mXrqhw6HFZY

2000 Conference Halls

http://changeobserver.designobserver.com/media/images/ConferenceHallTripoli_525.jpg

What you are now looking at is a conference hall that was designed to be built but has been put on hold after these recent events. Since the Libyan Revolution of 1969, 2000 conference halls have been built in which people come together to decide local policies and appoint people’s commission to implement these policies.

The secretary general of state in Libya is Baghad Mahmudi. I think if you would make a wager of 100$ with everyone living in the west about who that guy is you would become very rich.

I’m not saying this to pretend to be smarter than you, like you I did not know who he was until I started researching for this article. My point is we should not engage in the bombing of a country which we have so little real knowledge about! Have you been to Libya? Well neither have I, so shouldn’t you at least look into it in detail before we just barge in their with military aircraft and start killing people?

Consider that if the fact holds that Gaddafi has no official power in Libya beyond a regular citizen and some honorary treatments, all the arguments for the bombings and support of rebel groups have collapsed, as the whole operation is based on aiding a popular revolution to topple Gaddafi and “remove him from power” So what power"?

Could it be that we live in such a crazy world. Yes, in fact it very well could be.

Here we see Moussa Ibrahim, spokesman of the Libyan government saying that Obama is delusional.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4X7swX3Nx4&feature=player_embedded

And take for instance this example, a little gem that passed through the propaganda filters.

This Washington Post reporter tries to put what he is hearing in context with what his programmed reality can come up with and the only thing he can conjure up is that all these supporters of Gaddafi he met in Libya must just be this crazy.

The headline is

"Many Libyans appear to back Gaddafi"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/crisis-in-the-mideast/2010/08/25/ABHShlRB_story.html

(To enter the world of the Gaddafi believers is to enter an “Alice in Wonderland” realm in which the regime’s supporters are the real revolutionaries, not the rebels seeking to topple the government, because Libya is in a state of perpetual revolution.

The Libyan people can’t overthrow their government because they are the government, in accordance with the country’s definition of itself as the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, which loosely translates as “state of the masses.”Gadhafi can't be toppled because he holds no formal position; he is the Brother Leader, a guide and a mentor, a patriarch and an uncle who advises his people but does not rule them. )

I hope you still have appetite. There is a lot more to come.

2nd Chapter - Human Rights abuses in Libya

This is a mantra that is easy for the propaganda machines to preach. Once again reality seems to be quite different.

First question you might ask yourself, if Gaddafi is such a gross human rights violator, why was Libya elected by other African Nations to lead the Human Rights Council of the United Nations in 2003?

Source BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2672029.stm

First of all, if Gaddafi has no power in Libya accusing “his men” of human rights violation simply doesn’t fly. Unless he just has his private secret mafia? But that would also be just a conspiracy theory. (Do not get me wrong, a lot of conspiracy theories have basis for them, but I have seen no evidence for this one)

Wiki on Human Rights Watch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Watch

Another article dealing with it's corrupt nature

http://politinfo.wordpress.com/2009/07/16/human-rights-watch-biased-corrupt-and-in-denial/

"According to a 2008 financial assessment, HRW reports that it does not accept any direct or indirect funding from governments and is financed through contributions from private individuals and foundations.

According to NGO Monitor this policy is violated by support from the Dutch government and a May 2009 fund raising trip to Saudi Arabia.[10]

Notably, billionaire financier and philanthropist George Soros announced in 2010 his intention to donate US$100 million to HRW over a period of ten years. He said, "Human Rights Watch is one of the most effective organizations I support. Human rights underpin our greatest aspirations: they're at the heart of open societies."[11][12] The donation increases Human Rights Watch's operating budget from $48 million to $80 million. The donation was the largest in the organization's history"

So, George Soros, who likes to manipulate the economies of entire nations for personal gain (including Iceland and Greece) is their biggest supporters and they go to SAUDI ARABIA on a fund raising trip??

Yes, one of the biggest violators of human rights in the history of mankind financed this human rights organization.

Just because a human rights organization makes an accusation against someone doesn't make it true. Anyone that has the money could form an organization and name it "human rights watch", especially if he intended to use it for this purpose.

There is one substantiated allegation, and that is that in Libya, people have been executed people for terrorism and high treason. This is not something I agree with personally. But then again, I have not been living under constant attacks by secret agents and subversive groups funded by western intelligence agencies trying to undermine a people's revolution.

I have not had multiple attempts on my life and NATO hasn't killed my daughter. I'm sure after a while your sense of humor for people trying to kill you, your people and the leader of your people's revolution, would go away. In any case this is no excuse for the US to bomb anyone as they execute about 44 people a year, many of whom are later proven to have been innocent of their charges.

It is possible that Libya would be the greatest welfare paradise on the planet were it not for the constant interference by greedy western companies. There appear to be few places on earth that have a welfare system as good and where every person is as valued. I kid you not.

Consider Iceland for example. In Iceland we are ruled by a wealthy minority that lives in luxury while many of us work day after day, weekend after weekend, just to be fed and get to live in a home.

In Libya, everyone is entitled to a home, food, water, a vehicle and the opportunity to pursue his interests. If you want education abroad, the government pays for it completely. Need to buy a home to start a family? The government gives you 64.000$ to buy one when you get married.

As with other stuff relating to Libya at the moment it is not that easy to find reliable information regarding this from mainstream sources, but with a little internet detective work you can verify this quite clearly.

From Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Libya_under_Gaddafi \l Petroleum_politics

During the 1970s, the government succeeded in making major improvements in the general welfare of its citizens. By the 1980s Libyans enjoyed much improved housing and education, comprehensive social welfare services, and general standards of health that were among the highest in Africa.'

So… let me get this straight… this evil dictator takes over and stars improving everyones lifestyle! What a monster!

Another thing I did researching this was to watch old mainstream documentaries about Libya, it is informative to see how these films contradict the picture being painted now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLHOSc8iwF4&feature=player_embedded

This one is incredibly boring but it gives some insight into the life in Libya:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnbQI8ZCgE0&feature=player_embedded

Consider this video that went viral recently. Gaddafi is writing in a motorcade without any protection and everywhere he goes people meet him in celebration.

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

Does it now seem to you, just a little bit less of a sign of his “insanity” when he claimed that his people loved him?

I think it’s time you watched this video, with a message from Gaddafi, broadcast over Tripoli on July 1st.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0XsF03fNM4&feature=player_embedded

This is a support march for Muammar Gaddafi and it includes 1.7 million people Source: http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=627456

There are 2 million people living in Tripoli! And only 6.5 million in the entire Libya! Seems that only those who called in sick that day didn’t make it. Just watch it, and tell me we are witnessing a “popular revolution against Gaddafi in Libya”

One commented that people in North Korea also loved Kim Jong Il. This comparison is preposterous. First of all people are allowed to freely exit Libya as they please. Second of all, that person is admitting that he is loved by his own people and hence that all the talk about him oppressing his own people is utter garbage. Why don’t they just say that then? Why doesn’t Obama admit that, yeah… the people love him, but they’re all batshit crazy…

So… let me get this straight… We’re actually at that point now? We will bomb a country to kill people, to help them get rid of a “dictator” that they all appear to love, but we, sitting on our arrogant asses in front of the TV claim we know better about what is best to them! To the point that we’re willing to kill them to prove that we are right?

How is that not batshit insane??

If you’re thinking it must have gotten worse since you would be wrong.

Here is the Human Development Report of the United Nations, notice that Libya is the only African nation that reaches the green color.

This picture is from 2010.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5d/UN_Human_Development_Report_2010_1.PNG/800px-UN_Human_Development_Report_2010_1.PNG

Still in doubt? Then I suggest you also read http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/16session/A-HRC-16-15.pdf

report from the United Nations in 2011 (for those not paying attention, it’s this year)

It reads like a valedictorian report card.

5. During the interactive dialogue, statements were made by 46 delegations. A number

of delegations commended the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for the preparation and presentation

of its national report, noting the broad consultation process with stakeholders in the

preparation phase. Several delegations also noted with appreciation the country’s

commitment to upholding human rights on the ground. Additional statements, which could

not be delivered during the interactive dialogue owing to time constraints, will be posted on

the extranet of the universal periodic review when available.

Here are some figures that have been circulating the internet, although I have not been able to find them posted on any of the “solid sources” from the documentaries I have seen and testimony I’ve heard it appears fairly accurate.

Unemployment benefits - 730 U.S. dollars a month.

Nurse salary - $ 1000 per month.

Each baby receives a single gift from the Libyan State - $ 7,000.

The couple receives money from the Libyan government of $ 64,000 to buy a house.(Wedding gift)

State support for a one-off starting their own business - 20,000 U.S. dollars.

High taxes and any fees to forbidden M. Gaddafi initiative.

Education and health care - free of charge.

Education and training abroad is fully payed by Libyan government

Residents receive electricity for free.

Teacher's salary - $ 3,000 per month.

When buying a new car government pays half price.

Brokering real estate is prohibited. Available only direct buyer - seller relationship

Here http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110401093127AAUlmw9

we see an inquiry about this on Yahoo Answers

Here http://danielnouri.org/notes/2011/03/02/libya-is-different/

we also see how the Libyan government funds projects that actually benefit the population instead of just powerful corporations. "Government to build thousands of new homes in Libya"

Here http://www.news24.com/Africa/News/Gaddafi-gives-weapons-to-civilians-20110428

is something that might make you ask yourself another question. If Gaddafi is so hated by his own people, why would the Libyan government pass out weapons to the population to protect people from the rebels and the possible invading armies? Wouldn’t that be suicidal for a dictator trying desperately to retain his power against a popular uprising?

Then the question has to be asked, why does he have so much support from his people and why is the media and our political leaders trying to convince us the opposite?

Here is Serbian journalist Miroslav Lazanski on the issue, corroberating some of these findings:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuCC2GA9RHc&feature=player_embedded

But then you might start havind second thoughts, thinking… if everything is so good in Libya, what are all these people doing protesting? Are they just wrong?

Here is where the propaganda gets serious. In order to sell you this war, the perception of a massive popular rebellion had to be manipulated into the public mind.

But it is however a valid question, why are these people protesting? And who are they?

Let's look at these questions and find out how convincing the case for a popular rebellion in Libya against Gaddafi is.

3rd chapter - We must protect the peaceful demonstrators

This is the ultimate firecracker...

Hey, I've got a joke for you, How do you get all the protesters to shut up while you're waging a war? You convince them you're going to war to protect peaceful protesters!

HAHAHAHAHALOLDERP!! Or... wait a second... Maybe it really isn't that funny...

Let's look at this in more detail.

In the start it was a peaceful protest, but after Gaddafi started brutalizing the peaceful demonstrators it turned violent, right?

Weird, cause not even the intentionally biased wikipedia article actually supports that conclusion:

Here is there timeline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2011_Libyan_civil_war_before_military_intervention

So let us see, early phase, 15. february, first day:

15 February

• In the evening approximately 200 people began demonstrating in front of the police headquarters in Benghazi following the arrest of human-rights activist Fathi Terbil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2011_Libyan_civil_war \l cite_note-4 They were joined by others later who totaled between 500 to 600 protesters. The protest was broken up violently by police, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2011_Libyan_civil_war \l cite_note-aljaz_libya_erupts15Feb-5 causing as many as forty injuries among the protesters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2011_Libyan_civil_war \l cite_note-15_Feb_BEN-6

• In Al Bayda and Az Zintan, hundreds of protesters called for "the end of the regime" and set fire to police and security buildings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2011_Libyan_civil_war \l cite_note-aljaz_libya_erupts15Feb-5 In Az Zintan, the protesters set up tents in the town centre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2011_Libyan_civil_war" \l "cite_note-aljaz_libya_erupts15Feb-5

Am I getting this straight? In a country of six and a half million, 200 people showed up to protest?

My response to that would have to be...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmjHT5GpAYQ&feature=player_embedded

Furthermore, on the first day of the protest, about 500-600 people go around Benghazi and start setting police stations and security buildings on fire?? And these are the supposedly peaceful protesters we are supporting?

When Haukur, an Icelandic Human Rights activist was arrested because of a political stunt where he climbed on top of the parliament building and carried the flag of Bonus, a local grocery chain owned by one of Icelands most notorious banker, symbolizing their dynasty's control over congress, about 500-600 Icelanders went and protested at the police station, demanding his release.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hyu3-KcRyik&feature=player_embedded

The incident escalated to a point where the protesters, broke down the door at the police station and got pepper sprayed by the police. The stand down ensued until allegedly some high ranking official bailed him out, the feeling of victory was nice as you can see in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJqelsyyFbA&feature=player_embedded

The response from the media was harsh and many locals acted almost as if this had been a terrorist attack. Are you telling me that if we had actually just burned down the police station, and then gone on to burn down other police stations, that we would have gotten instant military equipment by NATO and support of the international community to get rid of our oppressive government? And the world would praise us as pioneers in a global revolution!

Surely you must be joking

So what have these peaceful demonstrators been up to since their peaceful revolution started? Well, as any group of peaceful demonstrators would, hunting black people! Yes, just listen to this group of immigrant workers who fear for their lives because of the activities of these people. They don't even leave their houses:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNA8z5G-Xmk&feature=player_embedded

Notice how traumatized the man reliving his experience is, a tell that he is not making up the story. Were he to be enthusiastic and dramatic about it, that would be a clear indicator that he was lying. This point becomes more relevant later on.

See here http://somalilandpress.com/libya-rebels-execute-black-immigrants-while-forces-kidnap-others-20586

this more detailed story on this issue. (Libya: Rebels execute immigrant workers while forces kidnap others)

More on this here http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-31/black-libyans-targeted-by-rebels-with-sub-saharan-africans-amnesty-says.html

from Bloomberg

And here http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iblRNeV_KPO4UXlgsIpXDcXMeYyg?docId=b9fdc733d55e4d5c82d8434904e9233b

from Associated Press

And here http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/au-libya-rebels-may-be-indiscriminately-killing-black-workers-mistaking-them-for-mercenaries/2011/08/29/gIQAmNRQnJ_story.html

from Washington Post

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4oOAjCbXUg&feature=player_embedded

Here is a very recent and puzzling turn of events. The leader of the rebels in Tripoli has now come out and said that the US tortured him and left him in solidary confinement for 6 years! I suppose that's one way to get militant fighters on your side. Maybe this was the plan all along with Guantanamo? To torture innocent people until you have broken them down and then force them to do your dirty military work? Actually this is something Gaddafi himself seemed to insinuate in the BBC interview you will watch at the end of this article.

Source Yahoo News http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/libya-rebel-commander-contends-tortured-rendered-cia-153037850.html

They also seem to be exceptionally good with bureacratic bullshit, as all underground resistance movements are of course...

Since the start of the protest, they've managed to:

Form their own central bank http://www.cnbc.com/id/42308613/Libyan_Rebels_Form_Their_Own_Central_Bank

Form a functioning government http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/03/2011322193944862310.html

Take over oil fields http://www.businessinsider.com/libya-defections-2011-2" \l "ixzz1Eeo3CI2A

Anyone that has taken part in any type of protest knows how ridicilously far fetched these ambitions would be to any movement. Sure it would have been cool if we could have just set up our own central bank while demanding the removal of the head of our central bank at the time, David Oddson, but how on earth would we have gone about doing that? Never mind trying that in the US! So what's going on then?

It's seems pretty simple. This is much less a "protest movement" and much rather trained militants backed, armed and financed by the CIA and I would guess Mossad and MI6 as well.

The Libyans that are protesting appear to mostly make up the former upper class of Libya who are pissed off that their power was taken away from them in a popular revolution. Many of these families fled Gaddafi's rule and have had it in for him ever since.

The goal of these clandestine operations was to start enough disturbances, riots and terror events that would be portrayed to people as a revolution of the people through the media.

This has been tried previously in the case of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, but that attempt failed due to the enormous support he had in his country. (See full documentary from BBC on this case here "The Revolution will not be televised")

Evidence for media manipulation

I don't need to remind you that representatives of all the major media news outlets of the world went to Libya as soon as the protests started, with the intention of covering them. Surely they must have numerous good photos of large peaceful demonstrations against Gaddafi?

Here are some pictures of the protests in Egypt. You can find scores of these kind of pictures with huge crowds, sometimes clashing with police:

http://www.salem-news.com/stimg/january252011/egypt_protest.afp.350.jpg

http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/egypt-protest-5.jpg

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilkSbhaARRkSD3QXsAFl9lsIp-gJYTAjG_4g79lNppiB8fxnoWEHpCzqYvMpDX2KzMZpocGVpDoybaJHR227vEOgxDJZnyzJw_RQPt67ErqrI2fpMbqEy77Zqe6I5vJCDE6cQdV4AP3jao/s1600/Egypt_protest_police.jpg

And even in Iceland, a country with a population of 300.000 we see this turnout:

http://www.rnw.nl/data/files/images/lead/270109%20ijsland%20reykjavik%20proesten%20ANP-8643568_0_0.jpg

http://emergent-culture.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/iceland-protests-fire.jpg

http://www.reuters.com/resources/r/?m=02&d=20090122&t=2&i=7950675&w=460&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&r=img-0781dd9c-3965-102c-bb6a-001aa0073023

Well, now let us compare these images, all of which were easily located with a simple google search with some of the images coming from Libya. In Libya I have yet to find a single picture of protesters clashing with police or being barricaded by police. If you can then by all means post it.

http://www.euranet.eu/var/ezwebin_site/storage/images/media/images/english-images/libya-protest2/2766972-1-eng-GB/Libya-protest_teaser.jpg

Here we see a definitive flag of the Libyan monarchy now being used by the rebels. Is this even in Libya? Well, anyway, when you see a picture of this flag in a protest, you are looking at anti-gaddafi protests. When you are looking at Gaddafi supporters they will be carrying the green flag. The flag of the Libyan Revolution of 1969.

This is one example of such an event:

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/photos/2011/02/19/libya-protest-620-cp-001890.jpg

Well, you might find it curious that this is a picture taken from here http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/02/19/libya-protests-219.html , headlined "84 killed in Libya protests: Rights organization" (Human Rights Watch, of course)

Do these appear to be people protesting Gaddafi? Would protesters of Gaddafi be carrying a glamorous picture of him celebrating? And the flag of his revolution? The answer is clearly no so why are they using this picture? Shouldn't there be plenty of good pictures from the huge protests against Gaddafi?

Actually if you google Libya rebels in the image search you will see a more accurate depiction of this presumed protest movement in Libya.

Just try it. http://www.google.com.mx/search?q=libya+rebels&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&hl=es&tab=wi&biw=1138&bih=525

http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2/20110307/800_ap_libya_rebels_110307.jpg

http://publicintelligence.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/libya-rebels10.jpg

Waving a peace sign with a machine gun and a machine gun belt wrapped around him. Kumbaja my friend. Kumbaja.

http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2011/03/07/1226016/893142-110307-libyan-rebels.jpg

Surely we should be routing for the gun touting gentlemen over the green flag waving madmen in the picture above.

This is not the only media news outlet to make the same embarrassing mistake:

The Associated Press carried the same picture in this story:

"Libyan Protesters defiant after Gaddafi speech"

http://www.lex18.com/news/libyan-protesters-defiant-after-gadhafi-speech

And just look at this one, what is this but a bad photoshopped photobomb? They are all celebrating Gaddafi in the background! Either someone actually snuck in to take the picture or it was just added in post production. Either way, it is pure deliberate propaganda!

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5v8ZKa1FLCWpqzMCo2gaQncS36rqpyN3F1ixZ-fbHPs6s6dMAVNnIUvcuiFnT6i-ujs6Hsu4kv2eNQjoe8zrBkhLNwVJYBaDiXoWpaDOSwstZ2akd6iV3WoSMV8U4xdZSrRU7FJtwXoA/+gunfire+hit+Gaddafi+stronghold+a.jpg

This was posted here http://www.presstv.ir/detail/168254.html , and under it reads "A recent picture of an anti-gaddafi demonstration"

Are you sure mr. reporter that these people wearing the color of his revolution with a glamourous picture of him are anti-Gaddafi? Or is this a bad fake?

And wait a minute... Gadafi.. butcher of libya, didn't I see that movie already...? Oh wait no! That was another guy... Must have been the same producers...

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41PICeAVVZL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/4d5017734bd7c802571c0000-335-251/libya-protest.jpg

Again, are these anti Gaddafi protesters? This is from a discussion where the poster says he found the picture on google earth. Of course he did. And how was he supposed to know that all these crowds were there to support Gaddafi. That's not what the media had told him.

See here http://www.noticierodigital.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=10863735&sid=4b26be81ed49689099e6a90bd57282cd

Again, this picture was posted in at least two places with headlines about protests against Gaddafi:

http://www.saidaonline.com/en/newsgfx/lybia%20protest.jpg

From here http://www.saidaonline.com/en/news.php?go=fullnews&newsid=25311 and here http://headlinesfortoday.com/us-gives-aid-to-libya-protests-1420.html

Another one:

http://www.thebusinessage.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/liby_protests_new-300x210.jpg

Taken from here http://www.thebusinessage.com/2011/02/19/84-killed-in-libya-protests-says-human-rights-watch/

Here is yet another example. The story is about Gaddafi murdering protesters, when the picture clearly shows his supporters:

Twenty four anti-regime protesters shot dead by security forces

http://www.menas.co.uk/news/article/1497

http://www.menas.co.uk/images/site/menas_news/photo2/Libay_Benghazi%20protests.jpg

Notice how all the signs are in Arabic. That's also something I've wondered. Why does it seem that all the protesters from pictures of Iran, Syria and Libya have signs in English?

Of course the picture being painted is that they are "pleading to the international community" and surely that's what some of these people are doing. But isn't just a little strange? In the Icelandic protests of 2009, even if we knew the foreign press was watching, very few decided to post their signs in English, most would have just felt that it was silly.

Even though almost everyone in Iceland speaks English and it is not exactly the most common language in Libya.

Some of the most well known pictures might not even be from Libya. Some might just be of gullible westerners who feel they are supporting justice.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/imagegallery/gallery/php2CMFFc.jpg

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPXLN7q-DZtWxSpf7thYPvyJg5lzl_zAtARZ67ylfT18-W5XDcKQYPb4eROSC8qsFOxK-13P2UH1mZHeZ6qoYrKHFgQvdjiAQbWjsP-3O0U4Ga5XH2xijAF8B2yqoGjxf7fkb1PSmfIOU/+defecate.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5060/5459711643_fb9249b0cc.jpg

Oh that's just brilliant. "Hopeless" As opposed to the "Hope" delivered by Obama's presidency. Straight from the Washington propaganda machines anyone? No... get out of town...

http://forevernokia.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/gaddafi-protest.jpg

ALFA

The group American Libya Freedom Assocation or "ALFA" has been the most prominent group to support this rebellion. They have written propaganda articles that make all types of wild accusations against Gaddafi without any proof. Take for example this article that has so many falsehoods in it I almost drowned in them. Of the top of my head it claims, baselessly that Gaddafi implemented Sharia law. In fact, there is now talk of introducing Sharia law in Libya, after the fall of Gaddafi.

Source http://jonathanturley.org/2011/08/23/proposed-libyan-constituton-would-make-sharia-the-governing-law/

Unfortunately Wikipedia considers this Associaton a reliable source of information and references is it in some of the accusations it makes.

Libya and the U.S. Qadhafi Unrepentant http://www.meforum.org/878/libya-and-the-us-qadhafi-unrepentant \l _ftn34

In this propaganda piece you can see their participation verified.

Here we can also see that Mohamed M. Bugaighis, the head of ALFA has connections to the US government.

Voice of Libyan dissent has local ties http://articles.mcall.com/2011-03-10/news/mc-dc-clinton-dent-libya-20110310_1_moammar-gadhafi-local-ties-libyan-americans

Here are some more pictures circulating the web that I find suspect.

http://freedomwar.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Photo0364-2.jpg

One question... What are the flags of Iraq and Palestine doing there? And why is there only one rebel flag and where is located? On top of the Palestinian flag! Why?

The flag of Iraq:

http://flagspot.net/images/i/iq2004.gif

The flag of Palestine:

http://img.alibaba.com/photo/11350693/Palestinian_Flag_Flag_Of_Palestine.jpg

It's worth noting that Gaddafi has been a vocal supporter of Palestine from day 1.

He has been a rock in Israels socks for decades, and the monarchy his revolution overthrew was supported by Israel. Something's not right about this.

Just recently, after the revolution in Egypt, Gaddafi urged Palestinians to rise up against the Israeli occupation in peaceful protests.

"The time for people's revolution has come"

Little did he know that they planned to turn the joke on him.

Here http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=1947

we see an article that covers this issue, while certainly not in a positive tone.

It should not come as a surprise then that Israel fully supports

the rebels cause. http://www.skynews.com.au/world/article.aspx?id=653443&vId=

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=6612

Well if the most oppressive, apartheid state in the world supports it it must be ok. A country who murdered peaceful protesters aboard the Mavi Marmara and has systematically robbed Palestinians of their lives and land.

But let's move on:

http://ethiopiaforums.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Libya_Protests.jpg

In this picture that has been posted everywhere online, including the mainstream press, there clearly are a lot of people. But why is the only flag visible in the crowd waving right above the camera? Strange, I wonder if it's been planted? No... The technology might be pretty advanced now... but doctoring pictures? Common. That's impossible.

Source http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/libyan-bloodshed-small-price-to-pay/story-fn6ck4a4-1226010086374

Now here is an oddball:

http://imgs.laprensa.com.ni/2011/02/600x400_1298695351_26-porrtada%20libia2.jpg

Well, the resolution and proportions seem fine... but wait... why is there only ONE FLAG? In the middle of the picture?

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEklmZNvKGwXuPtywxzUu2_K-Xi-C1hY6A5ExMSXeIlN5h_-EvtA91Wka8zYrtKR370O-7yBGox_KjpQ1HDtwVv5_qxz8frsV8_uhjGV_i64fhWR2Yw7eFMM2M7iOjik-CRp5QP-0w5cE/

This one was posted in a few places, including press.tv http://www.presstv.ir/section/MiddleEastRevolution.html

Again.. really? One flag? One guy decided to bring his flag?

But wait, here we have a lot of flags!

http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2/20110402/600_libya_protest_benghazi_ap_110402_16089.jpg?2

The only problem with this picture is that it's the same picture as we looked at before and shows the Gaddafi supporters that were being posted as Gaddafi protesters. Except this time, someone went through the trouble of adding red paint on the flags.

While one has to wonder about how amateur the doctoring of these photos is, it also makes you wonder how convincing they could make photos if they actually did their best work.

The most convincing images of masses protesting Gaddafi came after the alleged fall of Gaddafi. This video being among the "best":

This is a screenshot from that very recent BBC report about celebration in Benghazi after allegedly conquering Tripoli.

Here is the image from 01:10

http://i.imgur.com/vuOBB.jpg

And here we have the frame from 02:05

http://i.imgur.com/cgxZs.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dE-9ZPqvzsQ

I have questions about the vanishing flag, the Gaddafi poster with green background next to the demon (subliminal propaganda perhaps?) and why they could only get less than a minute of footage that is looped. Perhaps these can all be explained, and focusing too much on it would amount to speculation that would probably be inadmissable in court. But given the manipulation we've seen so far you can't help but wonder.

In any case these are pictures of Benghazi, the only place where it is recognized that there is opposition to the Green Revolution.

The footage shows celebration after the news about the "fall of Tripoli" which we found out later had not been the fall of Tripoli at all, but was simply a trap set by government forces.

And what has become quite well known in the alternative media now is that the footage allegedly coming from the Green Square in Tripoli did not show a place consistent with the actual Green Square, making it more likely that this is actually filmed in a movie set:

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b0c6c62516c9.jpg

Here http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread744969/pg1

is a full article on this kind of manipulation

And then there is this recent "slip up" at the BBC, showing green square in India as supposedly live from the protests in Libya:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUEu8-QZCVw&feature=player_embedded

It's almost as if they're doing this on purpose just so they can laugh among themselves at how gullible we are.

The case for a popular uprising being waged against Gaddafi simply seems very thin to me.

Think of it this way, if there was an agenda to make you think there were bigger protests in Libya than there actually were to disguise military operations by CIA funded militant groups to gain control over a country and it's resources, how would they go about doing that?

It's clear that they could do that so that leaves it at, would they. And if we consider that they've done that many times before the answers to that seems clear as well. And if you consider what is at stake in a war like this "it's the least they can do".

Having said that, it is not as if a protest happening in a country is justification for starting a war. If it would be we would have had to bomb every country in the world a long time ago. Where did this notion come from? How many times have there been huge protests in the West?

And what about killing protesters? Well, we'll cover that claim later but what about Kent State Massacre in the US?

Kent State Massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

Should the US not have been swiftly invaded? Besides the fact that the case for "Gaddafi's Men" having killed peaceful protesters is very thin. It seems more like people died trying to protect security buildings and police stations and the "protesters" who were killed were armed aggressors.

And EVEN IF, there is a dictator who is believed to oppress his own people, it would only make matter worse to bomb the country! It would not be an excuse!

Do i really have to get into the hipocrisy factor here? How many brutal dictators has the west supported and how many democratically elected leaders have they assassinated? Is this history still unknown to you? And talking about torture! The US officially admits to torture! Have we forgotten about Abu Ghraib already? So you're saying you don't like how Gaddafi is torturing his people so you want the US army to do it instead?

This whole thing is absurd.

What I can unequivocally demonstrate, is that there is not an overwhelming majority protesting Gaddafi. The pictures of his supporters were in general a lot more convincing and crowded. 1.7 million people marched in his support! It's absurd for us to claim that we know better what is in their best interest!

(I refer back to the video above where 1.7 million march in his support, if you did not watch it before, I recommend watching it now)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mu5fKwEPds4&feature=player_embedded

http://libyarevolt.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/gaddafi-supporters-rally-300x198.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/03/06/article-1363540-0D7E84A4000005DC-1000_634x410.jpg

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/galleries/2011/3145009/full/tripoli.jpg

http://www.demotix.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/large_610x456_scaled/photos/594514.jpg

http://thesantosrepublic.com/multimedia/photogallery/2011/07/Gaddafi-supporters.jpg

http://mathaba.net/news/libya/i/2million2011july1mohanned500.jpg

The peaceful protesters?

The West hasn't exactly been hiding it's support for these forces. Here are a few stories worth noting:

Libya Rebel leader had CIA backing http://abcnews.go.com/International/president-obama-authorizes-covert-libyan-rebels/story?id=13259028

Obama authorizes covert support for Libyan Rebels http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110330

Libya rebels connection to the CIA by Webster Tarpley

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27760.htm

The world cheers as the CIA plunders Libya into chaos

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23474

Here we can see the rebel army, these are not peaceful protesters. Forget that notion. They are armed to the teeth and they are killing black people and burning down police stations. Are the Libyan people supposed to sit back while that happens? Would you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAmwxMz5beE&feature=player_embedded

Not only a connection to the CIA, but also to Al Qaeda

No I am not making this up. The same people that the Americans are supporting in Libya have also been members of the "Al Qaeda" movement in Iraq.

I can just hear some of you blurting out that it is nothing but a crazy conspiracy theory. But don't call the doctor yet, we have "solid sources"

The Daily Telegraph http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/19/extremists-among-libya-rebels_n_837894.html

Libyan Rebel Commander admits his fighters have Al Qaeda links

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01857/Hasidi_1857433c.jpg

Huffington Post http://thehill.com/blogs/twitter-room/other-news/150857-michael-moore-rips-obama-over-libya-

Anti American Extremist among Libyan Rebels U.S. has vowed to protect

You can't dismiss this that easily can you? Straight from the horses mouth! The commander of the rebels admits this and a few media outlets pick up on it before it slips down the rabbit hole.

So, now, is there any picture starting to emerge inside your head at this point?

Or does this all still seem very contradictory and confusing to you?

What if I told you that the most likely explanation in my humble opinion is that the CIA are knowingly funding terrorist activites, that KILL American Soldiers and innocent Iraqi people to justify their continued military presence?

Pretty much exactly like in 1984. Perpetual Warfare. I think it's time for a quote from that book, performed by Michael Moore. He has fortunately remained consistant in his anti war stance, and is against the military aggression in Libya (source) http://therearenosunglasses.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/the-biggest-secret-that-wikileaks-doesnt-reveal-america-wants-pakistan-to-support-the-taliban/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD360puwcnU&feature=player_embedded

It is also worth noting that a lot of the rebels in Afghanistan were funded and armed by the ISI in Pakistan, which has had a close relationship with the CIA for many years and Pakistan has been given military aid from the US all throughout the course of the war. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4725992.stm

But as this would be enough material for a whole new article I'll just leave it at that. Let's concentrate on Libya for now.

And what about Benghazi?

A little bit of history is needed. Wiki will do for this purpose:

Heavily bombed in World War II, Benghazi was later rebuilt with the country's newly found oil wealth as a gleaming showpiece of modern Libya. It became the capital city of Emirate of Cyrenaica (1949-1951) under Idris Senussi I. In 1951, Cyrenaica was merged with Tripolitania and Fezzan to form the independent Kingdom of Libya, of which both Benghazi and Tripoli were capital cities. Benghazi lost its capital status when the Free Officers under the leadership of Muammar Gaddafi staged a coup d'état in 1969, whereafter all government institutions were concentrated in Tripoli. Even though King Idris was forced into exile and the monarchy abolished, support for the Senussi dynasty remained strong in Cyrenaica. This was emphasized by real or perceived injustices from the government towards the people of Benghazi, including the demolition in the year 2000 of the arena of footballclub Alahly Benghazi S.C., following anti-government protests.

Whoever these protesters are they are glorifying a brutal monarch that was deposed by a popular revolution. Here is a picture of a young Benghazi carrying a picture of King Idris during the 2011 revolution:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/A_Benghazi_citizen_holding_King_Idris%27s_photo.JPG/800px-A_Benghazi_citizen_holding_King_Idris%27s_photo.JPG

While it is clear enough that Gaddafi has overwhelming support in Tripoli and most other parts of the country, Benghazi seems to be the only place were any significant number of people oppose him and the Jamahariya, State of the masses.

Somehow I have a hard time so sympathize with people glorifying a monarch that oppressed the people of an entire nation, just because their city was "it" at the time... Especially when they use means of terrorism to get their point across.

This conversation is just brilliant to listen to. Anyone enthusiastic about debating in general should check it out. Such a pwning has rarely been recorded:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Gj8gBRBfvSA

Of course it is possible that people in the Benghazi area have some legitimate grievances that they feel Gaddafi is responsible for. That I simply can not know for certain at this point.

Regardless, this is a reality that is very different from what is being propagated in this blitz media campaign, and does not mean that this minority is entitled to take over a country.

So what have we learned so far?

Fighters with ties to Al Qaeda, sponsored by NATO and the CIA are burning down police stations and security buildings, and when Gaddafi says his people will resist this foreign hostility and attempted occupation he is "declaring war against his own people" What a bunch of fucking bullshit!

And oh sure, we just have to help them by BOMBING their capital!

What would have to happen for you to support your home country being bombed from the air? Historic landmarks, universities and peoples houses were being blown to pieces and people killed?

Libyans do not want these air strikes! It is simply a disgusting lie!

4. kafli LIES LIES LIES

There is one thing that becomes abundantly clear upon deitaled inspection of this issue. What we are seeing is not mistakes. It's not "intelligence failures". It's not a misunderstanding. It's pure and deliberate propaganda with the aim of taking over a country and it's resourcese.

Of course a lot of the dumbed down reporters that read from their teleprompters have no clue that what they are saying is a part of a disinformation campaign. They usually know nothing more than the average citizen. But this is being orchestrated by very skilled propaganda specialists, and there are people fully aware of the manipulation in place that are doing this on purpose.

This is a barrier that some people seem to have a hard time to breach. The media may lie, but never on purpose...These people are likely to be thinking "Well what about all the mass rapes, airstrikes against his own people? The torturing and the oppression? Are they just lies?"

Well... again... yes...!

If you have ever known a person who is a compulsive liar you would know that they will lie as much as they can as big as they can so in the end it such a grand illusion you think that it is unlikely someone would go through such lengths to deceive you.

These propaganda specialists will lie endlessly and no one corrects it until it's too late.

Truth is the first casualty of war. The lies leading up to the war in Iraq were endless and grotesque.

They said they KNEW that Saddam had nuclear weapons and was willing to use them on the United States! This is how badly they wanted you to support the war! What makes you think anything has changed now? Obama?

Really? Are you supporting this war because of Obama? Because of all the "changes" he's been implementing?

Obama is another example of how many lies they are willing to tell you to get you to go along with their plans. He had the image of an anti-war president who was against the Wall Street fat cats. Seriously how often has this card been played? How long will it take us to call the bluff?

Obama is a prime example of how much the media and politicians will distort the truth, and somehow people usually fall for it for just as long as is required for the operation to succeed.

Somehow a majority of people can't seem to get it through their head that the media will lie shamelessly, again and again.

People seem to know this on some level and are aware that it has happened repeatedly throughout our history. But when it comes to seeing through it when it really matters they are simply still to gullible. Do they think that the media has learned from it's mistakes and won't lie to us again? Do they believe that the war in Iraq was due to "intelligence failures"?

On Reddit.com http://www.reddit.com/ , an upvoting site that has a lot of entertaining and informative user submitted material, this clip from George Carlin is almost universally upvoted and praised. Yet the contents of what he is saying doesn't seem to have sunk in yet. Let's listen to it, and listen to his message, he isn't joking!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsL6mKxtOlQ&feature=player_embedded

Michael Jackson even tried to tell us this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97nAvTVeR6o&feature=player_embedded

Imagine what it was like before the war in Iraq trying to tell people it was based on lies and there should not be an invasion. Imagine how many reasons people could find in the media at the time to believe you were crazy. Are you telling me they are all lies?

Yes, I'm saying they were all lies.

If you were in my shoes at the time this must feel like deja vu all over again. (To be accurate I was quite young at the time and wasn't really sure what to think initially but quickly started opposing it after it began)

And some of you are not going to change your minds. Some of you just trust that all this information would be covered in the mainstream media if it was true. These people will trust them more than the alternative media to report information accurately.

Imagine the stupidity. The media corporations are owned and controlled and have long since been infiltrated by intelligence agencies.

The website where I post this doesn't even have advertisers. We have no owners or editors and are only here to try to figure out what is going on.

Most people can't seem to fathom how well calculated, widespread and big this lie is. They don't seem to notice how ideas are deliberately being put in their heads. Anything that contradicts what they've learned through this will immediately be disregarded as crazy or a "conspiracy theory".

Some people will even read this entire article and still not see a reason to disapprove of the bombings. Going by their feeling that all the stuff you've heard and read in the media can't all be false.

But most people, and this is the real problem, won't actually read it. They won't watch any of the videos, and they won't even leave room for the possibilty that they are wrong. They have been so convinced that they simply feel it is awaste of time to even look into it. That will not stop them from claiming they have, however.

After I published an earlier version of this in Icelandic you would not believe the response from some people who had obviously in no way even skimmed through the article. Most of the questions were answered in the article itself. For example, if someone comments: "How can you support a dictator?" that person is proving that they did not even see that this article is presenting information that he isn't.

It's a cute little feeling, that everyone is trying their best and it's better not to be too negative.

The compulsive liar knows this as well. He knows that you are a sensitive being and he abuses it. When he's been exposed he apologises and promises it will never happen again. But guess what? He is lying.

If you actually think that the largest militaries in the world would go into a concerted operation without there being a major preparation for it, you have no clue about modern warfare. If you think that a big portion of that preparation doesn't involve a propaganda campaign to ensure the support of the people, you are sadly mistaken again.

Consider this story about Donald Rumsfeld's speech from 2006 where he talks about how the Americans are lagging behind in the propaganda department and must do something about it quickly with heavy emphasis on the internet.

See here http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/16/945768/-UPDATED:-The-HB-Gary-Email-That-Should-Concern-Us-All

You might also want to evaluate the words of General Wesley Clark, when he said that there were plans to attack Libya 6 years ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUhlFO5qjVE&feature=player_embedded

But how did they go about orchestrating such a media war?

Might it involve a little scandal recently about leaked e-mails from HB Gary? Where it was revealed that the pentagon was using bots online and fake social media accounts to use for propaganda campaigns?

Read the story here Read the story here

And here is where it get interesting. You all know that this is the "twitter revolution" and a lot of the videos were just youtube videos being posted by Libyans. Right?

Well then how come only about 9% of Libyans have internet access according to statistics from 2009? See here See here

I think it's about time you watched another of these random youtube videos I've found. The song is actually quite overused but the information is worth it. The most peculiar thing is the amount of twitter updates that were posted in a short period of time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3LPyZhvGNg&feature=player_embedded

And here we have two journalists testifying on air that they have been threatened by other journalists and intelligence officials for going against the NATO propaganda. Thierry Meissan goes on to claim that many of these reporters are actually card carrying CIA agents.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5C0_t_iGUic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuOTBupG2ig&feature=player_embedded

Now, let's look at a list of recent news stories, most of which are the primary reasons why most people claim to support the "revolution" in Libya. Expect more news stories like this with outrageous over the top claims against Gaddafi or anything related to him. These stories will be aimed at affecting people emotionally and horrifying them, with blame assigned to Gaddafi and his supporters.

Gaddafi used airstrikes against his own people

This story was originally posted on twitter without a shred of evidence and from there got reported by all the major media outlets. This appears to be nothing more than yet another deliberate, fabricated piece of propaganda.

This report from the Russian Army contradicts these claims:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYesnOD6_gQ&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilHsmea4P5E&feature=player_embedded

Gaddafi is ordering mass rapes!

This is a big one. Gaddafi's men are mass rapists! And he even ordered Viagra for his presumably impotent men to assist in their mass rapes! What a monster!

Really?? Isn't that a bit over the top? Do you actually believe that he did that?

But the news says so! He must have! What a lunatic! Who does that?

No one, because it is a lie.

The only evidence for these mass rapes is a "questionnaire" that reportedly included the question of whether or not women had been raped, and reportedly a lot of the women had tagged yes to the question... and when asked by whom many had reportedly said "Gaddafi's men" most left the questionnaire anynomous but some wrote their initials... for fear of reprisal... obviously.

Right... So basically the easiest forgery in history.

More on this here http://www.voltairenet.org/War-propaganda-mass-rapes-in-Libya

There is a lot of talk about how rapes are such a disgrace to the family in the Muslim community and how most women don't tell anyone about it. That didn't seem to matter to Eman Al-Obeidy who at the most opportune time for NATO came rushing into a Tripoli Hotel to tell her horrifying story of how she was gangraped by Gaddafi's men!

Here http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/amnesty-questions-claim-that-gaddafi-ordered-rape-as-weapon-of-war-2302037.html

is a report from Amnesty International that questions these claims.

Just a few days ago we saw this this http://articles.cnn.com/2011-08-28/world/libya.gadhafi.nanny_1_moammar-gadhafi-hannibal-gadhafi-gadhafi-regime?_s=PM:WORLD

story, about one of Gaddafi's son, and the way his wife treated this apparent worker. Again, the wounds are so over the top and, according to the reporter still boiling. Yet the woman seems to not be in immediate pain. Also, who is this woman? Does she provide any proof that she was actually working for Hannibal Gaddafi? No, but of course the media wouldn't lie to us about something like this.

Both of these stories both seem extraordinarily convenient for anyone that wants to gather support for a war in Libya. They are both extremely emotional and target the viewers empathy. You will not see stories like this about the thousands of people burned alive by Nato bombs.

This is exactly what they do. No one cares about deep historical understanding of what is going on in Libya. Did you see that woman's head! Didn't you hear about that gangrape by Gaddafi's men!? This is what modern propaganda looks like.

And to some this claim even seems ridicilous. But just to be clear, yes, I am stating that in all likelihood, both of these events were staged. The wounds of both these women are probably fake and the work of the Hollywood department of the CIA. These are in all likelihood paid actors or deliberate liars.

Can I prove that? No, not literally, I can't prove either case individually with forensic evidence as that would be impossible. However, it is the aim of this article in it's entirety to expose the fraudulent basis of this war in general. That I can do.

And seen from that perspective these stories and their timing must seem highly suspicious to anyone witnessing what is going on.

Understand this, there is no claim to wild, no lie to big, no method to unethical for these people. This is about much bigger issues and for them the end always justifies the means.

There are a number of ways to get people to lie. One possibility is that they have some connection to the rebels, or are simply paid agents. It's not like they are saving money on a mission like this. It is supported by the richest and most powerful people in the world and the stakes are high. Paying off a couple of people here and there is not a big problem.

They could do it, they would do it, they have done it and they are doing it.

The question is rather, why would they stop when it is proving to work so well?

Just check out this brief video, we have prior convictions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVE8rV3-Zos&feature=player_embedded

If you think that my claim that these horror stories from Libya are fake is a ridicilous claim, will you at least admit that you would have also thought it was ridicilous if at the time this was being played in the media, I had claimed that it was staged?

This is now officially acknowledged to have been war propaganda. The girl telling us this horrifying story was a trained actor, the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the United States and the event was orchestrated by the public relation firm Hill & Knowlton, working for the Kuwaiti government. Even the increasingly censored Wikipedia acknowledges all of this and there are numerous other sources that confirm this if you have any doubt. Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_(testimony)

Obviously, that's why they keep doing this. And if you need a further reminder on how the authorities blatantly lie to the public it's time for a little symphony:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7xyd_IRgGs&feature=player_embedded

But no, authorities wouldn't go that far to stage a war... Well, if you think so consider Operation Northwoods, were all sorts of outrageous plots were considered to gain popular support for war in Cuba, including staging terror attacks, even shooting citizens in the US and blaming it on Cuba:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xi4S6mY3UWw&feature=player_embedded

But common! The media wouldn't participate in this kind of behaviour! Well... then consider Operation Mockingbird. Wiki explains here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1E7s7XaV7E&feature=player_embedded

But no... NATO and the US would never knowingly arm and support terrorists... Well, then consider Operation Gladio, where they did exactly that, in Europe:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skYk-In0QxU&feature=player_embedded

Al Jazeera has also provided a lot of the propaganda effort for this war. It has proven really effective, as many progressives view Al Jazeera as a good alternative to the US media they have learned not to trust. This documentary, which I watched from start to end is a prominent candidate for the Goebbels award:

"Libya - A state of Terror"

This film only includes testimony from Libyan defectors and provides no additional evidence. No shortage of emotional music and enthusiastic story telling though. If you watch this film, do they seem uncomfortable talking about their horrific experience, or are they trying to sell it?

This is the opposite of the Nigerian immigrant we saw earlier who was chased down a street by the rebels in Libya. It's like they're trying to squeeze out every inch of sympathy they can get.

Now, I might be wrong on this. If I am I apologize to them and those who feel they have suffered. Very few issues are actually purely black/white, but for what I can assess this documentary is pure propaganda.

Here is this documentary for those who are interested:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UodjAs8mEPs&feature=player_embedded

Gaddafi is staging mass funerals and parading fake victims

This blew my mind when I saw it. I refer to my writing on this website when this story was released. We awarded Nic Robertson the Goebbels award that month for an excellent performance in the art of deception.

The Goebbels award this week goes to Nic Robertson for his exemplary contribution to the brainwashing campaign about Libya.

He uses many effective tricks on the viewer that are worth noting. The goal of the story is to claim that the victims of the NATO bombardment were simply non-existent. All this was an elaborate propaganda stunt by Gaddafi to gain international solidarity and we must not let it work. One might think such plans were to ambitious but he somehow managed to pull it off.

Nic knows that by now people will believe just about anything about Gaddafi and by doing this he hopes that the anger ofer the murdering of innocent civilians that would otherwise be directed against the people throwing bombs, would instead be directed against Gaddafi!

In the first scene we see how he edits the speech which probably included a fair amount of inconvenient statements. the editing makes him appear frantic, angry and a bit fanatical. Good job there.

He proceeds to claim, without any evidence, that noone in the area seemed to have been a relative of the victims. Of course we should just trust him as a neutral reporter, a man from a country that is invading another country, reporting from the country his country is invading. Of course he is not biased!

He also describes how one of the coffins had opened and nothing had been in it. Embarrassing huh? Well what is also embarrassing is the fact that his camera man must have been looking away while it happened. It would have been great footage. But who cares, it's not like anyone will suspect that he is lying.

This story echoes a similarly bizarre claim that Gaddafi's men were emptying the cities morgues and get this, placing the bodies near damaged sites to make it look like people had been killed there!

Yes, for sure! This is the first time in history were a military bombardment produces no civilian casualties! It's just Gaddafi and his gang of madmen trying to trick you into feeling empathy for his people! DON'T FALL FOR IT!

It would be extremely inconvenient if the public would figure out that we are bombing young guys with a nike cap holding the peace sign. We congratulate Nic Robertson and CNN on this outstanding achievement.

http://gagnauga.is/index.php?Fl=Frettir&ID=3102

Keep in mind that all the people attending this funeral are supporters of Gaddafi! They are carrying green flags and huge numbers have turned out. Regardless this devious reporter spins it so fast that it hypnotizes the viewer.

Of course the super precise Nato bombs have a special bad guy app that ensures it only hits them and no innocent people.

Except maybe a few children and a university...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2d3KaCNs290&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvwS5hQluQI&feature=player_embedded

This ridicilous claim first surfaced here http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/03/24/leak/index.html

and has since been repeated throughout the entire spectrum of the mainstream media.

This http://painfultruths.typepad.com/my_weblog/2011/03/gaddafis-fake-supporters-and-fake-casualties-of-western-air-strikes.html

is another blog making these claims and even more wilda accusations, based on stories from his "contact" including that Gaddafi empley a "rape squad" who had that labelled on their uniforms. Who comes up with this kind of bullshit?

5. Kafli The history of Libya

Now then, time for a brief history lesson. The history of Libya is obviously long and has many different eras. I will let suffice to cover the last 100 years of it.

Almost exactly 100 years ago, Italy "liberated" Libya from the Ottoman empire. The coverage of this on wikipedia is pretty ironic in light of recent events.

"The attempted Italian colonization of the Ottoman provinces of Tripolitania and Cyrenaica was never wholly successful, at least initially. On 3 October 1911 the Italians attacked Tripoli, claiming somewhat disingenuously to be liberating Libya from Ottoman rule. Despite a major revolt by the Libyans, the Ottoman sultan ceded Libya to the Italians by signing the 1912 Treaty of Lausanne."

Somewhat disingeniously you say...

And now, a 100 years later, what is the leader of Italy saying about Libya? Well, basically exactly the same thing.

Berlusconi condemns Libyan violence as unacceptable

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2011/02/libya-berlusconi-condemns-libyan-violence-as-unacceptable.html

Quite comical isn't it.

Libya had been ruled by the Ottoman empire since 1551 or for 260 years when Italian fascist came and took over. Well not literally fascist, they didn't become fascists until 1922 but would control Libya brutally til the end of the second world war.

Considering this it is even "funnier" that Berlusconi payed compensation to Libya in 2008 for the Italy's colonial oppression to the sum of 2.5 billion pounds.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00792/460-berlusconi_792155c.jpg

Scumbag Berlusconi

2008 Pays compensation to Libya for colonial oppression

Source http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/2658703/Silvio-Berlusconi-apologises-to-Libya-for-colonial-rule.html

2011 Drops Bombs on Libya

Source http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13188951

In 1943 when the allied forces drove the Italians away the power over the territory fell to Britain and France. In 1949 it is agreed that their puppet. Idris, will take over in a farce which gave the country "independence" but kept it under control of the old colonial rulers.

Idris assumed all power in the country. He was a despised tyrant who was only doing the bidding of the colonies that supported his rise to the throne. He oppressed people, he had official control over everything! That is what a dictator is. And they are proud of their role too.

This king was meant to inherit his throne to his descendants. His flag is now being used by the rebels.

From Wikipedia:

In April 1955, oil exploration started in the kingdom with its first oil fields being discovered in 1959. The first exports began in 1963 with the discovery of oil helping to transform the Libyan economy, although imposing a resource curse on Libya. Although oil drastically improved Libya's finances, popular resentment grew as wealth was increasingly concentrated in the hands of the elite.

As was the case with other African nations following independence, the remaining Italian settlers in Libya held many of the best jobs, owned the best farmland and ran the most successful businesses.

King Idris, a monarch supported by Israel... is now being championed as a figure for democracy and freedom? How does that fly?

Here is an article on this strange issue. http://www.voltairenet.org/Libya-When-historical-memory-is

In 1969, Gaddafi and his men are the ones who manage to free the people from this fascist dictatorship! What ensues is a remarkable story, one that has rarely been told and for good reason.

When Gaddafi and his men took over, Gaddafi's parents lived in a tent. He promised he would house every person in Libya before housing his parents. The promise was kept and remarkably they soon managed to give everyone in Libya a home. But not before his father died.

Source http://www.zimbabwemetro.com/headline/was-gaddafi-really-that-terrible/

Accompanying the revolution was the Green Book, a complete theory on how a society could be organized in the most fair and effective way.

If you have never heard of this book I think it's time we take a peek inside:

The Green Revolution

The Green Revolution is the Libyan Revolution of 1969. The Green Book is a recipe of sort for a different kind of society. I highly recommend reading it in it's entirety but I am going to post bits of it. I think you will see why I think this issue is pretty important. You can download the book in English here.

þessa síðu og dánlódi bókinni

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5733543/Muammar_Qaddafi_-_The_Green_Book__English_-_E-Book

i

http://hoffstrizz.typepad.com/.a/6a0128773aba66970c013481cdf01f970c-800wi

"The instrument of government

- All political systems in the world today are a product of the struggle for power between alternative instruments of government. This struggle may be peaceful or armed, as is evidenced among classes, sects, tribes, parties or individuals. The outcome is always the victory of a particular governing structure – be it that of an individual, group, party or class — and the defeat of the people; the defeat of genuine democracy. Political struggle that results in the victory of a candidate with, for example, 51 per cent of the votes leads to a dictatorial governing body in the guise of a false democracy, since 49 per cent of the electorate is ruled by an instrument of government they did not vote for, but which has been imposed upon them. Such is dictatorship."

So, in the current democratic system there is constant struggle and there's always the risk that the majority will oppress the minority. Fair enough

Parliament

- If parliament is formed from one party as a result of its winning an election, it becomes a parliament of the winning party and not of the people. It represents the party and not the people, and the executive power of the parliament becomes that of the victorious party and not of the people. The same is true of the parliament of proportional representation in which each party holds a number of seats proportional to their success in the popular vote. The members of the parliament represent their respective parties and not the people, and the power established by such a coalition is the power of the combined parties and not that of the people. Under such systems, the people are the victims whose votes are vied for by exploitative competing factions who dupe the people into political circuses that are outwardly noisy and frantic, but inwardly powerless and irrelevant. Alternatively, the people are seduced into standing in long, apathetic, silent queues to cast their ballots in the same way that they throw waste paper into dustbins. This is the traditional democracy prevalent in the whole world, whether it is represented by a one-party, two-party, multiparty or non-party system. Thus it is clear that representation is a fraud…

Philosophers, thinkers, and writers advocated the theory of representative parliaments at a time when peoples were unconsciously herded like sheep by kings, sultans and conquerors. The ultimate aspiration of the people of those times was to have someone to represent them before such rulers. When even this aspiration was rejected, people waged bitter and protracted struggle to attain this goal.

So, representative democracy was better than monarchy and fascism but was still far from perfect.

The Party

- The purpose of forming a party is to create an instrument to rule the people, i.e., to rule over non-members of the party. The party is, fundamentally, based on an arbitrary authoritarian concept — the domination of the members of the party over the rest of the people. The party presupposes that its accession to power is the way to attain its ends, and assumes that its objectives are also those of the people. This is the theory justifying party dictatorship, and is the basis of any dictatorship. No matter how many parties exist, the theory remains valid…

Political parties are corrupt in their nature and represent interest groups or specific members of society. Sounds about right.

Popular Conferences and People’s Committees

- Popular Conferences are the only means to achieve popular democracy. Any system of government contrary to this method, the method of Popular Conferences, is undemocratic. All the prevailing systems of government in the world today will remain undemocratic, unless they adopt this method. Popular Conferences are the end of the journey of the masses in quest of democracy.

Popular Conferences and People’s Committees are the fruition of the people’s struggle for democracy. Popular Conferences and People’s Committees are not creations of the imagination; they are the product of thought which has absorbed all human experiments to achieve democracy.

Direct democracy, if put into practice, is indisputably the ideal method of government… The Green Book guides the masses to an unprecedented practical system of direct democracy. No two intelligent people can dispute the fact that direct democracy is the ideal, but until now no practical method for its implementation has been devised. The Third Universal Theory, however, now provides us with a practical approach to direct democracy. The problem of democracy in the world will finally be solved.

Authority of the people has but one face which can only be realised through Popular Conferences and People’s Committees. There can be no democracy without Popular Conferences and Committees everywhere…

The General People’s Congress is not a gathering of persons or members such as those of parliaments but, rather, a gathering of the Popular Conferences and People’s Committees. Thus, the problem of the instrument of government is naturally solved, and all dictatorial instruments disappear. The people become the instrument of government, and the dilemma of democracy in the world is conclusively solved.

The only way to get the power directly to the people is through their direct participation. This can be achieved using direct democracy. Conference halls need to be built were people can get together and make decisions. Interesting.

Who supervises the conduct of society?

- The question arises: who has the right to supervise society, and to point out deviations that may occur from the laws of society? Democratically, no one group can claim this right on behalf of society.

Therefore, society alone supervises itself. It is dictatorial for any individual or group to claim the right of the supervision of the laws of the society, which is, democratically, the responsibility of the society as a whole. This can be arrived at through the democratic instrument of government that results from the organisation of the society itself into Basic Popular Conferences, and through the government of these people through People’s Committees and the General People’s Congress.

This principle is what seems to seperate Libya from other states. No one group has the right to dominate another! Bravo! Are you paying attention?

What about the freedom of the press? Isn't that limited too?

You could say it is, but only by our western standards. This is the reason:

The press

- An individual has the right to express himself or herself even if he or she behaves irrationally to demonstrate his or her insanity. Corporate bodies too have the right to express their corporate identity. The former represent only themselves and the latter represent those who share their corporate identity.

Since society consists of private individuals and corporate bodies, the expression, for example, by an individual of his or her insanity does not mean that the other members of society are insane. Such expression reflects only in the individual’s character. Likewise, corporate expression reflects only the interest or view of those making up the corporate body. For instance, a tobacco company, despite the fact that what it produces is harmful to health, expresses the interests of those who make up the company.

The press is a means of expression for society: it is not a means of expression for private individuals or corporate bodies. Therefore, logically and democratically, it should not belong to either one of them.

The media should not be a mouthpiece for special interest groups but instead a natural right for all citizens. Makes sens right?

The economic basis of the Third Universal Theory

- The ultimate solution lies in abolishing the wage-system, emancipating people from its bondage and reverting to the natural laws which defined relationships before the emergence of classes, forms of governments and man-made laws. These natural rules are the only measures that ought to govern human relations…

If we analyse the factors of economic production from ancient times to the present, we always find that they essentially consist of certain basic production components, i.e., raw materials, means of production, and a producer. The natural rule of equality requires that each of these components receives a share of this production. Because production cannot be achieved without the essential role of each of these components, it has to be equally divided amongst them. The preponderance of one of them contravenes the natural rule of equality and becomes an encroachment upon the others’ rights. Thus, each must be awarded an equal share, regardless of the number of components in the process of production. If the components are two, each receives half of the production; if three, then one-third…

The labour force has become a component of the production process. As a result of technical advancement, multitudes of unskilled toilers have been transformed into limited numbers of technicians, engineers and scientists. Consequently, trade unions will subsequently disappear and be replaced by syndicates of engineers and technicians. Scientific advancement is an irreversible gain for humankind.

Thanks to this process, illiteracy will be eliminated and unskilled workers will become a temporary phenomenon destined to gradual disappearance. However, even in this new environment, persons will always remain the basic component in the production process.

We need to abolish the wage system in it's current form.. BLASPHEMY! Just because it is based on domination and extortion?

He who takes part in the production or other fields of the operations that creates revenue, should be entitled to an equal portion of the revenue, compared to the other people involved.

Thanks, my sentiments exactly. Do you have more?

Need

- The freedom of a human being is lacking if his or her needs are controlled by others, for need may lead to the enslavement of one person by another. Furthermore, exploitation is caused by need. Need is an intrinsic problem and conflict is initiated by the control of one’s needs by another.

You can use people's needs to exploit them. This creates conflict so it is necessary to prevent people from controlling what other people need.

Not so insane?

Housing

- Housing is an essential need for both the individual and the family and should not be owned by others. Living in another’s house, whether paying rent or not, compromises freedom… In a socialist society, no one, including society itself, has the right to control people’s needs. No one has the right to acquire a house additional to his or her own dwelling and that of his or her heirs for the purpose of renting it because this additional house is, in fact, a need of someone else.

YES! Thanks! Every person is entitled to his own house! And noone is entitled to having two houses! Because that exceeds your need and can only be used with the intention of profiting from others or controlling them!

I couldn't have put it better. Well I even tried, this is eerily similar to what I wrote in an article in November of last year called "What do we want?"

"I am not saying I know exactly how this can be accomplished, but like others I have my theories. The only thing I'm saying is that if we are going to unite over some demands, than these demands, as radical as they might seem to some, as natural as they could possibly be!

Food and shelter! Is that too much to ask? In a country that is freezing and struggles to deal with a housing capacity that far exceeds our population!

On the contrary, any system, that in this day of remarkable technological advances allows people to starve to death, despite they're being plenty of food around, that is rather thrown away than given to the starving, and that let's people freeze to death in a place that has too many houses. That is absolutely insane."

Sounds pretty similar... http://gagnauga.is/index.php?Fl=Greinar&ID=100

The family

- To the individual, the family is more important than the state. Mankind acknowledges the individual as a human being, and the individual acknowledges the family, which is his cradle, his origin, and his social umbrella. According to the law of nature, the human race is the individual and the family, but not the state.

The individual is the important thing? Not the state? He's got to be kidding..

Woman

- Discrimination against woman by man is a flagrant act of oppression without justification, for woman eats and drinks as man eats and drinks; woman loves and hates as man loves and hates; woman thinks, learns and comprehends as man thinks, learns and comprehends. Woman, like man, needs shelter, clothing, and transportation; woman feels hunger and thirst as man feels hunger and thirst; woman lives and dies as man lives and dies.

But why are there men and women? There must be a natural necessity for the existence of man and woman, rather than man only or woman only…

Deliberate interventions against conception form an alternative to human life. In addition to that, there exists partial deliberate intervention against conception, as well as against breast-feeding. All these are links in a chain of actions in contradiction to natural life, which is tantamount to murder. For a woman to kill herself in order not to conceive, deliver and breast-feed is within the realm of deliberate, artificial interventions, in contradiction with the nature of life epitomized by marriage, conception, breast-feeding, and maternity. They differ only in degree.

To dispense with the natural role of woman in maternity — nurseries replacing mothers — is a start in dispensing with the human society and transforming it into a merely biological society with an artificial way of life. To separate children from their mothers and to cram them into nurseries is a process by which they are transformed into something very close to chicks, for nurseries are similar to poultry farms into which chicks are crammed after they are hatched.

Nothing else would be as appropriate and suitable to the human being and his dignity as natural motherhood. Children should be raised by their mothers in a family where the true principles of motherhood, fatherhood and comradeship of brothers and sisters prevail, and not in an institution resembling a poultry farm… As for children who have neither family nor shelter, society is their guardian, and only for them, should society establish nurseries and related institutions. It is better for them to be taken care of by society rather than by individuals who are not their parents.

If a test were carried out to discover whether the natural propensity of the child is towards its mother or the nursery. the child would opt for the mother and not the nursery…

There must be a world revolution which puts an end to all materialistic conditions hindering women from performing their natural role in life, and so drives them to carry out men’s duties in order to attain equal rights. Such revolution will inevitably take place, particularly in industrial societies, as a response to the instinct of survival, even without any instigator of revolution such as the Green Book.

All societies today look upon women as little more than commodities. The East regards her as a commodity to be bought and sold, while the West does not recognise her femininity…

Freedom means that every human being gets proper education which qualifies him or her for the work which suits him or her. Dictatorship means that human beings are taught that which is not suitable for them, and are forced to do unsuitable work. Work which is appropriate to men is not necessarily appropriate to women, and knowledge that is proper for children does not necessarily suit adults.

There is no difference in human rights between man and woman, the child and the adult, but there is no absolute identity between them as regards their duties.

The oppression of women is completely unjustified. Western society oppresses women by denying them their natural role as mothers. They should not have to work so much that they don't have time to care for their kids!

Even if we were to disagree with this, who are we to say it's wrong? Even if you think that the fact that know both parents have to work as hard as one parent did earlier to provide the same for the family is just a necessary part of equality then fine. But that does not justify imposing opinions on people! Particularly not if you do it with bombs.

At any rate, it is acknowledged that women have much more respect in Libya than the muslim stereotype would have you believe.

(From wikipedia)

Voting and government

Since the early 1960s, Libyan women have had the right to vote and to participate in political life. They could also own and dispose of property independently of their husbands, but all of these rights were exercised by only a few women before the 1969 revolution.

Since then, the government has encouraged women to participate in elections and national political institutions, but in 1987 only one woman had advanced as far as the national cabinet, as an assistant secretary for information and culture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Libya \l cite_note-L-0

However, from 1989-1994 Fatima Abd al-Hafiz Mukhtar served as Minister of Education. From 1992-1994 Bukhanra Salem Houda served as Minister of Youth and Sports; Salma Ahmed Rashed from 1992-1994 served as Assistant Secretary of Women, then as Secretary in the General Secretariat of the General Peoples' Congress for Women's Affairs from 1994–1995, and was eventually the Ambassador to the League of Arab Nations in 1996. Others serving as Secretary in the General Secretariat of the General Peoples' Congress for Women's Affairs included from 1995-1998 Thuriya Ramadan Abu Tabrika, Nura Han Ramadan Abu Sefrian from 1998–2000, Dr. Shalma Chabone Abduljabbar, and Amal Nuri Abdullah al-Safar from 2006-2009. Women serving as Secretary in the General Secretariat of the General Peoples' Congress for Social Affairs have included Dr. Shalma Chabone Abduljabbar and Abd-al-Alim al-Shalwi, while from 1995-2000 Fawziya Bashir al-Shalababi served as Secretary for Information, Culture and Mass Mobilization. Dr. Huda Fathi Ben Amer began serving as the Secretary of People's Committees Affairs in 2009, and also served as President of the Transitional Arab Parliament. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Libya \l cite_note-2

Dr. Salma Shabaan Abdel Jabar began serving as Secretary of Woman Affairs in 2009.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Libya \l cite_note-3

Let's continue shall we:

Education

– Education, or learning, is not necessarily that routine curriculum and those classified subjects in textbooks which youths are forced to learn during specified hours while sitting in rows of desks. This type of education now prevailing all over the world is directed against human freedom. State-controlled education, which governments boast of whenever they are able to force it on their youths, is a method of suppressing freedom. It is a compulsory obliteration of a human being’s talent, as well as a coercive directing of a human being’s choices. It is an act of dictatorship destructive of freedom because it deprives people of their free choice, creativity and brilliance. To force a human being to learn according to a set curriculum is a dictatorial act. To impose certain subjects upon people is also a dictatorial act…

This does not mean that schools are to be closed and that people should turn their backs on education, as it may seem to superficial readers. On the contrary, it means that society should provide all types of education, giving people the chance to choose freely any subjects they wish to learn.

Societies which ban or monopolize knowledge are reactionary societies which are biased towards ignorance and are hostile to freedom. Societies which prohibit the teaching of religion are reactionary societies, biased towards ignorance and hostile to freedom. Societies which monopolize religious education are reactionary societies, biased towards ignorance and hostile to freedom. Equally so are the societies which distort the religions, civilizations and behaviour of others in the process of teaching those subjects. Societies which consider materialistic knowledge taboo are likewise reactionary societies, biased towards ignorance and hostile to freedom.

Knowledge is a natural right of every human being of which no one has the right to deprive him or her under any pretext, except in a case where a person does something which deprives him or her of that right.

Ignorance will come to an end when everything is presented as it actually is and when knowledge about everything is available to each person in the manner that suits him or her.

The current educational system is an obstacle to the natural freedom and thirst for knowledge that humans possess. A better system needs to be designed.

Are those ideas beginning to sound familiar?

Well if they are it's because they echo almost every progressive sentiment for social evolution. These are the kind of thoughts that have been emerging in the circles of all revolutionaries in the western world!

What have we been talking about here in Iceland? Being able to produce our own food sustainably! Democratic reform! Direct democracy! National votes! To have the basic necessities of life guaranteed by law!

Those of us who have been studying this for a while have long since seen the problems of an easily controlled two party and multi party systems. The flaws of the education system, financial system and the labour system.

Well, I know what you are thinking. Who is to say that this book is being applied in Libya right now? We've all heard of glorified communist states who had similar claims about being for and by the people. But that is no prove that this version of socialism is not working in this particular case. In fact the evidence would be showing it to be working extremely well! Do you think perhaps there is correlation between the initiatives suggested in this book and the widely recognized improved standard of living for Libyans?

At least if seen from a human perspective, from the perspective of big corporations it's been dreadful and tyrannical.

Most likely you had never even hear about this to begin with, so the question is, are you just going to assume that it can't be in use cause it sounds to good to be true?

Did he just magically write all this accurate philosophical and social analysis with such detailed steps for propaganda purposes? Why would we assume that this book that is widely regarded as the bible of Libyan society is not being implemented?

You may think it's pure rhetoric, but you have nothing to base that on. Isn't it possible that this is the reason that he is so popular? And that you have in fact been lied to? Repeatedly and grossly?

Is it not possible that this book explains why the Libyan people haven't been exploited and screwed over the same way as their neighbours?

In the first video I posted in this article you can see actual footage from inside these conference halls. Were they just faked to maintain this illusion?

And you say you don't want to listen to "conspiracy theories"?

Gaddafi's "reign of terror"

Gaddafi and his movement was immediately perceieved as a threat to sensitive business interess of Isreal, the US, Britain, France and other nations. So right from the start a campagin of villification begun. He was portrayed as a supporter of terrorist and as a madman.

These powers made many attempts at his life. Sometimes they almost worked See here http://www.mideastnews.com/libya003.html

At the same time they've done everything in their power to get control back to the oligarchs. Now, it seems they might finally achieve their long standing goal.

But Gaddafi and the Libyan people were extremely vigilant and had no tolerance for people. They had their experience with colonial powers and knew that they didn't fuck around. They implemented massive domestic food projects and housing projects to ensure that the nation could be self sustainable and independent.

Seen from this perspective, the stories about bad treatment of the Libyan dissenters is simply a punishment for trying to murder people and instigate a staged coup to put a puppet of these business interest and someonw who supports the US and Israeli agenda in the neighbourhood.

There were public executions, the logic being that they wanted people to think twice before trying something like that. To say that these were on Gaddafi's order is not more accurate than it would be to say that the President of the United States is behind every execution in the US.

Like I said, it may not be something I agree with, but I live in a country where extreme violence is quite rare, and I have never been in that situation.

Obviously when someone tries to attack you and kill you, you have a right to defend yourself.

The people of Libya overwhelmingly supported the revolution because it gave them a share of the oil wealth of the country and had housed and fed Libyans! They did not want the West to gain control cause they had lived that and knew that they were not working in the interest of the people!

If you need further proof of that just look at the neighbouring countries!

And if you think that they're commitment to bringing wealth to the people and to avoid exploitation by foreign interest didn't bring them hazzle you don't know how these people have plundering the world's resources for the last hundreds of years! Keep in mind that Libya didn't let any foreign businesses enter the country until 2003. In this increasingly globalist capitalist economy, an analogy would be the family owned coffee house trying to survive a takeover by Starbucks. Those bastards don't quit, you will be assimilated.

Here is an example of a now commonly used brainwashing method, when Time magazine posted a picture of Gaddafi on it's cover. Only it was illustrated and the lines on his face spell out KILL and SEX to influence your subconscious level of thinking:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iX_hlQuAm8M&feature=player_embedded

From the beginning the mouthpieces of large oil companies and the former colonial powers painted Gaddafi as a supporter of terrorists. This was based also on his support for elements within Palestine fighting the Israeli occupation.

Probably the most controversial thing you can accuse Libya of is their support for Idi Amin's forces.

Source http://english.alshahid.net/archives/19376

However, they have apologized for it and stated many times that it was during a complicated time in which they saw any enemy of the US and Israel as an ally, and they regretted it having found out what he was doing in his country.

But if that support is reason enough for an invasion, than how many times should we have invaded the US by now? That have supported tyrants and terrorists in numerous other countries?

This is the kind of double standard we see repeatedly when it comes to military aggression by the US and the west.

In 1973 things really started to happen as Gaddafi announced the birth of the "Jamahariya" "The state of the masses" leaving all power in the hands of the Libyan people through direct democracy.

Even Wikipedia acknowledges this:

The "remaking of Libyan society" contained in Gaddafi's ideological visions began to be put into practice formally beginning in 1973 with a so-called cultural or popular revolution.

This "revolution" was designed to combat bureaucratic inefficiency, lack of public interest and participation in the subnational governmental system, and problems of national political coordination. In an attempt to instill revolutionary fervor into his compatriots and to involve large numbers of them in political affairs, Gaddafi urged them to challenge traditional authority and to take over and run government organs themselves. The instrument for doing this was the "people's committee." Within a few months, such committees were found all across Libya. They were functionally and geographically based and eventually became responsible for local and regional administration.

People's committees were established in such widely divergent organizations as universities, private business firms, government bureaucracies, and the broadcast media. Geographically based committees were formed at the governorate, municipal, and zone (lowest) levels. Seats on the people's committees at the zone level were filled by direct popular election; members so elected could then be selected for service at higher levels. By mid-1973 estimates of the number of people's committees ranged above 2,000.

In the scope of their administrative and regulatory tasks and the method of their members' selection, the people's committees purportedly embodied the concept of direct democracy that Gaddafi propounded in the first volume of The Green Book, which appeared in 1976. The same concept lay behind proposals to create a new political structure composed of "people's congresses." The centerpiece of the new system was the General People's Congress (GPC), a national representative body intended to replace the RCC.

Here we can also see an interesting chapter on the economic reforms that happened after this happened:

Economic reforms:

Remaking of the economy was parallel with the attempt to remold political and social institutions. Until the late 1970s, Libya's economy was mixed, with a large role for private enterprise except in the fields of oil production and distribution, banking, and insurance.

But according to volume two of Gaddafi's Green Book, which appeared in 1978, private retail trade, rent, and wages were forms of "exploitation" that should be abolished. Instead, workers' self-management committees and profit participation partnerships were to function in public and private enterprises. A property law was passed that forbade ownership of more than one private dwelling, and Libyan workers took control of a large number of companies, turning them into state-run enterprises. Retail and wholesale trading operations were replaced by state-owned "people's supermarkets", where Libyans in theory could purchase whatever they needed at low prices. By 1981 the state had also restricted access to individual bank accounts to draw upon privately held funds for government projects.

These economic changes spread Libya's wealth much more broadly than it had been. The Gini index is a measure of economic dis-equity. In the mid 2000s Wikipedia showed a Gini of 36 for Libya. The Gini for the USA in 2009 was 40.8 (substantially more dis-equitable). Gaddafi's efforts also improved the average health of Libyans. In 2009 the CIA's World Factbook showed the average life expectancy of a Libyan to be 77 years (only one year less than that of an American citizen).

However, the measures created resentment and opposition among the newly dispossessed. The latter joined those already alienated, some of whom had begun to leave the country. By 1982 perhaps 50,000 to 100,000 Libyans had gone abroad; because many of the emigrants were among the enterprising and better educated Libyans, they represented a significant loss of managerial and technical expertise.

So.... the wealth was spread a lot more evenly... well we can't have that now can we! So what we see now is these disgruntled people that made up the elite of Libya coming back to claim what they think is still theirs. And we are helping them accomplish that. After all taking their undeserved and unecessary extravagant wealth was a crime we can not let go unpunished!

It appears as though these are mostly the people we see and hear about, talking of Gaddafi's mistreatment and his "reign of terror"

The Lockerbie incident

In 1986, Ronald Reagan bombed Libya and killed Gaddafi's daughter, justified by the accusation that they were involved in a terror attack on a German disco.

A german documentary later concluded that it had been the work of the Israeli Secret Service, Mossad. Source http://100777.com/node/101

It was then two years later, in 1988 that a plane was blown up over Lockerbie in Scotland where 143 people died. Ever since Libya has been charged with being responsible, despite there being absolutely no evidence that connects them with it.

The Lockerbie incident is a little like Icesave has been for Iceland. This big international dispute that is based on absolute bullshit but is used as an excuse to exert control over the country.

After 15 years of international disputes and economic sanctions over these alleged acts of Libya, the US invaded Iraq. Seeing this made Libyans realize that they meant serious business and that they weren't going to listen to reason.

Saying they didn't have anything to do with it wasn't going to cut it anymore so they decided to do anything they could to make peace with these nations. They did not want war with the West, for obvious reasons.

They were willing to give into all the demands they had, ridicilous as they may have thought they were. One of these conditions was to "declare responsibility" for the attacks of Lockerbie although they stated firmly it was not an admission of guilt or participation in the preparation of the attack.

(af wiki: Until 2003 Libya had never formally admitted carrying out the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. On 16 August 2003 Libya formally admitted responsibility (but did not admit guilt) for Pan Am Flight 103 in a letter presented to the president of the United Nations Security Council)

It would only be a year until the Secretary General of Libya openly declared that this arrangement was made exclusively with the aim of "buying peace" and reiterated that Libya had not had any part in this attack.

http://news.scotsman.com/lockerbie/Lockerbie-witness-given-2m-reward.3470336.jp

Source http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8393320/Libya-Sarkozy-and-Gadaffi-before-they-fell-out.html

Here http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/03/23/berlusconi-and-qaddafi-their-close-friendship.html

is a mainstream news story showing that witnesses were bribed and evidence was fabricated in the Lockerbie trial.

In 2009 a dutch documentary was released. It is in dutch but if you just watch the beginning there are some interviews in English and the conclusion of the film makers was that blaming Libya for this attack was just preposterous.

Strange things start to happen following these compromises. They opened up to foreign business and Gaddafi and his family make business deals with politicians that they had previously been in conflict with.

All of the sudden a lot of these people start to "loosen up: towards Gaddafi. The rhetoric changes. He is no longer a tyrant, but simply an eccentric man.

Sarkozy says Gaddafi is not considered a dictator by his neighbours

Telegraph http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1284132/Tony-Blair-special-adviser-dictator-Gaddafis-son.html

Berlusconi kissing Gaddafi's hand

The Daily Beast http://www.water-technology.net/projects/gmr/

Tony Blair doing business with Gaddafi

Mail Online http://www.politicolnews.com/saudi-and-royal-family-terror-in-bahrain/

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/06/04/article-0-09E4EA7D000005DC-234_468x329.jpg

Even the senile old cook, John McCain had good things to say about Libya! (He is now back to singing from the dictator songsheet obviously, but just listen to this clip)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_6prnMgA6o&feature=player_embedded

Despite this relatively brief period of friendly exchanges it was clear that there were other plans in store for Gaddafi. Just look at Obama, it's almost as if he knows:

http://www.thedailystar.net/latest_photo/2011/03/19/2011-03-19__Gaddafi-Obama.jpg

They would simply smile and welcome him for a few years before turning around and stabbing him in the back.

In doing this Gaddafi was actually hurting his image more than he could have imagined. Cause most of these people are so despised in their home countries that associating with them is a bad PR move. It has given people the wrong impression that he is one of the brutal dictators that has been supported by the West. After all, we've seen him in pictures, rubbing shoulders with those evil war mongers. So right! We should let those war mongers start a war with him!

Or wait... something's not right here....

This has done a lot to hurt his image in the circle of people that would under normal circumstances be out there to defend him. Imagine if this was happening in Venezuela. A lot of people would know immediately that something was up. People don't pay attention to detail. But they remember the pictures:

http://www.kesweh.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/blair-gaddafi426-129836060424181300.jpg

http://comecocos.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/gaddafi-berlusconi.jpg

http://impactocna.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/gaddafi_sarkozy.jpg

I know that this was the image I had of him before all this started to happen and I began researching what was actually going on.

For those of you who have supported Hugo Chavez and his revolution in Venezuela, you might wonder why Chavez has aligned with Gaddafi and considers him a fellow revolutionary. Of course the media will use that to demonize Chavez, but not the other way around.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jh5rQj5miDI&feature=player_embedded

Another important figure that has hailed Gaddafi as one of the greatest freedom fighters of our times is Nelson Mandela.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CHEKuiGwtc&feature=player_embedded

Chapter 6 - The motives

The motive, is in this case like in most others, multifold.

The first and most obvious one in this context is oil. Libya has the largest oil supply in Africa and twice as much oil as the US does.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fUxVgxj0vc&feature=player_embedded

Here is former congresswoman Cynthia McKinney telling us what she found out, when she, along with a number of other notable people went to Libya on a fact finding mission

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=I7VzsYB07r4

Then there is the very real chance that this has a lot to do with the great water resources in Libya. It has been claimed by the Libyan government that these water reserves could quench the thirst of all of Africa.

Some might think that this would be good news to our benevolent world leaders, what with all their end poverty and live aid and charity work... Nope, what they do is start dropping bombs with depleted uranium to contanimate the water supplies. Just listen to this soldier. He is fucking pissed off over it, to quote him directly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V78E8D49Xyg&feature=player_embedded

In fact, the Libyan government had started a project called the Great Man Made River which sought to irrigate the Libyan desert and would have significantly improved the lives of the Libyan people.

See here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/royal-wedding/8391896/Royal-Wedding-King-of-Bahrain-rejects-invitation-from-Prince-William-and-Kate-Middleton.html

Or maybe this all boils down to Gaddafi's plans to introduce a new gold dinar, a currency free from the manipulation and stranglehold of the global banking elite.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLJu0X14vmg&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=w81x7WfGilI

Most likely, it is partly all of these reasons that led to the globalist intervention in Libya. It may also just have to do with getting a country that has so far managed successfully not to be exploited by the corporate plutocracy. To stop a movement that threatens the very structure that the political establishment relies upon for their domination of society.

Partly, a motive is also to keep the motor running in the war machine. Do you know how many missiles and bombs are produced each day? We can't just have them lying around, taking up all that storage space! And we also have to keep raking in profits for the weapons manufacterers, and all the corporate gangbangers that profit from war. Many of the people profiting from this are in many cases literally the same people that make the official decisions to start wars. The most famous examples of which would be the Bush connection to the Carlyle group and Dich Cheney with Halliburton as they decided to start a war with Iraq.

Whatever motive they may have, one thing should be absofuckinglutely clear. IT IS NOT to help civilians. It has NOTHING to do with protecting people from a tyrant, and it has nothing to do with democracy. Except perhaps in the sense that they want to implement the type of democracy they know how to control.

This notion should be insulting to every human being of average intellect. The fact that people actually believe it for a second boggles my mind. How can it be, that the same people that have routinely brutalized, beaten and tazered protesters in their own country, all of the sudden have this compassion for the people protesting in Libya?

How can it be that the response to protesters being brutalized in Egypt, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia has been so radically different to the response now? Why have these people let the suffering of the Palestinians continue for more than half a century without even pretending to interfere? What about Burma, Morocco, Chad, Turkmenistan, Nigeria, Somalia, Haiti, Ivory Coast... and I could literally go on (No, I'm not saying Syria or Iran, they are part of this same propaganda campaign orchestrated by the US)

Are we to believe that Gaddafi is just that much worse!?

Be vary of people who use this argument as disguised war propaganda against other nations. Like saying, why Libya when we could invade Syria or Iran? And then go on to say how much sense that would make. That is not the point. Syria and Iran have actually been targeted with the same kind og propaganda campaign.

A case in point. Just a few days after Saudi Arabian troops brutally attacked protesters in Bahrain, the king of Bahrain was invited to the royal wedding of Kate Middleton and that guy!

This is how powerful the propaganda is. It makes people believe absolutely ludicrous things that don't even come close to anything that has ever occurred in our dimension of this reality.

Source for wedding invitation http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12809511

Source for attack on protesters http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/07/gaddafi-resigning-libya-resignation_n_832578.html

It is so easy to discredit this claim that I don't even think I should have to.

There seems to be a great deal of doublethink going on here.

A lot of people seem to understand that the war powers have selfish motives, but they seem to think that getting rid of Gaddafi is "still a good thing".

By now I'm sure we've all heard about Syria's "crackdown on protesters".. Well, in a similar pattern we see here millions of people marching in support of President Assad. Noticing a pattern here anyone?

These enemies of Israel are being targeted and their friends are being let off the hook for doing what the enemies of Israel are being accused of.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRAGxSmLdE3_oQccUIi5dPIzlPlz2lvDuE6gwbZgRHb-8J810Wklg

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiiuWw0slAaUZoS0AhKvwhoyv1CqMATSzG8dn2GLmk_uoPkh1sJpFdk3PywLXJkTKsMf3EZEazUG7TYaunNbWQPdIEJSJ5EntJ100iMlxPQLKfCNBkfPhRFcGy4YcJRadJ1ap7xVwZGJAd5/s1600/syria290311.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-S0Rx7-Mto&feature=player_embedded

Just watch this video and try telling me we're not being duped! Why would all these people support guys that were torturing and killing their own people??

They wouldn't! And that's the point! These guys aren't killing and torturing their own people!

If you think this "couldn't happen" well then think agian. It already has. The most recent example, escluding the failed attempt in Venezuela is the NATO bombardment of Serbia. Of course these cases have different details but the basic plot is the same. Those who know what happened in Serbia will clearly see the similarities of these campaigns. If you don't and still think it was just a necessary effort to get rid of evil Milosevic, then you should reinvestigate the case, knowing what you know now.

I'll leave this documentary on the case here for those of you who are interested. (Part 1, but you should be able to find the rest)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUerv1PoxU&feature=player_embedded

It can happen, and it frequently does and will continue to happen unless we educate ourselves about how this is accomplished and expose it!

Do you understand now why thousands of Libyans placed themselves at Gaddafis palace to prevent him from being bombed by NATO?

Source javascript:nicTemp();

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGf_HdxcNSw&feature=player_embedded

Or these people?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zXaywUqVesg

Do you now understand what this guy was trying to do when he photobombed this goebbels wannabe, demonizing him and his country with the aim of killing their people?

http://i.imgur.com/JxLCC.png

Do you understand now, why we have to stop this horror??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xDis_T6Qm7U

Do you understand now why Cynthia McKinney is defending Libya, having been there and seen the scale of the deception. "The most common thing that I hear people ask me is WHY? Why are they doing this??"

Uhh... to uhh... help you.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZxaOt0bO--E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Lo-x4kXfiNI

Do you understand why this article needed to be so thourough? Do you see the scale of this deception and how difficult it would be to tear it apart with a few paragraphs?

Do you now understand why I spent so much time working on this article without getting any money for it? Twice I stayed up for 24 hours and just continued writing and working on it.

The only thing I stand for is peace!

Have we in fact reached that stage again were standing up for peace is dangerous!?

Are we really at the stage were protesting a war is considered crazy?! And those who do are dismissed as conspiracy theorists?

WAR IS NOT PEACE! It is a lie! I never thought I'd have to say this!!

WAR IS NOT PEACE!

THE WAR IN LIBYA IS NOT ABOUT PEACE! IT IS ABOUT WAR!

Please! SEE! You have been blinded if you can not see this! WAR AND PEACE ARE OPPOSITES!

Cause the most disturbing thing is that most people claim to be against war. But when it comes to it, everybody either shuts up or directly supports it! And most people don't even investigate it from both sides!

If you are against war than spread this information! Expose the lies before it gets out of hand and spreads to Iran and Syria and even more countries!

The truth is on our side! Eventually it will be exposed, just like it has been on Iraq.

The propaganda machines just work a lot faster. They know in advance what the plan is and can prepare!

Us freelance journalists have a hard time to keep up, cause we can only react. I've been investigating world events for the last 6 years and I never suspected that Libya was about to become such an important factor. So to counter it I had to start researching it when the propaganda had already started.

That is the problem. They control the media but they don't control reality. We will get them eventually.

There are at least two sides to every story

The media is not being neutral! They are not even pretending to cover both sides! Try listening to or reading any news story. It's not that they are taking a side, they pretend that the other side doesn't even exist!

Everything I've been covering here has been largely ignored by the mainstream press! Every reference to Gaddafi assumes it as a given that he is an evil dictator!

Every mention of the rebels portrays them as freedom fighters! The media is acting like an absolutely blatant cheerleader for this war.

It is almost never acknowledged that the reason Gaddafi says he won't step down is because he has no power! How can he step down if it has no power?? He just laughs at it because it is so ridicilous! Why do they always just report that he "refuses to step down"?

It was just barely reported that he offered to symbolically "step down" just as long as he wouldn't be tried in a court who knew would be corrupt! The rebels rejected the offer, saying that would be offensive to his victims.

Source javascript:nicTemp();

Sure, a peaceful resolution to this conflict would be insulting, we demand blood!

Every word you hear out of Gaddafi is not directly from him, but quoted out of context by the media.

You are not hearing his side, but the other sides version of his side. If you want to hear his side it is very easy! Just fucking listen to what he has to say!

So... are you ready to listen to Gaddafi?

Now that you've read this extensive article almost to the end, this is my last request.

Consider these videos the last plea of a man on his knees. You have a gun pointed on his head and he is asking for your mercy (actually Gaddafi is more proud than that, but you catch my drift). Are you going to pull the trigger before he gets to say what he wants or will you at least let him speak?

Will you just shoot first and ask questions later?

Consider why, it had never occurred to you before to listen to the other side of this story directly from the source. My mother told me never to judge anyone before you hear their side. It is the best advice she ever gave me.

Consider how naive it was of you to think you could just trust that the media was telling you the truth. Even knowing they're consistant history of manipulating facts in favor of wars and the establishment.

You don't want war! So stop it! Plant seeds in any way you can. Do not be afraid. Don't be afraid of being judged by others. It is there mistake not yours. Yours would be to succumb to this societal pressure and abandon your conscience. Allocate your empathy! Feel for these people who are being deeply wronged and do something about it.

Having said that I just want to affirm that I obviously in no way condone or advocate violent action for the cause of Libya. We do not need that. We just need people to wake up, and they will! This information is too powerful and they can only overlook it for some time. Plant seeds of information everywhere you can! Be courageous enough to tell people they are wrong even if it is more comfortable that everybody agrees!

I may not be right about everything I wrote in this article and I'm sure that some nitpickers can pick out some minor flaws, that is not the point. Last time I checked there is freedom of speech and people are entitled to be wrong. All I can promise is that I am giving my honest take on this situation and all the information that I found researching it.

So, watching these interviews I am sure you will see how blatantly these "reporters" are not even listening to what they say and simply have a script that they are sticking to no matter what.

I recommend starting with this interview with the very eloquant Saif al-Islam Gaddafi. He is now being portrayed as some vicious wannabe tyrant but I think you would find that he doesn't really look the part.

Saif Gaddafi í viðtali BBC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pa4m0N3BWHI&feature=player_embedded

Here he is speaking with our friend, Nic Robertson of CNN

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6V2utTqHaY&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RpMugPQC4ZY

Gaddafi speaks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEq-n6ciuxc&feature=player_embedded

And a shorter version you can share with people that is a must see

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtGcQIK5Hig&feature=player_embedded

Please reproduce this article and any of it's contents as widely as possible. Share it with everyone you know and post it on your blogs, facebook, websites and etc. You will not get in trouble if it's not properly referenced, just go ahead and spread this information.”