To avoid any misconceptions or deliberate distortions of the stand taken by this paper (there have already been accusations by what I call the present degenerate “Left” — statist and libertarian alike — that I am a “pro-Caddafist,” a “plot theorist,” a “supporter of dictatorial regimes,” etc., particularly since I was also against the transnational elite’s[1] criminal attacks on Yugoslavia,[2] Afghanistan[3] and Iraq[4]), I think it is necessary to state, explicitly and in advance, the principles guiding this paper. The reader will, then, have a clear opportunity to assess its conclusions against these principles and draw his/her own conclusions.

It is now clear that the new war against Libya being carried out by the transnational elite and their client regimes in the Arab world (with the full support, as we shall see, of the Zionist elite — from the sidelines, for obvious reasons) is, in fact, a new criminal campaign for “regime change,” which may well end in the destruction of yet another people, in addition to the peoples of Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq — always, of course, for their own good, i.e. to “save” them from a tyrant!

It is also clear that this campaign may well secure the first real victory for the transnational elite because, unlike the previous campaigns, the present one has not only united the entire transnational elite (with France, under Sarkozy, now leading the criminal campaign, unlike what happened during the Iraq war), but it has also succeeded in creating an “unholy alliance” between the transnational elite and those aspiring to become its members (China, part of the Russian elite etc) — who abstained in the crucial UN vote “legalizing” the criminal campaign — as well as the Arab client regimes (mainly Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states) and, significantly, the “revolutionary” regimes of Egypt and Tunisia which are still, in fact, client states despite the cosmetic changes brought about as a result of the mass insurrections that took place in these countries. Crucially, however, the non-client Iranian Islamic regime, through its support for the Libyan “revolutionaries” and notwithstanding its rhetorical opposition to the military campaign, indirectly, also supports the new campaign. In fact, Lebanon, whose new government is directly influenced by Hezbollah (controlled, like Hamas, by the Iranian regime), played a leading role in passing the UNSC resolution which paved the way for the military campaign itself. It is this broad alliance of various regimes (and for different reasons, as we shall see) that has created this false impression of a unanimous “world community,” usually a euphemism for the transnational elite and their acolytes (see Section 4).

The world mass media controlled by the transnational and Zionist elites, crucially assisted this time by the “alternative” world media (from Aljazeera — which has become the unofficial channel of the “revolutionaries” and the transnational elite — to the Iranian Press TV), have played a very important role in creating the illusion of a monolithic “world against the tyrant”, which was not created during all the previous criminal wars of the transnational elite (see Section 4).

This has had very important implications as regards the stand of the Left (statist, libertarian, Green, etc.), who have mostly sided with the “revolutionaries”, if not with the criminal campaign itself! Furthermore, it has not just been the reformist Left who have sided with the new criminal campaign, as they have done in the past. This time, a very significant part of the anti-systemic Left have also indirectly been in favour of this war, through their support for the so-called “revolutionaries” in Libya. This has created (or perhaps revealed) a new kind of degenerate “Left” who, instead of demystifying the systemic propaganda, as used to be their traditional role, have directly or indirectly been supporting it, justifying the conclusion I derived ten years ago about the end of the traditional antisystemic movements[5] (see Section 5-Part II).

The first stage of this campaign was that of instigating the civil war. In Libya, unlike Tunisia and Egypt previously, we do not have a case of a mass popular uprising that has spread all over the country against a tyrannical regime personified by its formal leader (Ben Ali or Mubarak respectively). Instead, we have a case of a tribal society in which such a mass popular uprising, uniting everybody apart from the local elites and the privileged social groups supporting them, is almost impossible, by definition. It is no wonder that the Libyan uprising has been concentrated in only one part of the country (Eastern Libya), in which the leaders of the prevailing tribes there have been in contact with the western secret services for many years so as to organize an armed insurrection against the Gaddafi regime. The transnational elite timed this insurrection to coincide with the genuine mass insurrections in Tunisia and Egypt, so that the false impression could be created that it was also a part of the general democratic uprising of the Arab world (see Sections 3-4).

As soon as the supposed mass insurrection in Libya started with the events in Benghazi, following the overthrow of the Egyptian tyrant, a massive media campaign of misinformation began, which constituted the second stage of the criminal attack against Libya. The media campaign was led by Al Jazeera and the BBC, and with people all over the world being brainwashed to believe that what they were witnessing in Libya was the next act in the epic play, “the people against the tyrant”. This was a play that started to be enacted in Tunisia and Egypt and has since continued in Yemen, Bahrain and elsewhere[6], with Saudi Arabia, the most powerful tyrannical client regime of the transnational elite in the area, currently remaining unaffected as a result of the massive suppression of even the idea of resistance, let alone its materialization. In fact, the Saudi Arabian repression mechanism has even been exported to neighbouring Bahrain, with the obvious tacit approval of the transnational elite, in order to carry out the violent suppression of the massive insurrection occurring in this island-state, which hosts a huge naval base for the US Fifth Fleet! (see Sections 2-3).

The third stage was the approval of the criminal campaign by the UNSC, following the Arab League’s approval of a resolution supporting the no-fly zone (see Section 4).

The final stage was the launch of the NATO war itself — initially by NATO countries and a handful of Arab client regimes, followed by a pure NATO campaign (see Section 4).

Although it is true that the first acts of the Arab revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt had a relatively happy ending with the overthrow of the tyrants (but not of the corresponding regimes, apart from some cosmetic changes in the security apparatuses and the promise of fair elections), this development was ensured by the fact that the decisive factor in their overthrow was the tolerance of the army, which is controlled by the USA! On the other hand, in cases such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates, which are critical for the transnational elite due to their plentiful energy sources, it is even doubtful whether the overthrow of the tyrants themselves is possible, at least at this stage and before the transnational elite have achieved their second aim, following the overthrow of the Libyan regime: regime changes in Syria and, finally, “the big apple”: Iran! The present massacre of the people of Bahrain, with the decisive help of the Saudi Arabian army — literally in front of thousands of US soldiers whose biggest military base in the Gulf is located a few kilometres from Manama, the capital of Bahrain, where the demonstrations have been taking place — is proof of this. The similar massacre going on in Yemen has also failed to attract the interest of the transnational elite, their media and of course the “world Left”, as Wallerstein calls it (or, as I would prefer, the “degenerate Left”), i.e. all those “Left” theoreticians, analysts and so on, who only notice some “popular revolutions” and “massacres” (those which, coincidentally, also attract the keen interest of the transnational elite) and not others!

In other words, there are fundamental differences between, on the one hand, the massive revolts in Tunisia and Egypt and, on the other, the supposedly "revolutionary" uprising in Libya which has been supported not only by the degenerate Green movement of Cohn-Bendit et. al. — who have also backed all the other “wars” of the transnational criminal elite, directly or indirectly — but by most of the antisystemic Left as well, both statist and “libertarian”! This “Left” not only “does not see” the historical differences (see Section 3), but also the huge similarities between some regimes and the related uprisings. Thus, it “does not see” that:

Libya does not have a history of intense social struggles emanating from socio-economic issues, like Tunisia does, nor have there been repeated acts of “terrorism” like in Egypt, and the only major attempt to overthrow the regime was the 1996 coup which was organized by the western secret services (see below)! In this sense, Libya is far from being a case of another act in the same epic play, as international public opinion would suggest, after systematic deception not only by the media of the transnational elite, but also by the reformist “Left” and the Green movement (which played a similar role in the attack on Yugoslavia by NATO), now assisted by some “Marxists” who, objectively, play the role of the transnational elite’s lackeys — supposedly for the sake of the Libyan proletariat! (see section 5-Part II). The nature of the Libyan regime is very different from that of the neighbouring regimes (Tunisia, Egypt) for the following reasons:

Gaddafi renamed the Libyan Arab Republic as Jamahiriya (government of the masses) in 1977, on the basis of his political philosophy of Arab socialism and, in 1979, he relinquished the title of prime minister and was, thereafter, called “The Brother Leader” or “The Guide” of Libya’s Socialist Revolution. The Libyan government states that Libya is a direct democracy without any political parties, governed by its people through local popular councils and communes (named Local People’s Congresses). Although the idea of a nation-state is disdained, giving the impression that this is a genuine stateless direct democracy, it is clear that the nation-state is rejected more because of the tribal character of Libyan society than because of a libertarian hostility towards the state as such, which is clearly thriving. This impression is also confirmed by the fact that tribal bonds remain primary even within the ranks of the military of Libya — something that could explain why the members of the military originating from the tribes, which turned against Gaddafi during the “revolution,” left the army and joined the “revolutionaries”.

Therefore, although, in theory, Jamahiriya is supposed to be a direct democracy managed by the people through local popular councils and communes (called Local People’s Congresses), this does not mean that the Libyan regime is a genuinely democratic regime, in which people directly express their will through general assemblies. As I will try to show briefly below, Jamahiriya is neither direct political democracy nor economic democracy in the sense of the equal distribution of political and economic power among all citizens, as defined by the Inclusive Democracy project.[20]

First, it is not a genuine direct political democracy because, although the Jamahiriya sector provides for a legislative sector comprising Local People’s Congresses in each of the 1,500 urban wards, 32 Sha’biyat People’s Congresses for the regions and the National General People’s Congress (GPC) (consisting of circa 2700 representatives from the Local People’s Congresses), the power of these congresses is, nevertheless, circumvented by the “Revolutionary Sector”. In other words, the Jamahiriya sector is complemented by a “Revolutionary Sector” consisting of the Revolutionary Command Council, i.e. a 12-person executive and legislative cabinet founded in 1969 in which Gaddafi plays a leading role, and the Revolutionary Committees, which were introduced in 1977 and were assigned the task of “absolute revolutionary supervision of people’s power”. Therefore, these committees were assigned the role of guiding the people’s committees with the aim of “raising the general level of political consciousness and devotion to revolutionary ideals". Clearly, the institutions of direct democracy are not the only source of political power and, even more importantly, they are guided by the Revolutionary Sector, in a kind of “Guided Direct Democracy”. Needless to say that, as in the case of actually existing socialism, the guidance of the Revolutionary Sector can easily degenerate into guidance by the Revolutionary Command Council and, finally, guidance by the “Guide of the Revolution”, Gaddafi himself. Not surprisingly, Gaddafi named his son, Saif, “Coordinator of the People’s Leadership” last October, effectively making him head of state, in charge of the main branches of power: the General People’s Congress (parliament), the General People’s Committee (government), and the security forces.[21]

Second, it is not, of course, an economic democracy, which presupposes the equal distribution of economic power through the common ownership and control of the means of production so that, ultimately, the people’s assemblies can determine what is to be produced, how and for whom — such are the elementary economic decisions that the people of any scarcity economy need to take. In Libya, although most of the economic resources belong to and are controlled by the state, since there is no genuine political (direct) democracy to control the state machine, the main economic decisions are inevitably taken by the new elites comprised of state functionaries, technocrats, etc., rather than by the delegates of the citizens’ general assemblies and of the workers’ assemblies, as would happen in an economic democracy. On the other hand, the part of the economy controlled by the private sector, which has been growing since 2003, also bears no relation to an economic democracy, since the all-important economic decisions are not by definition taken by the demotic and workers’ assemblies. In fact, over the last decade or so, more than 100 government-owned companies have been privatized — 29 of which are now 100% foreign-owned — in industries including oil-refining, tourism and real estate. Furthermore, many international oil companies have returned to the country, including oil giants Shell and ExxonMobil.

Yet, the state sector still plays a much more significant role in Libya than in the countries fully integrated into the internationalized market economy and, in fact, this is one of the main reasons for the present attempt by the transnational elite to bring about regime change. Thus, even after Gaddafi’s about-turn during the last decade, he continued to play the role of protecting the Libyan people’s wealth: as a cable from U.S. Ambassador Gene Kretz to the State Department on June 4, 2009 (made public by WikiLeaks) shows, Libya was able, even more recently, to force foreign oil firms, especially France’s Total, to agree to take a much smaller percentage of the oil and gas yielded by the country’s wells, under the threat of renationalization. Thus, in reference to Libya’s National Oil Corporation, Kretz wrote:[22]

The renegotiation of Total’s contract is of a piece with the NOC’s effort to renegotiate existing contracts to increase Libya’s share of crude oil production. (...) Each consortium will take 27 percent of oil production, down from the 50 percent take they had under the previous agreement. For gas, the consortium will take a 40 percent share (down from 50 percent), which will be reduced in the future to 30 percent. For the Mabruk field, which is located in the Sirte basin and produces some 20,000 barrels of oil per day, the new production share is 73 percent for the NOC, 20.25 percent for Total and 6.75 percent for StatoilHydro.

As Deirdre Griswold[23] rightly points out, “the U.S. ambassador well understood [that] this effort by the Libyan government to get more control over its most valuable resource would antagonize the imperialist oil companies and their rich capitalist owners. No wonder that France was the first country to recognize the rebel regime in Benghazi!”

So, although it is true that Gaddafi’s regime is not a genuine democracy in the sense defined above, it is much better at protecting the interests of the Libyan people than a typical client regime of the transnational elite would be; indeed, such is the kind of regime that this elite are now attempting to impose on the country through their acolytes among the “revolutionaries”. However, those who call themselves “anarchists” or “libertarians” in the West and who support the Libyan “revolutionaries” and — indirectly — the criminal NATO campaign itself, pretend to be ignorant of the fact that, when the international media criticize the Libyan regime for being non-democratic, they are, in fact, criticizing it for the wrong reasons, at least from the libertarian viewpoint.

It is true that there are no political parties in Libya, but political parties are, of course, an integral part of the pseudo-democracy in the West called representative “democracy”, where all political power is concentrated in the hands of political elites who are funded by the economic elites and supported by the mass media controlled by them, and who manipulate the public to vote, every four years or so, for those candidates and parties preferred by the elites. It is also true that there are no free media in Libya, but the same applies to the West, of course, where it is the likes of Murdoch and Berlusconi who own the “free” media and determine how people should think. Finally, the lack of “civil society” resulting, for instance, from the absence of NGOs in Libya (whose role in supporting the “orange” revolutions in Eastern Europe and now the “revolutionaries” in Libya has been well established), in no way defines the lack of democracy in the country unless, by this term, we mean what passes as “democracy” in the West. Similar considerations apply to the other “freedoms” enjoyed by peoples in the west, like the freedoms to hold assemblies and demonstrations (so long as the elites can afford to ignore them and use the security services to beat people to the ground when they become “annoying” to them), the freedom to strike (so long as strikes do not raise overtly political demands against the rulings of the elites — despite such rulings being in no way legitimized by the people — in which case striking is banned through the judicial process, also controlled by the elites), etc. It is no wonder that even in the country regarded as “the mother of parliamentary democracy”, Britain, the police have recently been accused of being at the forefront of a campaign to criminalize and intimidate protesters, and a new movement has just been created entitled, “Defend the Right to Protest” [24] — a right which has effectively been undermined lately through preemptive arrests, the “kettling” of thousands of demonstrators for hours, etc. Of course, this right to protest, as well as all the other rights mentioned above, are the very rights for the protection of which the transnational elite have launched a war in Libya and are ready to launch another one in Syria! So, the transnational and Zionist elites are the last people on earth who are in a position to talk about democracy (or the lack of it) in Libya or anywhere else.

Having said this, Gaddafi’s son Saif completed his “Manifesto” — to have been published by Oxford University Press — just a year ago, in which he called for civil society and participatory democracy in Libya! Furthermore, during a speech to the Libyan National Youth Conference as early as 2006, he said: “Does Libya have people’s authority and a direct democracy really? (…) All of you know that the democratic system that we dreamed of does not exist in the realm of reality.”[25] Furthermore, it seems that the only condition being demanded by the regime at the moment is that “Gaddafi should not go” and that, if this condition were met, the regime would raise no objection even to discussing reforms which would eventually lead to the creation of a form of representative “democracy” in Libya, similar to the one currently being imposed willy-nilly by the transnational elite all over the world to complement the full integration of each country into the internationalized market economy — which the Benghazi “revolutionaries” would also see (together with their “democracy”), if they were to win!

The fact that we never saw any mass demonstrations in favour of the “revolution” (which the world media would have been all too keen to film in order to justify their utterly biased stand in this civil war), like the ones we saw in Tunisia and Egypt, and the fact that the armed “revolutionaries” were only a few thousand in number and, despite the misinformation to the contrary from the transnational elite and its media, there were never any mass defections from the army to the rebel side, make it clear that the social basis for the “revolutionaries” is very small and localized geographically around Benghazi and the isolated “island” of Misurata, which is being protected by NATO through their massive bombardments of the militias loyal to the regime, who have encircled it.

This social basis consists of : the main tribes in this area, who were traditionally against Gaddafi; the “youth of the internet” (who have been playing a particularly important role in all the Arab insurrections, since “the US perceives the internet and social networking platforms as major tools for spreading democracy”[26]); and, especially, the Islamists, who start every rally and battle with the “revolutionary” slogan, “God is great”. The example of the rebel-held Derna, an East Libya town with a history of opposition to the Gaddafi regime dating back to 1970, (a year after he took power), is characteristic. Derna, as the Guardian correspondent points out, has a history as a fertile recruiting ground for Islamist groups, given that “along with other cities in eastern Libya, supplied men to the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), an anti-Gaddafi movement that sprang up in the camps of Afghanistan in the early 90s”.[27] No wonder the regime has repeatedly said that al-Qaida militants seeking to create an Islamist state are spearheading Libya’s revolution. But it is precisely such support for the “revolution” by this kind of “unholy alliance”, cantered around Islamists opposed to the secular regime of Gaddafi, which has united everybody, from the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of Iran and Iran’s partners in Lebanon (Hezbollah — who control the newly-formed government of the country— played a leading role in passing resolution 1973 at the UNSC) to Hamas in Palestine and the emirate of Qatar with its influential TV channel Al Jazeera. In fact, the Libyan Interim National Council explicitly specify “a constitutional civil state which respects the sanctity of religious doctrine”[28] as one of the values they support, in their statement, “A vision of a democratic Libya”, where they set out their basic principles.

Even so, as I mentioned above, this does not imply that all those who participated in the Benghazi insurrection were al-Qaida fundamentalists, let alone CIA agents. Although it is now definite that al-Qaida fundamentalists did take part in the battles and that CIA agents do, indeed, participate in the National Provisional Council, a more accurate analysis of the social structure of the insurgents is needed, which would take into account all the social categories described above. However, it has now been shown conclusively that the Libyan insurrection in Benghazi had nothing to do with the mass popular insurrections in Tunisia and Egypt but that, instead, it represented the first battle in a civil war in which both sides were armed. As the Russian Deputy Prime Minister Sergey Ivanov (in no way a Gaddafi supporter!) caustically asked:[29]

One basic characteristic of the Libyan “revolution” is that, unlike the mass insurrections in Tunisia and Egypt, where some of the main demands of the insurrectionists — clearly comprising the unemployed, poor and marginalized social strata among others — were socio-economic, i.e. relating to unemployment, poverty, etc., in Libya, the only demand uniting the so-called revolutionaries is that Gaddafi and his regime should be ousted. This is not surprising if one takes into account the welfare system that the Gaddafi regime built over the years, as evidenced by the UN data given above but also by reports that the regime, apart from providing free education, also made sure that “every Libyan of working age received the equivalent of $US 1,000 a month and it was up to them whether they worked or not.”[30] All this points to the implicitly bourgeois character of most of the “revolutionaries” (perhaps leaving aside some of the Islamists who have been taking part in the “revolution”). The information given on this by the western media is sparse, for obvious reasons, but reports like the following are indicative of both the nature of the regime and the kind of “revolutionaries” fighting it:[31]

Meanwhile, the sparse information that we have on real life in “liberated” areas like Benghazi is revealing, as it hardly paints the picture of a liberated city celebrating its “liberation” every night — a picture that even Left journalists (including some supposed supporters of the anti-systemic Left who, however, have been functioning as mouthpieces for the propaganda of the “revolutionaries” throughout) have helped to create! One could, therefore, learn more about what life in “free” Benghazi is really like from honest journalists embedded with the “revolutionaries,” rather than from members of the “world Left”. Here is how Rob Crilly of the Telegraph described it in a report whose title says it all — “it wasn’t supposed to be like this in free Benghazi”:[32]

Needless to say that the human rights NGOs which are directly or indirectly financed by the transnational and Zionist elites (Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc.) and which, during the entire criminal campaign, very enthusiastically reported the “enforced disappearances” of opponents of the Gaddafi regime[33], “forgot” to report the similar disappearances of Gaddafi supporters at the hands of their opponents! Here is another report demonstrating the kind of fate that anyone not supporting the “revolution” may expect to have, once NATO have finished the “job” and brought about regime change in Libya:[34]

At the same time, the evidence keeps growing that many among the leadership of the “revolutionaries” have been working for the secret services of the transnational elite for many years: Thus, first, we heard that “the rebels” have been backed for over 30 years by the secret services of western countries, as was revealed by an indisputable source (Annie Machon, the ex-head of the British Secret Service):[35]

Then, another indisputable source, Patrick Cockburn, the well-known Middle-East correspondent for The Independent for many years who has been following the wars of the transnational elite and has written several books on the matter, confirmed:[36]

John Pilger[37], the well-known liberal independent journalist, has adopted a contradictory approach to the war in his condemnation of both sides,(i.e. both the “dictator” and those of the “rebels” who are “corrupted by foreign demands”) — presumably because of his close connections with the Znet empire — accusing the West that it has been undermining efforts by Libya’s “genuine democrats and nationalists” (people who obviously exist only in his imagination, at the moment!) “to free their country from both a dictator and those corrupted by foreign demands”. However, even he has also confirmed that:

Interestingly enough, John Pilger also revealed, in the same report, how the only rational attempt to solve the Libyan crisis was thwarted by the transnational elite, who had in fact pre-planned the crisis and the war, as we shall see below. Thus, as Pilger[38] wrote:

Then, as Francis Boyle[39], Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois, concluded from his analysis, the Libyan conflict has been a well-planned mission with the next phase almost being set in stone:

Yet, Wallerstein’s “world Left” in full accordance with the transnational elite’s propaganda, did not have any qualms about justifying this criminal campaign against Libya, directly or indirectly, because of the “massacre” that Gaddafi’s forces were supposedly about to commit upon entering Benghazi, as we shall see in Part II!

On the other hand, there are several factors indicating a strong social basis for the regime. The fact that this “dictatorial” regime which is supposedly based solely on Gaddafi’s family and mercenaries, as the media’s ruthless propaganda — reproduced by the degenerate “Left” — asserts, did not hesitate to distribute weapons to the people (something that no dictatorial regime has ever dared to do in history, as the oppressed peoples could easily turn their weapons against the regime), is one such indication.

Another indication is that, despite the relentless and brutal NATO bombings, not only did a revolution against the regime never materialize, as the mouthpieces of the transnational elite kept on claiming from the first day, but also its supporters continued to fight without any substantial reinforcements, despite the fact that their replenishment routes were being systematically destroyed by these bombings and they were themselves being subjected to them on a daily basis — when they could easily have defected to the other side. On the contrary, as acknowledged by a “minister"” of the “revolutionary” government (who had taught for 35 years in the U.S. and had just returned to Benghazi!)[40], the “thousands” of soldiers belonging to Gaddafi’s army who had supposedly defected at the beginning of the uprising, eventually turned out to be no more than hundreds, as they, together with the trained rebels, amounted to 1,000 at most, presumably because the deserters had chosen to go home (if they had not, indeed, returned to the army!).

This does not, of course, imply that all those who continued to fight under such harsh conditions necessarily admired the Gaddafi regime (although, according to a Spanish national residing in Libya for years, 80% of the people support it[41]), but simply that they did not wish to suffer the fate of Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan — which, as they know, will befall them if the “revolutionaries” win. It is no wonder that the “rebels” themselves now regularly state: “We will try to fight [the Gaddafi militias] if they come but without NATO we will all be killed”,[42] admitting, in effect, that were NATO to withdraw their massive support for them, the entire “revolution” would collapse the next day!

I shall examine below the four main stages of the criminal campaign against Libya as I described them briefly in the Introduction.

As should be obvious from the above, in Libya we are not witnessing a people who are turning against their tyrant in almost total harmony — as, for example, in the aforementioned revolts in Tunisia and Egypt — with demands that unite the poorer social strata of the working class with peasants and the “internet youth”. In Libya, by contrast, we have been seeing a civil war from the earliest days which, as in Yugoslavia, has been supported by the transnational elite in every way possible: through financial and other assistance over many years, as the ex-head of MI5 has revealed, through the dirty and massive media campaign and, finally, through both indirect and direct military assistance. The goal has been the effective dismantling of the country which would lead to “regime change”, replacing the non-client present regime with a pure client regime and allowing for the oil, the nation’s wealth, to be transferred into the hands of the multinationals of the transnational elite. It is no wonder that the biggest battles during this civil war have been fought around the oil-producing areas of the country!

In this civil war, the “class” structure of the two sides can be roughly described as follows. On the one side, we have:

Once the first demonstrations had erupted in Benghazi, a huge and deceptive media campaign was set up to prepare international public opinion for regime change in Libya. A campaign in which apparently all international channels have been involved^{^[44]} (with the honorary exception of Russia Today — something which evoked the wrath of the US secretary of state, the miserable Hillary Clinton, because it spoiled the consensus of deception) as well as international newspapers, led (as with Iraq!) by the “serious” flagship of deception, the New York Times. It is also characteristic that, in this particular media campaign of deception, all Islamic channels have also been involved, from the Iranian Press TV, which has now forgotten its anti-imperialist zeal (presumably because Islam is more important than imperialism!), to Al Jazeera (which is funded, through donations, "loans", etc., by the Emir of Qatar, who was also the first to recognize the rebel “government” in Benghazi and who offered to send weapons to “insurgents”!^{^[45]} Qatar was also one of the handful of client Arab states that has taken part in the “coalition of the willing” to set up the no-fly zone. It is no wonder that, as soon as the “revolutionaries” briefly managed to occupy the oil-producing areas, they made an agreement with Qatar to exploit the oil! Thus, as Ali Tarhouni, a rebel official in charge of economic and oil matters, stated, Libya’s opposition could return to the global market within weeks: “We contacted the oil company of Qatar and thankfully they agreed to take all the oil that we wish to export and market this oil for us,” he told reporters in Benghazi[46].

Indicatively, I refer below to some of the myths used by the international media to support their contemptible campaign for “regime change” in Libya, with the main aim, as I mentioned above, of exploiting the social wealth of the country through the full integration of the country’s economy with the internationalized market economy, under the pretext of protecting Libya’s citizens from a brutal dictator.

As I tried to show elsewhere[63] with respect to the other wars of the transnational elite in the last decade or so, the ideological basis of all these wars constitutes also the ideology of globalization, i.e. the ideology of the New World Order (NWO) which allows the unashamed restriction of national sovereignty of any state that the transnational elite declares a “rogue” or an “illegitimate” state. In other words, the ideological globalization’ is a transnational ideology used to justify the decrease of national sovereignty, which complements the corresponding decrease of economic sovereignty following economic globalization.

The core of this new ideology is the doctrine of “limited” sovereignty, which is used to “justify” military interventions/attacks against any “rogue” regimes or even political organizations and movements. Robert Cooper, Tony Blair’s foreign policy guru, expressed clearly the new ideological globalization when he argued that “what is needed is a new kind of imperialism, one compatible with human rights and cosmopolitan values: an imperialism which aims to bring order and organization but which rests today on the voluntary principle”.[64] According to this doctrine, there are certain universal values that should take priority over other values, like that of national sovereignty. The five centuries-old culture of unlimited sovereignty, which nations that participated in the drafting of the UN charter agreed to limit only as regards their right to wage war in case of an attack, in exchange for a promise that the Security Council provide collective security on their behalf, is therefore completely abolished in the NWO. In cases where “universal values” are violated, international organizations expressing the will of the “international community” (i.e. the UN Security Council, NATO, etc.) should enforce them by any means necessary, irrespective of national sovereignty concerns that should never override the primary significance of these universal values. Tony Blair, the well-known war criminal, in a Chicago speech, just before the Washington NATO summit, formally expressed this new doctrine. The upshot of this speech was that democratic states should be allowed to intervene in the internal affairs of other states so long as human rights are at stake — a principle fully endorsed by the “new” NATO.[65]

Clearly, given the huge asymmetry of power in the present world order, it is not the sovereignty of the powerful states which is going to suffer because of this new doctrine but only that of the weak ones. Therefore, it can easily be used by the transnational elite to oppress any state or movement that might try to establish an alternative kind of society which aims to abolish the unequal distribution of political and economic power. So, this new doctrine of limited sovereignty plays the ideological role of legitimizing political and military interventions of the transnational elite in order to guarantee the stability of the NWO.

The new development with respect to this doctrine is that the World Summit of the UN General Assembly in September 2005 backed calls for the elaboration of it into a UN resolution that could be used in future interventions of the transnational elite. It is called “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) — an idea for protecting civilian populations from atrocities by their own leaders that was pushed by Bernard Kouchner, until recently France’s foreign minister. Kouchner is a well known stooge of the transnational elite and a Zionist who supported all wars of this elite, from the NATO attack on Kosovo, to the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and now the attack on Libya—always of course for “humanitarian reasons”! Naturally, Kouchner is presently full in favour of intervention in Libya[66] (as well as in Iran and Syria). As Muhammad Idrees Ahmad, the co-editor of Pulse, writes about him and his friend Sarkozy (who “is considered more pro-United States and pro-Israeli than most French politicians”), who appointed him as Foreign Minister:[67]

Back to the R2P doctrine, in January 2009, the UN Secretary General issued a document relating to its implementation. As Robert Hunter, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO and currently a Senior Advisor to the RAND Corporation (a think tank of the transnational elite) writes about R2P, which he describes as a new paradigm for intervention:[68]

On the basis of the above, it is obvious that the UN Security Council’s decision to sanction a new criminal campaign by the transnational elite, ostensibly for the protection of the Libyans who, according to this elite’s mythology (directly reproduced by the degenerate “Left”) were about to be massacred by Gaddafi, was, in fact, made with the aim of achieving regime change. Indeed, the spokesmen of the transnational elite — Obama, Clinton, Sarkozy, Cameron, et.al. — enjoy repeating the words, “Gaddafi must go”, openly and continually, despite the fact that the UN resolution itself in no way sets forth such a goal! But let us examine the procedure that was used to pass this resolution, which is almost identical to the procedure adopted by the transnational elite to pass the resolution on Iraq (through similarly deceptive methods and blackmail), which however proved eventually impossible to be approved because of the veto power of Russia and others, forcing Bush to create a “coalition of the willing” to launch the invasion against this country.[69] The foundations of this resolution were two:

Lastly, it should be noted that, without Russia and China forfeiting their right to veto, the UNSC resolution would never have passed and the transnational elite would have been obliged to show yet again its contempt of the UN making life much more difficult for the degenerate “Left”. What can explain this stand which is inconsistent with the stand of these two countries on Iraq? As regards China, this is not surprising, given its huge economic dependence on foreign trade and also on its assets invested in western banks (a major cause of the capitalist crisis which began in 2007-8).[76] However, Russia’s stand is peculiar and particularly significant because had she used its veto China would have followed.

The only explanation one could give to this critical development is in terms of the split that I described elsewhere,[77] which arose in the last ten years or so between, on the one hand, an economic elite which mainly aimed at the external market and foreign capital (subsidiaries of multinationals, investors in the West, importers and exporters, etc.) and, on the other, an economic elite that, mainly, aimed at the domestic market, having invested its capital mostly within Russia. The political elite around Putin, which rose at the beginning of the last decade, made a systematic effort to reconcile the general interests of the economic elite with the aspirations of a rising “national-liberation” movement that is pushing towards de-integration from the internationalized market economy and the transnational elite. It seems however, that this compromise is failing and at present the elite under Putin expresses clearly more the national interest than that of the internationalized market economy, whereas the opposite seems to be the case with the elite under Medvedev, which expresses mainly the interests of the internationalized part of the Russian economic elite that is more dependent on the transnational elite. This could explain the reported division as regards the Russian vote on the UNSC resolution 1973, when the Medvedev part of the elite was in favour of the motion of the transnational elite against Libya, whereas the part of it expressed by Putin wanted to exercise the Russian veto, with the abstention reflecting just a compromise between the two parts of the elite. In fact, the clash between the two factions of the elite over Libya, expressed by Putin and Medvedev respectively, came out into the open lately, giving rise to a growing hope that the transnational elite’s present extremely aggressive policy for absolute control of the Middle East, combined with the fear within parts of the Russian elite that the same elite pursues also a hidden agenda to encircle Russia, might enhance the nationalistic part of the Russian elite versus the internationalised part of it and lead to the creation of a genuine bipolar world, which is the only development at this moment of time that could thwart the imperialist plans of the transnational and Zionist elites .

As if the financial crimes of the transnational elite against their own peoples were not enough, the same elites did not have any qualms about engaging them in war, without asking them, of course — as has always been the case in western “democracies”. In fact, when almost half a million people demonstrated in London on March 26th against the savage cuts imposed by the British political elite (at present, the Tory-led side of it but, until a few months ago, the “socialist” Labour side), the mechanism of state repression welcomed them with police brutality and the mass arrests of over 200 people, when they dared to express their anger beyond the usual “cosy” march, so greatly loved by the elites and the media, as it further facilitates their dismissive stand with respect to popular reaction to their criminal policies. This stand was clearly demonstrated by the fact that the masses of protesting citizens who did march “peacefully” were completely ignored by the present British government, as confirmed in their recent statement that “the government is listening to the trade unions but will not change its deficit-cutting strategy because of Saturday's march”.[78] Of course, such a statement brings to mind that of Tony Blair’s government in the aftermath of the huge march of February 2003, when more than a million people protested against the invasion of Iraq: “This changes nothing at all”.[79]

It is, therefore, clear that the basic difference between western “democracies” and regimes in other parts of the world, as far as the free expression of people’s will is concerned, is that, although the will of the people is ignored in both cases, in the latter case the elites do not hesitate to shoot and kill demonstrators when they become annoying to them, whereas in the former case they just baton-charge them or suffocate them with chemicals. Yet, the bad treatment of peoples by certain regimes considered to be rogue states by the transnational elite did not prevent the destruction of such peoples by this same elite — as in the case of the Iraqi people previously, or the Libyan people at present! In fact, leaving aside the mass disinformation that has been created in support of the present war, which has far surpassed any previous similar propaganda in its totalitarian nature, this war is, in reality, one more crime against the Arab nation, as it could possibly lead, in the short to medium term, to the dismemberment of Libya and the creation of a client emirate that will control most of the oil in the East, next to a “rogue regime” in the West (until, in the long term, “regime change” has eliminated this as well). However, it will also represent a crucial step in the neoliberal “democratization” of the entire Middle East; in other words, its integration into neoliberal globalization and its political complement, representative “democracy”, as Obama put it in his recent speech on the “Arab Spring”:[80]

Or, as Shimon Peres, the head of the criminal Zionist regime, aptly put it in an article welcoming the “Arab Spring”:[81] “The Middle East has to make a historic choice: to join the new global age of democratic peace and liberal economy”.

So, on the very day that the Nobel prize-winner for peace and first ever black US President launched his first war (ironically against the people of an African country!), he ordered a massive attack on Libya through a large-scale bombing campaign, with more than 100 cruise missiles, stealth bombers and other aircraft leaving an unknown number of people, civilians as well as young conscripts, dead. Here is how even the BBC, the systemic voice of the British establishment, described the action of this President who has proved himself to be as much a criminal as his predecessor:[82]

Rightly, Paul Craig Roberts[83] stressed that “there is no doubt whatsoever that the current US president and the predecessor Bush/Cheney regime have murdered many times more people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia than Gadhafi has murdered in Libya. Moreover, Gadhafi is putting down a rebellion against state authority as presently constituted, but Obama and Bush/Cheney initiated wars of aggression based entirely on lies and deception.” In fact, Obama alone may yet prove to be the greatest criminal among US Presidents since Johnson and Nixon, who massacred the Vietnamese people (as well as the peoples of Laos and Cambodia) in the 1960s and 1970s, if he goes on to destroy Syria and Iran after Libya, so that the transnational elite may acquire exclusive control of all the energy resources in the area while integrating it into the internationalized market economy.

The first phase of the war: the massive NATO bombing creates “victories” for the “revolutionaries”.

At the time of writing, the crime of the transnational elite which began on March 20^th, eight years to the day since the same elite (minus France, now led by the mini-Napoleon, Sarkozy!) launched the criminal invasion of Iraq, continues to unfold. One may reasonably assume, therefore, that the hecatomb, of which we can only catch a glimpse, is still growing with hundreds of NATO attacks daily. However, incidents revealing the criminal nature of the campaign are buried by the world media, as both sides, for opposite reasons, wish to underplay the number of casualties. In fact, the impression has been created by the blatantly lying world media that the thousands of bombs and cruise missiles dropped on Libya have been bloodless, as the only casualties we hear about are those who truly represent “collateral damage” (such as the transnational elite’s own troops and those of the “revolutionaries,” as well as the civilians supporting them, killed through aerial bombardment!).[84]

Of course, as in all the other wars of the transnational elite, apart from the obvious hecatombs there are also the “silent killers,” like the depleted uranium bombs used by the criminals of NATO. As a report on Russia Today pointed out,[85] “though the western coalition denies using depleted uranium in bombings in the country, others say there is a good chance weapons with the highly poisonous radioactive element have been used.” Thus, as depleted-uranium expert Melissa Sterry (who served in the US military during the first Gulf War in the early 1990s, clearing up battlefields in Kuwait) stressed, after watching film material on the effects of the barbaric aerial bombing:

The blatant lies by NATO on the matter are, of course, nothing new. It was always after the event that they admitted their crime. Thus, as the same report points out, the US and British militaries admitted the widespread use of depleted uranium in the bombing of Bosnia in 1995 — a legacy that continues today with cancer and leukaemia rates being several times higher than normal among locals. Also, in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, where the US army dropped thousands of depleted uranium rounds after the 2003 invasion, a quarter of all babies are born with a range of horrendous abnormalities. Higher rates of cancer, leukaemia and infant mortality have been found there than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki since the atomic bombs were dropped. The reason, of course, is that depleted uranium in military terms is highly efficient: it is relatively cheap and powerful enough to penetrate the heaviest armour. It is no wonder that all members of the transnational and Zionist elites, including the US, the UK, France and Israel, have refused to sign up to the ban on depleted uranium called for by the UN human rights commission. Yet, these criminals insist on referring to their humanitarian mission to “protect civilians”, even though depleted uranium has a half-life of 4.5 billion years — hence its description by some as the silent killer that will never stop killing. Furthermore, it is well known that the smallest particles of uranium, nanoparticles, are the most dangerous as, once inhaled, they enter the bloodstream and can spread to any organ, including the heart, brain, and liver, and once the particles penetrate cell tissue, all kinds of genetic mutations can develop.

Not surprisingly, the international Non-Government Organizations have been playing a supporting role in this issue, having conclusively proven themselves to be mouthpieces of the transnational and Zionist elites (who fund them directly or indirectly) in this war as well as in all other previous wars waged by these elites. Thus, the NGOs “failed” to acknowledge the use of depleted uranium bombs by the NATO criminals in Libya, but were the first to accuse the Libyan regime of using cluster bombs, thereby echoing the “revolutionaries” (whom even the transnational-elite-controlled media have repeatedly accused of producing “exaggerated” reports — a euphemism for blatant lies). And of course, it was the US-based NGO, Human Rights Watch, who immediately confirmed the rebels’ accusations on the basis of scant “evidence”.[86] It should be noted that this particular organization is famous for its bias against the Palestinian resistance movement, whom it condemns as much as the Zionist state terrorists (even though the latter killed 1300 Gazans in the 2009 Israeli attack on the region, as opposed to the 13 Israelis killed by Hamas)[87] — something that did not deter the Zionists from accusing Human Rights Watch of being biased against the state of Israel, creating the impression that the organization was unbiased after all![88]

Once the transnational elite, through the savage bombing by their brutal military machine, had managed to destroy the Libyan regime’s military infrastructure (airports, airplanes on the ground, military depots, etc.) within a few days, and the no-fly zone had clearly been established, they then proceeded, in clear violation of the UNSC resolution, to support the “revolutionaries” in every way possible in their fight against the regime and the people supporting it, blatantly supporting one side against the other in this civil war! In fact, the UNSC resolution, which the transnational elite managed to pass using “every trick in the book”, only states that it:[89]

Yet, although the official mission of the criminal military machine effectively ended swiftly and, by March 23rd, the commander of the (British) Royal Air Force was declaring that the Libyan air force “no longer exists as a fighting force”[90], the savage bombardment did not end accordingly. The aim was clearly twofold:

This blatantly illegal activity forced even the client regimes of the Arab League to condemn it initially, through their chairman Amr Moussa, who declared on March 21^st that military operations had gone beyond the no-fly zone that the organization had called for, insisting that the Arab League wanted “civilians’ protection, not shelling more civilians.”[91] This caused significant embarrassment for the transnational elite, who promptly forced Moussa to endorse their campaign again the very next day! At the same time, the split in the Russian elite that I mentioned above was clearly exposed, with Putin saying — as he recalled the US air strikes against Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan — that attacks on foreign states had become an “established trend”[92] in US foreign policy, while Medvedev reproduced the transnational elite’s propaganda, that Gaddafi was to blame for everything going on in Libya!

One of the rare reports on what was really going on during the first phase of the war, which was marked by the brutal aerial bombardment and the consequent “victories” of the “revolutionaries” — sometimes going terribly wrong afterwards - was given by a Guardian correspondent[93]:

As a result, the transnational elite’s hope that the removal of Gaddafi’s air power would clear the way for the rebels to advance to the areas still under his control was not borne out and, in fact, the ‘revolutionaries’ have even failed to retake towns that they had originally captured, such as Ajdabiya and the oil towns of Brega and Ras Lanuf.

Furthermore, Libyan army units that had turned their back on the Gaddafi regime in the early days of the rebellion, notably the Sa’iqa special forces brigade based in Benghazi, appear to have shed their uniforms and vanished, instead of joining the rebel armed forces.[95] Even official statements by the transnational elite’s spokesmen have made the contradictions inherent in the supposedly ‘humanitarian intervention’ blatantly obvious for all to see. Thus, as Mark Mardell of the BBC reported[96]:

Clearly, the transnational elite and their client regimes were unequivocally intervening in a civil war by attacking regime troops who were fighting rebel forces on the ground and were, thus, tilting the balance in favour of the Benghazi-based armed insurrection — as Seumas Milne also pointed out in an article revealing the profound immorality of the military intervention, demolishing the case put forward by the “world Left” and the Cohn-Bendits of this world in the process![97]

However, with ‘a little help’ from the world’s most powerful (and brutal) military machine, the “heroic” rebels unsurprisingly proceeded from “victory” to “victory” in this first phase of the war. As Chris McGreal and Ian Black of the Guardian described the process:[98]

Completing the first phase of the war thanks to the pulverization of Gaddafi’s forces from the air, the “revolutionaries” retook a number of coastal communities and important oil installations including Ras Lanuf, Brega, Uqayla and Bin Jawad — after retaking control of Ajdabiya — almost without a shot being fired. The process of retaking these places was aptly described by the BBC’s correspondent in Benghazi, Kevin Connolly, who explained that “when rebels say they have “taken” a city it is far likelier that they are turning up to find Gaddafi’s forces so damaged, demoralised and defeated that they are not fighting!”[99] Naturally, this presupposed a significant degree of co-ordination between the NATO forces and the “revolutionaries” — something that the US state department were forced to admit when stating that they were “in contact with them constantly”, while Rear Admiral Gerard Hueber went further at a Pentagon briefing, saying that the coalition had informed “the opposition forces of how to manoeuvre”. This immediately caused Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister, to express his indignation (mildly, so as not to disturb the fragile balance between the two sides of the Russian elite that we have seen) at this blatant contravention of the UNSC resolution: [100]

Αll this changed in the second phase of the war when the criminal invasion persuaded many Libyan people, not necessarily all Gaddafi supporters, to volunteer to join the regime’s militias — after the regime had offered to distribute arms freely to anyone wishing to resist against the NATO attackers and their acolytes on the ground. These militias, who reorganized themselves as guerrilla units, launched a guerrilla war — after the lessons they had learned during the first phase — which proved to be highly successful, under the circumstances. Of course, this was only possible, in the first place, because Gaddafi’s forces were not a “normal’ centralized army but, mainly, an “army” of highly decentralized militias, who were particularly amenable to this sort of organization.

This is how a well-known systemic BBC correspondent described the process, stressing, in relation to the problems that the first phase created, that:[101]

The outcome of this new tactics on the battlefield was immediate. Here is how a reporter for The Independent described both the defeat of the “revolutionaries” and the resilience of the militias, which was heroic in the face of their pulverization by the most powerful and brutal military machine on Earth:[102]

However, even more important than the defeat of the “revolutionaries” and the heroic resilience of the militias is the support that these militias enjoy among the local population, which seems to indicate — contrary to the distortions of the degenerate “Left” — that the true people of Libya are represented by all those who fight against the aggression of NATO, rather than by the CIA-led “revolutionaries” of the National Council and their supporters in Benghazi with their NATO flags! Thus, as the same correspondent (far from being pro-Gaddafi) reported:[103]

And, of course, despite the official pretence that civilians are being “protected,” the NATO campaign involves covert aid to the “revolutionaries,” as well as direct bombing from the air. Thus, as the BBC reported:[104]

This information has been confirmed by other reports which have shown the extent to which NATO have been “assisting” the “revolutionaries,” obviously with the full support of the rank and file! Thus, as Sengupta, the Independent correspondent, stresses:[105] “In several places around Benghazi, there were palpable signs that Western “assistance” was active on the ground. Military and diplomatic operatives from the US and Western Europe — usually described as experts, consultants and advisers — turned up in the rebel capital, Benghazi”. In fact, it is not just NATO but also the post-insurrection army regime in Egypt which has significantly been helping the Libyan “rebels” by providing them with both arms and training, as Al Jazeera — the channel of the Emir of Qatar, which has played a crucial role in the “Arab revolutions” — reported:[106]

This clearly dispels the myth that has been propagated ad nauseam by the systemic media and those of the degenerate “Left” about the poor, mostly unarmed (or lightly-armed) “revolutionaries” fighting the highly-organized and heavily-armed Gaddafi army! In fact, as Patrick Cockburn aptly stressed, the other media myth is that this is some kind of regular military campaign when, in fact, it is just a series of skirmishes:[107]

Yet, the “revolutionaries” of Benghazi (who, as the degenerate “Left” argues, are against foreign intervention and it is only their “bourgeois” leadership in the National Council who are in favour of it!) did not hesitate to demonstrate in the streets of Benghazi in support of their leader, General Abdul Fattah Younis, who has accused NATO of not providing enough support for them, so as to “protect civilians” (the official NATO mantra) — which, in reality, means killing Gaddafi militias from the air, as the heroic “revolutionaries” have no intention of risking their own lives to fight them![108]

In fact, General Abdul Fattah Younis went a step further and threatened that the UN Security Council would be asked to suspend its mission unless it “did its job properly”, claiming that it took Western powers up to eight hours to launch air strikes after being notified of targets by the rebels, whereas it took the revolutionary’s own air force three minutes to carry out such attacks[109]. Thus, the General unwittingly revealed that the “lightly armed (if not unarmed)” revolutionaries even have military planes at their disposal — for which the no-fly zone does not, of course, apply — whereas the regime’s air force has either been destroyed or grounded, and yet the hypocritical transnational elite still talk about “protecting civilians” and not about a shameless campaign for “regime change”! It is, therefore, obvious, as Sengupta stresses in another report, that the relationship between the allies in Libya’s civil war is currently a fraught one, with the opposition government “accusing their US and European sponsors of not doing enough, yet the evidence on the ground suggests the rebels are capable of doing little against the forces of Muammar Gaddafi without the help of the international coalition”[110].

Indeed, the following exchange between Sengupta and a Shabaab fighter is characteristic of how prepared the “revolutionaries” are to give their own lives fighting for their cause:[111]

It is, therefore, no wonder that even the most “systemic” of correspondents, the BBC’s John Simpson, recognized the strong social base supporting the regime:[112]

Yet, Hillary Clinton, like the Gauleiter of a Nazi-occupied region, unashamedly stated:[113] “I don’t think there is any mystery about what is expected from Mr. Gaddafi at this time. There needs to be a cease-fire, his forces need to withdraw from the cities that they have forcibly taken at great violence and human cost …and there needs to be a decision made about his departure from power and... his departure from Libya.”

In summary, this second phase of the war was characterized by the almost total retreat of the “revolutionary” forces to where they were at the beginning of their armed insurrection in Benghazi, despite the pulverization of the regime’s military infrastructure by the combined air and naval forces of 34 NATO states and a couple of client Arab states, boasting that they have already destroyed one third of the regime’s military capability. The key to this huge success on the part of Gaddafi’s forces was the conversion of the initial and (from the military viewpoint) foolishly open war, which the greatest military power on earth had tried to wage against the people of Libya (as it had successfully done against the peoples of Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan, destroying them in the process), into a guerrilla war, which no power on earth can fight successfully while the guerrillas are supported by a determined people. And this is a major lesson to all peoples resisting against the most brutal economic and political World Order in History, which is currently being imposed everywhere on earth with the crucial, direct or indirect, assistance of the world media controlled by the elites and the degenerate “Left”, whose role we shall consider in Part II.

So, despite the huge victory of the transnational and Zionist elites on the political and propaganda fronts (thanks to the unprecedented united front I mentioned at the beginning of this article), in this second phase, the armed people of Libya managed, on the ground, to defeat both them and their acolytes — who pretend to be social revolutionaries while actually playing the same role as that of the South Vietnamese in the Vietnam war! And it proved to be enough for the people of a small peripheral country to be armed with light weapons in order to achieve this, as no air force, naval force or even tanks were available to them, given that the overwhelming military power of the elites had destroyed or grounded the regime’s own air and naval forces.

The second phase of the war created a situation on the ground which has led to the “rebel” side now being better armed than the “regime’s forces”. This was confirmed after the incident of 7th April, in which NATO planes accidentally attacked and destroyed an entire column of tanks, armoured vehicles and rocket launchers, killing up to 13 “revolutionaries” in the process. Thus, in this third phase of the war — as revealed by the explanation given by NATO headquarters as to what happened — it is not the forces fighting NATO but the so-called revolutionaries who have heavy armour at their disposal, as well as the huge military power of the transnational elite. This is how a BBC report described the incident:[114]

Later on, NATO tried to cover up this admission that the “rebels” had been using “their” tanks by stating that they had taken them over from the regime’s forces. This would not, of course, explain the massive take-over of 30 transporters, which would have required the total defeat of the regime’s militias — a feat which no journalist has ever reported! However, this did not prevent the “revolutionaries’’ and their supporters in the “world left” from using the incident as “proof” that NATO deliberately attacked the “rebels” because they are, in fact, true revolutionaries who are not controlled by the transnational elite! This monstrous propaganda was completely contradicted in a statement by the “rebel” spokesman, General Younis who, despite calling on NATO to give a "rational and convincing explanation" for what had happened, “stressed the incident would not lead to tensions with the allied force”.[115]

So, as Patrick Cockburn points out with regard to the present third phase of the war, the present stalemate is simply set to continue because of the huge backing of the rebels by the transnational elite and their clients:[116]

The same journalist aptly described those representing the real source of power behind the so-called “revolutionaries,” who will eventually define the outcome of this “revolution”:

In this third phase of the war, it seems that the elites tried to counter the stalemate created on the ground in the second phase, through the intensive arming and training of the “revolutionaries” — which was being done mostly behind the scenes so as to avoid friction within the UNSC. In fact, some systemic analysts have even optimistically drawn parallels between this and “the Northern Alliance’s toppling of the Taliban in 2001 when there was open US air assistance, Northern Alliance activity on the ground, and CIA-backed special forces providing logistics support”.

It is interesting to note the similarities, here, between the tactics employed by the transnational elite in their wars against both Yugoslavia and Iraq, and those being employed in Libya now. Since the transnational elite’s decision was to bring about “regime change” in all these cases, no amount of concessions offered by these regimes was ever enough to stop the transnational elite from launching or continuing their criminal attacks. Specifically in the case of Libya, when an African Union delegation, headed by the South African President, attempted to achieve a ceasefire on April 10th as a basis for further negotiations and the regime immediately accepted the conditions of the ceasefire that were proposed, both the “revolutionaries” and their western patrons rejected on the spot any such possibility by making demands that no regime on earth could ever accept: for example, the “revolutionaries” stated that “they would negotiate only on the condition that Colonel Muammar Gaddafi and his family give up power,” while their boss, Hillary Clinton, shamelessly declared that Washington "have made it very clear that we want to see a ceasefire. We want to see the Libyan regime forces pull back from the areas that they have forcibly entered!” Yet the following day, the NATO crooks immediately accused the regime’s forces of only “talking about a ceasefire", because they had shelled the western town of Misurata — in full knowledge of the fact that a ceasefire would need the agreement of both sides and, obviously, such an agreement was never made between the transnational elite and their acolytes and the Gaddafi regime. Indeed, such an agreement would be impossible before the transnational elite and their acolytes were fully able to dictate the terms on which the regime should surrender!

It is therefore obvious that in the third phase the “rebel” forces, despite the massive bombing of the regime militias, were not able to retake their lost ground and, particularly, the oil-producing towns on the coastline. This means that the elites and their acolytes did not manage to assume complete control of the oil-producing coastline east of Sirte and west of Benghazi, so that at least they could divide Libya in the form of “a de facto recognition of two areas under separate control [which] might be the optimum interim solution”.[117] Optimum, in the sense that it would have paved the way for long-term “regime change”, which still remains the ultimate goal of this criminal campaign.

There are several indications at the time of writing that we are entering the fourth and final phase of the latest crime of the transnational elite. It seems that as a new UN resolution authorising a ground attack will face a certain veto by Russia and China, an invasion by a “coalition of the willing” will become inevitable, as US Army General Carter Ham recently stressed at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing: [119]

Such indications are, first, the call by NATO criminal officers to intensify the bombing, so that the goal of eliminating Gaddafi and his regime (which by no way is included in the UNSC resolution — itself passed through deception) is achieved. Thus, the head of the British Armed forces, who presumably expresses the views of the Anglo-American part of the transnational elite, came out strongly in favour of drastically intensifying the air attack to include the country’s infrastructure — exactly as they did in their criminal attack against Yugoslavia:[120]

In fact, some criminal academics were even blunter than the military, like Andrew Bacevich, professor of international relations at Boston University, who unashamedly stated: “The way out seems pretty clear - taking Col. Gaddafi out of the equation will probably take the fight out of Libya’s forces.” And he added —another indication of the blatant lie used by some in the degenerate “Left” that Gaddafi has always been a man of imperialism: “Since Gaddafi probably can’t be bought, he’s going to have to be killed.”[121]

Then, came the announcement that the kangaroo International Criminal Court (ICC) and its chief prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo, are about to issue arrest warrants for Gaddafi and two others on account of “crimes against humanity” because of their responsibility for “widespread and systematic attacks” on civilians. Needless to add that their “evidence” is based exclusively on testimonies by the acolytes of the transnational elite, as they never bothered of course to take any testimonies from the people accused, or from Libya citizens at large. But then, again, Luis Moreno-Ocampo is a well known stooge of the transnational elite with all the required credentials (a visiting professor at Stanford University and Harvard Law School, etc.) who specializes in pursuing “crimes against humanity” committed only by enemies of the transnational elite like FARC, the Colombia guerrilla group, or the Libyan regime, but “cannot see” any similar crimes being committed by his paymasters, the NATO criminals, and the transnational and Zionist elites!

Yet, the very fact of starting a procedure to arrest and try Gaddafi means that the transnational elite would like to prevent any compromise procedure through negotiations, like the one proposed by the African Union, or today by Russia. Starting such a procedure is a clear indication of its will to go all the way to either kill or arrest Gaddafi (any alternative solution would make a mockery of the ICC) and replace the present regime by a client regime. It is therefore clear that the transnational elite’s plan for the fourth phase is, following a criminal NATO campaign to destroy the country’s infrastructure and return the Libyan people several generations back (exactly as they did in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan) to launch a ground attack, until they “democratize” Libya, i.e. until they can establish a client regime. Their hope is that, given the long preparatory work they have done all these years, they will not have to go through a lengthy process like the one in Iraq and Afghanistan to achieve their aim. Once this goal is achieved, the way will be open for the next stage of their campaign: regime changes in Syria and Iran!

Very recently, the bombing had intensified significantly and NATO has no qualms anymore about declaring the real intentions of its bombing, i.e. to help the “rebels” in its aim to bring about “regime change”. Thus, Nato Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said on May 19th that Col Gaddafi’s forces were suffering under the attacks and becoming more isolated every day, ominously adding:[122]

[1] See for a definition of the transnational elite, Takis Fotopoulos, The Multidimensional Crisis and Inclusive Democracy (2005), ch. 3.

[2] Takis Fotopoulos, “The First War of the Internationalised Market Economy”, DEMOCRACY & NATURE, Vol. 5, No. 2, (July 1999).

[3] Takis Fotopoulos, “The global "war" of the transnational elite”, DEMOCRACY & NATURE, Vol. 8, No. 2, (July 2002).

[4] Takis Fotopoulos, “Iraq: the new criminal "war" of the transnational elite”, DEMOCRACY & NATURE, Vol.9, No.2, (July 2003).

[5] Takis Fotopoulos, “The End of Traditional Antisystemic Movements and the Need for A New Type of Antisystemic Movement Today”, DEMOCRACY & NATURE, Vol.7, No.3, (November 2001).

[6] see Takis Fotopoulos, “The Arab revolts and the elites’ plan for the neoliberal "democratisation" of the Arab world”, (forthcoming in the next issue)

[7] Ian Black, “Show of strength quells "day of rage",” The Guardian (12/3/2011).

[8] Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa, The Leopard (1958).

[9] see Takis Fotopoulos, “The Arab revolts”

[10] Takis Fotopoulos, “Palestine: the hour of truth”, The International Journal of INCLUSIVE DEMOCRACY, Vol. 2, No. 2 (January 2006).

[11] Christopher Helman, “Is Libya Going To Boot U.S. Oil Companies?,” Forbes (22/1/2009).

[12] UN, Human Development Report 1997, & 2005, Table 1.

[13] World Bank, World Development Indicators 2010, Table 2.14 & UN, Human Development Report 2005, Table 12.

[14] UN, Human Development Report 2005, Table 10.

[15] UN, Human Development Report 2005, Table 3.

[16] Peter Popham, “Tribalism is key to the country’s future”, Independent, 26/2/2011.

[17] ibid.

[18] Ali Chibani, “How Gadafy used Libya’s tribes”, Le Monde Diplomatique (March 2011).

[19] Simon Tisdall, “What next for Anglo-French forces”, The Guardian (23/3/2011).

[20] Takis Fotopoulos, Towards An Inclusive Democracy, (London/New York, Cassell/Continuum, 1997/98) chs. 5-6.

[21] Rachid Khechana, “Libya: only revolution was possible,” Le Monde Diplomatique (April 2011).

[22] “06.04.2009: French Total-led consortiums accept lower production shares in Libya” — WikiLeaks document published in Aftenposten.

[23] Deirdre Griswold. “Why imperialists hate Libya, love Bahrain,” International Action Centre (17/3/2011).

[24] Sarah Morrison and Jerome Taylor, “Activists battle police over right to protest,” Independent (10/5/2011).

[25] Benjamin Barber, (senior fellow at Demos, former member of the Gaddafi Foundation board, and author of Strong Democracy and Jihad vs McWorld), “Yes, he’s a Gaddafi. But there is still a real reformer inside”, The Guardian (13/4/2011).

[26] See the revealing report in RT, “Retweeting democracy” (14/4/2011).

[27] Xan Rice, “Gaddafi wants to stop western support. There is no al-Qaida here,” The Guardian (13/5/2011).

[28] The Interim Transitional National Council, “A vision of a democratic Libya” (March 2011).

[29] “"Somalia scenario" in Libya a real threat says Russian politician,” RT (5/4/2011).

[30] Ian R. Crane entitled, “US cloaks lies with bigger lies”, RT (12/5/2011).

[31] Robin Wigglesworth in Benghazi, “Fears rise as Gaddafi loyalists purged,” Financial Times (17/4/2011).

[32] Rob Crilly, “It wasn’t supposed to be like this in free Benghazi,” The Telegraph (27/3/2011).

[33] see e.g. AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL Briefing, “Libya: detainees, disappeared and missing” (29 March 2011).

[34] Robin Wigglesworth in Benghazi, “Fears rise as Gaddafi loyalists purged”.

[35] “Allies start shifting operation leadership in Libya,” RT (23/3/2011).

[36] Patrick Cockburn, “The shady men backed by the West to displace Gaddafi,” The Independent (3/4/2011).

[37] John Pilger,” Westminster warriors untouched by Libya’s suffering and bloodshed,” New Statesman (8/4/2011).

[38] ibid.

[39] Francis Boyle, “Pre-planned military op”, RT (25/4/2011).

[40] Kareem Fahim, “Rebel Insider Concedes Weaknesses in Libya,” The New York Times (23/3/2011).

[41] Leonor Massanet, “Una española en Libia, testimonio directo de la realidad de Libya,” (17/3/2011). { see English translation in this issue }

[42] Daniel Howden, “Battle for Libya shifts in desert sands as Gaddafi loyalists target oilfields”, Independent, 12/5/2011.

[43] see the testimony of Annie Machon, the ex-head of the British intelligence MI5, “Using Our Intelligence”, RTTV interview (24/3/2011).

[44] See the revealing report: “Tripoli under fire in media information war,” RT (8/3/2011).

[45] Ian Black et.al., “UK pushes EU to demand that Gaddafi quit,” The Guardian, (10/3/2011).

[46] Javier Blas, Andrew England and Dan Dombey, “Qatar boost for Libyan rebel council”, Financial Times, 28/3/2011,

[47] “Air strikes in Libya did not take place,” RT (01 March, 2011, 18:24); see also BBC Live news on Libya, (3/3/2011, 18:21), www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698

[48] Kim Sengupta, “Terror in the air as casualties mount in Libya,” The Independent (9/3/2011).

[49] Remarks of President Barack Obama — As Prepared for Delivery — "A Moment of Opportunity", (19/5/2011).

[50] “Gaddafi in crimes against humanity probe,” BBC News (3 March 2011, 18:46).

[51] Simon Jenkins, “"No-fly zone" is a euphemism for war. We’d be mad to try it,” The Guardian (9/3/2011).

[52] BBC News, “Mubarak and sons detained amid corruption probe,” (13/4/2011).

[53] Gerald A. Perreira, “Libya, Getting it Right: A Revolutionary Pan-African Perspective,” Black Agenda Report (3/2/2011).

[54] Gamal Nkrumah, Al Ahram (10-16/3/2011).

[55] “HRW: No mercenaries in eastern Libya”, Radio Netherlands Worldwide (RNW) (2/3/2011).

[56] “France recognises Libyan rebels,” (10 March 2011).

[57] “Libya: Rebel forces "repel Ajdabiya attack",” BBC News (17/3/2011).

[58] Shashank Joshi, “Arming rebel groups could backfire on the West,” The Independent (9/3/2011).

[59] Robert Fisk, “America’s secret plan to arm Libya’s rebels,” The Independent (7/3/2011).

[60] Charles Levinson and Matthew Rosenberg, “Egypt Said to Arm Libya Rebels”, Wall Street Journal (17/3/2011).

[61] Francis Boyle, “Pre-planned military op”, RT (25/4/2011).

2011).

[63] see Takis Fotopoulos, “The global "war" of the transnational elite”.

[64] Robert Cooper, ‘Why we still need empires,’ The Observer (7/4/2002).

[65] Article 20 of the “new strategic concept” makes it explicitly clear that only a limited conception of sovereignty is recognized by the new NATO. (NATO, The Alliance’s Strategic Concept, 1999).

[66] Bernard Kouchner, “Libya: the morality of intervention,” The Guardian (24/3/2011).

[67] Muhammad Idrees Ahmad, “Bernard Kouchner: Israel Got Lucky” (19/5/2007).

[68] Robert Hunter, “The Allies in Libya: A New Paradigm for Intervention?”, European Affairs (10/4/2011).

[69] Takis Fotopoulos, “Iraq: the new criminal "war" of the transnational elite”.

[70] Panos Haritos, BBC Live News (31/3/2011, 1450): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12776418

[71] Chris McGreal, “A few steps forward, many back on the long road west to Tripoli,” The Guardian (22/3/2011).

[72] BBC Live News (30/3/2011, 1347): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12776418

[73] Jeremy Laurance, “Blindfolded, beaten and tortured: grim new testimony reveals fate of Bahrain's persecuted doctors,” The Independent (10/5/2011).

[74] BBC News, “UN rights chief criticises crackdown,” (17/3/2011).

[75] Jeb Boone in Sana’a, “Bloodbath in Yemen as snipers target protesters,” The Independent (19/3/2011).

[76] T. Fotopoulos, “The myths about the economic crisis, the reformist Left and economic democracy”, The International Journal of INCLUSIVE DEMOCRACY, Vol. 4, No. 4, (October 2008).

[77] Takis Fotopoulos, “Transnational elite and Russia: a new bipolar world?”, The International Journal of INCLUSIVE DEMOCRACY, Vol.4, No.4, (October 2008).

[78] BBC News, 27/3/2011, “London cuts march: Government sticking to plan - Cable”.

[79] Ewen MacAskill and Michael White , “Blair to defy anti-war protests,” The Guardian (17/2/2003).

[80] Remarks of President Barack Obama — As Prepared for Delivery — "A Moment of Opportunity," (19/5/2011).

[81] Shimon Peres, “We in Israel welcome the Arab spring”, The Guardian (1/4/2011).

[82] By Andrew North, “Libya: Barack Obama's step from Nobel winner to warrior”, BBC News (24/3/2011).

[83] Paul Craig Roberts, “Obama Raises American Hypocrisy To A Higher Level-The Bush/ Cheney/ Obama Wars of Naked Aggression”, Global Research (29/3/2011).

[84] “Libya air raid "killed civilians",” BBC News (1/4/2011):

[85] “Protecting” Libyans with a silent killer,” RT (12/4/2011); see also, top the War UK, “Depleted uranium: a strange way to protect Libyan civilians”.

[86] Press Association, “Gaddafi forces using cluster bombs, claim rebels”, Independent (16/4/2011).

[87] Josef Federman, “ Hamas denies targeting Israeli civilians during war in Gaza,” The Guardian (29/1/2010).

[88] Chris McGreal, “Israel supporters accused of false allegations in campaign to discredit human rights watchdog,” The Guardian (14/11/2009).

[89] UN Security Council Resolution no. 1973 (2011).

[90] BBC Live News (23/3/2011, 1502).

[91] Roula Khalaf, “Arab League reiterate support for Libya action,” The Financial Times (21/3/2011).

[92] Isabel Gorst and Neil Buckley, “Medvedev and Putin clash over Libya,” The Financial Times (21/3/2011).

[93] Chris McGreal, “A few steps forward, many back on the long road west to Tripoli”, The Guardian (22/3/2011).

[94] Kim Sengupta, “No water, food or power — and still the rebels resist regime's attacks,” The Independent (22/3/2011).

[95] Mohamed Hussein, “Libya: what next?”, BBC (24/3/2011).

[96] Mark Mardell, “Obama's Libyan mission creep?,” BBC (22/3/2011).

[97] Seumas Milne, “There’s nothing moral about Nato’s intervention in Libya,” The Guardian (23/3/2011).

[98] Chris McGreal and Ian Black, “Libyan rebels advance on Muammar Gaddafi's home town,” The Guardian (28/3/2011).

[99] Kevin Connolly, BBC Live News, 0804: 28/3/2011 and “Coalition air strikes hit Gaddafi hometown Sirte”.

[100] James Blitz and Daniel Dombey, “Russians question allies’ adherence to UN remit,” The Financial Times (28/3/2011).

[101] John Simpson, “Libya crisis: Gaddafi forces adopt rebel tactics”, BBC News (30/3/2011): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12911904

[102] Kim Sengupta, “Disillusioned Libyan rebels flee and abandon their gains,” The Independent (31/3/2011).

[103] ibid.

[104] Obama authorises covert aid to Libyan rebels — reports, BBC News (30/3/2011).

[105] Kim Sengupta and David Randall, “Western military advisers become visible in Benghazi,” The Independent (3/4/2011).

[106] “Libyan rebels "receive foreign training",” Al Jazeera (3/4/2011).

[107] Patrick Cockburn, “The shady men backed by the West to displace Gaddafi”, The Independent (3/4/2011).

[108] Rebel leader accuses Nato of failing civilians, BBC News (5/4/2011).

[109] Kim Sengupta, “Free Libya' oil tanker brings new hope but rebels in retreat,” The Independent (6/4/2011).

[110] Kim Sengupta, “Divided and disorganised, Libyan rebel military turn on Nato allies,” The Independent (7/4/2011).

[111] ibid.

[112] John Simpson, “The staying power of Col Gaddafi”, BBC News (6/4/2011).

[113] “US rebuffs letter from Gaddafi, says he must go”, BBC News (7/4/2011).

[114] BBC News, “Nato "regrets" loss of life from Ajdabiya strike,” (8/4/2011).

[115] ibid.

[116] Patrick Cockburn, “Libya's parallels with Iraq under Saddam are truly ominous,” The Independent (13/4/2011).

[117] Leading article, The Independent (9/4/2011).

[118] Patrick Cockburn, “Libya’s parallels with Iraq under Saddam are truly ominous”.

[119] “General: US may consider sending troops into Libya,” NBC News (7/4/2011).

[120] Con Coughlin, “Nato must target Gaddafi regime, says Armed Forces chief Gen Sir David Richards,” The Telegraph (16/5/2011).

[121] Jonathan Marcus, “Libya stalemate leaves Nato without "Plan B",” BBC News (11/5/2011).

[122] “Libya: Nato strikes hit eight Gaddafi warships in ports,” BBC News (20/05/2011).