Archive for October, 2011

Mass power outages from superstorms no issue for cold fusion..

Public Citizen board member Jim Hightower speaks at the organization’s 40 Anniversary Gala. For more information, visit:


!!!This land is ours!!!

A tale of land theft through violence and laws
By Frauke Decoodt,

  voting to reclaim their land. 6/10/2011. Tzalbal. Frauke Decoodt

“This land is ours! It does not belong to the State. It is ours, as indigenous people!” says 20 year old Guatemalan Lorena Sanchez when on the 3rd of May 2011 a state representative from Fondo de Tierras, a government department regulating access to land, arrived in Tzalbal to tell its people they are living on state property.

Tzalbal, a village of fourteen settlements, is located in Guatemala, deep in the Cuchumatanes mountains. Tzalbal is home to the Ixil, a native Mayan people. The Ixiles live in the municipalities of Nebaj, Chajul and Cotzal, in the northwestern department of Quiché. Tzalbal lies the municipality of Nebaj.

The villagers had no idea that their land had been nationalised in 1984 – a fact that was concealed from them for 28 years. They are perplexed, shocked, and angry. In the 1980s the area was scorched with genocide and state repression and the majority of Ixiles were forced to flee their land.

The genocide of the maya-ixil people

During the 36 year conflict in Guatemala, 98% of the 7000 victims in the Ixil region, were Ixiles. A sixth of the Ixile population was assassinated by the army, and 70% of their villages were obliterated. Most Ixiles fled to the mountains; many died due to cold, starvation and disease.

Although the Ixil area was one of the worst affected, the whole of Guatemala suffered during the conflict that raged until 1996 which saw 12% of the population displaced and more than 200,000 people killed or disappeared. The state army was responsible for 93% of the atrocities and 626 massacres. Approximately 83% of the victims were indigenous.

Post-conflict investigations from the Guatemalan Catholic Church and the United Nations have established that during the 1980s the state committed acts of genocide in Guatemala.

A people displaced from its lands

Though the genocide can be explained by the racism towards, and the dehumanization of the indigenous people who comprise more than 60% of the Guatemalan population, one cannot fully understand the pattern and formation of the genocide in Guatemala without taking into account the importance of land.

The residents of Tzalbal comprehend, only too well, the intimate relationship between land and conflict. Patricio Rodriguez is only 66 years old but the wisdom of age and the harsh experience of poverty and conflict are inscribed on his face. Patricio points out that their present conditions are “because of the war, the repression, the massacres of the government in the eighties. So many years they burned our houses, they killed our animals and destroyed our milpas [small plots of maize, the staple food of the Mayans]. Because so many people had been killed we fled to the mountains to save our lives. The army then thought this land was abandoned, empty. But we deserted our land because of the repression.”

A small, friendly man responsible for the drinking water of Tzalbal comes and sits beside me – “now we are starting to realise that during the armed conflict they stole from us. And to legalize their theft they made a law.”

The conflict for the land and the land for the conflict

It is the unequal distribution of the land in a principally agricultural society like that of Guatemala, that has been the primary cause of poverty and conflict. In 1964, 62% of the land lay in the hands of just 2% of the national population, whereas 87% of citizens barely had sufficient land for subsistence farming.

Since independence, the Guatemalan state apparatus has largely served the interests of the Guatamalan oligarchy, in effect becoming a guarantor of land and (indigenous) labour. These guarantees have always been provided through the use of violence and the legal system.

In 1944, under President Arbenz, the State began to serve the interests of the majority of its rural population by introducing an agrarian reform programme. However, in 1954 these reforms were quashed in a coup d’etat, with the support from the United States of America.

The equal redistribution of the land was one of the main demands of numerous indigenous, peasant and guerilla movements that rose from the 1960s until the 1980s. Violent repression of these movements has allowed unequal land distribution to be maintained and expanded. Land became a gain of the conflict.

After their accession to power in 1954 the army generals decided that the State apparatus should not only serve the oligarchy but also their own interests. One of their primary interests was land; their means to acquire it was through violence and laws, or what were euphemistically known as “development projects”.

An assembly to inform the community

If one explores the chronology of law drafting and violent events that engulfed the region it becomes very clear how the State usurped indigenous lands. For the locals it became clear when they researched their case.

Ronaldo Guttierez is the young “indigenous mayor”, the communitarian indigenous authority, of Tzalbal. Wearing the typical red jacket emblazoned with black embroidery, of the Ixiles, he explains to me in a quiet voice and broken Spanish that after the state representative left he called a meeting of the representatives of the other thirteen settlements. With the help of others they investigated the case and decided they would organise a popular assembly to inform the whole community.

Assembly in the community hall. 6/10/2011. Tzalbal. Christoph ClotzOn the 6th of October, the community hall fills with people and the sounds of Guatemalan marimba music. A painting remembering the atrocities of the conflict adorns the outside wall. About seven hundred Ixil are present, the majority of the men wear their typical straw hats, some wear their red jackets. Also a fair amount of women are present, all wearing embroided blouses or “huipil” and “traje”, skirts. Some, mainly older women, wear colourful ribbons knotted in their hair.

The laws of war

Ramon Cadena, a lawyer from the International Commission of Jurist is one of the people that offered to help investigating the case of Tzalbal. At the assembly he explains that the root of the problem is a law called “Decreto No. 60-70”; a law that was passed in 1970 by General Osorio who declared “the establishment of Agrarian Development Zones of Public Interest and National Urgency”. Quiche was one of many northern departments declared a “Development Zone”.

The “public interest” was the colossal project called “Franja Transversal del Norte” which converted a group of generals and their allies into gigantic land owners. Together with the following “National Development Plans” of 1971 to 1982 these projects aimed to promote the production and exportation of petroleum, minerals, electric energy, monoculture plantations and precious timbers in the north of the country.

It should be noted that the departments mentioned in these laws were also the ones that suffered most massacres. I was informed that these laws are the basis for the theft of the land and natural resources of the indigenous people. They are also the root of the war that was unleashed by the government of Guatemala against the peoples of Guatemala. State violence and repression were undertaken in parallel to the “Development Plans”.

Another law that sealed the destiny of Tzalbal is “Decreto Ley No. 134-83”, ordained in 1983 by General Mejía Victores. With this law the army measured and territorially reorganized the Ixil region in order to establish the “model villages” and legalize nationalisation.

Like many other villages, Tzalbal was converted into a ‘model village’ or ‘centre of development’. Instead of the chaotically scattered houses of an indigenous village, houses were rebuilt in a pattern where its inhabitants would be easy to control. The people that were not massacred and did not flee to the mountains, or who returned because they could not bear the harsh conditions in the mountains, were resettled in these villages. Many inhabitants refer to these villages as ‘concentration camps’.

‘Civil Self-defence Patrols’ or PACs, were established in the model villages. These were militarised civil vigilantes introduced by the army. By 1985 more than a million men collaborated with the army. Failure to participate flagged one as a suspect subversive which often had lethal consequences.

In 1983, as ordered in the “Decreto Ley No. 134-83”, the PACs of Tzalbal were forced to measure their land. In front of the whole assembly, a courageous man stands and explains, in Ixil, how the army had promised them land if they would measure the boundaries. But they were cheated. The land was measured to be nationalised.

Ramon Cadena concludes that on the 11th of May 1984 the State officially dismembered the original land title of 1903 and passed approximately 1495 hectares of Tzalbal land to the State.

The laws that legalized the usurpation of indigenous land, the “Decreto No. 60-70” and “Decreto No. 134-83” are laws of war. The Peace Accords were signed in 1996. In a communiqué released after their assembly, the communities demanded that their constitutional right to possess the land be reinstated.

History repeats itself, history continues

After so many development projects, development laws and “centres of development”, the indigenous population of Guatemala is rather suspicious of any initiative that bears the name “development”.

The laws passed during the war remain valid, other new laws have since been added which open opportunities in new territories or reinforce control over the land already seized . Such is the case with the Law for Public-Private Alliances which allows the State to legalize land evictions for the sake of “public interest”. Under the Development Plan of the present government of Colom the economic development of the “Franja Transversal del Norte” continues, adding amongst others Peten and the Pacific Coast. The evictions of peasants and indigenous communities continue.

Mega-projects continue to flood Guatemala like the hydroelectric dams that are looking to inundate its indigenous lands. Electric energy is indispensable for big industries like mining companies, oil refineries, and the massive monoculture plantations of sugar, oil palm trees, bananas or coffee. And of course one needs gigantic roads and a large infrastructure to transport all this produce.

The same unequal land distribution continues. According to the last census of 2003 almost 80 percent of the productive land remains in the hands of less then eight percent of Guatemala’s population of 14 million. More than 45 percent have not enough land for subsistence farming. Not surprisingly half the population lives in poverty and 17 percent in extreme poverty.

The same people remain in power. “It was Tito who was the commander of the army, he was the chief” explains Lorena in a low and preoccupied voice. In the collective memory it was not just anybody who was in command of the Nebaj, Quiché military base in 1982 and 1983. In the region, “General Tito” refers to Otto Pérez Molina, the presidential candidate and very possible winner of the elections to be held on the 6th of November 2011. A villager remembers “it was him that obliged us to measure the land, he was in command when our land was stolen from us”.

The fear remains too. When one speaks of Otto Pérez one does it anonymously.

General Otto Perez Molina commanded the Nebaj, Quiche military base in 1982 and 1983.

Leaving the community hall. 6/10/2011. Tzalbal. Christoph ClotzThe same indigenous peoples also remain, fighting for their same land. As Lorena insists, “we have natural resources to defend, as indigenous people we have a right to defend our water, our forests, our rivers”. Old Patricio Rodriguez asserts that multinationals “should return to their own lands with the plans they have done or they think to do.”

In unity the struggle continues!

I am told Tzalbal is the first village to find out that their land was nationalised, and the first to publicly denounce this and demand, unconditionally, that their land be given back. Nonetheless, the case of Tzalbal is illustrative of what the conflict in Guatemala was about. This conflict was about land.

The methods used to acquire land in Tzalbal are also familiar. The natives of Tzalbal appear to be the unwanted actors in a drama that always seems to repeat itself in Guatemala. A drama which has run for more than 500 years where invaders, whether spanish, military or “representative” democratic governments, steal the land of the indigenous peoples through laws and violence.

But the struggle of the communities persists. In the assembly the words “worried” and “capitalism” are heard amongst the discussions in Ixil. But more significantly, the community hall is filled with a militant conviction. United, the Ixiles present shout, “We don´t want another master!”, “Finish the law! Give us back our land!”

When I ask Patricio Rodriguez how he thinks they will recover their land he responds, “through unity, through manifestations, through national and international organisations concerned with our rights. We will get our land back, bit by bit, step by step” .

Gregorio, the man responsible for the drinking water continues, “all together we will go to congress, to the ministries until they take us into account. As they stole from the community, they have to return the land, without any conditions, in the name of the community. Because it is unquestionable, the land is from our forefathers, from our great grandfathers that have passed away, they left the land to us as we are their children”.

For safety reasons the names of the interviewees in Tzabal were changed.

Frauke Decoodt, is a beginning freelance reporter from Belgium based in Guatemala, where she worked in 2010 for a year with Peace Brigades International (PBI). PBI is an organisation that accompanies communities, organisations and individuals that received threats because of the human rights they defend. As a result of her interest in, knowledge of and love for Guatemala, and as a consequence of her long time interest in social journalism she has now gone back to the country to cover the social struggles and issues she encountered the year before.

She holds a B.A. in Social Anthropology and Development from the University of Sussex and a Masters Degree in the Anthropology of Conflict, Violence and Reconciliation, also from Sussex University. She wrote her dissertation on “Representations of Conflict and Violence in Mainstream News Media: exploring content, context and power relations”. Her long time interest in journalism she also led her to obtain a post-graduate degree in Investigative International Journalism from the Hogeschool Mechelen / Fonds Pascal Decroos.

Frauke has written articles and investigative reports on topics like the situation of under-aged, undocumented working migrants in Belgium, the institutional culture in refugee asylum centres and on public service policy for Kosovarian Roma in 2 Belgian towns. She also wrote often for PBI publications. She speaks Spanish, English, a bit of French and her native language Flemish. She has travelled extensively in Latin America and Europe and also visited Asia and Africa.

Published on Oct 27, 2011 at 12:25am

“The greatest danger to our future is apathy” Jane Goodall

You know I have to wonder if Americans know anything about Libya at all. There are many from other countries that don’t seem to know much about it either I am afraid.

Comments on different news sites tell me  how mislead many are. One of the most predominant comments is now Libya will come out of the Dark Ages.

Well I am not sure what dark ages they are talking about as Libya was quite advanced.

NATO has blown them back to the dark ages,

So take a tour of Libya with me and see how things were before US/NATO intervention and tell me if they lived in the Dark Ages.

Videos of how Libya was before the invasion are below. Definitely they did not live in the dark ages.

Before we start the tour there are a few things you need to know however…

Read more:

On October 28, 2011, Andrea Rossi demonstrated his 1 megawatt E-Cat system to his first customer, who had engineers/scientists on hand to test/validate its performance. Due to a glitch, it provided 470 kW of continuous power for 5.5 hours during the self-sustained mode.

By Sterling D. Allan (who was present), with Hank Mills
Pure Energy Systems News
Well, the big day has come and gone. Andrea Rossi’s one-megawatt-capable E-Cat cold fusion device has been tested in Bologna, Italy; and the unknown customer, who ran the test, is apparently happy.

There were some issues, so it couldn’t be run at full power in self-looped mode, but what it did do was plenty impressive.  Read more:

Here I am with Andrea Ross after the test of the 1 MW E-Cat plant in the background.

As the events that led to Scott Olsen’s injury continue to unfold and investigations begin, we thought it important to offer some perspective. This comment is from a former Marine with special operations in crowd control.

He points out that shooting canisters such as those that likely hit Scott Olsen is prohibited under rules of engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan. Regardless of any political position on the Occupy protests, these are some Interesting insights:

Tear Gas gun

40mm tear gas launcher

Image: wikipedia commons

As the events that led to Scott Olsen’s injury continue to unfold and investigations begin, we thought it important to offer some perspective. This comment is from a former Marine with special operations in crowd control.

He points out that shooting canisters such as those that likely hit Scott Olsen is prohibited under rules of engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan. Regardless of any political position on the Occupy protests, these are some Interesting insights:

Before gas goes into a crowd shield bearers have to be making no progress moving a crowd or crowd must be assaulting the line. Not with sticks and stones but a no bullshit assault. 3 warnings must be given to the crowd in a manner they can hear that force is about to be used. Shield bearers take a knee and CS gas is released in grenade form first to fog out your lines because you have gas masks. You then kick the canisters along in front of your lines. Projectile gas is not used except for longer ranged engagement or trying to steer the crowd ( by steering a crowd I mean firing gas to block a street off ). You also have shotguns with beanbags and various less than lethal rounds for your launchers. These are the rules for a WARZONE!!

How did a cop who is supposed to have training on his weapon system accidentally SHOOT someone in the head with a 40mm gas canister? Simple. He was aiming at him.

I’ll be the first to admit a 40mm round is tricky to aim if you are inexperienced but anyone can tell the difference between aiming at head level and going for range.

The person that pulled that trigger has no business being a cop. He sent that round out with the intention of doing some serious damage to the protestors. I don’t care what the protestors were doing. I never broke my rules of engagement in Iraq or Afghanistan. So I can’t imagine what a protester in the states did to deserve a headshot with a 40mm. He’s damn lucky to be alive and that cop knows he was using lethal force against a protester he is supposed to be protecting.

Additionally: Jesse Davis mentions “The methods prohibited in war, and actions after the fact are also against war zone policy.” Check out his infographic here.

Specifically these two transcribed directly from US Army Law of War/Law of Armed Conflict training.

The Military manual states:
…have a duty to collect and care for the wounded. Prioritize treatment according to injuries. Make NO treatment distinction based on nationality. All soldiers, enemy or friendly, must be treated the same.

Second, the officer threw a flash-bang directly into a group of people trying to carry him away for medical treatment. Here’s the Military guidance on that decision:
Medical Personnel Considered out of combat if they exclusively engaged in medical duties. (GWS, art. 24.) Doctors, surgeons, nurses, chemists, stretcher-bearers, medics, corpsman, and orderlies, etc…, who are “exclusively engaged” in the direct care of the wounded and sick.

Source Article:

E-CAT Success! Andrea Rossi says: “Yes It’s a Breakthrough!”..

Since being made aware of this procedure by Josh Fox, the director of the award winning, Oscar nominated documentary film Gasland, I have been greatly concerned for all the people here and abroad who have been affected by the negative health impacts, produced by this fossil fuel extraction procedure.

The fossil fuels industry has trumpeted hydraulic fracturing as a cure to American energy woes, but in reality fracking helps only the few that profit from the vending of natural gas and irreparably destroys and poisons our environment as well.

The energy cartels have always used a portion of their billions to buy politicians and media to control the agenda.  A great portion of Americans still do not realize, or express concern over what is being done to them.   Fracking has been allowed to occur on public lands here in the United States.  The government has allowed this to occur with little to no input from the citizenry.

Everyone should watch the film Gasland and do a little bit of research on the internet to find out more information about this subject.  Here are some links to assist you. Peace!
Stop Fracking up the planet!  Stop Fracking Us! 

 by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Global Research, October 27, 2011
With an Introduction by Cynthia McKinney

Fourth of Four Installments on Libya: Who is Stealing the Wealth?

Once again, Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya peels away the veneer of legitimacy and deception enveloping the U.S./NATO genocide currently taking place in Libya. In his first article, Nazemroaya makes it clear that there never was any evidence given to the United Nations or the International Criminal Court to warrant or justify United Nations Resolutions 1970 and 1973 or current U.S./NATO operations inside Libya.

In his second article detailing this very sad story, Nazemroaya exposes the relationships between the major Libyan protagonists/NATO collaborators and the U.S. Congress-funded National Endowment for Democracy. Incredibly, when leading Members of Congress publicly proclaimed repeatedly that they did not know who the Libyan “rebel” NATO collaborators were, select so-called rebel leaders were political intimates with stakeholders at the National Endowment for Democracy.  Nazemroaya also exposes that, despite its Global War on Terror, the U.S. government actually financed Libyan terrorists and criminals wanted by INTERPOL.

In his third installment, Nazemroaya removes the U.S./NATO fig leaf that attempts to cover the cynical machinations of the pro-Israel Lobby and its objective of balkanizing African and Asian states, especially those whose populations are largely Muslim.  Nazemroaya makes the essential point: “An attempt to separate the merging point of an Arab and African identity is underway.” The Voice of America has exposed the psychological aspects of its brutal intervention and hints at the mindset of the U.S./NATO Libyan pawns; several stories suggest that the “new” Libya will turn more toward its Arab identity than its African identity. While Muammar Qaddafi drove home to all Libyans that Libya, as its geography dictates, is an African country, Nazemroaya shows how this fact is not a policy objective shared by the U.S., NATO, Israel, or their Libyan allies. 

Finally, in this last of the four-part series, Nazemroaya shows the ultimate perfidy of the U.S./NATO Libyan allies, especially Mahmoud Jibril, in the pre-emptive strike against the Jamahirya Wealth Redistribution Project.

The Libyan people are now fighting the world’s most powerful militaries to save their Jamahirya.

No matter how many times NATO-inspired media lie to their publics, the lies will never become the truth.

Hauntingly, Nazemroaya ends by telling us that the Libyan National Transitional Council has already recognized the Syrian National Council (SNC) as the legitimate government of Syria.

Meanwhile, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, now reputed to be the leader of Al Qaeda and reportedly rewarded with U.S. citizenship after fighting for the C.I.A. in Bosnia, just called for the people of Algeria to oust their President.

President Obama’s policy of flying drones and dropping bombs over Africa, and invading the Continent with U.S. troops, means that any country that resists an AFRICOM base, as Colonel Qaddafi’s wife tells us he did, or expects to exercise its right of self-determination, can expect the kind of treatment we are witnessing now in Libya. We, in the U.S., must resist these policies for ourselves and and on behalf of  the Africans who deserve better than this from the United States of America.

Cynthia McKinney, 25 October 2011.

Cynthia McKinney is a former U.S. Congresswoman who served in two different Georgia federal dictricts in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1993 to 2003 and from 2005 to 2007 as a member of the U.S. Democratic Party. She was also the U.S. Green Party presidential candidate in 2008. While in the U.S. Congress she served in the U.S. Banking and Finance Committee, the U.S. National Security Committee (later renamed the U.S. Armed Services Committee), and the U.S. Foreign Affairs Committee (later renamed the U.S. International Relations Committee). She also served in the U.S. International Relations subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights. McKinney has conducted two fact-finding missions in Libya and also recently finished a nationwide speaking tour in the United States sponsored by the ANSWER Coalition about the NATO bombing campaign in Libya.

Who Was Muammar Qaddafi? Libya’s Wealth Redistribution Project

by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Colonel Muammar Qaddafi symbolizes many things to many different people around the world. Love or hate the Libyan leader, under his rule Libya transformed from one of the poorest countries on the face of the planet into the country with the highest standard of living in Africa. In the words of Professor Henri Habibi:

    When Libya was granted its independence by the United Nations on December 24, 1951, it was described as one of the poorest and most backward nations of the world. The population at the time was not more than 1.5 million, was over 90% illiterate, and had no political experience or knowhow. There were no universities, and only a limited number of high schools which had been established seven years before independence. [1]

Qaddafi had many grand plans. He wanted to create a South Atlantic Treaty Organization to protect Africa and Latin America. He advocated for a gold dinar standard as the currency of Muslim countries. Many of his plans were also of a pan-African nature. This included the formation of a United States of Africa.

Qaddafi’s Pan-African Projects

Colonel Qaddafi started the Great Man-Made River, which consisted in a massive project to transform the Sahara Desert and reverse the desertification of Africa. The Great Man-Made River with its irrigation plans was also intended to support the agricultural sector in other parts of Africa. This project was a military target of NATO bombings. Without just cause, NATO’s bombing campaign was intent upon destroying the Great Man-Made River.

Qaddafi also envisioned independent pan-African financial institutions. The Libyan Investment Authority and the Libyan Foreign Bank were important players in setting up these institutions. Qaddafi, through the Libyan Foreign Bank and the Libyan Investment Authority, was instrumental in setting up Africa’s first satellite network, the Regional African Satellite Communication Organization (RASCOM), to reduce African dependence on external powers. [2]

His crowning achievement would have been the creation of the United States of Africa. The supranational entity would have been created through the African Investment Bank, the African Monetary Fund, and finally the African Central Bank. These institutions were all viewed with animosity by the European Union, United States, International Monetary Fund (IMF), and World Bank.

Qaddafi’s Wealth Redistribution Project

Qaddafi had a wealth redistribution project inside Libya. U.S. Congressional sources in a report to the U.S. Congress even acknowledge this. On February 18, 2011 one report states:

    In March 2008, [Colonel Qaddafi] announced his intention to dissolve most government administrative bodies and institute a Wealth Distribution Program whereby state oil revenues would be distributed to citizens on a monthly basis for them to administer personally, in cooperation, and via local committees. Citing popular criticism of government performance in a long, wide ranging speech, [he] repeatedly stated that the traditional state would soon be “dead” in Libya and that direct rule by citizens would be accomplished through the distribution of oil revenues. [The military], foreign affairs, security, and oil production arrangements reportedly would remain national government responsibilities, while other bodies would be phased out. In early 2009, Libya’s Basic People’s Congresses considered variations of the proposals, and the General People’s Congress voted to delay implementation. [3]

Qaddafi wanted all the people of Libya to have direct access to the nation’s wealth. He was also aware of the deep rooted corruption that plagued the ranks of the Libyan government. This was one of the reasons why he wanted to apply a model of political anarchy in Libya through progressive steps. He was talking about both these project for a few years.

On the other hand, the Wealth Redistribution Project, along with the establishment of an anarchist political system, was viewed as a very serious threat by the U.S., the E.U., and a group of corrupt Libyan officials. If successful, the reforms could have created political unrest amongst many domestic populations around the world. Internally, many Libyan officials were working to delay the project. This included reaching out to external powers to intervene in Libya to stop Qaddafi and his projects.

Why Mahmoud Jibril Joined the Transitional Council

Amongst the Libyan officials that were heavily opposed to this project and viewed it with horror was Mahmoud Jibril. Jibril was put into place by Saif Al-Islam Qaddafi. Because of strong influence and advice from the U.S. and the E.U., Saif Al-Islam selected Jibril to transform the Libyan economy and impose a wave of neo-liberal economic reforms that would open the Libyan market.

Jibril became the head of two bodies in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, the National Planning Council of Libya and National Economic Development Board of Libya. While the National Economic Development Board was a regular ministry, the National Planning Council would actually put Jibril in a government position above that of the Office of the General-Secretary of the People’s Committee of Libya (which is the equivalent of the post of a prime minister). Jibril actually became one of the forces that opened the doors of privatization and poverty in Libya.

About six months before the conflict erupted in Libya, Mahmoud Jibiril actually met with Bernard-Henri Lévy in Australia to discuss forming the Transitional Council and deposing Colonel Qaddafi. [4] He described Qaddafi’s Wealth Redistribution Project as “crazy” in minutes and documents from the National Economic Development Board of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. [5] Jibril strongly believed that the Libyan masses were not fit to govern themselves and that an elite should always control the fate and wealth of any nation. What Jibril wanted to do is downsize the Libyan government and layoff a large segment of the public sector, but in exchange increase government regulations in Libya. He would also always cite Singapore as the perfect example of a neo-liberal state. While in Singapore, which he regularly visited, it is likely that he also meet with Bernard-Henri Lévy.

When the problems erupted in Benghazi, Mahmoud Jibril immediately went to Cairo, Egypt. He told his colleagues that he would be back in Tripoli soon, but he had no intention of returning. In reality, he went to Cairo to meet the leaders of the Syrian National Council and Lévy. They were all waiting for him inside Cairo to coordinate the events in Libya and Syria. This is one of the reasons that the Transitional Council has recognized the Syrian National Council as the legitimate government of Syria.

Libya and the Big Lie: Using Human Rights Organizations to Launch Wars

– by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya – 2011-09-29
The war against Libya is built on fraud. The UN Security Council passed two resolutions against Libya on the basis of unproven claims that Qaddafi was killing his own people in Benghazi…
America’s Conquest of Africa: The Roles of France and Israel
– by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Julien Teil – 2011-10-06
Terrorists not only fight for Washington on the ground, they also act as frontmen for regime change through so-called human rights organizations that promote democracy.
Israel and Libya: Preparing Africa for the “Clash of Civilizations”
Introduction by Cynthia McKinney
– by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya – 2011-10-11
“An attempt to separate the merging point of an Arab and African identity is underway.”

Do Not Pity the Dead, Pity the Living!

Muammar Qaddafi is now dead.

He was murdered in his hometown of Sirte.

He stood his ground until the end like he said he would.

The Transitional Council, which vowed to take him to court had him murdered.

He even reminded the men who beat him, anally raped him, mocked him, and finally murdered him that they were not following the laws of Islam about respectful treatment of prisoners. NATO played a central role and oversaw the whole event.

The murder was systematic, because after Qaddafi was murdered his son and several other Libyan leaders were killed too.

Colonel Qaddafi’s death marks a historic milestone for Libya. An old era has ended in Libya and a new chapter begins.

Libya will not become a new paradise like the Transitional Council says. In many cases the living will envy the dead, because of men like Mahmoud Jibril, Ali Tarhouni, and Sliman Bouchuiguir.

Mahmoud Jibril is a mere opportunist. The man had no problems being a government official under the late Qaddafi. He never complained about human rights or a lack of democracy. He was the prime minister of the Transitional Council of Libya until a few days after the savage murder of Colonel Qaddafi. The opposition of Jibril to the late Qaddafi’s Wealth Redistribution Project and his elitist attitude are amongst the reasons he conspired against Qaddafi and helped form the Transitional Council.

Is this ex-regime official, who has always been an open supporter of the Arab dictators in the Persian Gulf, really a representative and champion of the people? How about his colleagues in the Transitional Council who negotiated oil contracts with NATO member states, even before they held any so-called government positions in the Transitional Council?

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Sociologist and Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montréal. He specializes on the Middle East and Central Asia. He was on the ground in Libya for over two months and was also a Special Correspondent for Flashpoints, which is an investigative news program carried on numerous stations in the United States and based in Berkeley, California. Nazemroaya has been releasing these articles about Libya in conjunction with aired discussions (now archived) with Cynthia McKinney on Freedom Now, a show aired on Saturdays on KPFK, Los Angeles, California.

Subscribe to the Global Research E-Newsletter

Global Research Articles by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya


[1] Henri Pierre Habib, Politics and Government of Revolutionary Libya (Montmagny, Québec: Le Cercle de Livre de France Ltée, 1975), p.1.

[2] Regional African Satellite Communication Organization, “Launch of the Pan African Satellite,” July 26, 2010:

[3] Christopher M. Blanchard and James Zanotti, “Libya Christopher M. Blanchard and James Zanotti, “Libya: Background and U.S. Relations,” Congressional Research Service, February 18, 2011, p.22.

[4] Private discussions with Mahmoud Jiribil’s co-workers inside and outside of Libya.

[5] Internal private documents from the National Economic Development Board of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.