How Did We Get to Donald Trump

Death of Muammar Gaddafi - A turning point in history

The “take no prisoners” philosophy and “slash and burn” techniques of the Trump deadministration has its partisans, eager to release their suppressed fury at a glorified past that is being barred from the future. A new world order of rich, powerful, and self-absorbed supremos#2 replaces the previous “carefully constructed fake world,” where rich, powerful, and self-absorbed supremos#1 conspired with the media to delude the public by cheeky references to caring and sharing, while global exploitation, instability, and violence directed their lives. Quoting others, “The entire liberal deep state command and control system is broken.” Quoting nobody, “An anti-liberal deep state command and control system is being constructed to replace the broken liberal model.”

Seems disturbing, electrifying, and paralyzing. Ho hum. Welcome to the world that is, has always been, and will be until the mushroom cloud signifies resolution of the problem. Started in the Garden of Eden, prophesized by Jesus of Nazareth, emphasized by the Manichaeism of Mani in Persia, eloquently expressed by Voltaire’s Candide, and staged by Anthony Newley in his 1966 musical, Stop the world, I want to get off, the battle between good and evil oscillates the world between low ground and lower ground. Those who gather their extensive knowledge and politely convey to the masses the absurdities of the institutions that govern them are accorded the adjectives of “mad dog,” “berserk,” “enemy of the people,” and a multitude of other kindly expressions. The smartest of all, the eminent Karl Marx, expressed it correctly, “The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class." The lord of the manor guides the way and the sheep in the manor blindly follow.

It is difficult to characterize the events and specify the day that the nation’s mood changed from acceptance of neoliberalism to rejection, from supporting American “representative” democracy to pondering that it might be a delusion. It is less difficult to characterize what prompted some of the collective to modify approval of the established government. History has shown that, even if the U.S. military prevailed, engagement in a Vietnam War had no benefit to the United States. A war, conducted with no more reason than to slaughter Vietnamese, started the doubt that the will of the people prevailed. The violent execution of Libyan leader, “mad dog” Muammar Gaddafi, on 20 October 2011, during Barak Obama’s administration, finalized the doubt. As the truth of the events leading to NATO’s intervention in the Libyan civil war and the horrific facts of Gaddafi’s execution became known, a more aware public departed ways with Obama’s Democratic Party and 2016 presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, the sponsors of U.S. favoring the NATO attack on Gaddafi’s Libya. Several times in the campaign, the attachment of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to the intervention was vigorously discussed. Difficult to prove that the war against Libya played a decisive role in the close 2016 election; not difficult to show the issue persuaded a number of voters to elevate Donald Trump to the highest office and established a modified psyche in the America of today.

Barack Obama entered the presidential office with an appearance of protecting the Palestinians from Israeli oppression and allying with those who sought peace, stability, and freedom for the world’s dispossessed. President Barack Obama remained a system subordinate and betrayed those who supported him. Unlike Citizen Jimmy Carter, who used his knowledge and prestige to fight for the rights of others, Citizen Barack Obama has played it safe, maybe for personal reasons; other black leaders have been assassinated.

The man, in whose assassination Obama played a decisive role, the much maligned Muammar Gaddafi, had scare resemblance to the coordinated media descriptions of him. Someone I met, who had been stationed at Wheelus Air force base in Libya, told me he was walking through Tripoli in 1970, noticed a man sitting on the sidewalk, and immediately recognized him as Colonel Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi, Libya’s new leader who had, in the previous year, overthrown the monarchy in a bloodless coup. The solitary person of deep thought and avant-garde behavior in action and dress, is the Gaddafi I sensed from his rhetoric, accomplishments, and interviews. The usual simplified description of an antagonist to U.S. policy as a terrorist, madman, tyrant, and executioner has negligible verification; mostly slanted stories or original fiction from the U.S. Stateless Department and Unintelligence agencies who have issues with revolutionary thoughts and deeds.

As moral, spiritual, and undoubtedly defacto leader in the governing of Libya, Gaddafi used his nation for one of the boldest experiments in participatory democracy. Claiming, as many have, that representative democracy is manipulated, that “in western parliamentary democracies, special interests compete for and gain power without representing the people,” the Libyan leader established a grassroots approach to government ─ a series of Popular Conferences and People's Committees worked together to propose and a higher elected authority served to dispose. In Gaddafi’s words: "The final step is when the new socialist society reaches the stage where profit and money disappear. It is through transforming society into a fully productive society, and through reaching in production a level where the material needs of the members of society are satisfied. On that final stage, profit will automatically disappear and there will be no need for money.”

The military colonel turned social and economic prophet may have been derivative and naïve in his approach and dictatorial in forcing the grandiose experiment upon a people not prepared for its implementation. Gaddafi later recognized the dilemma by admitting that people subjected to colonialism may not have acquired the required resources, knowledge, and capability for the extraordinary leap to the socialist ideal; adopting the doctrines in his “Green Book” needed a more advanced nation. In 2003, despite Libya having the highest GDP/capita and standard of living in Africa, he admitted defeat and pursued more conventional free enterprise economic policies for the Libya nation. The U.S. invasion of Iraq and demise of Saddam Hussein may have contributed to Gaddafi’s decision.

Interviews available at

and at

reveal Gaddafi as a purposively deceptive person, who had knowledge of all issues, intentionally responded quietly and succinctly, controlled emotions, played down his abilities, and strategically placed the “gotcha” questioners into a “gotcha retreat.” These interviews do not show the persona Gaddafi, who is better described in a speech to the Libyan people at

where he displays a forceful personality and ability to speak extemporaneously.

Note: May have to click a few times.

Prophetic Gaddafi admired Barak Obama, principally due to the American president’s African and Muslim heritage, which, according to Gaddafi, enabled Obama to think more as an African and not as a “Yankee.” Gaddafi missed a beat in wanting the person most responsible for his vicious execution to remain in office for eternity. Obama missed more than a beat by listening to the absurd rhetoric that brought the United States to join a NATO-led collation, which, on March 19, 2011 began a military intervention into the ending Libyan Civil War and implemented United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 (UNSCR 1973). The Resolution demanded "an immediate ceasefire" and authorized the international community to “establish a no-fly zone and to use all means necessary short of foreign occupation to protect civilians.”

Principal reason given for the UN Resolution — Gaddafi was prepared to massacre at least 100,000 of his opponents, a 1000 times exaggeration and an obvious impossibility. President Barack Obama addressed the issue with the statement: "Gaddafi declared that he would show "no mercy" to his own people. He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment."

Reuters reporting demonstrated large differences between Gaddafi's remarks and President Obama's careless interpretation: Gaddafi Tells Rebel City, Benghazi, 'We Will Show No Mercy, March 17, 2011.

Muammar Gaddafi told Libyan rebels on Thursday his armed forces were coming to their capital Benghazi tonight and would not show any mercy to fighters who resisted them. In a radio address, he told Benghazi residents that soldiers would search every house in the city and people who had no arms had no reason to fear. He also told his troops not to pursue any rebels who drop their guns and flee when government forces reach the city.

Logic tells us that few Benghazi residents had guns to hide, and Gaddafi's forces were too limited to carry out any large-scale purge. Gaddafi's comment (much different than Obama's presentation) was only meant to create fear. No leader would tell his people he intended to kill masses of them. If so, they had nothing to lose by fighting. Why encourage them?

The next morsel of food for thought is that the civil war was no threat to any NATO nation. The clincher - the western nations had not considered any changes in Libya's future. Suddenly, with no plan, no knowledge of the rebel forces' constituencies, and no idea as to where the interference would lead, NATO attacked Libya.

Martin Aliker a senior adviser to Yoweri Museveni President Yoweri Museveni of Yoweri, in his memoir, “The Bell is Ringing: Martin Aliker’s Story,” recites his opinion.

They were only interested in “killing Gaddafi, killing Gaddafi, and killing Gaddafi.” Gaddafi was quoted as saying that what the enemies of Libya did not understand was that if they changed his regime the next one would be of Islamic extremists and al-Qaeda.

He said that Libya was the Great Wall which, if broken, would lead to a flood of illegal immigrants into Europe, some of whom would die on the water but some would survive and reach Europe. He said he was ready to talk to the rebels but that the rebels were not ready to talk.

Gaddafi proved to be prescient.

The duplicitous attack on Muhammar Gaddafi and his nation, promoted by then Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, contributed to her loss in the 2016 presidential election and the entrance of real estate magnate, Donald Trump, into the highest office in the coast-to-coast U.S. mainland.

The 2024 presidential election, and its immediate aftermath may have proved Gaddafi correct ─ representative democracy could be a delusion.

Stop the world, I want to get off.