Once Aryan Skynet Goes Live It Doesn't Matter Who Pulled The Switch
Muammar Gaddafi’s primary objectives in implementing his 1969 revolution were, firstly, Libyan political and economic sovereignty and, secondly, pan-Arab unification. He considered these problems, however, within the context of a broader anticolonial struggle and gave his succor in arms and aid – substantial financial support made possible by his country’s newly nationalized petroleum wealth – to various other groups whose movements he saw as complementary to his own confrontation with the great powers of the West.
“Gaddafi has constantly demonstrated a readiness to support small and sometimes obscure nationalist movements,” Guy Arnold notes in his 1996 book The Maverick State: Gaddafi and the New World Order. “During 1976 he provided support for the Movement for the Self-Determination and the Independence of the Canaries Archipelago, the Sardinian and Corsican autonomy movements and Breton nationalists. He also made approaches to the Welsh nationalists (earlier he had approached both the Irish and Scottish nationalists).”1 At one time or another, he also extended a helping hand to the Irish Republican Army, Nicaragua’s Sandinistas, and the Moro National Liberation Front in the Philippines.
As an opponent of western imperialism and an advocate for liberation movements worldwide, Gaddafi took a particular interest in the revolutionary activism of blacks, who, he argued, were engaged in an understandable “movement […] to vengeance and domination” and “will prevail in the world”2. Libya’s “determination to drive out apartheid is a feeling of truth with ourselves,” he stated during an interview.
Therefore, we visualize the situation in a practical manner and integrate words with deeds. … This is up to the Africans themselves if they are serious in liberating their countries and are willing to be trained and wage war against apartheid. … Libya is ready (to help them) at any time. … The call for liberation is a patriotic and national task. The liberation of Africa is inevitable, in order to safeguard the African resources against theft, exploitation, and looting and to restore dignity to the African national who has lost his language, characteristics, and dignity.3
The Libyan leader, George Tremlett writes in his 1993 study Gadaffi: The Desert Mystic, “compares Arab unity with African struggles for independence, sees the West (or, rather ‘imperialism’) as their common enemy, with Libya able to provide a form of leadership through its willingness to aid an unpopular cause, or assist an armed struggle when others might recoil (for many years, while Nelson Mandela was imprisoned on Robben Island, Gadaffi poured funds into the African National Congress, assisting their campaign against apartheid; the sums have never been disclosed, but almost certainly ran into many millions of dollars, for Gadaffi was one of the first people that Mandela visited on his release from jail).”4
“Gaddafi’s natural inclination has always been to support opposition groups to centrist and right-wing governments and to give aid to regimes with moderately radical tendencies,” Arnold writes.
He was prepared in the early 1970s to support the liberation groups in Portuguese Africa, Guinea-Bissau, for example, but so too were half the states of Africa and their continental organization, the OAU. Accusations of subversion against Gaddafi often imply a capacity to undermine that is inherently unlikely for though leaders such as Ghana’s Jerry Rawlings are happy enough to receive aid from Gaddafi (or other sources) as a general rule they are also quite capable of safeguarding their own political interests. Even so, by the mid-1970s Gaddafi was supplying money, arms and training for liberation movements in Eritrea, Rhodesia, Portuguese Guinea (Guinea-Bissau), Morocco and Chad; and aid for sympathetic regimes such as those in Togo, Uganda and Zambia.5
Gaddafi’s patronage of African revolutionism extended even to black nationalists in the United States, and according to a 1972 story published in the Lebanese newspaper Al-Bayraq, Libya had provided $24,000,000 to black movements in the U.S. over the course of a three-year period6. 1972, claims Arnold, “was the year when from Washington’s viewpoint he first interfered in internal American policies by providing support for American Black Muslims. Gaddafi […] said he would support American blacks against discrimination” and “was alleged then to have provided a $3m loan to build a mosque in Chicago.”7 This was the Mosque Maryam, present headquarters of the Nation of Islam.
Gaddafi’s Muslim sympathies as well as the fascination that violent minority groups held for him now persuaded him to provide money for a Black Muslim mosque in the United States while also protesting at the behaviour of the US police in clashes with Muslims in Harlem. […] In a speech of 11 July  Gaddafi said provocatively: “The sacred mission of all true (Muslim) believers today is to fight Great Britain and the United States. And if those countries think of fighting us in the Middle East, we will fight them on their own territories.”8
Indeed, in 1985 “the Nation of Islam, headed by Louis Farrakhan, which calls for black separatism in the United States, received a $5m loan from Gaddafi for use in providing economic assistance to American blacks although Farrakhan said he had turned down an offer of arms from Gaddafi who had urged US blacks to ‘struggle to establish an independent state’.”9 Farrakhan came under attack in the black newspaper The Afro-American for daring to involve himself with the maverick African state:
The Libyan ruler is considered an enemy of the U.S. by the government and warplanes of the two countries actually engaged in hostilities during an incident in the recent past. Khadafy’s rhetoric has at times seemed out of touch with reality and a bit extreme.
At a recent gathering of the Nation of Islam, Khadafy addressed the group over the phone and declared that he was prepared to finance a black army that would revolt and overthrow the U.S. government. This statement and the offer included showed that the Colonel does not know a great deal about the race relations in this country.
Farrakhan’s acceptance of this loan, despite his protests to the contrary, and his often inflammatory rhetoric could set himself up for untold political and legal conflicts. On one hand he seeks to form an economic organization that will increase black economic clout and foster black unity while at the same time he is embracing a ruler of a country whose policies will create division within the black community. […]
Whether Farrakhan realizes it or not, persons involved in international power politics seldom do things out of sheer benevolence. If the leader of Libya gives on $5 million, admittedly a small sum to an oil rich country, there are strings attached. The question is their visibility.10
In 1986 the Reagan administration prevented Farrakhan from traveling to Libya – prompting the Nation of Islam leader to file a lawsuit against the president and members of his cabinet for seeking to “separate and isolate Minister Farrakhan from meeting with his brethren in faith.”11 Farrakhan eventually was able to visit Libya, but remained under the scrutiny of Clinton’s Justice Department as the Associated Press reported on March 15, 1996:
Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan said Thursday he is not an agent of Libya or any other foreign government and sees no need to register as such with the American government.
“I am an agent of God,” Farrakhan said at a news conference, “and if the government requests that I register as an agent of God, I will be happy to do so.”
Farrakhan made the comments after Justice Department officials had hand-delivered two letters to him about his recent trip to Libya and were watching to see if he acts as a Libyan agent.12
Various figures and outlets of today’s political and media landscape have likewise been accused of serving the devious interests of foreign rogue state actors – “New Hitler” Vladimir Putin’s Russia in particular – and even CNN, nothing if not the quintessence of mainstream media respectability, has been smeared as a possible “mouthpiece of the Iranian regime”. France’s Front National has received millions of euro in loans from Russia, and critics even allege that Putinist puppet Trump’s deplorable fan base the Alt-Right has been an object of neo-Soviet indulgence. If George Soros and his NGOs can subsidize subversive cultural movements in countries around the planet with such dependable impunity, is there any reason why a government hostile to the globalist aims of the United States and its fellow aggressor western powers might not subsidize the efforts of identitarian dissidents? If China, Russia, Iran, Syria, or North Korea offered you a strings-invisible $5,000,000 gift, would you be willing to accept it? If so, how would you spend it?