Thus, when all the lies are separated from the objective empirical matter, the imperialist adventure in Libya was predicated on Gaddafi’s alleged use of black African mercenaries to, as the media merchants of death put it, “kill his own people” – a ubiquitous form of words that has entered the political lexicon as justification for the removal of leaders of weaker nations who are antithetical to the interests of empire.
This book is not an ode to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, nor is it a lament for his passing. Despite his anti-imperialist trappings, Gaddafi was a self-serving dictator. He called himself a socialist, but stifled the self-activity of his people. He called himself a Pan-Afrikanist, but was a racist. My goal in this book was to study the 2011 imperialist aggression against Libya from the perspective of a detective investigating the murder of the Libyan leader. Put simply, this is a study of naked, imperialist aggression.
You see, dear reader, that was the crux. If the theses in my book are wrong, misguided, ideologically unsound, or theoretically suspect, then why won’t my “peers” come out and say so? Dismantle my arguments, peer review the work, as demanded by the scientific method. If am wrong, I’ll gladly go back to the drawing board. Don’t reject it because you don’t like the message, or the messenger. Refute my contentions if you can. Otherwise, declare them valid and true. That is the scientific method! It’s as if my peers are afraid to review my work, for then they will be forced to publicly acknowledge its merits. And that, it is increasingly becoming clear, they will do only under pain of death.