Apologies if I've posted this before:
From Reason and Violence, R.D. Laing & D.G. Cooper, 1964:
The survival group is first a practical invention in each of the permanence of a common unity through each other. It is freedom wishing to become inert, praxis seeking a way of metamorphosing itself into exis [a way out]. When a multiplicity of freedoms makes common praxis in order to find a basis of the permanence of the group, it produces by itself a form of reciprocity mediated by its own inertia. This new form of reciprocity Sartre calls the pledge. The pledge takes different forms. The historical act is not the necessary form of the pledge. It can be seen as the resistance of the survival group against separationist action, whether of going away or differentiation; as guarantee of the future through a lack of change produced in the group by freedom. Paradoxically, as provision of stability, as promise of permanence, and so forth, it affords the basis of all separation and differentiation. The pledge, however, is not a social contract, in Rousseau's sense, but the necessary passage from an immediate form of the group in danger of dissolution to another more reflective permanent form.
The pledge, as an invention of praxis, is the affirmation by the thirds of the permanence of the group as negation of its permanent possibility of negation through the multiplicity of alterity [the state of being different]. The threat to the permanence of the group is, of course, not necessarily the physical extermination of its members. By the pledge the group seeks to make itself its own instrument against seriality, which threatens it with dissolution.
The pledge is not a subjective determination. It is a real modification of the group by my regulative action. It is my guarantee to the others that it is impossible for serial alterity to be introduced into the group through me. This guarantee cannot, however, annul the permanent possibility that I can 'freely', that is, by my individual praxis, abandon my post, go over to the enemy. Treason and desertion can never be annulled as possibilities, but I have sworn my loyalty, I have given my pledge as guarantee against this exercise of my own freedom. I seek to utilize my own and everyone else's presence in the group as a third, as regulator, as my common-being, as a fact that cannot be transcended. I seek to convert my free being-in-the-group into an exigency that there is no way through or round, by the invention, as far as it is possible, of an inorganic, non-dialectical, rigid future. This rigid substantiation of my future is endowed with the triple characteristics of being the exigence, container, and ground of all my subsequent praxis. But there is no new dialectic.
Now, thus far two developments of the group-in-fusion have been distinguished for clarity—survival group and pledged group. We must now consider more closely the intelligibility of the pledge. The individual and the group praxis of the group-in-fusion have been seen to be comprehensible. Is the re-invention of the pledge in defined circumstances a process that is dialectical and comprehendible? The pledge becomes intelligible as the common action of the group on itself. We said above that the group undergoes a transformation in and through the common action of the pledge. How then does the unity of the group-in-fusion compare with that of the pledge group? The former is a fusion in the face of material danger. In this fusion, real work is done. In the pledge group, on the other hand, nothing material binds the members, the danger is not real, it is only possible. The origin of the pledge is anxiety. Once the real menace from outside has passed, the danger to the permanence of the group is from dispersion and seriality. A reflexive fear arises.
There is not enough to fear to keep the group together now that the danger seems remote. The condition of the permanence of the group is thus the negation of the absence of fear. Fear must be reinvented. The fundamental reinvention, at the heart of the pledge, is the project of substituting a real fear, produced by the group itself, for the external fear that is becoming remote, and whose very remoteness is suspected as deceptive. And this fear as free product and corrective action of the group against serial dissolution is terror induced by the violence of common freedom. Terror is the reign in the group of absolute violence on its members.
The essential basis for this transformation is the risk of death that each runs at the heart of the group as possible agent of dispersion. The pledge group is a common product of reciprocities mediated under the statute of violence. Through this form of unification, the being-in-the-group becomes a limit that can be breached only with the certitude of dying. [REMEMBER THIS WHEN READING THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF THE PASSAGE BELOW]
Traced back to original praxis, man is in the position of absolute power of man over man. But in the vicissitudes of alienation, God can be substituted for the guillotine. The pledge, the oath of loyalty, backed up by violence, is the original free attempt to strike terror into each by each, in so far as it must constantly reactualize violence as the intelligible negation of individual freedom by common praxis.
This is the pledge. Its intelligibility is complete, since it is a question of a free transcendent of elements already given, towards an objective already posited. My pledge offers him and them a guarantee and invites violence as his and their right to suppress me if I default. By the same token the unmitigated pledge creates Terror, and invents treason, since there is now no excuse for defection. While the circumstances are not particularly constraining, I can remain on a level where violence-terror, loyalty-treachery, are not experienced in ultimate form. But the fundamental structure of the pledged group is violence-terror since I have freely consented to the possible liquidation of my person. My right over the other is my obligation to them, and contains in itself, implicitly, death as my possible destiny.
"Vaccination as biopolitics and social practice from the German Empire to the Federal Republic"
The initial reluctance to vaccinate evidently reflected a programmatic contradiction in Nazi health policy: the contrast between “racial hygiene” ideas that aimed at optimizing hereditary biology on the one hand; and a prevention policy on the other, which envisaged population and defense policy goals. More than ever, vaccination raised the question of how the “national body” should actually be understood and treated. Therefore, in the discussions since 1933, medical considerations have by no means been in the foreground. Rather, it was about the weighting of the needs of the "national comrade" compared to the requirements of the "national body" as well as threatening dangers from which the "national community" had to be protected. Answers to these questions seemed more urgent than ever “in view of the […] low risk of smallpox” 64 and the growing criticism of vaccination, as observed by the Reich Ministry of the Interior. Interior Minister Wilhelm Frick therefore assumed at the beginning of 1934 that a "revision of the vaccination law [...] would probably bring the conscience clause" 65. 66 This revision also makes sense because it takes “a far-reaching popular feeling into account” 67 so that previous measures against vaccination opponents “should be lifted as soon as possible” 68.
Such considerations formed the starting point of a commission in the Reich Ministry of the Interior, which worked on a revision of compulsory vaccination in March 1934. In this meeting, Johannes Breger from the Reich Health Office summed up the fundamental dilemma. If the motto used to be that possible damage to the individual was “the price” “with which the German people pay for their protection against smallpox” 69, then after the “seizure of power” one had to “check whether it corresponded to state ethics to demand such a sacrifice”. An examination is all the more urgent because "a large part of the German population rejects compulsory vaccination", as Ministerial Director Arthur Gütt from the Ministry of the Interior added. His colleague von Kapff took another step further, when he stylized the compulsory vaccination as a touchstone of the National Socialist world view: "Should the compulsory vaccination continue", "the majority of the people will doubt that in medical policy [...] National Socialist principles are decisive". Kapff received support from the President of the Dresden State Health Office, Weber, who saw “limited voluntariness” as a contemporary answer to the vaccination question. After all, “the conditions today are very different than they used to be. Thanks to the education of the National Socialist government, the people's views had changed so that more could be achieved voluntarily than previously with repeated forced vaccinations. Not all members of the commission could agree with this view. From Hamburg, Professor Paschen protested that the state was carelessly giving up its powers. Vaccination should “not be left to the discretion of the individual” but should “be enforced by law”.
The objection of the army medical inspector Anton Waldmann weighed more heavily. A personal decision of the "comrade" when vaccinating would contradict "the leader's principle" and thus increase the risk of epidemics "among the people", which "in the event of a future war forced upon us [...] would prevent the army from freedom of movement". At the end of the meeting, these military-political reasons led to the realization that there were still reservations about the abolition of compulsory vaccination. The commission therefore did not come to a conclusive conclusion, from which an important finding can be gained: in 1933 there was no concept ready for a main instrument of modern population policy. After the "seizure of power", an unusually open discussion was held about the modern precautionary measures70. The fact that the self-responsibility of the “national comrade” was an important argument, and that state coercion was even seen as a contradiction to National Socialist ethics, shows two things: the programmatic contradictions of health policy and the ambiguity about the legitimacy of state coercion vis-à-vis “national comrades”. One could summarize that vaccination mutated into a litmus test for the “consent dictatorship” 71 in the early phase of the “Third Reich”. After all, when it came to vaccinations, it was the “completely normal Germans” who one wanted to win for the “National Community”.
Add a mildly unintelligible word to a reasonable question to see if the person asks you what you meant.
If there's a group task, do something in an odd way, knowing it's not the most effective, to see if someone tries to 'correct' you.
Poisoning the well is one type of logical fallacy that occurs when negative information about a person is presented to an audience in an attempt to discredit the following arguments made by that person. It’s a variation of the ad hominem fallacy; it attacks directly the source of an argument instead of addressing the argument itself.
His socks are probably so wet that the only sensible choice left is to take off his shoes.
I think the former commander they fired was fired for saying that there was.
Here's his website/book, it was an amazon number 1 bestseller for a while:
Why focus so hard on those who have abdicated their own nature in place of an ideology one might ask?
Answer:
Totalitarianism and homosexuality belong together. While the subject falls apart, it negates everything which is not of its own kind. The opposites of the strong man and the compliant youth fuse into a social order, which unreservedly asserts the masculine principle of domination. By making everyone, without exception – even presumed subjects – into its objects, it [the social order] recoils into total passivity, virtually into what is feminine.
— Theodor Adorno of the Frankfurt School (critical theory) 1944
Create and promote an artificial "in-group" that can be shamed, dissolved and destroyed after the "event."
"God forbid you read the signs
Watch for meanings between the lines
Gehenna has now arrived
No hindsight for the blind
Your trust has been misplaced
Believed the lies told to your face
Became another casualty and now it's too late
You finally made it home
Draped in the flag that you fell for
And so it goes
The ashes of the wake"
Happened upon this psychological term which describes the phenomena almost perfectly:
Collective narcissists are individuals who have identified with a group of like-minded others and who, as a group, strongly believe that they are superior to others. Being a member of a group that shares a sense of invincibility, superiority, and inherent rightness becomes dangerous when they target another group whose members they deem to be inferior and less deserving of whatever benefits or resources others may access.
Typically, the group fueled by collective narcissism also perceives hostility from others and feels the need to show a threatening presence to any out-group (Golec de Zavala & Lantos, 2020). They are typically super sensitive to potential provocation or denigration and feel a need to seek revenge through force to remedy the perceived sleight of others. Researchers suggest that the use of hostility doesn’t assuage their fear of threats to their importance, but instead creates a continuous loop of perceived threat and hostile response.
Additional information.
Got expelled from youtube but I think it's still on rumble.
Watch the documentary "Hypernormalisation" by Adam Curtis. He goes into this phenomena in-depth.
From BBC:
…but, surprise, surprise, not all may be as it seems. In the 80s, theories about UFOs were everywhere. There were stories about leaked secret US government documents, which proved the existence of alien lifeforms visiting Earth. It was a big cover-up.
Curtis suggests that what was really happening here was a double bluff.
“…the reality was even stranger. The American government was making it all up. They had created a fake conspiracy to mislead.”
Curtis shows that what these misdirected hicks were really looking at were not UFOs at all, but a new breed of smart American weapons that were being developed as a deterrent to Russia.
“The government wanted to keep the weapons secret, but their appearance couldn’t always be disguised.”
He shows that certain individuals were even identified to help spread these rumours. If true, it’s a truly bizarre case of a government creating a red herring to distract the public from some agenda.
Sound familiar?
It isn't the first time. From 1956:
Verbocracy and Semantic Fog—Talking the People into Submission
After the First World War, we became more conscious of our attitude toward words. This attitude was gradually changing. Our trust in official catchwords and clichés and in idealistic labels had diminished. We became more and more aware of the fact that the important questions were what groups and powers told behind the words, and white their secret intentions were. But in our easygoing way we often forget to ask this question, and we are all more or less susceptible to noisy, oft-repeated words.
The formulation of big propagandistic lies and fraudulent catchwords has a very well-defined purpose in Totalitaria, and words themselves have acquired a special functions in the service of power, which we may call verbocracy. The Big Lie and the phones slogan at first confuse and then dull the hearers, making them willing to accept every suggested myth of happiness. The task of the totalitarian propagandist is to build special pictures in the minds of the citizenry so that finally they will no longer see and hear with their own eyes and ears but will look at the world through the fog of official catchwords and will develop the automatic responses appropriate to totalitarian mythology.
The multiform use of words in double talk serves as an attack on our logic, that is, an attack on our understanding of what monolithic dictatorship really is. Hear, hear the nonsense: "Peace is war and war is peace! Democracy is tyranny and freedom is slavery! Virtue is vice and truth is a lie." So says the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell's grim novel, 1984. And we saw this nightmare fantasy come true when our soldiers who had spend long years in North Korean prison camps returned home talking of totalitarian China with the deceiving cliché of "the people's democracy." Pavloviaon conditioning to special words forces people into an automatic thinking that is tied to those words. The words we use to influence our behavior in daily life; they determine what thoughts we have.
In Totalitaria, facts are replaced by fantasy and distortion. People are taught systematically and intentionally to lie (Winokur). History is reconstructed, new myths are build up whose purpose is twofold: to strengthen and flatter the totalitarian leader, and to confuse the luckless citizens of the country. The whole vocabulary is a dictated set of slowly hypnotizing slogans. In the semantic fog that permeates the atmosphere, words lose their direct communicative function. They become merely commanding signs, triggering off reactions of fear and terror. They are battle crimes and Pavlovian signals, and no longer represent free thinking. The word, once considered a first token of free human creation, is transformed into a mechanical tool. In Totalitaria, words may have a seductive action, soothing or charming their hearers, but they are not allowed to have intrinsic meaning. They are conditioners, emotional triggers, serving to imprint the desired reaction patters on their hearers.
— Joost Meerloo, 1956 - The Rape of The Mind
Yep. It could establish and modulate ubiquitous and unquestionable social norms and beliefs almost instantaneously. Turnkey totalitarianism on demand.
"…but ChatGPT told me otherwise; you must be wrong…"
Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
― Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Or it's more difficult to find when searched...
The spokespersons of unitary tolerance are always prepared to turn intolerantly against any group which does not fit in: the obstinate enthusiasm for blacks meshes seamlessly with the outrage over obnoxious Jews. The “melting pot” was an institution of free-wheeling industrial capitalism. The thought of landing in it conjures up martyrdom, not democracy.
The usual argument of tolerance, that all human beings, all races are equal, is a boomerang. It opens itself up to easy rebuttal by the senses, and even the most compelling anthropological evidence for the fact that Jews are not a race at all, will in the case of a pogrom hardly change anything at all, since the totalitarians know very well who they want to kill and who not.
— Father of Critical Theory, Theodor Adorno, Jewish exile, From his 1951 book entitled "Minima Moralia"
(17) Let us suppose that a certain individual shows no inclination whatever to recognize his [or her] projections. The projection-making factor then has a free hand and can realize its object—if it has one—or bring about some other situation characteristic of its power. As we know, it is not the conscious subject but the unconscious which does the projecting. Hence one meets with projections, one does not make them. The effect of projection is to isolate the subject from his environment, since instead of a real relation to it there is now only an illusory one. Projections change the world into the replica of one's own unknown face. In the last analysis, therefore, they lead to an autoerotic or autistic condition in which one dreams a world whose reality remains forever unattainable. The resultant sentiment d'incompletude and the still worse feeling of sterility are in their turn explained by projection as the malevolence of the environment, and by means of this vicious circle the isolation is intensified. The more projections are thrust in between the subject and the environment, the harder it is for the ego to see through its illusions. A forty-five-year-old patient who had suffered from a compulsion neurosis since he was twenty and had become completely cut off from the world once said to me: "But I can never admit to myself that I've wasted the best twenty-five years of my life!"
(31) In both its positive and its negative aspects the anima/animus relationship is always full of "animosity," i.e., it is emotional, and hence collective. Affects lower the level of the relationship and bring it closer to the common instinctual basis, which no longer has anything individual about it. Very often the relationship runs its course heedless of its human performers, who afterwards do not know what happened to them.
(32) Whereas the cloud of "animosity" surrounding the man is composed chiefly of sentimentality and resentment, in woman it expresses itself in the form of opinionated views, interpretations, insinuations, and misconstructions, which all have the purpose (sometimes attained) of severing the relation between two human beings. The woman, like the man, becomes wrapped in a veil of illusions by her demon-familiar, and, as the daughter who alone understands her father (that is, is eternally right in everything), she is translated to the land of sheep, where she is put to graze by the shepherd of her soul, the animus.
(35) … Indeed, it seems a very natural state of affairs for men to have irrational moods and women irrational opinions. Presumably this situation is grounded on instinct and must remain as it is to ensure that the Empedoclean game of the hate and love of the elements shall continue for all eternity. Nature is conservative and does not easily allow her courses to be altered; she defends in the most stubborn way the inviolability of the preserves where anima and animus roam. ...
— Carl Jung, "Aion," 1959
- Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists’ hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.
— Professor Theodore Kaczynski, PhD, 1967 winner of the Sumner B. Myers Prize for Michigan's best mathematics dissertation of the year
Joke's on them, I only use Cisinformation and Indifference Speech.
Bill Hicks was right about marketers.
Yes.
From Henry Murray's Wiki:
During World War II, he left Harvard and worked as lieutenant colonel for the Office of Strategic Services (OSS). James Miller, in charge of the selection of secret agents at the OSS during World War II, said the situation test was used by British War Officer Selection Board and OSS to assess potential agents.
OSS was the precursor to the CIA.
- Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists’ hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.
— Professor Theodore Kaczynski, PhD, 1967 winner of the Sumner B. Myers Prize for Michigan's best mathematics dissertation of the year
Random background information:
In his second year at Harvard, Kaczynski participated in a study described by author Alston Chase as a "purposely brutalizing psychological experiment" led by Harvard psychologist Henry Murray. Subjects were told they would debate personal philosophy with a fellow student and were asked to write essays detailing their personal beliefs and aspirations. The essays were given to an anonymous individual who would confront and belittle the subject in what Murray himself called "vehement, sweeping, and personally abusive" attacks, using the content of the essays as ammunition. Electrodes monitored the subject's physiological reactions. These encounters were filmed, and subjects' expressions of anger and rage were later played back to them repeatedly. The experiment lasted three years, with someone verbally abusing and humiliating Kaczynski each week. Kaczynski spent 200 hours as part of the study.
Quite illuminating that indoctrination of girls is more pressing than impeding whatsoever the desecration of boys.
It's a perfect answer to the question: "How do we maximally fuck things up?"
How could we have made a better drug to
cover uphelp him cope with what was being done to him?
It’s really very funny. Behind this entire leftward Western-American movement to empower the poor, women, minorities, homosexuals, and other downtrodden folk, in effect, pushing the whole thing forward, there lies hidden and obscured this primal issue of male pride among a conquered people. Feminists who have inherited the Lockean denial of biological nature that underpins the original theory of liberal democracy are, in effect, perpetuating the victory of this medieval Anglo-Saxon patriarchal pride that refuses to see in themselves a defeated people.
America has inherited this stubborn refusal to connect the origins of democratic revolution to this medieval emasculation. The Anglo-Saxon men have so often preferred to see themselves as Protestants, “individuals,” liberals; anything but the descendants of a defeated and conquered nation. In short, they refuse to admit their weakness. Just like a man.
Anglo-Saxon femocracy took its first step with the castration of the Anglo-Saxon military-aristocracy by the Normans. The failure of the native Anglo-Saxon patriarchy, along with the influence of Christianity, is sociobiological ground upon which Anglo-American feminists stand. The weakness of these men is the political foundation of these women’s strength. It the slain beast upon which these women stand victoriously, as if they had hunted down and slain it themselves. The feminists are scavengers and gatherers.
Herein lays the general truth of female equality: females can aspire to be the equivalent of emasculated men. The feminine moral and legal norms and values of the West are the condition of Western feminism. Only within such norms is it conceivable that there be a normative expectation that women should rise to positions of political power. Sexual equalizing means that men must be emasculated in some way before women can be masculinized. This is the foundation of its common gender ground and its justice.
Feminists are good rebels, obedient to the spirit of 1776 that the feministic founders fathered for them. The failure of Anglo-Saxon political patriarchy is the foundation of political equality that leads not only to the rights of women, homosexuals, and minorities, but also to animals rights, right down to the time when we progress to the equality of mice and men.
The English “class” system originated as a de facto ethnic-kinship classification system and individual feminism continues this same rebellion against a hereditary division of labor, a universalization of the Anglo-Saxon perception of false classification. The Anglo-Saxon male pride that refused to admit the feminine nature of their democracy provided the political ground for individuals of the female sex to reject their own feminine nature. Anglo-Saxon femocrats and individual feminists have converged in the attempt to reject, weaken, or reinterpret the evolutionary origins of sociobiological difference.
Anglo-Saxons are heirs of forefathers who failed in their duty to defend the borders of their gene pool and their native culture. From their forefathers, the Anglo-Saxons inherited the failure to defend the collective integrity of their nation. From partial adaptation to this failure stemmed an Anglo-Saxon tradition of liberal openness that is now the pride of America.
From the American inheritance of the failure of Anglo-Saxon political patriarchy evolved the further deconstruction of familial patriarchy. Liberation of women fulfills Anglo-Saxon loss of sociobiological self-control, which ultimately means loss of control over gene propagation; loss of control over biological evolution itself. But this is comprehensible only to those who do not close their minds to the application of biological evolution to human societies.
— Mitchell Heisman, 2010
Although all becomings are already molecular, including becoming-woman, it must be said that all becomings begin with and pass through becoming-woman. It is the key to all the other becomings. When the man of war disguises himself as a woman, flees disguised as a girl, hides as a girl, it is not a shameful, transitory incident in his life. To hide, to camouflage oneself, is a warrior function, and the line of flight attracts the enemy, traverses something and puts what it traverses to flight; the warrior arises in the infinity of a line of flight. Although the femininity of the man of war is not accidental, it should not be thought of as structural, or regulated by a correspondence of relations. It is difficult to see how the correspondence between the two relations "man-war" and "woman-marriage" could entail an equivalence between the warrior and the girl as a woman who refuses to marry. It is just as difficult to see how the general bisexuality, or even homosexuality, of military societies could explain this phenomenon, which is no more imitative than it is structural, representing instead an essential anomie of the man of war.
The rites of transvestism or female impersonation in primitive societies in which a man becomes a woman are not explainable by a social organization that places the given relations in correspondence, or by a psychic organization that makes the woman desire to become a man just as the man desires to become a woman. Social structure and psychic identification leave too many special factors unaccounted for: the linkage, unleashing, and communication of the becomings triggered by the transvestite; the power (puissance) of the resultant becoming-animal; and above all the participation of these becomings in a specific war machine.
— Deleuze & Guattari - A Thousand Plateaus, 1987
A social contagion can become cover for a strategic operation. It is a tactic that is older than the Bible.
If one can derail a man's most primal desires towards something absurd, couldn't you reroute it for a more strategic purpose?
They do what they do because they don't believe in redemption.
It is why kompromat is so useful and why they hate Christianity and the saving grace of Jesus Christ.
As soon as politicians have learnt to buy political support from the ‘public purse’, and conditioned electorates to embrace looting and bribery, the democratic process reduces itself to the formation of (Mancur Olson’s) ‘distributional coalitions’ – electoral majorities mortared together by common interest in a collectively advantageous pattern of theft.
― Nick Land
— Muammar Gaddafi (1942-2011), 64th UN General Assembly, 2009