Dispersing the Fog: Removing the Mask | Chapter One: The History of the United States Foreign Policy and Petrodollar

Discussion in 'Politics' started by The Architect, Jan 23, 2014.

  1. #1 The Architect, Jan 23, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 24, 2014
    Dear Grasscity Tokers,
     
    This is my first draft of the first chapter for an essay I'm producing. Attack it, or compliment it. Thank you.
     
    Sincerely Yours,
    The Architect (D.V.)
     
     
     
    Dispersing the Fog: Removing the Mask
    Chapter One: The History of the United States Foreign Policy and Petrodollar
     ​
     ​
     ​
              The masses are on their way to realizing the government's true goals are not in alignment to the wellbeing and prosperity of the American people or humanity in general. When peering at the current path of the United States's foreign policy, one would be at a loss when attempting to assess such choices with tools based on the propaganda fed to the population at school and through the mainstream media or even what is being presented by many in the alternative medias. However, by studying the untaught history of America and the empires which preceded her, the actual motives of the powers that be start to reveal themselves.
     
              After the destruction caused by the Second World War, the newly established United Nations decided on the dollar as the world reserve currency. Known as the Bretton Woods agreement of 1945, this meant that international commodities were now priced exclusively in dollars, providing the United States with a considerable financial advantage. This agreement was made under the pretext that every ounce of gold would be redeemable for a flat rate of $35. This was foolish for although the United States guaranteed not to print too many dollars, the Federal Reserve was in complete control of the U.S. Mint, and refused to allow any audits or supervision of its printing presses.
     
              During the years of the Cold War, the excessive spending in Korea and especially Vietnam made it obvious to many countries that the United States (or more preferably the Federal Reserve) was printing far more money than it had in gold. Inevitably, one by one countries began to ask for their gold to be returned to them, setting off a rapid decline in the value of the dollar. This climaxed when France attempted to recall its gold from the Federal Reserve in 1971, and President Richard Nixon refused. This was to be a temporary suspension, however in later years it became clear that it was not a temporary suspension as he claimed, but rather a permanent default… or outright thievery.
     
              With the understanding that he had upset many nations and allies, President Nixon realized he must strengthen the backings of the dollar by gaining more financial allies. Two years later, Nixon struck a deal with King Faisal to provide military protection for his oil fields in exchange for Saudi Arabia to only accept dollars as payment for oil, investing all additional profits in U.S. Treasury notes, bills and bonds. By 1975, every member of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (or OPEC) had agreed to sell their oil exclusively in dollars. From that point on, any country who wished to import foreign oil was required to maintain a constant supply of U.S. dollars. However, in order to obtain that paper, they would be forced to ship real, physical goods to the United States. By transferring paper dollars to foreign countries in exchange for everything America needed, the United States flourished, becoming incredibly wealthy. Nearing the end of the Cold War, the petrodollar gave the United States the power to surpass every country in the world in military spending, combined. It also allowed for the construction and continuous funding of the most powerful military in the world… even today. Against these odds, it is safe to say the Soviet Union never had a chance.
     
              In June of 1991, the Warsaw Pact disintegrated, marking the end of the communist bloc in eastern Europe. The Soviet Union finally collapsed on the 29th of December, 1991 when leaders of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus signed the Treaty of Belavezha Accords. This formally removed the last resistance to american military might, leaving the United States as an undisputed superpower, with no rival. It was finally possible for the United States to forge a new era of peace and stability, but unfortunately there were those in high places who possessed other ideas. Within that same year, Operation Desert Storm was executed, crushing the Iraqi military and obliterating their infrastructure (including water-purification plants and hospitals). After the dust settled, President George H.W. Bush initiated debilitating sanctions upon the Iraqi population, preventing their infrastructure from being rebuilt. This lasted for over ten years and was estimated to have murdered over five hundred thousand children (more than the children who died in Hiroshima), with the Clinton administration fully aware of the figures. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright believed that the price was worth it…
     
              In response to this atrocity, Iraq announced its plans to begin selling its oil entirely in Euros. This took effect November of 2000 and was a direct attack on the Federal Reserve's financial dominance. The government of the United States, with the assistance from the mainstream media, fabricated a massive propaganda campaign against Iraq claiming that they had acquired weapons of mass destruction and were planning to use them. Using a convenient terrorist attack on the World Trade Center as an excuse for invasion, the United States toppled the Iraqi government, and once they had achieved full control of the country, oil sales were switched back to dollars by the newly established Central Bank of Iraq (which clearly was irrational without taking the petrodollar into account, for by switching to the dollar meant at least a 15-20% loss in revenue).
     
              By evaluating the events of the last couple years, it is possible to construct a pattern out of what seems like complete chaos. Gaddafi was attempting to organize a series of African countries around Libya in order to create a gold-based currency intended to replace the dollar in that region called the Dinar. By again using the media to produce lies about Libya, such as Gaddafi's plans to commit mass genocide in Tripoli, viagra fueled mass rape, the importation of african mercenaries, or even the myth about Gaddafi “bombing his own people”, the United States was able to produce international support for the intervention in Libya and the execution of Gaddafi in cold blood by U.S. armed rebells in 2011. Following these events, the United States immediately set up the Libyan Central Bank. 
     
             Since the first Gulf War, Iran has been campaigning to unbind oil sales from the dollar. Recently, Iran has finalized agreements allowing the sale of oil in exchange for gold. Again, in response, the government of the United States with the assistance of the media has been pursuing the goal of building international support for military intervention against Iran on the pretext of preventing them from building a nuclear weapon, even though Iran hasn't attacked a single country since 1798. Meanwhile, the United States has set up more sanctions against Iran and openly admits their intentions to cause a collapse of the Iranian economy. Also, the destabilization of Iran's defensive ally, Syria, is underway. Although both China and Russia have warned the United States of the consequences of getting involved with Syria, the White House has released many statements indicating their intentions of military intervention if a diplomatic conclusion cannot be agreed upon. Just as it was with Iraq and Libya, military intervention in Syria is inevitable. Working with foreign countries on a diplomatic solution is only to provide the correct context giving them the diplomatic cover to follow their plans. When looking at the actions of the United States in the right light, the motives driving the invasions and interventions become much more clear.
     
              The powers that control the Federal Reserve understand that if countries start selling their oil in any other currency, their precious dollar will collapse. If this were to occur, there would be no structure supporting the value of the dollar besides the dwindling petrodollar, but rather than allowing the dollar reach the end of its lifespan, the powers that be have concluded to use the mightiest military on the planet to destroy all resistance in the Middle East and Africa. Following this logic, it is safe to surmise the end will not arrive with the dissolution of Iran. Both Russia and China have publicly stated a zero tolerance policy for an attack on either Iran or Syria. This is because Iran is one of the last independent oil producers in the region and a key ally. They know that if Iran permanently falls to the petrodollar, the only way to escape the dollar would be to wage war against the United States. Regardless the U.S. continues on its current trajectory, despite the warnings, leading straight to yet another clash of great powers, but this time on the grandest of scales.
     
              The plan to sustain the dollar was drawn out decades ago, by those fully aware of the blood consequence, but who? Not the President, the commands to invade the Middle East and Africa were given long before the Bushs, Clinton or Obama had had their times in the international spotlight, ergo they're just following orders the same as those who preceded them. The best possible way to answer this question would be to follow the paper trail, or rather, to investigate who benefits from a global conflict. Throughout history the bankers have had the financial power to back both sides of a battle, war, or even recent global conflicts such as World Wars I & II. So it would be reasonable to conclude that those who possess the authority to produce the dollar out of thin air would have the most to lose if it were to fail. Since 1913, that power has been officially held by the Federal Reserve, a private entity owned by the most powerful bankers in the world. The bankers are the ones who plan the destruction of empires.
     
              If you don't educate yourself against the propaganda being fed to you by the bankers through the media and government, your efforts for a violent resistance when the time comes will be futile. When Hitler removed the guns from the people, and later when the Nazi's began dragging people out of their homes in Germany, Austria, France, Czechoslovakia, and all across Europe, it was the time to fight back physically. Although, due to the lack of ideological resistance, even an armed uprising would have likely failed. It can only succeed once the mind has broken free of the ignorance imposed by the mainstream media. The United States prides itself on being the land of the free and the home of the brave, but recently reports of peaceful protests being checked by armed officers “just following orders” and refusals to print true news in the media (the censorship of free-speech) has diminished the sense of freedom.
     
              The only remaining beacon of freedom left is the digital world on the internet, and  the Council on Foreign Relations plans to have it censored by the end of 2014. Wikileaks had provided us with a short period of utter truth about our government. The sacrifices of Chelsea Manning and what our government did to him cannot be ignored. The goal of the mainstream media is to keep the masses in a fearful state, allowing the government to chip away at the personal freedoms our founding fathers provided us with in exchange for security. As Benjamin Franklin once said, “He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.”
     
     
    Chapter Two: The History of The Middle East and The Caliphate | Coming Soon...

     
  2. Good job my man. bat mobile
     
  3. Didnt read the whole thing but if you want this to be taken seriously you need to hide the bias a little bit and let facts speak for themselves
     
  4. Didn't read it but says let facts speak for themselves. ..Lmao that's a good one. Why don't you tell him where his based views manifest themselves in his paper in a negative way? He clearly stated his opinions backed by history and current events. He shows how these events could lead you into recognizing why we are at constant war with middle east. He shows the correlation between banking, fiat money and war. It seems to me that when the facts point towards and paint a bad picture about our monetary policy you dismiss it as biased. bat mobile
     
  5. You should really lookup the different definitions of bias before you come off like a dick.If this is meant to be at all educational and not just some dudes rant on why the world is corrupt, you have to make the wording less apparent that the writer is on either side.....otherwise its just as much as much propaganda as any other literature
     
  6. #6 The Architect, Jan 25, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 25, 2014
     
    Although I respect your opinion, I'm not entirely sure what your intentions are when remarking my work as biased. Of course it is biased, every form of political literature can be seen that way when observed from a specific perspective. My goal in writing this chapter of my essay is to persuade the reader to form their own ideas based on the information presented to them. I don't mind you attacking my writing, however I would appreciate it if you would clarify to me exactly what you believe I fell short on. I completely agree that when editing I should remove "rants" from the text... sometimes when writing I get caught up in the moment.
     
    Regardless of your opposition, thank you for your feedback I truly appreciate it.
     
  7. I didnt mean that in a negative way at all, bias, in this sense, just means that the writer is clearly taking a side of the "argument" in a purely factual text. You understood what im saying that with this kind of idea you want to lay the facts and allow the reader to come to their own conclusion, but if your wording makes it apparent you lean one way, the reader is more than likely going to lean that way as well.
     
  8. [quote name="STilladelph" post="19400470" timestamp="1390606317"]I didnt mean that in a negative way at all, bias, in this sense, just means that the writer is clearly taking a side of the "argument" in a purely factual text. You understood what im saying that with this kind of idea you want to lay the facts and allow the reader to come to their own conclusion, but if your wording makes it apparent you lean one way, the reader is more than likely going to lean that way as well.[/quote]did you read the whole thing yet? bat mobile
     
  9. "So it would be reasonable to conclude that those who possess the authority..." "If you don't educate yourself against the propaganda being fed to you by the bankers through the media and government, your efforts for a violent resistance when the time comes will be futile."".....Although, due to the lack of ideological resistance, even an armed uprising would have likely failed.""...once the mind has broken free of the ignorance imposed by the mainstream media. "....checked by armed officers “just following orders” and refusals to print true news in the media (the censorship of free-speech) has diminished the sense of freedom."The goal of the mainstream media is to keep the masses in a fearful state, allowing the government to chip away at the personal freedoms our founding fathers provided us with in exchange for security. As Benjamin Franklin once said, “He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."Just a few for example...
     

Share This Page