NieMamZdaniaTwórca
12piorunówNa fb krąży ciekawy tekst firmowany profilem Roberta Kiyosakiego.
> In 2000, Saddam Hussein did something interesting.
> Started selling Iraqi oil in euros instead of dollars.
> Three years later, we invaded.
> Found no weapons of mass destruction.
> But we did find something: Iraqi oil started trading in dollars again.
> Weird coincidence.
> 2009, Gaddafi proposed a gold-backed currency for Africa. Called it the dinar.
> Would've let African countries buy oil without using dollars.
> 2011, NATO intervened in Libya for "humanitarian reasons."
> Gaddafi's dead. The gold dinar? Dead too.
> Libyan oil? Back to dollars.
> Another coincidence.
> I'm noticing a pattern.
> In 1971, Nixon killed the gold standard. Dollar backed by nothing but a promise.
> Should've collapsed immediately.
> Didn't.
> Three years later, Kissinger cut a deal with the Saudis:
> "Sell your oil only in dollars. We'll keep you in power."
> Suddenly every country on earth needs dollars to buy energy.
> That's not monetary policy. That's a protection racket.
> And it works beautifully as long as the military can enforce it.
> Russia demands rubles for gas? Sanctions and escalation.
> Syria wants a pipeline priced in euros? Civil war intensifies, pipeline never happens.
> Iran tries to sell oil outside the dollar system? Decades of sanctions.
> I'm not saying these are good or bad governments. I'm saying watch what happens when anyone threatens the petrodollar.
> The pattern isn't subtle once you see it.
> SWIFT isn't a neutral payment system. It's a weapon.
> You get cut off from SWIFT, you can't participate in global trade.
> Russia, Cuba, Iran, Venezuela—all threatened dollar dominance in some way.
> All got cut off.
> They don't teach this in school because it's uncomfortable.
> We don't send 18-year-olds to die for "freedom."
> We send them to maintain reserve currency status.
> Currency funds the military. Military protects the currency.
> Britain learned this the hard way. Pound sterling was the world's reserve currency for 200 years.
> Lost it after World War II.
> British Empire collapsed within two decades.
> Same cycle. Every empire in history.
> Dutch guilder, British pound, now the dollar.
> Ray Dalio's been screaming about this: we're in the late stage. Military overextended, currency weakening, rivals building alternatives.
> China's Belt and Road isn't about helping poor countries.
> It's about creating debt relationships denominated in yuan.
> BRICS aren't talking about a new currency because they're friends.
> They're building an exit ramp from dollar dependency.
> When the dollar loses reserve status—not if, when—the ability to print money without consequences disappears.
> Then the military contracts.
> Then the empire ends.
> You can call this cynical. I call it financial history.
> Every war in my lifetime had a currency angle if you knew where to look.
> "Freedom and democracy" is marketing.
> The actual policy documents? Those talk about "maintaining dollar liquidity in global energy markets."
> I'm not anti-military. I'm anti-bullshit.
> If we're sending people to fight, at least be honest about why.
Nie jest to osoba którą można łatwo zaszufladkować jako "świr od teorii spiskowych "
Nie jest on jedynym, który przedstawia sytuację z tej perspektywy.
Nie jest pierwszym.
Do sedna:
Dlaczego ten "marketing " o niesieniu wolności i demokracji wciąż działa?
Wiadomo, że chodzi o interesy, a nie o jakiś humanitaryzm czy inne dobroduszne pierdy. Amerykanie niewiele różnią się od ruskich pod takimi względami.
> Dlaczego ten "marketing " o niesieniu wolności i demokracji wciąż działa?
Nie licząc skrajnych przypadków, to każdy człowiek chce wierzyć, ze robi coś dobrego. Szczególnie żołnierze potrzebują solidnych bajeczek, żeby z czystym sumieniem zabijać ludzi. Reszta świata w to nie wierzy, ze USA niesie demokrację, to jest na potrzeby USAńczyków bajka.



