Truth About Middle East is Spreading
Zero Hedge has published an article, "Are The Middle East Wars Really About Forcing the World Into Dollars and Private Central Banking?" that mentions my theory that Muammar Gaddafi was overthrown because he wanted to set up a private gold-currency in Africa. You can see my article here: Gaddafi Planned Gold Dinar, Now Under Attack.
I don't want to give the idea, however, that Western powers-that-be were galvanized into action ONLY because of Gaddafi's gold currency idea. Here at DB, we regularly discuss a wide range of strategic plans that the elites seem to be putting into place in order to advance what is commonly known as a New World Order. In this article, I want to touch on some of these again.
Certainly, Gaddafi's idea probably provoked anger in the halls of Western power. As I wrote previously, the idea, according to Gaddafi, was that African and Muslim nations would join together to create this new currency and would use it to purchase oil and other resources in exclusion of the dollar and other currencies.
I was interviewed by the news service RT, and they called it "an idea that would shift the economic balance of the world." You can see my interview here: Real Cause for Gaddafi's Expulsion: Wanted Gold Currency?
It was a feasible plan, in my view. Gaddafi held some 144 tons of gold that he could have used to back a gold dinar, at least partially. Currently, I know of NO "mainstream" currency in the world that is backed by metals, either silver or gold. Less than 150 years ago money was considered to be gold or silver so we can see how quickly things change.
Iraq's Saddam Hussein, too, may have incurred the wrath of the Anglosphere power elite that is evidently and obviously behind the world's current financial system. Once he announced Iraqi oil would be traded in euros, not dollars, his fate was sealed, according to many alternative news sources.
In order to grant credibility to the above theories one needs to believe that the Anglosphere power elite is dedicated to defending the dollar's dominance. In fact, the world remains dollar driven and the dollar remains a fount of Western power. So the idea that Western powers-that-be would defend the dollar is not a far-fetched scenario.
The dollar is even referred to as the world's "reserve currency." And this did not happen accidentally but through the most determined kind of power politics. Saudi Arabia is the key to the dollar's pricing power. It is the famous Saud family (House of Saud) that refuses to sell their oil for anything other than dollars.
The Saud family is intimately tied into the Anglosphere power elite; the House of Saud is propped up by the West – militarily and otherwise – and in return, the world's largest producer of oil, and the controller of its marginal price points, props up the dollar.
The arrangement is perhaps a convincing argument, by the way, against Peak Oil theories. What are the chances that Saudi Arabia just happens to be the Anglosphere's biggest producer of oil in the Middle East and also the West's strongest ally?
Isn't it more reasonable to conclude that Western powers-that-be have RESTRICTED oil discovery and production around the world? Famously, according to a statement by one of the Forbes brothers last year, there is enough oil in the mainland United States to furnish energy for the next 1,000 years. That doesn't even include natural gas (which is still flared off) and coal.
The world is likely drowning in energy. The scarcities that people fear are generated by the power elite's dominant social themes – the fear-based promotions that are intended to frighten people into giving up power and wealth to globalist facilities such as the UN, IMF and World Bank.
What this seems to tell us, however, is that there is a bigger game afoot. Let's go through them one by one to see if we can determine the true reasons why Western powers have been so aggressive of late in the Middle East and Northern Africa.
There is, of course, the idea that the US and NATO are fighting in the Middle East for strategic resources and military-intel advantages against Russia and China. The idea is that the "great game" is once again afoot and that the West is repositioning itself both defensively and offensively to gain maximum flexibility and power over potential adversaries.
A second idea, and one mentioned in the Zero Hedge article referred to above, is that the powers-that-be – the "banksters" running much of the West's military machine – are intent on taking various public central banks and replacing them with private ones. The idea is that the Federal Reserve and other such central banks are actually private enterprises and that what the powers-that-be truly fear is the ability of citizen-led governments to print their own paper money.
Finally, there is a theory that has been advanced that we have offered in the past, which has to do with the establishment of a kind of Islamic "crescent arc" in the Middle East and Upper Africa. We've written about this numerous times and you can see our articles if you do an Internet search on the terms "Islam crescent arc" and "Daily Bell."
This argument has to do with the idea that the Anglosphere seeks a wider war on terror in the Middle East and is actively aiding Islamic regimes in order to create this war. While this may sound far-fetched to some, the various regimes that have been destabilized by so-called youth movements (controlled it seems out of Foggy Bottom and Britain) are all secular. And the replacement regimes are all Islamic.
There is a great deal of turmoil and war now taking place in the Middle East and Africa. It is perfectly possible that one single explanation cannot fully encompass the strategic plans of the power elite that is evidently and obviously behind a lot of troubles there.
What does seem clear – to me anyway – is that the problems in that troubled part of the world are growing more severe rather than less. For whatever reason, or reasons, the power elite seems to want to ratchet up tensions and that determination seems stronger as time goes by.
It is a troubling phenomenon and one certainly hopes it does not lead to a truly severe and widespread conflagration. It needn't happen, although I, along with many others in the alternative blogosphere, fear it might.
Posted by Agent Weebley on 01/18/12 07:04 PM
Your example was excellent, and really made me think! I enjoy good conversation like that . . . not getting into a flap about everything, and having to take evasive maneuvres.
Money is a means to an end, not the end in itself.
And you are completely correct in that an asset can be a home or gold, or tickets to a concert, or . . . anything that may be valued by another.
I used Wiki for most of my reply to you, as I know little about planes. Since Wiki is F-104 today due to the SOPA and PIPA black-out protest, let's just leave it at that, shall we? Especially since the wind-sock is pointing directly at us now . . .
Posted by Bischoff on 01/18/12 05:52 PM
Money IS in the truest sense, a thing. It is Gold, and nothing else.
Gold can function as a means of exchange, but not in a modern economy. Therefore we have, or at least we had, "redeemable" paper currencies (Real Bills) backed by consumer goods production moving to market and redeemable in gold.
This "redeemable" paper currency bypassed the shortage of physical gold to finance goods production while it maintained the "value standard" and the "standard of measure" that is gold. Market prices are an arbitrage between the buyer and the seller/producer using gold (redeemable currency) as the intermediate commodity, aka Money.
Consumer goods are wealth. Services are not wealth. You can only purchase services with wealth. No production of goods (wealth), no buying of services. It's as simple as that.
(A service economy is like taking in each others laundry. If you have nothing to eat or to drink, such service economy collapses quickly.)
Posted by memehunter on 01/18/12 04:47 PM
"Money" is not in its truest sense, a "thing". It's a measure of value. For it to be a store of wealth, you have to exchange it for something you consider "wealth", which could be goods, services, or if you really have faith in it alone, then "gold", a pretty metal with a very long history as a thing that will be valued the same in the future as it is today.
Yes! This distinction between means of exchange and store of value is absolutely crucial, as is the idea that the means of exchange does not have to be a "thing" as long as it can serve as a reliable unit of account.
Posted by Molly56 on 01/18/12 11:13 AM
It's a good thing I came back today; I didn't know people continued on these debates... the elves must keep pretty busy reading these things!
The reason I set up the 737 example was to attempt to break the logjam of people thinking that "money" is incapable of being backed by anything other than gold or "nothing", i.e. "fiat". Of course the issues you bring up are valid, especially in the problem of "value" (meaning a real good or service) holding up over time. Thus your bringing up the concept of "discount". The direct barter of a 737 ownership contract is something everyone who has ever paid off a house knows about... a piece of paper comes in the mail that the bank has been holding for the day your labor's value for the past 30 years finally adds up (in defined value) to the agreed upon "value" of that piece of paper, which (supported by the legal system) is manifested by legal possession of the house. Whatever. I'm not going to hijack DB's boards by going into it further here.
I'm not an economist or a legal scholar. I'm just trying to (bluntly, perhaps) break up a frozen concept. "Money" is not in its truest sense, a "thing". It's a measure of value. For it to be a store of wealth, you have to exchange it for something you consider "wealth", which could be goods, services, or if you really have faith in it alone, then "gold", a pretty metal with a very long history as a thing that will be valued the same in the future as it is today.
Posted by taxesbyanyothername on 01/18/12 04:05 AM
I would have to call that "A" perfectly valid way of looking at the subject.
Posted by Bischoff on 01/17/12 09:35 PM
There are only two types of currency systems. One is a "redeemable" currency created by the RBD under the gold standard.
The other currency is "irredeemable" created by a central bank which monetizes dead.
That's it. All variation, different names for currency systems boil right down to either of these two. Period.
Posted by Bischoff on 01/17/12 09:30 PM
I disagree. Check out the parallel redeeamable "Rentenmark" currency created by Hjilmar (Horace) Schacht, Finance Minister during the Weimar Republik to compete with the "irredeemable", highly inflated "Reichsmark" currency. You can read up on it in "The Lords of Finance" by Liaquat Ahamed.
Posted by taxesbyanyothername on 01/17/12 12:31 AM
amanfromMars, that is pretty scary. Charlotte Iserbyt's writings are avalable as free pdf. downloads at her site.
Click to view link
The link in her site to american deception is even worse.
Posted by taxesbyanyothername on 01/16/12 11:54 PM
Technically those national currencies are competing, just not very well. Ingo you can take this as a reply to your last reply to mine. Even if a sound foreign currency were used in an everyday transaction in the U. S., conversion from any currency to another is not something most U. S. businesses are prepared to do. Neither are they set up to convert back to dollars without incuring additional costs. So even though you can compete by using FX that competition is a failure.
The idea behind competing currencies is not just that we will use alternate currencies that already exist, but that people will come up with others. Inventing one that works well might be pretty tricky. Inventing one, not so much, let your imagination run. I would like to see that article myself, here or anywhere else. Edwin Vieira's books should be some help. They are all on my wish list.
Posted by WD on 01/16/12 11:47 PM
Does anyone know what happened to Gaddafi's gold? If I remember correctly, much of it was stored in New York banks and Gaddafi had requested delivery. If this is so, I'm wondering if the war was started so the banksters could steal the gold while maintaining they delivered it to Gaddafi just before the war. Kill Gaddafi and steal the gold. The next regime would have no standing to demand it.
I would be interested in finding out where the world's physical gold is both physically and ownershipwise and how it has changed hands in the last ten years. I'd be willing to bet the banksters are accumulating it.
Posted by Agent Weebley on 01/16/12 09:08 PM
I wrote a response, but it appears it got caught in the swear word machine. I'll give it some time. I'll check it every hour, on the hour.
Click to view link
Posted by Agent Weebley on 01/16/12 07:36 PM
Thanks for the compliment. Ingo didn't get my playin' on words, it seems. Linton Kwesi Johnson is a master poet . . . you gotta listen to his words . . . taxes, slave labour and employers tossing you out the door just like that. Oh well, inglan is a bitch for true, is what we go do bout it?
We, at MetaPhoria, Eire go do sometin bout it.
But I digress . . . If you gave me a piece of paper representing a 737, I would gladly accept it. Judging by the value of ~ $1 million, it sounds like a late 70s 737-200? Have the CFM turbo-fan blades been X-rayed within the last 3 months?
But I am having trouble with your final approach on the matter: maintaining the value of the asset is only my concern when someone wants me to prove the value of my paper, which is difficult to do when I'm not in possession of the said plane, so you may as well give ME the plane and I give YOU some paper instead. Otherwise I may need to discount the paper unless you give me quarterly fitness certification paper and an arms-length revaluation; quite complicated, yes?
So if you lent me the plane, we could call it a loan? How much downdraft do you need on the deal? And how much interest would you want per year?
And using the plane's value as security on things I want to do is difficult . . . the said plane is so bulky. I would need to generate a new piece of paper in the plane's stead, so I may as well call it my "paper plane." I could take the paper-plane to a financial meeting in the plane's absence.
I could fire it across the table, hopefully not getting the potential claimant of my temporary asset in the eye . . . to really show them "I'm loaded!"
. . . on paper.
It'd be better to sell it to someone so they can fly it and make revenue instead of just being parked there like a lump. You should do that, rather than offering it to me.
Maybe just lend me the money at the Fed Discount Window interest rate . . . please?
Posted by JamesNicholas on 01/16/12 04:20 PM
The power elite's fear of gold is similar of a vampire's fear of sunlight, albeit a classical vampire at that.
Posted by chad2 on 01/16/12 02:33 PM
I'd say... Not likely. It's oil.
Posted by Molly56 on 01/16/12 01:42 PM
Oh, I forgot to mention...
This contract (which in our example we will assume to be absolutely genuine, issued by Boeing and signed with proper witnesses, etc.) with all its attachments and original signatures, weighs precisely 918 ounces.
Posted by Bischoff on 01/16/12 01:40 PM
Question is, where would people rather live... ??? In IngoLand or in the CuckooLand in which you live... .
Posted by Molly56 on 01/16/12 11:22 AM
Ah, Mr. Weebley... you are such fun...
If I offered you the following piece of paper, would you accept it, or would you wad it up and use it to start your fireplace fire on this wintery morning?
1 (ONE) Boeing 737, fully operable and equipped, ready to fly and tested, all equipment in running order (see attachments 1 through 98, ammended to this contract agreement), deliverable on or before February 12, 2012, at the Everett, WA plant... [etc, etc]
Personally, I would not discard this "worthless" piece of paper. Not having a garage big enough to hold my "good", however, I would probably take this "real bill" and exchange it to someone who did have the proper facilities to handle it--say... an airline company--and would take that "valuable consideration" (say, the president of XYZ Airlines' summer vacation home in the Bahamas)and would call it a fair exchange. This is, of course a step away from barter, and seems on the surface not much more practical, but if you think about it, this is an example of an "uninflatable" form of real currency. It's way more complex than this, but this is a start.
I will not go into more details at this time, except to say that "real goods and services" mean REAL goods and services.
Posted by amanfromMars on 01/16/12 11:03 AM
There's an interesting video on the contrived state of education assisting The Scientific Destruction of Minds For The Brave New World here, BTU ... ... Click to view link
Posted by BritishThermalUnits on 01/16/12 10:59 AM
"Isn't it more reasonable to conclude that Western powers-that-be have RESTRICTED oil discovery and production around the world? Famously, according to a statement by one of the Forbes brothers last year, there is enough oil in the mainland United States to furnish energy for the next 1,000 years."
Anthony - enjoyed your essay. Sure there may be 1000 years of crude in the US but that doesn't mean we can extract it from the earth in any kind of viable way. Read The Coming New Dark Ages. I can assure you that the major fields throughout the world are well into decline. In short - peak oil concerns are based on physical realities.
Posted by BritishThermalUnits on 01/16/12 10:51 AM
Dottie "Our education system and our politicians are bought and paid for. True conservatives need not apply for jobs in the MSM. We only THINK we are free." Exactly so but try convincing your neighbor of this.