Nigeria — Why? Economy and The Grand Cheeseboard: Ukraine, Iran, Venezuela, Nigeria — what is really happening, in my opinion.

First, I would like to start by saying that I hope people reading this post have already read my previous one:

Whitney Webb the G.O.A.T. of deep state analysis — covering the deep state, the WEF, globalists, and neocons. If you think these people are stupid, you have already failed in your pursuit of truth.

That post is about how failing to understand our enemies makes it impossible to understand what is really happening. If you think the people who own and run our world are stupid, you will never grasp what is truly going on.

Now, let’s look at the bigger picture — the Grand Chessboard. We first need to figure out what their goal is. That part isn’t difficult, since they describe it clearly in their own documents: global hegemony and so-called “full-spectrum dominance.”

Now that we know their goal, we can ask what stands in the way of achieving it. The answer is simple: China. China threatens their global hegemony and full-spectrum dominance.

I often hear people ask why America has a problem with China, or why it cannot simply cooperate with it. This is naïve. Now that we’ve established what their goal is, we know such cooperation is impossible. Full-spectrum dominance cannot be achieved while near-peer competitors exist. Either you rule the world as a global hegemon and maintain full-spectrum dominance — or you don’t. Since we know that is their goal, we can conclude that they cannot allow near-peer competitors to exist.

Now that we understand their goal and what stands in their way, let’s think rationally about what they can do about it. But first, I’d like to address a common piece of naïve thinking often expressed, even by people like Alexander, who asked: “Why can’t America just live in a multipolar world?”

What people expressing these views fail to see is that America is a criminal, terrorist state holding a gun to the heads of all other countries, forcing them to use the USD — and it can’t stop doing it. America cannot stop being the biggest terrorist in the world. Since it dropped the gold standard in the 1970s and created the petrodollar, our economy has become one big Ponzi scheme.

Now, we could argue that this Ponzi scheme of the global economy started earlier, but in the 1970s, we still had a chance to turn it into a real economy. I’ve argued this to some people, and people often get angry and aggressively disagree with me because it completely destroys their view of reality — but in my opinion, it’s true.

Economy

Let me explain this. To do so, I will refer to an interview with Michael Hudson, who is, in my opinion, the greatest authority on economics, from a program hosted by The Duran’s friend, Glenn Diesen.

7:01

Because Europe was devastated, the United States was also in a position to dictate how the international trade and financial system was going to operate upon the return to peace. And so the United States used its power to create the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, international trade organizations, and bilateral diplomacy, basically to very quickly absorb what had been the British Empire.

The United States kept sterling afloat by lending Britain the money to balance its international payments and recover after World War II. But the condition was that Britain  opened the sterling area to allow India and other countries that had built up their sterling balances during World War II to be able to spend these balances, not limited to British industry, but to the United States.

There were a number of plans proposed by John Maynard Keynes to try to create some assurance that the postwar order wouldn't be so unbalanced that all the gold and all the power would flow to the United States. The United States rejected them and created the IMF and the World Bank basically to serve US national interests.

For instance, the World Bank was supposed to lend other countries money to develop their economies — first Europe, and then what are now the Global South countries (they were called developing countries at that time). But the World Bank policy, from World War II down to today, was not to provide loans for countries to be self-sufficient in any commodities that the United States controlled. The United States' balance of payments since World War II was based very largely on food exports as well as control of the oil industry, as we're seeing today.

There was no attempt at all by the World Bank to follow the recommendations of its own economists. The World Bank undertook a series of country studies, and every study that it did of Latin America or the Middle East said, "You have to have land reform; you have to enable farming to do in these countries what the United States did in the United States with its Agricultural Adjustment Act: very strongly organizing government support of farming to support grain, to become independent and be able to feed yourself." That was a prime aim of self-sufficiency.

Historically, the World Bank basically made loans to finance international trade dependency on the United States, and that was where the International Monetary Fund came in. The Monetary Fund applied the same self-destructive economic philosophy that the United States and Europe had followed after World War I. There was a great debate after World War I between John Maynard Keynes in England and the anti-German economists from France and from the United States saying, "Yes, the debts really are not unpayable. Any country can pay any foreign debt volume at all if it depreciates its currency to such a low point that its exports become competitive."

And in practice, the IMF's philosophy is that if countries would simply lower the cost of labor—it had a labor theory of value, as it were. If countries can impose austerity and cut back their government budgets not to run a budget deficit to pump money into the economy, then deflation and low wages will enable these countries to pay their foreign debt. That has been the policy of the International Monetary Fund ever since its foundation in 1945. And that deflationary austerity philosophy has been largely responsible for preventing the Global South countries and Middle Eastern and Asian countries from being able to finance themselves at the same time that they have to pay foreign debts—the loans that they had to undertake in order to finance their trade deficits with the United States since World War II.

As these trade deficits have grown and grown, countries scrambled to obtain the dollars, and in effect, that meant the gold to pay the debts that they had to pay, putting the interest of foreign creditors (the United States government above all, but also United States bondholders and banks) above their own domestic development.

Well, you can imagine what happened to threaten this dynamic that the United States had put in place: essentially to make itself the beneficiary of the division of labor and the specialization of production between the United States as the leading industrial nation and other countries as suppliers of raw materials to it and low-wage manufacturers. There was a kind of dual economy structure: one economy for the United States (and to a lesser extent Europe) and the other economy for the Global South countries and countries that were not self-sufficient.

What ended all of this started in 1950–51 with the Korean War. Between the end of World War II, between 1945 and 1950, the United States gold stock had actually increased to 80% of the world's monetary gold. Now that meant that the United States, owning gold, and the insistence that all currencies of the major countries be defined in terms of gold, gave the United States an overwhelming financial power.

In 1950, for the first time, the United States moved into a balance of payments deficit as a result of its military spending connected to the Korean War. And from the 1950s on, right down through the end of the 1970s, the United States moved into a balance of payments deficit that was settled by having to pay gold to the countries that were receiving the dollars that the United States was throwing off. And the entire deficit was a result of military spending.

I worked first for the Chase Manhattan Bank as their balance of payments analyst and then for Arthur Anderson, the accounting firm, analyzing the US balance of payments, showing that the entire deficit was military in character.

Well, you can imagine what happened during the Vietnam War of the late 1960s. When I was at Chase, every Friday morning we would look at the Federal Reserve reporting of, "What is the US gold stock doing this week? How much gold did America have to send to France?" When General De Gaulle was receiving the dollars that America was throwing off in what had been French Indo-China (Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos), these dollars were all sent to France and were cashed in for gold by France. Germany was also obtaining a lot of dollars that other countries receiving the American military spending were spending on German industrial exports.

So we would watch week by week the claims on the American gold stock rising, and it was obvious that if America's Cold War spending continued at the rate it was going, at some point it would run out of enough gold that was needed to legally cover the US paper currency. Every dollar prior to 1971 had to be backed 25% by the gold supply.

By 1971, President Nixon realized that this was no longer the case. He closed the gold window and said, "We cannot afford to pay the cost of our military spending in Asia and throughout the whole world in gold anymore." There was some panic within the United States government.

Almost to the month, a year after the United States went off gold in August 1971, my Superimperialism was published, I think in August/September 1972. And I'm told that the largest purchasers were the CIA and the Defense Department, who bought it through the Washington bookstores. My friends at Drexel Burnham, the investment bankers, came to me and said, "Look, what are you doing in academia? We're going to invite you to address our annual meeting. Herman Kahn will be there. He's going to love your presentation and offer you a job; accept it, leave academia."

Indeed, I explained to them that the ending of America's payment in gold did not have to mean the end of American power — just the opposite. Once foreign countries no longer could use their dollars to spend on US gold, they had only one practical choice given the arrangement of international financial diplomacy at the time. What did they use their dollars for? They bought the safest investment there was: US Treasury securities—Treasury bonds, Treasury bills.

And so what happened was that as the United States spent military money abroad, the recipients turned their dollars over to their central banks for their own local currency. The central banks invested these dollars in US Treasury securities, and that financed not only the foreign military spending by the United States, but it also financed the budget deficit that within the United States was primarily military in character: the military-industrial complex.

I pointed out that what had happened was that, instead of being a disaster by ending the United States' control of the world economy through its gold supply, other countries really had no alternative but to have their own central banks themselves finance US military spending (domestically and foreign) by recycling their dollars.

Herman Kahn hired me. I went to work for the Hudson Institute. He said, "Why are you hoping that your classes of maybe 50 graduate students at The New School are going to end up — maybe somebody's going to be a senator or something later? If you join the Hudson Institute, I'll take you to the White House and introduce you, and we'll get a contract, and you'll become a government adviser in all this." It seemed to make sense.

So the Defense Department gave the Hudson Institute an $85,000 grant (much more than I'd gotten as an advance for Superimperialism) for me to go back and forth to the War College and to the White House and other venues to explain what I just said: that the US dollar standard, which I called the Treasury Bill Standard of international finance, had replaced the gold standard, and that essentially locked other countries into the financial support of American spending abroad, and that going off gold essentially removed the limit on military spending.

I gave one talk at the White House to Treasury officials with Herman Kahn, and we said, "Gold is — you can think of it as the peaceful metal—because if other countries have to pay their balance of payments deficits in gold, any country waging war, any country entailing a very major military expenditure abroad (and to fight a war always entails running a big deficit) is going to have to run out of gold and lose its power in a system that's based on gold."

Immediately, the Treasury people said, "Oh, we don't want that. We don't want gold to play a role in any system that the United States cannot control, and we can't control gold outflows if we have to convert our dollars into gold."

So, actually, to deprive other countries of any ability to cash in their dollars for gold meant they had been co-opted into a financial system. And it's at that point that America truly became an empire because the entire world's financial system—and therefore its tax system, its fiscal system, its money creation—was basically directed by the US Treasury to finance the costs of what America claimed were the needs of its empire in creating its 800 military bases all over the world and in waging the wars that it has been fighting since the 1970s.

Until this year, other countries were willing to be part of this system because the facts of geopolitics led them to support US military spending, but also because there wasn't an alternative.

Today, with President Trump's budget that he and the Republicans have sent to Congress, the American debt (domestic debt) has been so great, and its foreign debt (the foreign central banks and the foreign investors, including private quasi-government funds such as Saudi Arabia and Norway) have realized that the foreign debt that central banks hold, which was supposed to be as good as gold and the safest asset to buy, cannot be paid. There is no way that the United States can, would, or is willing to somehow pay the amount of money that other countries hold as loans to the United States (mainly Treasury bills, but also US agencies — Fannie Mae, government agencies — which pay a little bit more than the Treasury, and even corporate securities such as Saudi Arabia and Norway hold).

There's no way that America is willing to pay these debts either by exporting because it's de-industrialized and isn't running an export surplus anymore, or by selling off its industry to foreign buyers. The United States, until this year, has said that if foreign countries could not finance their balance of payments deficits, they had to do so by privatizing their public utilities, selling off their infrastructure to foreigners, selling off their mineral rights, selling off their land to foreign investors. The United States is not willing to do what it has insisted that other countries do as the basis of the world trade and investment that it has created.

So other countries realize this double standard: they're really not getting savings that can be converted into ownership of US industry or agriculture or infrastructure or anything else; they're just paper dollars. And so, for the first time, you're having a move to seek an alternative to the US dollar.

The only alternative so far that people can agree upon is gold. When Herman Kahn and I went to the White House in 1973, Herman drew a map of the world. And there was a map of countries that trusted governments (Northern Europe, Europe as a whole, the United States, the English-speaking countries) and countries whose populations did not trust governments (you could call them the global majority; most people didn't). Then he had countries that supported commodity money (gold). These were countries like India, Asia, Global South countries. They wanted something secure, not an IOU. The countries that trusted paper money were Northern Europe and the English-speaking countries.

So you have this faith in paper money that is a debt, and that was the principle on which America began to accumulate gold after World War I. But the United States, certainly the current budget that is before Congress, is saying, "Well, yes, a debt is a debt on the balance sheet. Yes, on the balance sheet we owe foreign countries more money than there's any way we can see can be repaid, but that's it. It's a debt that never will be repaid." It's as if you went to the grocery store and tried to pay with an IOU, and the grocery store would say, "Well, you've run up quite a tab in the last week; you know, you've got to pay." And the customer will say, "Well, I can't pay. But you can use this debt  — maybe you can give this IOU to the farm that's giving you the eggs and the dairy or the vegetables that you're selling, and somehow if only this IOU could be circulated as a claim on the customer, then it would be technically a debt."

A lot of the financial system and the world financial system is now based on that kind of debt, one where there's no ability to pay it behind it. And that is what has become the key, you could say, to the American empire because it's the key to America's ability to spend abroad and be the first nation in history that does not have to pay its war debts or other debts that it has run up to foreign countries. That's the double standard that America has been able to achieve to make it the unique nation, or the indispensable nation.

And that is why right now other countries are buying gold (and you can see the gold price going up), and why they're trying to realize, "Well, we can't spend all of our dollar holdings on gold. Isn't there some way we can create an alternative paper currency owed by other countries?" Well, you have the BRICS talking about that, and you really can't have such a currency by other countries because to issue a currency you need a parliament to say, "Well, who's going to get the benefit of this currency? And if you issue the currency, what's it going to be spent on? Who's going to spend it?" You'd have to have something like a real Europe deciding who's going to get the result of Euros that are being created. Except, the United States created the Eurozone in a way that it really can't run enough of a deficit to recover from the downturn that it's now been forced into. So the world is in a quandary, and that's what my Superimperialism is all about, and I've tried to update it to the present, but that's the basic theme.

Sorry for such a long quote, but in my opinion, it’s one of the best descriptions of economic history, which is important to understand what is happening and why America can’t simply exist in a multipolar world. Especially this allegory about the shopkeeper:
“
It's as if you went to the grocery store and tried to pay with an IOU, and the grocery store would say, "Well, you've run up quite a tab in the last week; you know, you've got to pay." And the customer will say, "Well, I can't pay. But you can use this debt — maybe you can give this IOU to the farm that's giving you the eggs and the dairy or the vegetables that you're selling, and somehow if only this IOU could be circulated as a claim on the customer, then it would be technically a debt."
“
This is basically our Ponzi scheme economy right now, and this allegory makes it easier for people to understand. The USD circulates around the world based on debt that will never be paid, serving as currency. The issue is that no one would normally accept such a situation as described in this allegory. No shopkeeper would accept an IOU that would never be paid back for their products. That’s why America needs to hold guns to the heads of other countries to make sure they accept this unpayable IOU.

In the 70s, we had the opportunity to stop this Ponzi scheme economy and turn it into a real economy when America dropped its gold standard. But let’s first describe how the system worked before the 70s and the dropping of the gold standard. People think America was rich because it had the best economy, which is complete nonsense. It had one of the worst economies in the world, and it was rich because the whole economic system designed at Bretton Woods was made to benefit America.

To explain it, we first need to explain inflation. Let’s do it in simple small numbers to make it easy to understand. How inflation works: you have circulation of currency — let’s say, for example, Deutsche Marks. Let’s say we have 1000 Deutsche Marks circulating in the German economy, and let’s say Germany’s economy grows 10%, which greatly increases demand for Deutsche Marks since there are more products circulating in the economy with the same amount of currency, which creates deflationary pressure on the currency. Now, if Germany does not increase the supply of Deutsche Marks, you will have deflation — so strengthening of the currency — and you’ll be able to buy more with a Deutsche Mark than before.

To prevent deflation, Germany can increase the supply of Deutsche Marks by the amount of increased demand. So if Germany prints 100 Deutsche Marks (10% of the total supply) and the demand also increases by 10%, there will be neither deflation nor inflation. But if Germany increases supply more than demand — say, the economy grows 10% and demand grows 10%, but Germany prints 200 Marks (20% of total supply) — then you get inflation. This is basically how inflation, deflation, and monetary supply work.

That’s why, when you have inflation caused by a bigger supply of currency than demand, they want to increase interest rates to reduce the supply of currency. It’s basically the opposite of printing money, to balance supply and demand.

Now, understanding these basics, let’s look at America and what happens when you have the reserve currency of the world. In the case of Germany, if the economy grows 10%, Germany can increase its currency supply 10% to prevent deflation. In the case of a global reserve currency like the American USD, if America grows 10%, it can also increase its currency supply 10% to prevent deflation — but that won’t be enough to balance supply and demand.

Since if you have a reserve currency like USD, all central banks around the world are holding about 50% of their monetary reserves in your currency, that creates an external deflationary effect. Let’s use Germany again: let’s say it holds 2000 USD worth of currency in its central bank as reserves, half in USD and half in other currencies. Now let’s assume Germany’s economy grows 10%, and it also wants to increase its currency reserves 10% — from 2000 to 2200 — with half of that in USD. This creates external deflationary pressure on the USD supply and demand equation.

So if America has 10,000 USD circulating in its economy and grows 10%, normally it would increase supply by 1000 USD to prevent deflation. But because other countries like Germany are also increasing their demand for USD reserves, America must print not only 1000 USD for its own growth but also another 100 USD to meet German Central Bank demand. These numbers are simplistic, but they help show that because of the USD’s reserve currency status, America could increase supply based not only on its own growth but also on the growth of other countries.

Basically, the whole world financed America’s existence, since it siphoned the benefits of other countries’ growth for its own advantage. The whole world financed America’s “lunch,” so no matter how inefficient the American economy was or how much they spent on the military, it didn’t matter—because the whole world was sponsoring America’s existence.

Now, understanding this, let’s look at the Cold War through this prism. People think America and the West won the Cold War because they were more efficient and had a better economy, but in reality, the whole world sponsored America’s existence. It didn’t matter how inefficient the American economy was or how much they spent on the military, since global demand for USD created deflationary pressure that financed their entire system.

Part of that global wealth siphoned by America went to the rest of the Western world — Western Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea — as vassals. America shared this global wealth transfer to keep them on its side. Meanwhile, the Soviet Union and the Communist bloc were not sponsored by the whole world. So tell me — how could the Communist bloc compete with the West if the whole world was financing the West?

The world economy was rigged from the beginning to benefit the Western world, making economic competition between the Western and Soviet blocs unfair and impossible to win. Analysts of the Cold War rarely take into account that the entire world financed the Western bloc, giving it an unfair advantage.

Now, let’s go to the 70s —  the moment when we could have fixed this Ponzi scheme we call the global economy. The whole reserve currency system was based on the fact that the USD was the only currency backed by gold. After World War II, America held around 80% of the world’s monetary gold reserves, as explained by Michael Hudson. Germany had stolen Europe’s gold, which was later taken by America; Japan stole Asia’s gold, which was also taken by America; and Britain had to give away all the gold it had plundered to pay for its Lend-Lease program.

Because of this, America had about 80% of global gold reserves. That created problems after WWII, since no Western country — Western Europe, Britain, or Japan — had gold to back its currency. During Bretton Woods, it was decided there would be a fixed exchange rate of dollars to other currencies, and those currencies would be guaranteed exchangeable for USD. So, for example, the Deutsche Mark wasn’t backed by gold directly, but it was guaranteed to be exchanged for USD at a fixed rate — and since USD was backed by gold, that meant all those currencies were indirectly backed by gold.

This system worked until the 70s, when people realized America was spending too much. Despite already having an unfair advantage — being financed by the whole world — it still overspent. While in theory America should have held enough gold to back every foreign currency that could be exchanged for USD, in practice it didn’t. Charles de Gaulle realized this and demanded to exchange France’s USD reserves for gold. At first, America offered to just switch the accounting, but he demanded physical gold and even sent a military ship to New York to collect it. This forced Nixon to drop the gold standard, as Michael Hudson described.

That was the moment we could have stopped this Ponzi scheme. Since the USD’s reserve status was based on being exchangeable for gold, once that ended, it was no different from any other currency. Normally, central banks holding 50% of their reserves in USD would then diversify into other currencies, selling USD for Deutsche Marks, Yen, Francs, or Pounds to reduce risk.

Now, imagine if every central bank did that  - reducing USD reserves from 50% to 10%. That would flood the global market with USD, causing hyperinflation similar to Weimar Germany’s in the 1920s. As horrible as it sounds, that would have been the only way to fix the Ponzi scheme and turn the global economy into a real one.

But Nixon dropped the gold standard in August 1971 - while the Soviet Union still existed. Imagine the Cold War if America had gone through Weimar-style hyperinflation. If the global economy wasn’t rigged to benefit America, the Soviet Union would have won. When I explain this, people get defensive because it undermines their entire worldview. I’m not saying the Soviet economy was perfect, but I want people to understand that the competition was unfair. America didn’t have to worry about inefficiency or military overspending because the world financed them.

Smart people like Henry Kissinger understood this. While I hope he’s burning in hell right now, I still admire his brilliance. He knew that once the USD was no longer backed by gold, it lost its special status — and if other central banks diversified, the USD would collapse. So he created the Petrodollar. He struck a deal with OPEC, making them accept only USD for oil and reinvest those dollars in America. This made USD “special” again.

Now, since all central banks needed USD to buy oil, they didn’t diversify. The hyperinflation crisis was avoided so the Ponzi scheme continued.

With the Petrodollar, America’s position became even stronger. Not only did global central bank reserves create artificial demand for USD, but now global demand for oil did too. That meant America could print money to match its growth, the growth of other countries, and the global demand for oil — all without suffering inflation.

That’s why America could outspend the Soviet Union in the arms race. The U.S. was financed by the entire world through two artificial demand systems: central bank reserves and oil. The Soviet Union couldn’t compete. It either had to bankrupt itself trying to keep up militarily or collapse economically — which is exactly what happened.

P.S. I want to add that when I talk about printing money, I mean private banks. Around 80–90% of all USD was created by private banks in the form of credit for the Fed (the central bank). So when I hear people saying the Fed printed too much money, they expose their ignorance, since the Fed only supplied 10–20% of the dollars in global circulation, while the rest was supplied by private banks. So no, the Fed didn’t print too many dollars — private banks created too much money through credit and fractional reserve.

The Grand Cheeseboard

Now, I am sorry I spend so much time on the economy, and a lot of this I wrote before in my posts, so people who read my posts would already know and understand that. I am sorry for repeating myself, but understanding this is very important to understand the current situation. If you understand how our Ponzi scheme called the global economy works, you understand why America can’t exist in a multipolar world and why it needs hegemony. Without understanding that, people end up thinking America can exist in a multipolar world with China, which is not possible, since America is a global terrorist holding a gun to everyone's head.

Now let’s get back to this perfect analogy of Michael Hudson with a shopkeeper:

It's as if you went to the grocery store and tried to pay with an IOU, and the grocery store would say, 'Well, you've run up quite a tab in the last week; you know, you've got to pay.' And the customer will say, 'Well, I can't pay. But you can use this debt — maybe you can give this IOU to the farm that's giving you the eggs and the dairy or the vegetables that you're selling, and somehow if only this IOU could be circulated as a claim on the customer, then it would be technically a debt.'

Now, for that shopkeeper to accept your IOU that will never be paid back, you would have to hold a gun to his head and force him to accept it. And this is what the American Empire and hegemony are.

You had an example of Hussein in Iraq:

Iraq nets handsome profit by dumping dollar for euro

A bizarre political statement by Saddam Hussein has earned Iraq a windfall of hundreds of million of euros. In October 2000 Iraq insisted on dumping the US dollar - 'the currency of the enemy' - for the more multilateral euro.

An example of Libya is Gaddafi:

Hillary Emails Reveal True Motive for Libya Intervention

Newly disclosed emails show that Libya's plan to create a gold-backed currency to compete with the euro and dollar was a motive for NATO's intervention.

Here are two examples of our proverbial shopkeeper from the analogy refusing our unpayable IOU. We hold a gun to their heads like everyone else, and the moment they refuse to accept our unpayable IOU, one ends up executed (as in the case of Hussein), and the other ends up bayoneted in the ass (as in the case of Gaddafi).

We are that client forcing everyone to accept our unpayable IOU with a gun pointed to their heads, terrorizing the whole world. America cannot live in peace in a multipolar world because the moment people stop accepting our unpayable IOU, it would cause what I wrote about that should have happened in the 70s when America dropped the gold standard — hyperinflation like Weimar Germany’s in the early 1920s. So we can’t allow the existence of a multipolar world where China can offer alternatives to our unpayable IOU. We need to make sure to destroy China and terrorize the whole world, forcing them to accept our unpayable IOU.

Now, we can’t win a conventional war against China, and we can’t win a nuclear war (at least I hope they understand that, but I’m not sure, and I’m afraid they might at some point think they can win such a war).

If we can’t win a conventional war or nuke them, we can hinder them with technological sanctions — but as we all saw, it didn’t work. So what else can they do to stop China?

There is a plan that existed for a very long time about blocking their sea trade, which China tried to counter with its Belt and Road Initiative, creating ground connections that can be used in case of a sea blockade. We can’t win a conventional war against China or nuke them, but we can starve them of important resources — most importantly, energy.

China is a huge importer of energy. While China is now working with Russia, which is a huge exporter of energy and other raw materials, even Russia doesn’t have enough energy to export to fully satisfy China’s demand. So we need to take control of the whole energy supply, which is why our target is Iran and Venezuela.

Here is a list of 10 countries with the biggest oil reserves in the world:

Number 11 is America.

Now, let’s look at the countries on the list: Venezuela — our target. Saudi Arabia — our ally. Canada — our ally. Iran — our target. Iraq — we occupy it. Kuwait — our ally. UAE — our ally. Russia — our target (let’s say it lost and will supply China). Libya — we destroyed it and it’s controlled by our terrorists. Nigeria — now our target.

From the 10 countries with the biggest oil reserves, we control six, and four of them are our targets. If we take control of Venezuela, Iran, and Nigeria, the only one we will not control will be Russia, with 4.85% of the world’s share — not enough to satisfy China’s demand.

Remember when people talk about what would happen if Iran blocked the Strait of Hormuz — now imagine what would happen if we had control over the entire global oil supply. What would happen if the only place China could get its energy from was Russia, with only 4.85% of world supply?

It would be nice if we could also take control of Russia, but it’s not necessary. The Ukraine war was not so much about destroying Russia (since they knew it would fail, as Brian Berletic says they wrote in their documents). The purpose of Ukraine was to keep Russia busy so it wouldn’t help our targets and stop us from doing what we want.

A great example is Syria. Do you think we would have been able to put our Al-Qaeda McJihadists as leaders in Syria if Russia wasn’t busy dealing with Ukraine? Do you really think Russia would allow it to happen if they weren’t tied up in Ukraine?

The same goes for when we hear Russia is sending S-300 or S-400 systems to Iran or Venezuela. They do it at the cost of protecting their own assets. Russia’s sky is not fully protected — there are never enough air defenses. We see drones getting into Moscow or attacking Russian refineries. Russia even wanted to buy back their S-400s from Turkey:

Russia tries to buy back S-400 air defense systems amid shortages: report

Ankara caused ructions in NATO when it bought the systems in 2019.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s Western sources so we can’t fully trust it, but as I said, there’s never enough air defense. So while Russia’s air defense is really good, we still see some attacks reaching Moscow or refineries — there’s always a need for more.

When we hear that Russia sent some of their air defense systems to Iran or Venezuela, they do it at the cost of protecting their own assets. Now imagine how much more air defense systems they would be able to send to Iran or Venezuela if not for the war in Ukraine, which forces them to use those systems to protect themselves.

This is why the war in Ukraine cannot stop — not because Ukraine will win, but because if the war stops, it would allow Russia to send military assets to other countries to stop us from doing what we want. The war in Ukraine is not about Ukraine or Russia but about making sure Russia can’t help our targets like Iran or Venezuela.

While we hear they are sending military resources to help them, they do it at the cost of risking exposure to attacks. Imagine how much more they could help if they didn’t need to protect their own assets because of the Ukraine conflict. The Ukraine war was not about Ukraine or Russia — it was about making sure Russia is too busy to help our other targets, like in the case of Syria.

How long did Russia protect Syria from our attacks and our Al-Qaeda McJihadists? But because of the war in Ukraine, their resources were tied up too much to continue protecting Syria.

Now, those are the real reasons behind what is happening. But of course, the population cannot know we are an evil terrorist empire — a Fourth Reich. That’s why narratives need to be created. After all, we’re the good guys, right?

It’s the same as with the Third Reich — Nazi Germany. After all, Germany didn’t attack Poland; it was simply defending itself, and it was Poland that attacked Germany:

Germany had higher military spending than even America before 1939. At some point, Nazi Germany spent more on the military than any other country in the world — but of course, Hitler and the Nazis were peaceful and never planned to use that army they built. They even had a secret pact with the Soviets to divide Poland after they conquered it — but still, they claimed to be peaceful and didn’t want war.

All of this because of those evil Poles who supposedly attacked Germany, forcing Germany to protect itself — even though it was already planning for war.

The best thing is, there are people in The Duran community pushing this nonsense. Someone wrote in a comment on one of my posts that Germany didn’t want war and was only protecting itself from Poland.

It’s the same story again — Ukrainians bombing and killing people in Donbas, Ukraine being “peaceful,” and never wanting war. It’s all those evil Russians!

The war in Ukraine wasn’t to tie up Russian resources so they couldn’t stop us from interfering elsewhere.

Now with Nigeria — it’s not because we need to stop their attempts at energy sovereignty and control their energy to prevent China from accessing it later. No, we’re the “good guys,” just like the Nazis or Ukrainians, and we never want war.

We’re simply “protecting Christians” from evil jihadists — which we literally created and control.

How much do you want to bet the CIA and our Western deep state financed and gave orders to those jihadists in Nigeria — part of our McJihadists — to kill those Christians? The same thing we did in the India–Pakistan war.

After all, India are the “good guys,” right? They never wanted to start a war against Pakistan and it was not because Pakistan was getting too close to China. And it was not to scare Pakistan into obeying us and serving as our proxy in the Middle East.

India, just like Ukraine or Nazi Germany or us in Nigeria, never wanted war. We’re only defending ourselves — or “defending poor Christians” in Nigeria, or “protecting ourselves” from drugs in Venezuela, or Ukraine “defending” Donbas from “evil Russians,” or India “defending” against Muslims from Pakistan, or Israelis “defending” themselves from Muslims in Gaza, or Nazis “defending” themselves from Poles who “attacked” them.

Am I right? They would never lie to us like that, right? After all, we’re the good guys — only protecting ourselves. We could never be the bad guys. Right, guys?

Are We The Baddies? (remastered) #israel #hamas #idf #hezbollah #unitedstates

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

Thanks to everyone who stuck with me until the end of my post. And, as always… 

“Knowledge will make you be free.”

― Socrates

+

“Knowledge isn’t free. You have to pay attention.”

― Richard P. Feynman

=

“Freedom is not free, you need to pay attention.”

― Grzegorz Ochman

“No healthy society will endure, without putting up active resistance, an economy run by thugs propped up by the authorities, and authorities propped up by thugs. And if that's the kind of society we are, then we ought to get rid of such rulers.”

― Józef Piłsudski