Petrodollars; Do a few Sheiks and Wall Street monopolize oil wealth?

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
reply to post by wasaka

 

We live in a plutocracy. What is deemed the enemy by the plutocracy simply want control over their own resources such as oil and oil is what it is all about. Because oil is what makes money, money. What gives it value so it can be money. they aren't envious or jealous. It's not about religion per say. They just don't want their precious resources ripped off from them anymore. They want to trade their own resources on the open market in their own currency so they may own collectively a Muslim central bank issuing it's own petrodollars to benefit all their people and not just a few Sheiks and Wall Street who monopolize oil wealth.

I can really empathize with who the Western plutocrats, and their Arab royal oil partners, call their enemies. Plutocrats and their Arab royal partners who make sure that Western media brainwashes us all into thinking they are our enemies too.

Ron Paul is correct. 911 happened because we are over there. And I can't stand Ron Paul. I think he is full of crap 99% of the time. I'm a 99%!

What you say being about oil being that which gives value to our money is very true.
We had gold backing the dollar until 1971 and the same year a secret agreement
was reached with the OPEC nations to only sell oil in American money. This is
a fact that is rarely discussed. John Perkins says in has effective allows the USA
to tax the entire world.

You may be surprised that learn Ron Paul voiced this "conspiracy" theory once back in
2007 (here is the video). After you watch this shot clip please tell me why you think this
man is "full of crap" or is this the 1% of the time he is dead on balls accurate?




Perkins also says this was the real reason we went to war with Iraq (and WMDs were
only the cover story). I first read this in a Playboy interview he gave (no I didn't pick it
up just to read the articles). If this is true, then explain why we are ramping up for war
with Iran. Oh, that's right, they want to sell their oil in gold. This explains why they are
so evil. Turns out they are a threat. They must be stopped post haste!

Regarding the 99% - Why do you think Ron Paul isn't with you and me. He seems
like a voice against the Plutocrats as you call that 1%. What am I missing?

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

Where have you been? Everyone on this site knows this! You need to somehow get this mainstream, not start preaching to the converted.

reply to post by wasaka


Many people seem to think all of this is to attain control over oil for moneys sake due to greed but I have a different possible conclusion, that it is to attain control over oil for moneys sake due to a desire to eventually gain absolute control, not due to greed for money or some other reason but to gain absolute control solely for absolute controls sake. Some individuals use others baser instincts, such as greed for money which is rooted in fear, weakness as a desire for power, vanity as the motivation for fame, feeling tiny as the motivation for gaining status to inflate ones ego and all these paradoxes and idols are put into the service, knowingly or unknowingly, of the ends of the absolutely corrupt, those who desire for absolute control and total power. They do this because they have imprisoned themselves in the shackles of fear, fear of being controlled, hence hatred directed at the abstraction, whatever form it may take, that seeks to control them, which then motivates a desire to control "it" and, eventually, everything else instead. Instead of total power corrupting absolutely it is the absolutely corrupt seeking total power, not for some ends but for its own sake because it has been convoluted into and confused with freedom. If one starts off believing that power and control are needed for an ends the only eventual logical outcome of that belief is control for controls sake because the essence of a thing is always found within itself, it cannot be found outside itself. There is no such thing as a means to an end because the so-called "means" are an end in themselves and, therefore, to have any meaningful logical consistency the means and ends must align in all ways, eventually, otherwise it will break down, eventually. Based on that the end result and the means must eventually be complete and absolute control or complete and absolute freedom and from the superficial looks of how things have been going, within the halls of "power" anyway, it is gradually being pushed toward completely centralized control and it is not heading toward completely decentralized freedom. The plutocracy may be about greed, status and fame, with some "virtues" flowing from them, but they are really working in service to, whether they know it or not, the ultimate eventual aim of those who yearn for power and control, those who wrap it in the guise of "safety", and that is complete and absolute control, which will eventually be wrapped in the guise of complete and absolute "safety".

Originally posted by UsualSuspect
Where have you been? Everyone on this site knows this! You need to somehow get this mainstream, not start preaching to the converted.

That hurts. Here I dig up a rare video to prove a point to someone
who make the claim Ron Paul did not share his views and you
say that I'm preaching to the converted? I dare say you never
saw that video before, give me a little credit where will ya =/

If this is true, then would the rumours about Afghanistan be true also?
The attack (9/11) came after the negotiations with the taliban failed in july 2001, al qaida seemed to be well informed about the ongoing negotiations and the threat if american demand were not met.

Not only that, but also the opium cultivation was almost down to zero after the taliban succesfully act against it.
From what i read after the war with the taliban the opium cultivation is bigger then ever before.

I am curious about information about this.

Originally posted by mackspower75
reply to post by wasaka

 

Many people seem to think all of this is to attain control over oil for moneys sake due to greed but I have a different possible conclusion, that it is to attain control over oil for moneys sake due to a desire to eventually gain absolute control, not due to greed for money or some other reason but to gain absolute control solely for absolute controls sake. Some individuals use others baser instincts, such as greed for money which is rooted in fear, weakness as a desire for power, vanity as the motivation for fame, feeling tiny as the motivation for gaining status to inflate ones ego and all these paradoxes and idols are put into the service, knowingly or unknowingly, of the ends of the absolutely corrupt, those who desire for absolute control and total power

Fear and attack.

Most people, the vast majority have this as their fundamental principle of operation.
The rest of us have it as a subroutine in the buried in our reptilian brain, and while
we may keep it under control, it is there waiting to come out.

This sometime called the ego--that part of us that seek security, keeps a watchful
eye that other are not out to hurt us--that part of us that needs validation and is
thrown into a rage when we don't get it.

Here is the question: if anyone, the average person, were placed into a position
of absolute power would it have the same effect? Are people really that wicked and
selfish in their everyday lives? I tend to think most are, but would never admit it.
Perhaps they don't know it, but I suspect most lack self-control and without
any social limitation they would become even more glutinous and ravenous.

.

If one starts off believing that power and control are needed for an ends the only eventual logical outcome of that belief is control for controls sake ...and that is complete and absolute control, which will eventually be wrapped in the guise of complete and absolute "safety".

The key here is belief. If a person believe in basic goodness as the
core nature of man, then from that belief the act accordingly, but
if as you describe the see a world lack and loss, they will then
act out of fear and attack.

So then, it is really up to us to see the world we want to see,
and believe not in lack or loss, to believe not in fear or attack.
How does one train their mind to not believe in such things?

If this is true, then would the rumours about Afghanistan be true also?
The attack (9/11) came after the negotiations with the taliban failed in july 2001, al qaida seemed to be well informed about the ongoing negotiations and the threat if american demand were not met.
I am curious about information about this.

The rumors? Not sure which you mean. What you said about the Opium is true, wars are fought for GOD (gold oil and drugs). Yes, our government planned to attack Afghanistan before 9/11, see link to salon.com.

open.salon.com...

Even before Bush decided to run for President he talked to Ken Lay (ENRON) about the gas pipeline that US business men wanted to build over there. Arnold Schwarzenegger is reported to have attended one such meeting while he was campaigning for governor of California. After winning the White House, the Bush Administration told other governments of the plans for an Afgan war. The question is why the media hasn’t told this story, even now a decade later we are still in the dark.

www.projectcensored.org...

After the September 11 tragedy a number of Islamic countries such as Indonesia, Yemen, Egypt, Libya, Pakistan and almost all the Gulf states joined the Bush anti-terrorism war, yet they became its target. President Bush repeatedly said that this was not a war against the Muslim countries, but in practice, only Islamic countries were targeted. Today we have CIA agents and assets present and active in all the Islamic countries, implementing various tactics of psychological warfare, propaganda, political dissent, ethnic divisions, sectarian violence, and assassination, with one goal in mind: to subvert and weaken the related Muslim states in accordance with American ambitions. Assassination of political figures in these Islamic countries is the key aim of the MOSSAD and our own very secret JSOC. In a US court in 1997, Ramzi Yousaf who was well-aware of the activities of the American and Israeli secret agencies said, “You are butchers, liars, and hypocrites. You keep on talking about terrorism to the media, but behind closed doors you support terrorism”.

We all know disinformation is one of tactics of war. In this covert war against multiple Muslim states this tactic of disinformation has been a primary strategy, of this fact there can be no doubt. This involved a deliberate disinformation campaign to justify war with Iraq while the main aim of Washington was to occupy the oil rich country and use it as a base for future operations in countries like Yemen, Syria, Libya, Indonesia, Somalia etc. Since 9/11, under the pretext of terrorism, American CIA/JSOC in collusion with Indian RAW, Pakistan ISI and Israeli MOSSAD tortured the Muslims in Guantanamo Bay, Abu Graib and other "dark sites" like Egypt, Poland, Georgia and else where.

In the words of former CIA agent Robert Baer: "If you want a serious interrogation, you send a prisoner to Jordan. If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear -- never to see them again -- you send them to Egypt." This was the program know as Extraordinary Rendition where foreign nationals suspected of terrorism or label as "belligerent" have been transported to secret detention and interrogation facilities in Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, Diego Garcia, Afghanistan, Poland, Georgia and elsewhere. Today, under the new NDAA law signed by Obama on Dec 31st, 2011 the USA is now designated as a battlefield which means natural-born American citizens can be label belligerent and given the Extraordinary Rendition treatment. “And when they say, 'I want my lawyer,' you tell them, 'Shut up. You don't get a lawyer.'”- US Senator Lindsey Graham.

This all started with a few goat farmers and taxi drivers from Afghanistan who fell victim to a "witch hunt" because the US Forces were paying out nice cash bounties to "head hunters" if they capture any members of Al Queda. This type of practice is well document in the film “Taxi to the Dark Side” which is a gripping investigation into the reckless abuse of power by the Bush Administration. What is not disclosed is the full nature of the torture and thought reform which was being developed at this time, but that was beyond the scope of the film. What we now know is the was a method to all this madness and those who were running the show didn’t care if this witch hunt for Al Queda was a wide net that pulled in 10 inocent people to 1 insurgent, because they plan to release many of them anyway. The plan was to break them using Chinese style thought reform and Soviet style reeducation camps. Why? So they could indentify leaders for their own rebranded Al Queda 2.0 which would then be used at the “shock troops” of the New World Order in places like Libya and Syria.

The attack (9/11) came after the negotiations with the taliban failed in july 2001, al qaida seemed to be well informed about the ongoing negotiations and the threat if american demand were not met.

Yes, but what you call "Al Qaida" was really an new name for the Mujahideen. Prior to 9/11 this there really was no such thing as Al Queda in reality, it was just a made of name for a contrived phantasm to scare the West and to justify a covert World War III, which I describe in my last post.

In is interesting to note that this word Al Queda literally means "the base" and was used by the CIA to refer to their database of former "freedom fighters" who were CIA assents in the 80's when we used in a proxy battle with the Soviets. However, this term for "base" meant the "toilet seat" in Arabic slang. The CIA clerk who labeled the file knew Arabic, but he clearly did not know the vernacular. "Qa'ada" is the infinitive of the verb "to sit". "Ma-Qa'ad" is a chair. "Al-Qaeda" is the base or fundament of something. "Ana raicha Al Qaeda" is colloquial for "I'm going to the toilet". A very common and widespread use of the word "Al-Qaeda" in different Arab countries in the public language is for the toilet bowl. This name comes from the Arabic verb "Qa'ada" which mean "to sit", pertinently, on the toilet bowl. Indeed, the potty used by small children is called "Ma Qa'adia" or "Little Qaeda". Clearly, those who founded the group knew very little about common use of Arabic language. Certainly they did not know that by using this name for the organization, they risked becoming the laughing stock of everybody who speaks the Arabic "public" language. If you were stating a terrorist organization, would you name your group the Toilet Bowl? No, I doubt it.

The bottom line here is this: the war against "Al-Qaeda" was complete invented. After 9/11 there was a demand to know who was responsible, and someone in the CIA grabbed their “datebase” file and read off the label, at that moment the glorious International Islamic Terror Group was born. Prior to that, no one have ever heard the name before, and now you know why.

If you enjoyed Dubya's premptive first strike foreign policy, you're going to like Mitt Romney. Twenty-three of Romney's most senior advisers formerly advised G.W. Bush. Many of them held key decision-making positions within the Bush-Cheney administration. In fact, Mitt Romney has compiled an inner circle of private advisers that reads like a who's who of pro-Israel, pro-war neocons, most of them veterans of Bush's ill-fated foreign policy wreckage. Netanyahu and Barak have recently suggested the time for Israel to bomb Iran’s nuclear production sites is now (i.e., at the height of the U.S. presidential campaign when neither candidate would risk losing by criticizing Israel). Netanyahu may even order the attack on May 14th, coinciding with the anniversary of the founding of Israel, to stifle internal criticism. That is only 7 days from now.

Netanyahu's Likud party submitted a bill to dissolve the Knesset on Wednesday, as Israel's political system readies for upcoming early general elections. That bill just passed 10 hours ago:

www.jewishpress.com...

Regardless of what Israel does or does not do, what really ought to concern American citizens is that Romney chose not to distance himself from the Bush-Cheney war policy czars, but instead he chose to embrace them. This is probably why Romney's entire foreign policy thrust consists of projecting American power globally - at any price. Judging from his lineup of close trusted advisers what Americans will expect from a Romney presidency is a replay of the Bush-Cheney foreign policy, including many of the same faces. But then, how different is that from Obama? Same old sheeet, nothing changes.