Road to WW3 | China Moves Against The Dollar

China has just made several moves against the U.S. dollar, and currency wars with the U.S. have a way of turning into real wars. The Federal Reserve is a private entity is owned by a conglomerate of the most powerful banks in the world, and the men who control those banks are the ones who pull the strings. To them this a game, and false-flag deception is a tool in this art of war. Your life and the lives of those you love are just pawns on their chessboard.

Who is this Patrick Clawson clown to openly promotes starting wars by way of false-flag deception? Read more here and here.


China has just made several moves against the U.S. dollar, and currency wars with the U.S. have a way of turning into real wars.

“…despite America’s continuing financial crisis, the Pentagon is effectively considering trading two military quagmires for the possibility of a third. Reducing its commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan as it refocuses on Asia, Washington is not so much withdrawing forces from the Persian Gulf as it is redeploying them for a prospective war with its largest creditor, China.” ~Salon The Pentagon’s new China war plan

Why did United States attack Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan… Yemen? Why are U.S. covert operatives helping destabilize Syria? And why is the United States government so intent on taking down Iran in spite of the fact that Iran has not attacked any country since 1798?

When you look at the trajectory that we are on it doesn’t make sense at all if you evaluate it based on what we are taught in school. In fact it doesn’t even make sense according to what is being presented by many in the alternative media. But it makes perfect sense once you know the real motives of the powers that be,

In order to understand those motives we first have to look at history…

In 1945 the Bretton Woods agreement established the dollar as world reserve currency which meant that international commodities were priced in dollars. The agreement which gave the United States a distinct financial advantage was made under the condition that those dollars would remain redeemable for gold at a consistent rate of $35 dollars per ounce. The United States promised not print much money, but this was on the honor system, because the Federal Reserve refused to allow any audits or supervision of its printing presses.

In the years leading up to 1970 expenditures in the Vietnam war made it clear to many countries that the U.S. was printing far more money than it had in gold, and in response they began to ask for their gold back. This set off a rapid decline in the value of the dollar.

The situation climaxed in 1971 when France attempted to withdraw its gold and Nixon refused. On August 15th he made the following announcement:

This was obviously not a temporary suspension as he claimed, but rather a permanent default and to put it bluntly it was theft.

In 1973 President Nixon asked King Faisal of Saudi Arabia to accept only US dollars as payment for oil and to invest any excess profits in US Treasury bonds, notes, and bills. In return Nixon offered military protection for Saudi oil fields. The same offer was extended to each of the world’s key oil producing countries, and by 1975 every member of OPEC had agreed to only sell oil in U.S. dollars.

The act of moving the dollar off of gold and tying it to foreign oil instantly forced every oil importing country in the world to start maintaining a constant supply of Federal Reserve paper, and to get that paper they would have to send real, physical goods to America.

This was the birth of the Petrodollar, Paper dollars went out, everything America needed came in and the United States got very, very rich as a result. It was largest financial con in recorded history.

Through 70s and the 80s the U.S. used the financial power gained by the petrodollar arrangement to build the most powerful military in the world,
and when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 the United States was left with no rival.

Many hoped that at this point the U.S would start to reduce its military presence across the world, and that a new era of peace and stability would follow…

Unfortunately there were those in high places which had other ideas

Within that same year the U.S. invaded Iraq in the first Gulf war, and after crushing the Iraqi military and destroying their infrastructure, crippling sanctions were established which prevented that infrastructure from being rebuilt. These sanctions which were initiated by Bush senior and sustained throughout the entire Clinton administration lasted over a decade and were estimated to have killed over 500,000 children. The Clinton administration was fully aware of these figures.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/10/30/iraq.un.euro.reut/

Mrs. Albright what exactly was it that was worth killing 500,000 kids for?

In a final act of resistance Iraq began selling it’s oil exclusively in Euros November of 2000.

This was a direct attack on the dollar and on U.S. financial dominance, and it wasn’t going to be tolerated.

In response the U.S. government, with the assistance of the main stream media began to build up a massive propaganda campaign claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was planning to use them. In 2003 the U.S. invaded, and once they had control of the country oil sales were immediately switched back to dollars.

This is particularly notable due to the fact that switching back to the dollar meant a 15 – 20% loss in revenue due to the euro’s higher value. It doesn’t make sense at all unless you take the petrodollar into account.

General General Wesley Clark: March 2, 2007

This interview was filmed in 2007 and yet almost all of what General Clark described has come to pass.

In Libya Gahaffi was in the process of organizing a block of African countries to create a gold based currency called the Dynar which they intended to use to replace the dollar in that region. U.S. and NATO forces helped destabilize and topple the Libyan government in 2011 and after taking control of the region U.S. armed Rebels executed Gaddafi in cold blood and immediately set up the Libyan central bank.

Iran has been actively campaigning to pull oil sales off of the dollar for some time now and has recently secured agreements to begin trading its oil in exchange for gold; In response the U.S. government with mainstream media assistance has been attempting to build international support for military strikes on the pretext of preventing Iran from building a nuclear weapon. In the meantime they established sanctions which U.S. officials openly admit are aimed at causing a collapse of the Iranian economy.

Syria is Iran’s closest ally, and they are bound by mutual defense agreements. The country is currently in the process of being destabilized with covert assistance from NATO, and though Russia and China have warned the United States not to get involved, the white house has made statements within the past month indicating that they are considering military intervention.

It should be clear that military intervention in Syria and Iran isn’t being considered, it’s a foregone conclusion, just as it was in Iraq and Libya. The U.S. is actively working to create the context which gives them the diplomatic cover do what they already have planned.

The motive for these invasions becomes clear when we look at them in their full context and connect the dots.

Those who control United States understand that if even a few countries begin to sell their oil in another currency it will set off a chain reaction, and the dollar will collapse.

They understand that there is absolutely nothing else holding up the value of the dollar at this point, and so does the rest of the world.

Rather than accepting the fact that the dollar is nearing the end of its lifespan, the powers that be have made a calculated gambit.

They have decided to use the U.S. military crush each and every resistant state in the middle east and Africa.

That in itself would be bad enough, but what you need to understand is that this is not going to end with Syria, Iran and Yemen.

China and Russia have stated publicly and in no uncertain terms that they will not tolerate an attack on Iran or Syria.

Iran is one of their key allies, and they understand that if Iran falls

then they will have no way to escape the dollar without going to war.

And yet the U.S. is pushing forward in spite of the warnings.

What we are witnessing here is a trajectory that leads straight to the unthinkable.

It is a trajectory that was mapped out years ago in full awareness of the human consequences.

But who was it that set us on this course? What kind of psychopath is willing to intentionally set off a global conflict that will lead to millions of deaths just to protect the value of a paper currency?

It obviously isn’t the president. The decision to invade Libya, Syria and Iran was made long before Obama had risen to the national spotlight, and yet he is carrying out his duty just like the puppets that preceded him.

So who is pulling the strings?

Often the best answer to questions like this are found by asking another question: Qui Bono? Who benefits?

Obviously those who have the power to print the dollar out of thin air have the most to loose if the dollar were to fall and since 1913 that power has been held by the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve is a private entity is owned by a conglomerate of the most powerful banks in the world, and the men who control those banks are the ones who pull the strings.

To them this a game. Your life and the lives of those you love are just pawns on their chessboard.

At like a spoiled 4 year old who tips the board onto the floor when they start to lose the powers that be are willing to start world war three to keep control of the global financial system.

Remember that as these wars extend and accelerate. Remember that when your son or your neighbors son comes back home in a flag draped coffin. Remember that when they point the finger at the new boogie man. Because the madmen who are running this show will take this as far as you allow

What are our chances? Can we change course?… also the wrong question.

The odds don’t matter anymore. If you understand what we are facing then you have a moral responsibility to do everything in our power alter the course we are on regardless of the odds. It’s only when you stop basing your involvement on the chances of success that success actually becomes possible.

To strip the ill begotten power from the financial elites and to bring these criminal cartels to justice will require nothing less than a revolution. The government is not going to save us. The government is completely infiltrated and corrupt to the core. Looking to them for a solution at this point is utterly naive.

There are 3 stages of revolution, and they are sequential. Stage one is already underway.

Stage one is the ideological resistance. In this stage we have to actively work to wake up as many people as possible about what is happening and the direction we are headed. All revolutions originate from a shift in the mindset of the population, and no other meaningful resistance is possible without it. Success in this stage of a revolution can be measured by the contagion of ideas. When an idea reaches critical mass it begins to spread on its own and seeps into all levels of society. In order to achieve that contagion we need more people in this fight. We need more people speaking out, making videos, writing articles, getting this information onto the national and international stage, and we especially need to reach the police and military.

Stage two is civil disobedience, also known as non-violent resistance. In this stage you put your money where your mouth is, or more accurately you withhold your money and your obedience from government, and do everything in your power to bring the gears of the state to a halt. Practiced in mass this method alone is often enough to bring a regime to its knees. However if you fail at this stage, stage 3 is inevitable.

Stage 3 is direct physical resistance. Direct physical resistance is the last resort and it should be avoided and delayed as long as possible, and should only be invoked once all other options have been thoroughly exhausted

There are those talk tough and claim that they will resist when the time comes, but what those people fail to realize is that if you are inactive during the first two stages and save your efforts for violent resistance then you will fail. When the Nazis were moving door to door dragging people out of their homes in Germany that was the time to fight back physically, but due to the lack of ideological resistance and civil disobedience leading up to that moment even an armed uprising would have likely failed at that point. An armed uprising can only succeed if the people have established an attitude of active resistance, and active resistance is only possible after their minds have broken free from main stream propaganda.

If you want to fight back it’s now or never. You’re not gonna get another chance, and the stakes are much higher than they were in Nazi Germany.

Advertisements

More Shocking Remarks from Zionist Lobbyist Revealed in Exclusive Interview

As reported here, Patrick Clawson, deputy director of research for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) was in the news one month ago for suggesting that crisis initiation (i.e. false flags attacks) are needed to “get America into war with Iran.” In his most recent interview Clawson was asked about his false flag comments and his answers may surprise you. Read more here.

In this recent interview done by radio host Bob Tuskin we hear Patrick Clawson asked about the Mossad agents who were arrested near the George Washington bridge just after the September 11th attacks [heard at 6:48 in the recording]… Amazingly, it seems as if Clawson says that it is “plausible” that these Mossad agents were somehow in the loop with the attacks or planning another one. He may deny saying this, as he also denied his earlier comments, but it would seem this man can’t help himself… he really is a pundit for the devil and is quite proud of working for the very people he credits for the 9/11 attack.

 

What if a submarine went down?

Are you a fan of the new ABC television series Last Resort? I must confess that I am. The show debuted on Thursday, September 27, 2012. In the first episode we are introduced to the crew of a U.S. Navy submarine and a team of SEALS who both become the victims of a false-flag attack which is blamed on Pakistan. The same day a YouTube video was going viral in which a top-level policy adviser, only six days earlier, brazenly suggested that the United States take down a submarine in order to start a war with Iran. Rather ironic don’t you think?
Here is a Wikipedia synopses of the show:
Marcus Chaplin is the Captain of the USS Colorado, the most powerful nuclear submarine ever built. When ordered to fire four nuclear missiles at Pakistan he defies protocol and demands confirmation. The submarine is consequently fired upon by the USS Illinois, after which the Colorado bottoms out and is left for dead. As in a false flag pretext for war, the US blames Pakistan for the attack, leading to a nuclear strike against Pakistan. The presumed-dead crew of the Colorado take control of the island of Sainte Marina where there is a NATO radar installation. Chaplin threatens to launch his missiles at any country, including the US, that attacks his ship.

From the beginning, the title “Last Resort” takes on a double meaning. Not only is this a reference to war, but also the means by which nations wars goes to war. Here we have an example of a fictional oath keeper, Capt. Marcus Chaplin, who will not blindly follow an illegal order. His courageous choice to stand down is followed by a series of events which force this would-be oath keeper to take up arms against his own countrymen and his “Last Resort” is to use the nuclear option against his own nation. You can watch the first episode on Hulu, http://www.hulu.com/watch/401576

While Hollywood is entertaining us with fantasy false-flag events and impossible moral dilemmas, in the real world we see government policy adviser talking candidly about how difficult it is to provoke a war when you want one. Patrick Clawson, deputy director of research for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) was caught on film suggesting that crisis initiation (i.e. false flags) are needed to “get America into war with Iran.”Having very little confidence that Obama “can get us into war” Patrick uses his super-power of evil logic to suggest that others take the appropriate action. “A submarine could go down. Who knows why?” Obviously, the final outcome makes right every action needed to achieve it.

It is shocking to hear this think-tank mouth piece share his conspiratorial view of history. What is shocking is NOT that Clawson admits virtually every major war into which America has entered is also one that we provoked or otherwise manufactured, no, what is shocking is how Patrick views this as both good and necessary. According to him, the USA is a big wuss when it comes to its policy against Iran. Besides sanctions, we need to get down and dirty says Patrick. Why couldn’t an Iranian submarine simply disappear? And if it did, we’d expect Iran to want to take a few good shots at us in retaliation, right? Yes, that would serve as a terrific pretext for beating the crap out of the nasty mullahs and turning their country into a glass parking lot.

One of America’s top constitutional and military law experts – Jonathan Turley – writes:

The fact that one of the leading analysis for the WINEP would feel comfortable in making such comments is itself quite chilling. It indicates that such discussions have become sufficiently regular that it has creeped into public discussion. Moreover, in his remarkably candid remarks, Clawson shows how the U.S. can easily be forced into direct combat by pushing Iran to simply kill some Americans or sink a few of our ships. Then members would be clamoring for revenge. While Clawson adds a passing caveat that he is not advocating such an approach, his remarks are clearly designed to show how the group can get the United States into a war for Israel if only we can get Iran to kill some of our citizens or soldiers. Those people are of course expendable props in Clawson’s realpolitik.

Who is this Clawson clown? Patrick Clawson worked as an economist for the International Monetary Fund between 1981 – 1985 and senior economist for the World Bank between 1985 – 1989. He is what John Perkins would call an economic hit-man. He is one of those talking head analysts quoted by every “serious” publication that covers the Iran nuclear issue and the typical pro-Israel neo-con who is goes out banging the war drums while at the same time tries to appear dispassionate and middle of the road. What a nice man.


This video footage not only features Clawson calling on the U.S. to manufacture a causus belli in order to start a war against Iran. It also reveals at least one insiders view of the world and he takes conspiracy theorizing to a whole new level. According to Clawson, the USA typically goes to war upon a manufactured (or induced) pretext [i.e., USA either sinks its own ship or induces the enemy to do so], Remember the Maine? These comments by Clawson raise the question of 9/11 and who was behind that attack. When you who consider who Clawson works for the answer become rather obvious.

.
Are these the sorts of ideas being offering to Barack Obama when he is behind close doors?  According to newly released documents by the John F. Kennedy Memorial Library, former Californian democratic senator George Smathers proposed an Operation Northwoods style false flag attack on Gitmo to then Massachusetts senator Kennedy before he was elected President. These are the pearls of wisdom offered by the D.C. pro-Israel policy elite.  These are the sorts of ideas Dennis Ross might’ve been offering to Barack Obama when he still worked for him? Yes, it seem obvious there are many other pro-war advisers in and out of the White House that are whispering lunacies like these into the President’s ear.
In March of this year, Patrick Clawson appeared on al-Jazeera television wherein he explains that “the MEK allegations that it was involved in the assassination of nuclear scientists inside Iran – If we are going to say that everyone involved in targeted assassinations is responsible as a terrorist, than Mr. Obama would be quickly thrown in jail because the United States has killed over a thousand people with its targeted assassinations through drones. Targeted assassinations have even included American citizens. If we use targeted assassinations as an instrument of war the United States is well accepted.” Clawson points out that we may not like that Israel uses targeted assassinations as a “valid instrument of war, but it is a valid instrument of war.”
 –
In a recent interview Pete Santilli questioned Clawson about his comments regarding crisis initiation and the suggestion that sinking an Iranian submarine could be an example of a false flag that would facilitate the US entering war with Iran. Clawson denied that he had ever made those comments even after Santilli played the audio of the video over the phone during the interview.  At this point, sounding as if he were having a mental breakdown from realizing he had been caught in a lie, Clawson came unglued and threatening Santilli with a lawsuit, arrest and personal harm if Santilli replayed the interview on his show.

This is not the first time Clawson has publicly called for “covert operations” as a “traditional means of bringing America to war.”   In January of 2012, Clawson said that covert campaigns were preferable to covert air-strikes by Israel or the US with regard to striking Iranian nuclear sites. “Sabotage and assassination is the way to go, if you can do it. It doesn’t provoke a nationalist reaction in Iran, which could strengthen the regime. And it allows Iran to climb down if it decides the cost of pursuing a nuclear weapon is too high.”
The plan for the coercive uprising in Iran by way of sanctions has not panned out and Netanyahu is becoming increasingly impatient. As we standing on the precipice of WW III, globalist like Patrick Clawson speak openly about their communist ideals of turning all the sovereign nations into exporters of “democracy” and their fascist methods such as false-flag events against nations who resist this New World Order. People like this are the domestic enemies every service man took and oath to defend our Constitution against, and they seek to transform not only America but our entire planet into that dystopic nightmare Orwell warned us about in his book 1984.-
Last Resortpromises to be very action packed and thought provoking. Hopefully it will open up TV views to the reality of the world we live in and spark a discussion four what it means to be an Oath Keeper and make people aware of false-flag attack are and how the elite of the world use them to start wars.The name for the show is a reference to the Latin phrase, “The Last Resort of Kings and Common Men” referring to the act of declaring war.  Historically, when a King had a trade dispute his first recourse was diplomacy and his last resort was to declare war. Louis XIV, King of France, had Ultima Ratio Regum (“The last resort of kings”) engraved on the cannons of his armies.
.
What was once true of Kings is now true of democratic States today, they both reserve war as their ultima ratio. What has changes is the need to justify war to the people. In the old days a King could invite his cousin to fight a war so they could get rid of the surplus population. These days the reasons for war may not have changed that much, but what has changed is the need for the powers that be to manufacturer consent. 
The term cause belli came into wide usage in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries with the rise of the political doctrine of jus ad bellum or “just war theory”.  A government would formally lay out its reasons for going to war, as well as its intentions in prosecuting it and the steps that might be taken to avert it. In so doing, the government would attempt to demonstrate that it was going to war only as a last resort (ultima ratio) and that it in fact possessed “just cause” for doing so.

– Ron Paul explains the just war theory of Christianity.

Unlike King’s before them, the modern democratic State of today needs a justification for war that they can sell to the people even if they have to manufacture an event. A good example is Hitler who longed to return to the days when sole sovereignty could be vested in one person, namely himself, and in order to get there he devised a false flag event which was sure to swing public opinion to his favor. Evidence discovered after World War II indicates that the fire that engulfed the Reichstag twenty-eight days after Hitler’s ascendancy to Chancellor was planned and executed by his henchmen, Herman Goering and Joseph Goebbels. Hitler publicly blamed the Communists, an accusation that allowed him to arrest the Communist members of the German parliament and thereby eliminate his major political opposition. Do you see any similarities to recent history?

Ron Paul: “What I Fear The Most Is a False Flag – Something Happening Where One of Our Ships Goes Down, Or … a Plane Goes Down, And of Course It HAD To Be The Iranians, You Know, For Sure, For Certain” Paul joins numerous other high-level government officials who have warned that a false flag may be launched against Iran to start a war: