When foreign nations and entities threaten to move off the petrodollar, when they hint at backing their currency with gold, why does the U.S. government so staunchly defends the status quo?
It appears that another attempt to remonetize gold is afoot, and you won’t believe who is behind it: ISIS.
Reports are circulating that ISIS intends to bring back the gold dinar, in its ancient real gold form. And it seems like they might actually have the bullion to do it, especially since last June, when they robbed banks across Mosul including the central bank of Iraq. They also net a reported $1 million every day from black market oil sales. Between all that, they might just have enough gold to make a go of a gold-backed currency, rumored to get started within weeks.
Remember, the last person to push for a gold dinar as currency was Muammar Gaddafi. That didn’t quite work out for him…
Why does it seem that the most unsavory, evil people in the world often favor gold as money?
Gold is a big threat to the Federal Reserve, and indeed to fiat currency vomiting banks everywhere. It represents protection and security from monetary policy hijinks that those in charge of currencies engage in. It is stiff competition to the printing press, and in the currency race to the bottom, it is the only thing holding banks accountable at all. People like to compare one currency to another. You’ll hear that the dollar strengthened against the ruble one day, weakened against the yuan the next, but when everyone is printing like mad, all these comparisons are a little bit meaningless. It’s the purchasing power of gold that really opens one’s eyes as to what they are really doing.
This is why the Fed and big banks work so hard to keep the price of gold suppressed. They don’t want their sins to be so obvious. They don’t want people to abandon their currencies and cling instead to gold. That takes all their power away.
When someone with any kind of power talks about undermining the dollar – and especially the petrodollar – that’s when they really make headlines. There are plenty of nasty people in the world; why does the U.S. always seem to get involved with those nasty people? Saudi Arabia has beheaded at least 59 people publicly just this year as capital punishment. And they are also our closest Arab ally. So can it really only be the beheadings that are motivate U.S. government military actions?
A telling passage in Ellen Brown’s piece shortly after Gaddafi was captured and killed leads to some interesting questions:
“…[General Wesley Clark] says that about 10 days after September 11, 2001, he was told by a general that the decision had been made to go to war with Iraq. Clark was surprised and asked why. “I don’t know!” was the response. “I guess they don’t know what else to do!” Later, the same general said they planned to take out seven countries in five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.
What do these seven countries have in common? In the context of banking, one that sticks out is that none of them is listed among the 56 member banks of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). That evidently puts them outside the long regulatory arm of the central bankers’ central bank in Switzerland.
The most renegade of the lot could be Libya and Iraq, the two that have actually been attacked. Kenneth Schortgen Jr., writing on Examiner.com, noted that “[s]ix months before the US moved into Iraq to take down Saddam Hussein, the oil nation had made the move to accept Euros instead of dollars for oil, and this became a threat to the global dominance of the dollar as the reserve currency, and its dominion as the petrodollar.”
So what will it look like when a rogue terrorist organization/terrorist state makes moves against the dollar by adopting a gold currency? One guess might be more war, and more propaganda to elicit whatever fear and horror is needed from a war-weary American people to somehow support more war. Another guess might be continued and even increased in demand for gold and silver.