They say Bitcoin is dirty for using computers—but the fiat dollar is keeping the world dependent on oil.
Since the end of the gold standard, the fiat dollar is backed by nothing, but boosted by a petrodollar agreement with Saudi Arabia.
Alternative energy threatens that.
Under the petrodollar agreement—which has its roots in the FDR and Nixon administrations—the US provides military support and the Saudis only accept dollars in payment for their oil.
What does “military support” for Saudi Arabia look like today?
The wars in Syria and Yemen.
We are in Syria and Yemen today because George W. Bush screwed up in Iraq twenty years ago.
By taking out Saddam, Bush removed one of Iran’s great enemies.
Then Shite majorities very predictably voted to elect an Iraqi government that allied with the Shite Iranian government.
But Iran is the great regional rival of Saudi Arabia—and Saudi Arabia is Congress’ drug dealer.
Without the petrodollar agreement, the dollar risks losing it’s global reserve status, the dollar crashes, and Congress can’t feed its spending addiction anymore.
Obama promised to make it up to Saudi Arabia, so he committed the American military to fight proxy wars for Saudi Arabia in Syria and Yemen.
In Syria, their regime change efforts created ISIS.
In Yemen, the Saudi genocide campaign is one of the worst humanitarian crises today.
The fiat petrodollar system has lead to nothing but:
1. Endless War 2. Energy Suppression 3. Massive Government 4. Depreciating Currency
A Bitcoin standard—or any global crypto standard—would be a tremendous humanitarian benefit to the world over the dollar.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The terrorists never hated us because we were free, but the Washington political establishment always has.
Twenty years ago, the political establishment sold America on war under the false pretense of "defending freedom."
By preying on our virtues and love of freedom, they got America's sons and daughters to fight and die for them in the most worthless wars in our nation's history.
In the long run, however, many patriotic Americans gradually woke up.
It is natural to question the basis of wars to "defend freedom" when our own government uses the wars to justify stripping us of all our freedoms.
Ten years ago, I misunderstood the degree to which opposition to forever war and unaccountable spy agencies was a performative act for the left.
Seeing the right gradually awaken to the wrongness of these institutions, I thought we might finally have bipartisan coalitions to end the wars and restore civil liberties.
Instead, the left shifted in favor of forever war and unaccountable spy agencies to differentiate itself from the right.
If we accept the @ACLU's argument that gun ownership was historically used to keep the unarmed enslaved, what would that imply about a society in which only government agents can keep and bear arms?
First, their argument is historically fuzzy.
Gun control laws were originally passed to disenfranchise back Americans from owning firearms.
It is not the history of the 2nd Amendment that is steeped in racism, but gun control laws.
But even if we accept the premise that gun ownership was used to keep people enslaved, the answer would be to ensure the inalienable right to self-defense is protected for all Americans—of all races, creeds, and colors—to ensure no one ever becomes enslaved again.
At this point, many Americans have trauma-bonded with their masks.
First, the media and political establishments traumatized people with Covid hysteria.
Then they told people masks would make them safe — so they went out for the first time after months into the scary world, hyperventilating from anxiety through these masks.
Like a flimsy life raft in shark infested waters, people clung to their masks as an illusion of safety inside an illusion of great danger.