Details

Written by: Super User

Published: 04 January 2026

The real reason the US invaded Venezuela and deposed Maduro goes back to a deal Henry Kissinger made with Saudi Arabia in 1974.

It is actually about the SURVIVAL of the US dollar itself. Not drugs. Not terrorism. Not "democracy."

It's about the petrodollar system that has kept America the dominant economic power for 50 years.

And Venezuela threatened to end it.

Here's what really happened:

Venezuela has 303 billion barrels of proven oil reserves. The largest on Earth. More than Saudi Arabia.

20% of the entire world's oil, but here's the part that matters:

Venezuela was actively selling that oil in Chinese yuan. Not dollars.

In 2018, Venezuela announced it would "free itself from the dollar."

They started accepting yuan, euros, rubles, anything BUT dollars for oil.

They were petitioning to join BRICS. They were building direct payment channels with China that bypass SWIFT entirely.

And they were sitting on enough oil to fund de-dollarization for decades.

Why does this matter?

Because the entire American financial system is built on one thing: the petrodollar.

In 1974, Henry Kissinger made a deal with Saudi Arabia: all oil sold globally must be priced in US dollars. In exchange, America provides military protection.

This single agreement created artificial demand for dollars worldwide.

Every country on Earth needs dollars to buy oil.

This allows America print unlimited money while other countries work for it.

 

It funds the US military. It funds the US welfare state. It funds federal deficit spending.

The petrodollar is more important to US hegemony than aircraft carriers.

And there's a pattern of what happens to world leaders who challenge it:

2000: Saddam Hussein announces Iraq will sell oil in euros instead of dollars.

2003: Iraq is invaded. Regime change. Iraq's oil immediately switched back to dollars. Saddam is lynched. WMDs were never found because they never existed.

2009: Mohamar Gaddafi proposes a gold-backed African currency called the "gold dinar" for oil trade.

Hillary Clinton's own leaked emails confirm this was the primary reason for intervention. Email quote: "This gold was intended to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar."

2011: NATO bombs Libya. Gaddafi sodomized and murdered. Libya now has open slave markets.

"We came, we saw, he died!" Clinton laughed on camera. The gold dinar died with him.

And now Maduro. With five times more oil than Saddam and Gaddafi combined.

Actively selling in yuan. Building payment systems outside dollar control. Petitioning to join BRICS. Partnered with China, Russia, and Iran. The three countries leading global de-dollarization.

This isn't coincidence. You challenge the petrodollar. You get regime changed.

Every. Single. Time.

Stephen Miller (US homeland security advisor) literally said it out loud two weeks ago: "American sweat, ingenuity and toil created the oil industry in Venezuela. Its tyrannical expropriation was the largest recorded theft of American wealth and property."

He's not hiding it. They're claiming Venezuelan oil BELONGS to America because US companies developed it 100 years ago.

By this logic, every nationalized resource in history was "theft."

But here's the deeper problem:

The petrodollar is already dying. Russia sells oil in rubles and yuan since Ukraine. Saudi Arabia is openly discussing yuan settlements. Iran has been trading in non-dollar currencies for years. China built CIPS, their own alternative to SWIFT with 4,800 banks in 185 countries. BRICS is actively building payment systems that bypass the dollar entirely. The mBridge project lets central banks settle trades instantly in local currencies. Venezuela joining BRICS with 303 billion barrels of oil would accelerate this exponentially.

That's what this invasion is really about. Not stopping drugs. Venezuela accounts for less than 1% of US cocaine and zero Fentanyl. Not terrorism. There's zero evidence Maduro runs a "terror organization." Not democracy. The US supports Saudi Arabia, which has zero elections.

This is about maintaining a 50-year-old agreement that lets America print money while the rest of the world works for it.

And the consequences are terrifying:

 Russia, China, and Iran are already denouncing this as "armed aggression." China is Venezuela's biggest oil customer. They're losing billions. BRICS nations are watching a country get invaded for trading outside the dollar. Every nation considering de-dollarization just got the message: Challenge the dollar and we will bomb you.

The problem is that this might accelerate de-dollarization, not stop it. Because now every country in the Global South knows what happens if you threaten dollar hegemony. And they're realizing their only protection is to move FASTER.

The timing is insane too:

January 3rd, 2026. Venezuela invaded. Maduro captured.

January 3rd, 1990. Panama invaded. Noriega captured.

36 years apart. Almost to the day.

Same playbook, same "drug trafficking" excuse, same real reason: control of strategic resources and trade routes.

History doesn't repeat. But it rhymes.

What happens next: Trump's press conference at Mar-a-Lago sets the narrative.

US oil companies are already lined up. Politico reported they've been approached about "returning to Venezuela." The opposition will be installed. Oil will flow in dollars again. Venezuela becomes another Iraq. Another Libya. 

But what happens when you can no longer bomb your way to dollar dominance? When China has enough economic leverage to retaliate? When BRICS controls 40% of global GDP and says "no more dollars"? When the world realizes the petrodollar is maintained by violence?

America just showed its hand. The question is whether the rest of the world folds or calls the bluff.

Because this invasion is an admission that the dollar can no longer compete on its own merits. When you have to bomb countries to keep them using your currency, the currency is already dying. Venezuela isn't the beginning. It's the desperate end.

 

Details

Published: 28 November 2009

PROSECUTOR TO HOMESCHOOLERS: NO COMPROMISE—YOU’RE GOING TO JAIL!

Juergen and Rosemary Dudek of Archfeldt, Germany, were sentenced to 90 days in prison in July 2008 because they homeschool their children. Their sentence was overturned by an appeals court because of a legal error, and a new trial was ordered. Their new trial began November 16. German news reports indicate the judge appears disposed to seek a compromise. But prosecutor Herwig Mueller has vowed to appeal any sentence that does not include jail time for these parents, who have been in the spotlight for years because of their insistence on homeschooling. This was the same prosecutor who appealed the lower court sentence of only a fine, saying to the family, “You don’t have to worry about the fine because I will send you to jail.”

The new trial was continued to next week after more than seven hours of testimony. This included an outburst by Mr. Mueller when Mr. Dudek asked the local school officials if they knew the current laws that criminalize homeschoolers were based on laws from 1938. Mr. Mueller loudly protested: “All those Nazi laws have been suspended, and this one is democratic, and you’ve got to accept it, and that’s it.” Mr. Dudek disagrees. “The ‘schuhlpflicht’—the laws that require school attendance—are on the books in the German states,” he explained, “and have been traced back to the ‘Reichsculpflicht Gesetz’ [federal compulsory attendance laws] which was passed in 1938. Except for the removal of references to the Nazi party, these laws are identical or substantially the same as the laws passed by Hitler’s government, criminalizing parents who keep their children home for school.”

Remember, Hitler believed in “get ’em while they’re young.”

Details

Written by: Kurt Tischer

Published: 07 October 2009

Suppose you were given the task of coming up with a master plan to make sure that everyone in this country, all 300,000,000 or so of us, had enough food to eat. It's all up to you!

The first obvious question would be, "What do I have to work with?"

You would need to know what resources would be available to you, what powers you would have, and so on. For example, if you had to work with what you now personally own, you wouldn't have a prayer.

So how much of OTHER people's money would you be given for the project? And, if you're going to plan and manage the thing, you'll need control over all sorts of things, including all the farms, lots of trucks or trains to distribute food, all the buildings, equipment and personnel for distribution locations, and so on. Try to imagine what the price tag would have to be on such an endeavor.

But even if you had all the money in the world, could you do it? Do you know enough about how everything works, and could you solve all the problems that might arise?

No. You still wouldn't have a prayer of making it work. Neither would any other individual, no matter how educated, knowledgeable, or wise. (When you think of centralized control of food production, think of the bread lines in Soviet Russia.) In short, the assigned task CAN'T BE DONE, not by you or anyone else, because no person has all the knowledge required to plan, organize, or carry out such a complex, massive operation.

Luckily, no one's trying to (in this country, anyway). But if even your best effort--or the best effort of any other person--would fail, and no one's even TRYING, why aren't we all starving? In short, we have a huge excess of food in this country, with a huge variety of products at an amazingly low price, at many thousands of locations across the country, precisely because there is NO "master plan."

But isn't that terrifying? There is NO centralized scheme to feed us all! No one is being forced to produce any food, or ship it anywhere. There is NO guarantee that YOU will have anything to eat tomorrow! No one is making sure we all have food! AAAAH!!!

So why do we? Why do we have, not merely enough food to survive (which by itself is an impressive accomplishment), but a huge variety of high-quality, low cost food, even in places hundreds of miles from where most kinds of food can be grown? There wasn't even a big, centralized, concerted effort TRYING to make that happen. So what made it happen?

A guy in Florida, who figured out a new way to keep bugs off his oranges, made it happen. But not by himself. A guy who started a little trucking company in Texas, who figured out how to make things run just a bit faster and more efficiently, made it happen.

But not by himself. A farmer in Iowa, who put in the extra time to cultivate that extra field, made it happen. But not by himself.

MILLIONS of individuals, not governed or guided by any central plan, most of them not even aware of the rest of the picture, made it happen. But if there was no master plan making them all do what they do, and making them all work together in harmony, what could possibly have made it all work?

 

Simple: the quest for PERSONAL GAIN. The amazingly complex arrangements, intricate organization, ongoing adaption and problem solving, all come from what is often termed "greed." (This is nothing new to those familiar with "Austrian" economics.) The self-interest of millions of individuals, most of whom know only their tiny little piece of the big picture, is capable of doing what no centralized plan ever has, or ever could.

But let's suppose you had all those people under your command.

Let's suppose you could boss them around, and let's suppose they would all gladly obey. You STILL would do a horrendous job of things. (Don't feel bad; anyone else would, too.) You wouldn't know the best route for the trucker to take, or what time of day he should drive. You wouldn't know the best time to plant and harvest corn, or how to rotate the crops most efficiently. There would literally be MILLIONS of choices to be made, and in almost every case, you wouldn't have the first clue about the right way to do anything.

In a free market, each person's bottom line creates a constant incentive for each person to figure out and make better choices.

The economics phenomenon known as "the market" quickly and automatic corrects most errors. But if YOU were making all the choices, and everyone below you was just blindly following orders, it would be a complete disaster. How much wheat should go to Chicago, as opposed to Orlando? Does Los Angeles need more corn than Detroit? How could you ever hope to answer every question about how much crop each farm will produce, how fast it will get to somewhere else, how much is needed there, and so on? Of course, you could always "delegate," by giving some other busy-body a smaller number of questions that he couldn't answer correctly either. Then you'd just have a bigger bureaucracy, with similar horrible results (and more opportunity for corruption).

Actually, there is ONE way you could accomplish the stated goal, but it's really radical. You could address the nation, and boldly proclaim, "I don't KNOW how to make everything work! Figure it out for yourselves!" In other words, you could advocate ANARCHY--a complete ABSENCE of a central plan, a total departure from the whole idea of centralized planning and control. In other words, you could do NOTHING, and achieve an infinitely better result than you could have accomplished any other way.

Americans have outstanding examples of how this works, in lots of different areas (food production, transportation technology, information technology, and so on). Nonetheless, there are still areas of life in which most Americans are terrified of the idea of NOT having things centrally managed and controlled (defense and road-building being two common examples). But the laws of economics don't CHANGE from one industry to another. Human nature doesn't function one way when it comes to roads and another way when it comes to cars. The arguments showing how idiotic it is to have "government" managing food production can be applied just as well to show how idiotic it is to have "government" managing ANYTHING.

Nonetheless, we now have millions of people discussing what centralized, authoritarian, forcibly-imposed "plan" might fix health care. Last week the discussion was about which centralized, authoritarian, forcibly-imposed "plan" might fix the economy. And next week there will be some other crisis--real or imagined--for which the politicians will propose yet another "master plan." 

If you think ANY centralized plan can make "health care" work, you don't understand human nature or economics. If you think ANY centralized plan can protect people from crime, you don't understand human nature or economics. If you think ANY centralized plan can lead to a prosperous country, you don't understand human nature or economics. In short, if you think that having a small group of people FORCIBLY CONTROLLING everyone else will ever make society better, you don't understand reality. And if you're scared to death of the alternative, especially when it's called "anarchy" (oh, heavens!), you need to grow up.

The next time you visit the local grocery store, take a good look around, because you'll be standing in ANARCHY!

(Actually, thanks to the myriad of "regulations" and "taxes" that interfere with food production and distribution in this country, what you see is really what voluntary interaction can achieve, even with a huge number of obstacles thrown in its way.)

 

Details

Published: 18 July 2009

-- or --

An article appeared in the July 16 News Sun regarding the fact that Berea Municipal Court had installed a lock box for payments of waiverable citations. In that article, Ray Wohl, Clerk of Courts at the Berea Municipal Court was quoted as saying “This was done to improve customer service,” and “It's not about time and money for us. It's about the convenience of the people who use our court.”

Ray Wohl suffers from what I call, the "government delusion". The government delusion is probably the oldest, most pervasive and stubborn of all delusions. It is the belief in non-existent "states" and "nations" and that "government" is both legitimate and necessary. People who suffer from this delusion also believe that government has “customers” and provides its “services” just like any other business.

In the geographic area of the North American continent commonly referred to as the "United States," it’s claimed only "government" can provide the service of protecting "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." This is nonsense if only for the reason "government" has no duty to protect anyone or their property, as the case of Bowers v. DeVito clearly points out:

"The constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let the people alone; it does not require the federal government or the states to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order." Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616.

But the best reason is: no service or product should be provided at the barrel of a gun. It’s that simple. There are no exceptions unless one believes people have no rights. If one believes people have no rights then "government" is not "necessary" to "protect" what doesn’t exist. If you believe people have rights, then you don’t "protect" them without their freely given consent. Also, protection is not submission to the violent unaccountable control of tax feeding men who wear badges or the right colored uniforms, nor is violent domination a legitimate method of doing business. Would you hire or become the customer of people who don’t even acknowledge you have property, to protect your property? I wouldn't:

"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called "ownership" is only by virtue of Government, i.e., law, amounting to mere user; and that use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State." Senate Resolution #62, April 1933.

Again, Mr. Wohl believes that he is merely doing business, that the Berea Municipal Court, when it comes to “waiverable citations” has “customers” and is providing them with a “service”. I guess the real questions are: Who are the actual customers of the Berea Municipal Court? Does receiving a citation qualify one for their wonderful customer service?

Does Mr. Wohl even recognize that he is a member of "government?" What exactly is “government?” Have you ever seen a “government?” While there are varying degrees, as George Washington was so keen to point out, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force...”

There you have it, the first president of this country explaining that “government” is, at the very least, one man violently controlling the life and property of another man. In some places this violent control is “decreed” to be for the latter’s “own good” and “protection” and hailed as the “best system in the world.” You may recognize that violent control over a man’s life and property is what we like to call slavery. Slavery is a form of “government,” and in most cases, if not all, synonymous with “government.” “Govern” means “control”, not “protect”. Have you ever noticed the word “protect” is mysteriously not included in any definitions of govern?

“govern. To direct and control; to regulate; to influence; to restrain; to manage. State v Ream, 16 Neb 681, 683.” Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, page 530.

In “democracies” and so-called “democratic republics,” slaves are given the false choice of choosing new masters. The old plantations can be seen as “political subdivisions” such as “cities,” only smaller: “nations” have “presidents,” “states” have “governors,” “counties” have “commissioners,” “cities” have “mayors” and “councilmen” and “clerks”, plantations have masters.

“Government” is just a group of men and women providing the service of protecting “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” at the barrel of a gun. We have no choice in accepting and paying for their wonderful services. Their services are so valuable that we’re compelled to accept and pay for them. And yet they define people such as myself as radical extremists?

To keep this short, I’ll use statements from politicians themselves i.e., their sacred “law” that’s worshipped, revered and most important, feared. Compare the following:

1. “tax. A forced burden, charge, exaction, imposition or contribution assessed in accordance with some reasonable rule of apportionment by authority of a sovereign state upon the persons or property within its jurisdiction to provide for public revenue for the support of the government, the administration of the law, or the payment of public expenses. 51 AmJ1st Tax § 3.” Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, page 1255.
2. “The organized use of threats, coercion, intimidation, and violence to compel the payment for actual or alleged services of arbitrary or excessive charges under the guise of membership dues, protection fees, royalties, or service rates. United States v McGlone (DC Pa) 19 F Supp 285, 286.” Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, page 1051.

The first is a kinder, gentler way of describing the second. Both are accurate descriptions of how men and women pretending to be “government” operate. I like the second one because it’s actually the definition of “racketeer.”

The government delusion is that “government,” a racket, is legitimate and necessary. That’s absurd. Maybe if you believe a service should be provided at the barrel of a gun then yes, you’d think “government” is legitimate and necessary. And if you're delusional you probably think that “government” is a “business” providing “service” to “customers”.

The government delusion is exposed with nothing more than no service or product should to be provided at the barrel of a gun. If the alleged “services” which the men and women “doing business” as a pretended “state”, “nation”, “county” or  “city” are so valuable, then people would voluntarily accept and pay for them.

Some people attack this by asking, “But who will build the roads?” and “Who will keep us safe from harm?”, yada yada, ad infinitum. The answer is simple: Anything done under the guise of consent can be done by consent.

Most people in this country go to great lengths to be productive, and not be a drain on society. Yet hilariously, they are always imposed upon by tax feeders in “government,” who themselves are nothing BUT a drain on society.

If the men and women pretending to be “government” actually want to be viewed like any other business providing a “service” to “customers”, they only have to do one thing differently (and here’s the “radical extremist” part): provide their services on a voluntary basis like everybody else.

I challenge Mr. Wohl to go over my history of appearances before any judge, magistrate, clerk, or officer of the Berea Municipal Court and show me when I was ever a “customer” of the court, seeking it’s alleged “services” and not merely the subject of violent property expropriation, the result of which any real resistance to their claim on my part would have been violent force to put me in a cage, to be tasered, beaten, kicked, shot and possibly even killed.