More On The MAGA Big Picture
I’ve been arguing for some time as follows—quoting form past posts:
Trump’s pursuit of “deals” around the world is designed to shore up and maintain Anglo-Zionist hegemony. The total giveaway in that regard was Trump’s emphatic threat to make war on any country that attempted to replace King Dollar as the world reserve currency. The tariffs are intended mostly to force the world to pay down US debt to strengthen the Anglo-Zionist imperial grip over the world through financial means.
what I find most disturbing in the tariff mess is the suspicion—voiced in this morning’s post—that behind the talk of reshoring our manufacturing base the real goal is to maintain the US as the hegemonic world superpower.
… the openly expressed views of Trump’s closest trade advisers. They want to tie trade policy into national security policy, keep the USD as the world reserve currency, and maintain the US as the single dominant hegemonic superpower—MAGA, ya’ll! IOW, the Trump Tariffs represent a way to strongarm the rest of the world into paying down the unsustainable US debt—and, maybe, reshore industries that are vital to the military. It’s a continuation of Neocolonialism.
OK, note the emphasis on maintaining world hegemony by dominating the financial system, which can only be accomplished if King Dollar remains the world reserve currency. Trump understands this—thus his threats to go to war to defend King Dollar. This also explains his efforts to obtain large amounts of new collateral.
I just came across a post at Zerohedge that summarizes a discussion between Steve Bannon and Jim Rickards:
Rickards is arguing that Trump’s Grand Tour of the Middle East is part of the effort to shore up King Dollar and thus to MAGA. The dominance of King Dollar is slipping, and that’s the real crisis, even more so, for now, than the failings of the US military. The Anglo-Zionist empire was built and is maintained by financial system dominance. Read this carefully:
In this fascinating discussion, Jim starts with the history of the original petrodollar system. And he knows the subject well, having helped create it.
The premise of the 1974 petrodollar agreement was that Saudi Arabia would only sell oil in dollars, which would stimulate demand for greenbacks as a reserve currency.
Here’s Jim explaining the basics to Steve Bannon’s audience:
“We had a carrot and stick approach. Bill Simon, who was Secretary of the Treasury, went to the Saudis and said ‘everybody in the world needs oil, and if you price oil in dollars, then everybody needs dollars.’
And that basically underpins the role of the dollar today as the world’s reserve currency.
The stick was, if you don’t do it we’re going to invade Saudi Arabia and take over oil production.
The carrot was, if you price oil in dollars, we’ll give you a security umbrella.
In other words, Anglo-Zionist hegemony is a protection racket. Pure and simple.
It’s rare to hear such candor coming from someone who was directly involved in the formation of the petrodollar system.
Needless to say, the petrodollar system was successful and led to a resurgence in the American dollar as the world’s key reserve currency (despite Nixon ditching the gold standard just 3 years earlier).
At this point, Steve Bannon interrupted with an insightful question (paraphrased):
“Wait, you say the petrodollar system is still in place, but the Saudis are now selling oil to China for yuan. Aren’t cracks showing in the petrodollar system?”
Jim responded that yes, cracks are starting to show in the system, and that’s why Trump was in Saudi Arabia, to seal a “Petrodollar 2.0” agreement. Jim also points out that, at least for now, the amount of oil Saudi Arabia is selling for yuan and other currencies is miniscule compared to dollar-based sales.
Jim proceeds to lay out the purpose of Petrodollar 2.0:
“The U.S., by strengthening its relationship with Saudi Arabia, and creating Petrodollar 2.0, puts the pressure on China to reduce their tariffs and meet Trump’s requirements. Otherwise they don’t have a source of dollars.”
This time around, Trump is using a strictly carrot-based approach. He’s on a charm offensive and looking to build strong, lasting ties with Saudi Arabia and the broader Middle East. This is a smart approach and we expect it will bear fruit in the near future.
Had President Trump taken a threatening approach to Saudi Arabia, it almost certainly would have driven the country into China’s waiting arms. And America can’t afford to let that happen.
It’s an excellent interview, and you can watch the entire thing here (free) on Rumble (it’s only 13 minutes). Jim also gets into Russia vs. Ukraine with Steve, and brings an insightful and unique perspective as always.
I do highly recommend the full 13 minute video. It’s amusing and stimulating.
But now, let’s think about those carrot/stick vs. carrot/carrot approaches. Why was the first successful, and will the second be equally successful? The answer is pretty simple. Carrot/stick was successful because the US military presented a credible threat to the Saudis and the Saudis didn’t really have anywhere else to turn for protection. So why is Trump trying to work a carrot/carrot wheeze, instead of simply threatening the Saudis? You already know the answer. The US military is no longer the credible threat that it once was, and the Saudis have—at least arguably—alternatives for the protection they need. Those alternatives are at least credible enough that the Saudis are in a position to bargain, rather than be forced into accepting an offer they can’t refuse. That means the US bargaining position is significantly weaker—and the poor showing of the USN against Yemen didn’t exactly strengthen Trump’s hand. Nor did the failed attempt to attack Iran along with Israel.
For all those reasons and more—the explosion of US debt, the state of the US military and economy and the political disarray—I wouldn’t be too sure about Petro Dollar 2.0. The point is, this is the game and this is the hand Trump’s playing with—whether the American people understand it or not. This may not be existential for America, but it could well be for the Anglo-Zionist empire that we live in. Again, whether we know it or not.
Let’s close with a brief Youtube of Glenn Diesen listening to Jeffrey Sachs. What Sachs does is he explains the economic history that the Anglo-Zionists are attempting to stand on its head. Many smart thinkers—Samuel Huntington is one of them—have pointed out that for most of known history China has accounted for about 20% of the world economy. That ended during the Century of Humiliation, but guess what? That century is over and the world economy is rebalancing. China is resuming its historical position as a driver of the world economy—along with other Asian countries. The Anglo-Zionists—now with Trump as their front man in King Canute mode—are attempting to reverse this process. This is the whole point of detaching Russia from China, but the Anglo-Zionists have long since burned their bridges to Russia. It’s time to come up with a more rational and constructive way to deal with the Chinese reality:
Jeffrey Sachs: The Trade War Represents the End of Western Hegemony (Clip May 2 2025)
The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 and a decade of misery followed. Then along came Putin and he needed 2 decades to rebuild Russia from the ashes. This could not have happened without the decade of misery. It had to get bad enough and become existential before the average Russian could be motivated to accept the necessary changes. The same is now true for both the US and Europe. We have to hit a hard bottom that lasts for years before meaningful change can occur. This used to be known as the "business cycle." The dollar's status as the world's reserve currency allowed politicians to endlessly spend beyond our means thereby postponing these corrections. Those chickens are now coming home to roost, and the longer it takes to crash, the lower and longer the bottom will be. Putin knows this better than anyone having lived it in the first person. Trump will continue to bluff until called. That is what happened in Turkey on Thursday. Bluff called.
Saudi and UAE oil together are only 15% of China's oil imports, less than what they get from Russia. I'd argue that the bilateral trade using currency swaps, and development of non-US-controlled clearing systems, are a much bigger threat to USD dominance (read, it removes the option of weaponising it).