THESE 9 countries are fighting to TOPPLE the U.S. dollar.

SOPA Images / Contributor | Getty Images

Every American living in the U.S. today has lived in a dollar-dominated world. After World War I, the dollar replaced the British pound as the world's strongest currency after the war decimated and depleted Europe's economies. The Bretton Wood Agreement in 1944 solidified the dollar's standing as the international trade currency. In 1973, the "petro-dollar" was born, with all oil purchases transacted through the U.S. dollar.

The U.S. dollar's dominance has funded our way of life without collapsing on our own debt and secured our place as the world's leading superpower.

Until now.

The dollar is under the greatest attack since it rose to its place of prominence after World War I. Led by China and Russia, the BRICS alliance, composed of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, aims to create a "multi-polar" world where the yuan and ruble provide an alternative currency for those who want to become independent from the dollar and the influence it entails.

The dollar is under the greatest attack since it rose to its place of prominence after World War I.

In 2023, we have seen the biggest international rally against the U.S. dollar since World War I. Trading relationships that the U.S. has long taken for granted are now turning to the Chinese yuan to bypass the Western "strings attached" to the dollar. This means countries like Iran and Russia now have a way to bypass U.S. sanctions. The greater threat is a new "world order" controlled by China and Russia depleting the U.S. dollar. This has the potential to completely alter our way of life.

Below are the top 9 countries to take active steps against the U.S. dollar, posing the greatest threat to the U.S. as a superpower.

1. Argentina

Argentina's President Alberto Fernandez (right) welcomes Brazil's President Lula da Silva (left) to Buenos Aires.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Argentina and Brazil announced they will be forming their own common currency with the explicit purpose of severing their reliance on the U.S. dollar. Brazil and Argentina are the first and second-largest economies in Latin America. The move will help them become more immune to U.S. sanctions as they progress towards closer ties with China. Moreover, Argentina is considering joining the BRICS alliance as a formal step away from the U.S. dollar.

2. Brazil

President Lula da Silva (left) shakes hands with China's Ambassador to Brazil Zhu Qingqiao (right).

SERGIO LIMA / Contributor | Getty Images

One of the founding members of the BRICS alliance, Brazil signed a memorandum of understanding with China earlier this year to establish a yuan-clearing arrangement, the first step in establishing bilateral trade with China. More progress to this end is expected this week as Brazilian President Lula de Silva prepares to visit President Xi in Beijing.

Lula de Silva ousted former President Bolsonaro, who was more closely aligned with the U.S. and Western interests. Now, Silva aims to lessen Brazil's dependence on the U.S. dollar and the risk of sanctions for doing business with enemy nations with the U.S.

Henry Osvald, president of the Brazilian Association for Industry, Commerce and Innovation in China (BraCham) remarked that the deepening ties between Brazil and China "comes at a very important moment as the US dollar is not stable and it is depreciating considerably." Moreover, Osvald said:

Brazil is the only country in Latin America that has a bank established in China, and there are already several Chinese banks established in Brazil - this will help economic and trade ties and strengthen the yuan as an alternative to the US dollar and the euro.

As Iran, China, and Russia are continually aiming to expand their interests in Latin America, the Chinese yuan will allow them to do so with less fear of repercussions from the U.S.

3. China

China's President Xi Jinping leads the anti-dollar coalition through boosting the yuan's international status.

LUDOVIC MARIN / Contributor | Getty Images

The Chinese yuan is the biggest challenger to the U.S. dollar as the international trade currency of choice. From their Belt and Road Initiatives to forging closer ties with countries that were subject to U.S. sanctions, China is positioning the Yuan as an alternative to countries who aim to become more independent from the U.S. dollar and the influence it entails.

China is the focal point of all the countries on this list. Xi is providing a way for nations who want to distance themselves from U.S. interests to do so without fear of economic repercussions. The list is already large and will continue to grow as China seeks to expand BRICS and the yuan's influence in Latin America and Africa.

4. France

French President Macron (left) greets President Xi (right) during his historic visit to Beijing.

LUDOVIC MARIN / Contributor | Getty Images

France, a long-time U.S. ally, has become one of the most outspoken Western critics of the U.S. dollar and the European spokesperson for autonomy from the U.S. In his recent historic visit to Beijing, Macron reiterated his call for Europe's "strategic autonomy" to prevent becoming "vassals" to the U.S. Macron, like German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, are determined to keep industrial ties with China despite the growing conflict between China and the U.S.

France's determination to distance itself from the U.S. is a major blow to U.S. foreign policy and relations with the West. It speaks volumes to the deterioration of trust behind U.S. fiscal and foreign policy in regards to the U.S.'s closest allies.

5. India

India's Prime Minister Modi (right) and Putin (left) deepen trade relations with the rupee and rouble to bypass U.S. pressures attached to the dollar.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Behind the Chinese yuan, the Indian rupee is arguably the second-greatest challenger to the U.S. dollar. As a BRICS founding member, India has long aimed to distance itself from the influence of the dollar. This year, India took a major step forward, announcing its new trade policy that steps away from the dollar in favor of placing the rupee and Russian ruble as international currencies to settle trade transactions.

In addition to strengthening the rupee's standing for trade transactions across Asia, most notably Malaysia, India agreed to use both rupees and rubles instead of the dollar in mutual trade with Russia to avoid Western sanctions. India also agreed to switch to a rupee payment for Iranian crude imports, bypassing Western sanctions on Iranian oil.

6. Iran

Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi (left) meets with Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress of China Li Zhanshu (right) during his official visit to Beijing, China on February 14, 2023.

Anadolu Agency / Contributor | Getty Images

There are few countries who are subject to more international sanctions from the U.S. than Iran. Sanctions on Iran's oil and weapons industries have been a long-time strategy used by the U.S. to restrict Iran's nuclear program. However, with the Chinese Yuan as an option, U.S. sanctions will lose much of their power in curbing Iran's initiatives. Through using the yuan, Iran can trade its oil, sell its weapons to Iranian-backed militias wreaking havoc throughout the Middle East, and continue to grow its nuclear program with less fear of international consequences.

7. Russia

Putin (right) and Xi (left) lead the BRICS alliance against the U.S. dollar and influence.

Contributor / Contributor

China and Russia have been forging closer ties for years to deal with Western opposition. However, the war in Ukraine has brought them closer than ever before. Putin and Xi's historic meeting in Beijing solidified their military and economic alliance, aiding each other in bypassing Western sanctions and pressures.

Putin called for the Chinese yuan to be used globally, saying, “We support using Chinese yuan in transactions between the Russian Federation and its partners in Asia, Africa and Latin America." Moreover, Xi told Putin, “Right now, we’re seeing a change we haven’t seen in 100 years, and we’re driving this change together" signaling a new "multi-polar" world order with China and Russia becoming legitimate power challengers to the U.S.

Last month alone, the yuan overtook the dollar as the most traded currency on the Moscow Exchange for the first time ever, representing almost 40 percent of total trading volume. As they aim to make the yuan the international currency of choice beyond Russia into the developing world, Russia and China pose the greatest economic threat to the U.S., as Xi said, in the past "100 years."

8. Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (left) greets Chinese President Xi Jinping (right)

Pool / Pool | Getty Images

Saudi Arabia's decision to ditch the "petro-dollar" in favor of the "petro-yuan" is arguably the most significant blow to the U.S. economy in modern times. The "petro-dollar" refers to the dollar's standing as the currency facilitating oil that has been traded and sold from Saudi Arabia. The “petro-dollar” has been an integral part of the U.S.’s foreign policy and economic standing since the 1970s.

It is one of the main reasons why politicians justify taking on so much domestic debt—most countries "buy up our debt" via oil purchases. Our current way of life is completely dependent upon foreign investors, who hold a total of $7.3 trillion in U.S. debt as of 2022. We've been free print ourselves into oblivion knowing our foreign investors will pick up the bill.

Not anymore.

Now, Saudi calls for all oil transactions to be carried out in yuan, NOT the U.S. dollar. This isn't merely a major blow to the dollar's international reputation as a safely-backed currency—it is a threat to our way of life and our fiscal bottom line.

9. South Africa

South African President Ramaphosa (left) greets fellow BRICS member, Vladimir Putin (right).

Mikhail Svetlov / Contributor | Getty Images

South Africa is arguably one of the most outspoken opponents to the U.S. dollar out of the BRICS nations. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa says he'll use his chairmanship of the BRICS group of leading emerging economies to focus on advancing African interests, creating less dependency on the dollar and Western influence. He said:

Our continent was pillaged and ravaged and exploited by other continents and we therefore want to build the solidarity in BRICS to advance the interests, of course initially of our own country, but also of the continent as a whole.

China is already Africa's largest trading partner. With Ramaphosa's urgency to expand BRICS on the continent, it is clear that Western interests are losing the battle on the African front.

EXPOSED: Why Eisenhower warned us about endless wars

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.

At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.

Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.

Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.

And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.

Peace through strength

When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.

Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.

The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.

Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.

That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.

Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.

Names matter

When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Unveiling the Deep State: From surveillance to censorship

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

From surveillance abuse to censorship, the deep state used state power and private institutions to suppress dissent and influence two US elections.

The term “deep state” has long been dismissed as the province of cranks and conspiracists. But the recent declassification of two critical documents — the Durham annex, released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and a report publicized by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard — has rendered further denial untenable.

These documents lay bare the structure and function of a bureaucratic, semi-autonomous network of agencies, contractors, nonprofits, and media entities that together constitute a parallel government operating alongside — and at times in opposition to — the duly elected one.

The ‘deep state’ is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment.

The disclosures do not merely recount past abuses; they offer a schematic of how modern influence operations are conceived, coordinated, and deployed across domestic and international domains.

What they reveal is not a rogue element operating in secret, but a systematized apparatus capable of shaping elections, suppressing dissent, and laundering narratives through a transnational network of intelligence, academia, media, and philanthropic institutions.

Narrative engineering from the top

According to Gabbard’s report, a pivotal moment occurred on December 9, 2016, when the Obama White House convened its national security leadership in the Situation Room. Attendees included CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Secretary of State John Kerry, and others.

During this meeting, the consensus view up to that point — that Russia had not manipulated the election outcome — was subordinated to new instructions.

The record states plainly: The intelligence community was directed to prepare an assessment “per the President’s request” that would frame Russia as the aggressor and then-presidential candidate Donald Trump as its preferred candidate. Notably absent was any claim that new intelligence had emerged. The motivation was political, not evidentiary.

This maneuver became the foundation for the now-discredited 2017 intelligence community assessment on Russian election interference. From that point on, U.S. intelligence agencies became not neutral evaluators of fact but active participants in constructing a public narrative designed to delegitimize the incoming administration.

Institutional and media coordination

The ODNI report and the Durham annex jointly describe a feedback loop in which intelligence is laundered through think tanks and nongovernmental organizations, then cited by media outlets as “independent verification.” At the center of this loop are agencies like the CIA, FBI, and ODNI; law firms such as Perkins Coie; and NGOs such as the Open Society Foundations.

According to the Durham annex, think tanks including the Atlantic Council, the Carnegie Endowment, and the Center for a New American Security were allegedly informed of Clinton’s 2016 plan to link Trump to Russia. These institutions, operating under the veneer of academic independence, helped diffuse the narrative into public discourse.

Media coordination was not incidental. On the very day of the aforementioned White House meeting, the Washington Post published a front-page article headlined “Obama Orders Review of Russian Hacking During Presidential Campaign” — a story that mirrored the internal shift in official narrative. The article marked the beginning of a coordinated media campaign that would amplify the Trump-Russia collusion narrative throughout the transition period.

Surveillance and suppression

Surveillance, once limited to foreign intelligence operations, was turned inward through the abuse of FISA warrants. The Steele dossier — funded by the Clinton campaign via Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS — served as the basis for wiretaps on Trump affiliates, despite being unverified and partially discredited. The FBI even altered emails to facilitate the warrants.

ROBYN BECK / Contributor | Getty Images

This capacity for internal subversion reappeared in 2020, when 51 former intelligence officials signed a letter labeling the Hunter Biden laptop story as “Russian disinformation.” According to polling, 79% of Americans believed truthful coverage of the laptop could have altered the election. The suppression of that story — now confirmed as authentic — was election interference, pure and simple.

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

The deep state is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment and strategic goals.

Each node — law firms, think tanks, newsrooms, federal agencies — operates with plausible deniability. But taken together, they form a matrix of influence capable of undermining electoral legitimacy and redirecting national policy without democratic input.

The ODNI report and the Durham annex mark the first crack in the firewall shielding this machine. They expose more than a political scandal buried in the past. They lay bare a living system of elite coordination — one that demands exposure, confrontation, and ultimately dismantling.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump's proposal explained: Ukraine's path to peace without NATO expansion

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Strategic compromise, not absolute victory, often ensures lasting stability.

When has any country been asked to give up land it won in a war? Even if a nation is at fault, the punishment must be measured.

After World War I, Germany, the main aggressor, faced harsh penalties under the Treaty of Versailles. Germans resented the restrictions, and that resentment fueled the rise of Adolf Hitler, ultimately leading to World War II. History teaches that justice for transgressions must avoid creating conditions for future conflict.

Ukraine and Russia must choose to either continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

Russia and Ukraine now stand at a similar crossroads. They can cling to disputed land and prolong a devastating war, or they can make concessions that might secure a lasting peace. The stakes could not be higher: Tens of thousands die each month, and the choice between endless bloodshed and negotiated stability hinges on each side’s willingness to yield.

History offers a guide. In 1967, Israel faced annihilation. Surrounded by hostile armies, the nation fought back and seized large swaths of territory from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. Yet Israel did not seek an empire. It held only the buffer zones needed for survival and returned most of the land. Security and peace, not conquest, drove its decisions.

Peace requires concessions

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says both Russia and Ukraine will need to “get something” from a peace deal. He’s right. Israel proved that survival outweighs pride. By giving up land in exchange for recognition and an end to hostilities, it stopped the cycle of war. Egypt and Israel have not fought in more than 50 years.

Russia and Ukraine now press opposing security demands. Moscow wants a buffer to block NATO. Kyiv, scarred by invasion, seeks NATO membership — a pledge that any attack would trigger collective defense by the United States and Europe.

President Donald Trump and his allies have floated a middle path: an Article 5-style guarantee without full NATO membership. Article 5, the core of NATO’s charter, declares that an attack on one is an attack on all. For Ukraine, such a pledge would act as a powerful deterrent. For Russia, it might be more palatable than NATO expansion to its border

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Peace requires concessions. The human cost is staggering: U.S. estimates indicate 20,000 Russian soldiers died in a single month — nearly half the total U.S. casualties in Vietnam — and the toll on Ukrainians is also severe. To stop this bloodshed, both sides need to recognize reality on the ground, make difficult choices, and anchor negotiations in security and peace rather than pride.

Peace or bloodshed?

Both Russia and Ukraine claim deep historical grievances. Ukraine arguably has a stronger claim of injustice. But the question is not whose parchment is older or whose deed is more valid. The question is whether either side is willing to trade some land for the lives of thousands of innocent people. True security, not historical vindication, must guide the path forward.

History shows that punitive measures or rigid insistence on territorial claims can perpetuate cycles of war. Germany’s punishment after World War I contributed directly to World War II. By contrast, Israel’s willingness to cede land for security and recognition created enduring peace. Ukraine and Russia now face the same choice: Continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Seniors, children, and the isolated increasingly rely on machines for conversation, risking real relationships and the emotional depth that only humans provide.

Jill Smola is 75 years old. She’s a retiree from Orlando, Florida, and she spent her life caring for the elderly. She played games, assembled puzzles, and offered company to those who otherwise would have sat alone.

Now, she sits alone herself. Her husband has died. She has a lung condition. She can’t drive. She can’t leave her home. Weeks can pass without human interaction.

Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

But CBS News reports that she has a new companion. And she likes this companion more than her own daughter.

The companion? Artificial intelligence.

She spends five hours a day talking to her AI friend. They play games, do trivia, and just talk. She says she even prefers it to real people.

My first thought was simple: Stop this. We are losing our humanity.

But as I sat with the story, I realized something uncomfortable. Maybe we’ve already lost some of our humanity — not to AI, but to ourselves.

Outsourcing presence

How often do we know the right thing to do yet fail to act? We know we should visit the lonely. We know we should sit with someone in pain. We know what Jesus would do: Notice the forgotten, touch the untouchable, offer time and attention without outsourcing compassion.

Yet how often do we just … talk about it? On the radio, online, in lectures, in posts. We pontificate, and then we retreat.

I asked myself: What am I actually doing to close the distance between knowing and doing?

Human connection is messy. It’s inconvenient. It takes patience, humility, and endurance. AI doesn’t challenge you. It doesn’t interrupt your day. It doesn’t ask anything of you. Real people do. Real people make us confront our pride, our discomfort, our loneliness.

We’ve built an economy of convenience. We can have groceries delivered, movies streamed, answers instantly. But friendships — real relationships — are slow, inefficient, unpredictable. They happen in the blank spaces of life that we’ve been trained to ignore.

And now we’re replacing that inefficiency with machines.

AI provides comfort without challenge. It eliminates the risk of real intimacy. It’s an elegant coping mechanism for loneliness, but a poor substitute for life. If we’re not careful, the lonely won’t just be alone — they’ll be alone with an anesthetic, a shadow that never asks for anything, never interrupts, never makes them grow.

Reclaiming our humanity

We need to reclaim our humanity. Presence matters. Not theory. Not outrage. Action.

It starts small. Pull up a chair for someone who eats alone. Call a neighbor you haven’t spoken to in months. Visit a nursing home once a month — then once a week. Ask their names, hear their stories. Teach your children how to be present, to sit with someone in grief, without rushing to fix it.

Turn phones off at dinner. Make Sunday afternoons human time. Listen. Ask questions. Don’t post about it afterward. Make the act itself sacred.

Humility is central. We prefer machines because we can control them. Real people are inconvenient. They interrupt our narratives. They demand patience, forgiveness, and endurance. They make us confront ourselves.

A friend will challenge your self-image. A chatbot won’t.

Our homes are quieter. Our streets are emptier. Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

Before we worry about how AI will reshape humanity, we must first practice humanity. It can start with 15 minutes a day of undivided attention, presence, and listening.

Change usually comes when pain finally wins. Let’s not wait for that. Let’s start now. Because real connection restores faster than any machine ever will.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.