Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Islamic state

Islamic State Flips Gold Coins to Break Fed `Enslavement' http://bloom.bg/1JsLkjh

The currency is meant to break the shackles of “the capitalist financial system of enslavement, underpinned by a piece of paper called the Federal Reserve dollar note,” the group said in the video. It didn’t explain where the coins were being minted, nor how they’ll be distributed or replace currencies circulating in theterritory the group occupies in parts of Iraq and Syria.
Click to expand...
Because Islamic State is classified as a terrorist group, the coins can’t be traded legally.

“They’ll only be used in these areas and people will only buy these coins for their daily needs and expenses,” said the economist Jameel.

“Nobody outside their control will accept the currency and I don’t know how they’ll keep up with demand, as they are losing resources day after day,” he said. “At the end of the day, this is a media propaganda tool.”
Click to expand...

:facepalm:
 
I don't understand what backs the currency. Other than the value of the physical coin itself, which....this is weird.
 
DotCommunist said:
I don't understand what backs the currency. Other than the value of the physical coin itself, which....this is weird.
Click to expand...

http://blogsofwar.com/the-return-of...-up-to/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

ISIS is extremely proud of their latest video but, trust me, it’s a bit of a snorefest. But, it’s also very different. The horrific violence they’re known for is there but only in comparatively small doses. Instead they’ve opted to take a lot of fringe financial theory (the kind you might have heard already if you listen to Glenn Beck or Alex Jones) and wrap it The Mummy Returns production values. Then, just like a college freshmen who has taken one economics class and read a dozen conspiracy theory websites, they drone on and on and on. It’s weird – just not weird enough to be interesting.

Of course, what we really need to know is why they’re going to all of this trouble. I’m still processing this but from their perspective:

  1. The production values project authority and capability.
  2. The pseudo-intellectual financial theory will not impress economists but it will resonate with people who view alternative financial systems as a rejection of current political systems. There are large numbers of people in the Middle East – and the United States who share this view.
  3. It checks the theology box by claiming to be a model that is more inline with Islamic principals.
  4. Money is central to statehood so this reinforces that claim.
  5. At the end of the day the ISIS wants to be seen as a viable alternative to existing powers and all of these elements will combine and resonate with some people.
The alignment with the non-Islamic conspiracy thought in the West is the most intriguing aspect of this communication. Is this convergence intentional or is it a coincidence arising out of the fact that these ideas on the financial fringe have been circulating for a long time? I can’t make a call on that at the moment but it is certainly a question worth considering.
 
I'd heard something about dear departed gaddafi planning on a pan african currencey...dunno how true it is though I think Casually Red posted it with a link to RT so, pinch of salt etc
 
well at least with a libyan backed pan african currency you'd know what backed it- the state of libya and its massive wealth. Such as was back then. But what IS hope to back with I don't know
 
Wikipedia has a modern gold dinar page that includes the IS one, the Gaddafi proposal, and several others from the likes of Indonesia and Malaysia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_gold_dinar

All I'll say about most of the pieces about Gaddafi is that it's quite common for there to be currency-based explanations of why wars happen when they do, and when dictators are overthrown when they are. For example the Gaddafi story looks like a variant of 'Saddam planned to start trading oil in Euros' explanation for why Iraq finally got invaded when it did. The reality is probably more nuanced - baskets of currencies and baskets of reasons why wars happen.
 
laptop said:
I don't have the stomach to go to look... are they (yet) claiming the Federal Reserve has been dictating Daesh policy?
Click to expand...


'gold standard' loon said:
“They’ll only be used in these areas and people will only buy these coins for their daily needs and expenses,” said Baghdad-based economist Basim Jameel. “Nobody outside their control will accept the currency and I don’t know how they’ll keep up with demand, as they are losing resources day after day,” he said. “At the end of the day, this is a media propaganda tool.”

Actually no, they won't: as Bloomberg also notes, "since Islamic State is classified as a terrorist group, the coins can’t be traded legally." But the point of the propaganda video is not to promote ISIS coinage, which will never exist; the point - as the nuanced, C-grade made in Hollywood propaganda goes, is to pitch an anti-Fed, anti-fractional reserve, pro-gold standard ideology, and make it equivalent to the evil terrorist thoughts spread by the Islamic Jihadist group.

And just like that, Austrian Economics has been reduced to a terrorist ideology, and anyone harboring the same "evil" misconceptions as those spread by the "Islamic State's" media propaganda outlet have become an enemy of the US state.

So how to avoid becoming accidental drone fodder? Why by renouncing all evil, terrorist thoughts of a "satanic conception of banks" and a "capitalist financial system of enslavement, underpinned by a piece of paper called the Federal Reserve note." In fact, just swear on any given Keynesian Economics 101 textbook and you should be ok.

And just remember: BTFD, and have faith in the Fed, and you won't be suspected of harboring pro-ISIS thoughts!
Click to expand...

:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

http://wwwdot zerohedge dot com/news/2015-08-30/austrian-economics-equivalent-terrorism-thanks-latest-islamic-state-gold-standard-pr

:facepalm:

Theres also a link to the video on that page, described as

really just a 55 minutes crash course in Austrian Economics - which is now apparently equivalent to terrorism
Click to expand...


:facepalm:
 
elbows said:
Wikipedia has a modern gold dinar page that includes the IS one, the Gaddafi proposal, and several others from the likes of Indonesia and Malaysia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_gold_dinar

All I'll say about most of the pieces about Gaddafi is that it's quite common for there to be currency-based explanations of why wars happen when they do, and when dictators are overthrown when they are. For example the Gaddafi story looks like a variant of 'Saddam planned to start trading oil in Euros' explanation for why Iraq finally got invaded when it did. The reality is probably more nuanced - baskets of currencies and baskets of reasons why wars happen.
Click to expand...

Well neither Libya nor Iraq either attacked or threatened to attack anyone prior to the illegal wars waged against them. So I'd say the reason was pretty straight forward . And that reason is the form of fascism that predominates in the ruling corridors of power in western countries. There's very little nuance about those cases .
 
Even if we excuse your misuse of the term fascism, that still does nothing to shed light on the timing on such wars.

I'd say the biggest factors relate to will and opportunity - in the case of Iraq the will was there with the particular Republican faction that was in power in the US at the time, and 9/11 generated the opportunity. Other factors, such as questions looming at the time about the sustainability of the Iraq sanctions regime, are going to be chosen or emphasised to fit the thinkers own tastes and preferences. And in this regard some have a gold/currency fetish, others (myself included) may have overemphasised the timing of oil depletion and other energy issues.
 
Idris2002 said:
Haters gonna hate, loons gonna loon?

Wasn't there talk a few years back of an"Islamic gold dinar" backed by the gulf states, as a rival to € and $?
Click to expand...

IIRC Iran were speculating on a number of ideas that would weaken the use of the dollar as the de facto trading currency for oil, even back as far as the '90s.
 
ViolentPanda said:
I hate that von Mises to pieces! :mad:
Click to expand...

Some criticisms of him amuse me, including these which I swiped from wikipedia with little effort.

as a student of human nature he is worse than null
Click to expand...

Mises's thesis that anti-capitalist sentiment was rooted in "envy" epitomized "know-nothing conservatism" at its "know-nothingest."
Click to expand...

It's been a few years since I went to the Mises Institute website in order to modify my blood pressure. Temping to see what they are dribbling about right now but I don't think I can be arsed.
 
elbows said:
Even if we excuse your misuse of the term fascism, that still does nothing to shed light on the timing on such wars.

I'd say the biggest factors relate to will and opportunity - in the case of Iraq the will was there with the particular Republican faction that was in power in the US at the time, and 9/11 generated the opportunity. Other factors, such as questions looming at the time about the sustainability of the Iraq sanctions regime, are going to be chosen or emphasised to fit the thinkers own tastes and preferences. And in this regard some have a gold/currency fetish, others (myself included) may have overemphasised the timing of oil depletion and other energy issues.
Click to expand...

It seems only fascism is an ideology that must remain static in the 1930s and the preserve of little goose steppers in black and white . The project for a new American century was and is a fascist and racist concept from start to finish . It's proponents remain at the heart of political decision making and continue to initiate ruinous aggression regardless of which faction is in power . Kagan stepped aside and his wife Nuland took his place under Obama .
Iraq cannot seriously be viewed in isolation from what has followed afterwards , particularly after Wesley Clarke revealed it was first on a list of seven countries to be taken down . Libya and Syria, also on that list have both been attacked, whether directly or by use of proxy . It sure as shit isn't about human rights, therefore it's about conquest . Whether its gold,oil, other resources, currency or just a desire to remain independent from hegemony it matters little . Any one of those issues will make you an enemy of those fascist bastards .
 
Some US wars of aggression would happen regardless of which faction was in power, others very much depend on who is in power. Iraq was a very useful example because it represented the most visible split in elite opinion about war that I can think of, leading to multiple propaganda disasters. And with it they squandered the remaining stocks of 'global goodwill' from 9/11 that they could otherwise have used for other wars/something else. Afghanistan, by contrast, was hugely likely to be attacked by the USA in the wake of 9/11 no matter who was in charge of the US at the time.

Syria and Iran are other examples where I cannot take seriously the idea that differing US political factions are all exactly the same when it comes to war with these countries. Would the most war-hungry of Republicans really have taken the same approach as Obama, where even the crossing of his red line was met with a lack of desire to commit to the strongest military possibilities?

Not that I would place too much confidence in these differences, but they still have to be taken account of.

As for Wesley Clarke, nothing he said was of great surprise, it's not hard to build a list of regimes the US would like to overthrow. Of more interest, especially to the topic of this thread, would be what he said about pulling out of Iraq in the same interview:

The real danger is, and one of the reasons this is so complicated is because — let’s say we did follow the desires of some people who say, “Just pull out, and pull out now.” Well, yeah. We could mechanically do that. It would be ugly, and it might take three or four months, but you could line up the battalions on the road one by one, and you could put the gunners in the Humvees and load and cock their weapons and shoot their way out of Iraq. You’d have a few roadside bombs. But if you line everybody up there won’t be any roadside bombs. Maybe some sniping. You can fly helicopters over, do your air cover. You’d probably get safely out of there. But when you leave, the Saudis have got to find someone to fight the Shias. Who are they going to find? Al-Qaeda, because the groups of Sunnis who would be extremists and willing to fight would probably be the groups connected to al-Qaeda. So one of the weird inconsistencies in this is that were we to get out early, we’d be intensifying the threat against us of a super powerful Sunni extremist group, which was now legitimated by overt Saudi funding in an effort to hang onto a toehold inside Iraq and block Iranian expansionism.
Click to expand...
 
elbows said:
Some US wars of aggression would happen regardless of which faction was in power, others very much depend on who is in power. Iraq was a very useful example because it represented the most visible split in elite opinion about war that I can think of, leading to multiple propaganda disasters. And with it they squandered the remaining stocks of 'global goodwill' from 9/11 that they could otherwise have used for other wars/something else. Afghanistan, by contrast, was hugely likely to be attacked by the USA in the wake of 9/11 no matter who was in charge of the US at the time.

Syria and Iran are other examples where I cannot take seriously the idea that differing US political factions are all exactly the same when it comes to war with these countries. Would the most war-hungry of Republicans really have taken the same approach as Obama, where even the crossing of his red line was met with a lack of desire to commit to the strongest military possibilities?
Click to expand...

Iraq was just a disaster spawned by a load of people who thought that they were vastly more competent than they in fact were, and who lulled themselves into a belief that they could establish (and benefit from) an empire without actually leaving DC or doing anything meaningful themselves. You are right that any US President would have invaded Afghanistan after 9/11.

Iran is a separate case though - for all the chat, and for all that they have gone along with Bibi when he has turned up and wanted to get a load of claps, it is surely notable that there are very few senior US politicians who have actually made any real, concrete efforts to move towards war with Iran. The most they have done is gone along with nonsensical sanctions (that most US companies ignore), and pretend to oppose a peace deal that 99% of them would sign up to tomorrow if there was any kind of genuinely secret ballot.

Syria on the other hand is recognized as a complete mess, as demonstrated by how quickly they grabbed the cover that Miliband gave them.
 
agricola said:
Iraq was just a disaster spawned by a load of people who thought that they were vastly more competent than they in fact were, and who lulled themselves into a belief that they could establish (and benefit from) an empire without actually leaving DC or doing anything meaningful themselves. You are right that any US President would have invaded Afghanistan after 9/11.

Iran is a separate case though - for all the chat, and for all that they have gone along with Bibi when he has turned up and wanted to get a load of claps, it is surely notable that there are very few senior US politicians who have actually made any real, concrete efforts to move towards war with Iran. The most they have done is gone along with nonsensical sanctions (that most US companies ignore), and pretend to oppose a peace deal that 99% of them would sign up to tomorrow if there was any kind of genuinely secret ballot.

Syria on the other hand is recognized as a complete mess, as demonstrated by how quickly they grabbed the cover that Miliband gave them.
Click to expand...

And Libya .

What cooled their ardour on Iran was the disaster in Iraq and the knowledge of the type of insurgency they'd face . Emphasised by what HZB accomplished in Lebanon . They also tried one of those colour revolutions . Thankfully it went nowhere .
As well as that troop shortages in Iraq were getting so bad they were actually rotating amputees back to duty to carry out clerical work .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

tim
Bizarre acts of terrorism - statue of Lenin and Mao blown up in Texas.
Replies
3
Views
386
belboid
belboid
Bingoman
Turkish terror attack 23rd October 2024
Replies
4
Views
738
_Russ_
_Russ_
tim
State murder in Singapore.
Replies
21
Views
846
A380
A380
JimW
Indian state implicated in murder of Sikh activist in Canada
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
_Russ_
_Russ_
Pickman's model
fascist republican state legislators (usa)
Replies
0
Views
378
Pickman's model
Pickman's model
Back
Top Bottom