Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Aurum

Zeitgest Addendum á RÚV í kvöld [kl 23:20] farið yfir peningaprentun.

80 posts in this topic

Ekki missa af Zeitgest Addendum í kvöld í

Ríkissjónvarpinu. Farið yfir nokkur mál og

eru þau nátengd Íslandi og íslendingum.

Af heimasíðu RÚV: http://dagskra.ruv.is/nanar/7518/

7518-1.jpg

Framhald heimildamyndarinnar „Zeitgeist, the movie“ sem olli miklu fjaðrafoki. Hún þykir afhjúpa alvarlega hnökra í ríkjandi peningakerfi heimsins í dag sem virðist frekar ætlað að búa til skuldir en að byggja sanngjarnan heim.

Rætt er við John Perkins sem heimsótti Ísland nýverið og Jacques Fresco stofnanda „The Venus Project“ sem gengur út á að samnýta auðlindir jarðar á sjálfbæran hátt með því að nýta þá tækni sem við búum yfir.

Edited by Aurum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ég skil ekkert í Rúv að taka þessa þvælu til sýningar. Þessi mynd er þvæla, enda byggð á samsæriskenningum sem standast ekki nánari skoðun. Eins og hefur verið bent á.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ég skil ekkert í Rúv að taka þessa þvælu til sýningar. Þessi mynd er þvæla, enda byggð á samsæriskenningum sem standast ekki nánari skoðun. Eins og hefur verið bent á.

Komdu með dæmi vinur. Höfundur þessarar síðu

skilur minna en ekki neitt um peningakerfið sbr:

The Federal Reserve buys bonds from the open market, it is forbidden from buying bonds directly from the Treasury[7]. Because the Federal Reserve does not buy the bonds directly from the Treasury, but rather from the market and thus is buying debt that already exists in the hands of others and no new debt is created[7][8]. Zeitgeist then claims that the Federal Reserve prints money, but this is the exact opposite of what happens. The US Treasury prints money, not the Federal Reserve; further the US Mint prints coinage. The money is then sent to member banks :LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Staðreyndinar breytast ekki þó svo að þú afneitir þeim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hvað er rangt í myndinni Pro?

Staðreyndinar breytast ekki þó svo að þú afneitir þeim.

Hvernig væri þá að benda á staðreyndarvillu

er það þér um megn?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hvað með þetta hérna.

Zeitgeist: Addendum - Part Two - Page 2

This is the second page of part two in my series of articles on Zeitgeist: Addendum. Please refer to the introduction if you were lead to this page.

Iran, 1953

The precedent for economic hit men really began in the early fifties, when democratically elected Mossadeq, who was elected in Iran. He was considered to be the hope for democracy in the Middle East and around the world, he was Time Magazine's "Man of the Year."

Except, not really. He was "democratically elected" in the sense that the Shah backed Parliament voted him to be Prime minister after the Shah had appointed Mossadeq to the Premiership[14].

But, one of the things that he'd run on and began to implement was the idea that foreign oil companies needed to pay the Iranian people a lot more for the oil that they were taking out of Iran, that the Iranian people should benefit from their own oil.

He wanted to nationalize oil so that foreign countries could not directly make money on it any more and would have to pay wholesale to Iran as they have been to other countries[15][16].

Strange policy. We didn't like that of course. But we were afraid to do what we normally were doing, which was to send in the military. Instead we sent in one CIA agent, Kermit Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt's relative...and Kermit went in with a few million dollars and was very, very effective and efficient, and in a short amount of time he managed to get Mossadeq overthrown and brought in the Shah of Iran to replace him, who always was favorable to oil, and it was extremely effective.

The Shah was already in power in Iran but his influence was being pushed out by Parliament and Mossadeq; what the US did was help consolidate that power into a dictatorship[17].

Revolt in Iran

[Voice]

Mobs overflow Tehran. Army officers shout that Mossadeq has surrendered and his regime as virtual dictator of Iran is ended. Pictures of the Shah paraded through the streets as sentiment reverses. The Shah is welcomed home.

[Perkins]

So back here in the United States in Washington people looked around and said, wow, that was easy. And cheap. So this established a whole new way of manipulating countries, of creating empire. The only problem with Roosevelt was that he was a card carrying CIA agent, and had he been caught, the ramifications could have been pretty serious. So very quickly at that point the decision was made to use private consultants, to channel the money through the World Bank or the IMF or one of the other such agencies, to bring in people like me who work for private companies, so that if we got caught there would be no governmental ramifications.

So the government could overthrow governments with the CIA with money funneled through the World Bank/IMF, but at the same time not overthrow them and use people like Perkins to extort them with money that was given to them/investors and not the CIA? This guy can't seem to keep the story straight.

Guatemala 1954

When Arbenz became president of Guatemala, the country was very much under the thumbs of United Fruit Company, the big international corporations, and Arbenz ran on this ticket that says you know, we want to get the land back to the people, and once he took power he was implementing policies that would do exactly that, give land rights back to the people. United Fruit didn't like that very much, and so they hired a public relations firm, launched a huge campaign in the United States to convince the United States people, the citizens of the United States, and the press of the United States, and the congress of the United States that Arbenz was a Soviet puppet, and that if we allowed him to stay in power the Soviets would have a foothold in this hemisphere, and that at that point in time was a huge fear on everybody's mind, the red terror, the communist terror...and so to make a long story short, out of this public relations campaign came a commitment on the part of the CIA and the military to take this man out and in fact we did. we sent in planes, we sent in soldiers, we sent in jackals, we sent everything in to take him out, and did take him out. And as soon as he was removed from office, the new guy that took over after him basically reinstated everything to the big international corporations, including United Fruit.

The CIA already had files on Arbenz and speculated about his communist ties. The campaign from the United Fruit Company was really the nail in the coffin as far as Eisenhower and the CIA were concerned[18]. The reason the CIA suspected his communist ties to begin with is because he legalized the Party of Labor which was a communist political organization. Out of fear that there wasn't enough evidence that Arbenz did have connections to the USSR a fake weapons cache was created in Nicaragua. The CIA really did a number on Arbenz to get rid of him[19][20]. However unlike Perkins says, we didn't send in much of anything. In fact, the Guatemalan Army did most of the work. We did supply them with weapons bought from Czechoslovakia; they were barely functioning German weapons from World War II[21]. There was more involved with the CIA and government, but you can read about that on your own time at your local library or some place on the Internet.

All this being said, what does any of this have to do with the World Bank/IMF or economic hit men? Aside from the fact that the United Fruit Company was angry about the land seizures, the CIA was already underway with ousting Arbenz, they just helped pick up the pace and get presidential approval. The United States clearly has the ability (at least in 1954) to act on its interests without the World Bank, IMF, or economic hit men.

Tekið héðan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BBC er ósammála þér í að Mosaddeq hafi ekki

verið lýðræðislega kjörinn.

"Document reveals the true extent of Britain 's involvement in the coup of 1953 which toppled Iran 's democratically elected government and replaced it with the tyranny of the Shah."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/docume..._20050822.shtml

Þar sem þér er líklega alveg sama um hvort

Mossaddeq hafi verið lýðræðislega kjörinn eða

ekki. Komdu nú með einhverja "staðreyndavillu"

sem ÞÉR líst ekki á. Ef þú hefur ekkert nema

copy/paste af einhverju sem þér sjálfum gæti

ekki verið meira sama um. Þá þarftu einfaldlega

að kíkja á þessa mynd fyrst og væla svo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Þú ert að vitna í aðra heimildarmynd frá BBC. Sú heimildarmynd sem þú vísar þarna í kemur þessari bullkvikmynd sem sýnd er á Rúv ekkert við.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Þú ert að vitna í aðra heimildarmynd frá BBC. Sú heimildarmynd sem þú vísar þarna í kemur þessari bullkvikmynd sem sýnd er á Rúv ekkert við.

Þú varst að halda því fram að Mossadeq hafi

ekki verið lýðræðislega kjörinn. Þessi BBC

heimildarmynd er því ósammála bullsíðunni

sem þú vísar í.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heimildin sem hann gefur upp fyrir þessu er þessi hérna.

14. Abrahamian, Ervand, Iran Between Two Revolutions by Ervand Abrahamian, (Princeton University Press, 1982), p.268

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Heimildin sem hann gefur upp fyrir þessu er þessi hérna.

14. Abrahamian, Ervand, Iran Between Two Revolutions by Ervand Abrahamian, (Princeton University Press, 1982), p.268

Ekki er ég með þessa bók við hönd, en ég er með

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/docume..._20050822.shtml

sem heldur því fram að Mossaddeq hafi verið

lýðræðislega kjörinn.

Þvert á við fullyrðingar bullsíðunnar hér að ofan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hættu að rífast um eitthvað smáatriði, til þess að koma í veg fyrir umræðu um aðalmálið. Sem er að þessi kvikmynd er kjaftæði, og stórt kjaftæði.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hættu að rífast um eitthvað smáatriði, til þess að koma í veg fyrir umræðu um aðalmálið. Sem er að þessi kvikmynd er kjaftæði, og stórt kjaftæði.

Þú veist ekkert um það.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Þú hefur ekki lagt neitt til grundvallar sem afsannar þá vefsíðu sem ég vísa í. Síðan heimtaru að þú sért tekinn alvarlega. Ómartækt rugl hjá þér, og vitleysa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Þú hefur ekki lagt neitt til grundvallar sem afsannar þá vefsíðu sem ég vísa í. Síðan heimtaru að þú sért tekinn alvarlega. Ómartækt rugl hjá þér, og vitleysa.

Bullsíðan sem þú vísar í segir Mosaddeq ekki

lýðræðislega kjörinn. Ég bendi á vefsíðu BBC

sem segir hann lýðræðislega kjörinn.

Þú kemur hingað ferskur eftir því að hafa

fagnað ritskoðun RÚV á ESB aðildarkönnun.

Og öskrar og æpir yfir því að RÚV skildi ekki

ritskoða Zeitgeist, Eftir undirskriftir 5000+

íslendinga eða 85 milljónum króna af útvarps-

gjöldum. Kaup á sýningarréttinum var 0,0 kr.

RÚV setur hana á miðvikudag kl 23:20 :lol:

Þú verður æfur. Enda fjallað um AGS sem þú

elskar og dáir jafn mikið og ESB. Einnig fjallað

um skuldirnar endalausu sem þú ert fylgjandi.

Þar liggur skýring ritskoðunaráráttu þinnar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Til þess að forðast að ræða kvikmyndina, þá vilt ræða um Íran. Ef þú vilt ræða um Íran, þá skaltu stofnan annan þráð um það. Þessi fullyrðing er sett fram í kvikmyndinni sjálfri, hún er afsönnuð sem hluti af kvikmyndinni á þeirri vefsíðu sem ég vísa í með heimildum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Til þess að forðast að ræða kvikmyndina, þá vilt ræða um Íran. Ef þú vilt ræða um Íran, þá skaltu stofnan annan þráð um það. Þessi fullyrðing er sett fram í kvikmyndinni sjálfri, hún er afsönnuð sem hluti af kvikmyndinni á þeirri vefsíðu sem ég vísa í með heimildum.

Kvikmyndin fjallar um Íran, sauður.

Kvikmyndin segir Mossadeq lýðræðislega

kjörinn. Bullsíðan þín segir hann ekki kjörinn

lýðræðislega. BBC segir hins vegar að Mossadeq

hafi verið lýðræðislega kjörinn.

Heimild þín var bullsíða.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Farnsworth, hefur þú séð þessa mynd?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farnsworth, hefur þú séð þessa mynd?

Ég hef engan áhuga á að sjá þetta kjaftæði, eða sóa tíma mínum í það. Hinsvegar er ekkert sem bannar mér að vísa í þá sem hafa horft á þessa kvikmynd, og tekið hana í sundur lið fyrir lið.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ég hef engan áhuga á að sjá þetta kjaftæði, eða sóa tíma mínum í það. Hinsvegar er ekkert sem bannar mér að vísa í þá sem hafa horft á þessa kvikmynd, og tekið hana í sundur lið fyrir lið.

Passaðu þig að sjá hana ekki, staðreyndirnar

um AGS og skuldahagkerfið gætu sært þig.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.