Free Scotland From Thieves

Scotland: Off With Pluto?

For 35 years, increasingly deranged British politicians have been pushing for ever more selfishness, ever more power for money, and their hatred for the Union. In truth, all what they did was to foster increasingly lucrative financial plots based in London, the world’s premier center of the sort of money changing activities which should be destroyed like the Ebola virus.

This is not just about finance: London’s friendliness to plutocrats, that is, all satanic proclivities, have favored the likes of Assad and Putin, bloody dictators who are threatening civilization.

Vade Retro Plutocrats!

Vade Retro Plutocrats!

The British Parliament friendliness to the galaxy of evil orbiting Assad as the black hole he is, undercut the strike France and the USA were preparing against that monster. This, in turn led to a further disintegration of the Middle East into savagery, and incited Putin to invade Eastern Europe with tanks.

Now it’s payback time.

So London feels that the Union is the enemy, and money can solve everything? Then why should Scotland stay in an Union with London, taking orders from that blustering kleptocracy, while seeing its own oil money go south?

Scotland is conducting an independence referendum on September 18. All the enthusiasm is on the side of the independentists, and the polls are tight. Facing them, the high finance supremacists in London have called all their propagandists to present arguments to keep Scotland in chains.

Naturally, the pseudo-progressive Krugman, ultimate weapon of hyper finance, has been rolled out. One can see the hour is grave. For years I have insisted that Krugman, whether he realizes it, or not, is truly a double agent for Wall Street banks (after all, all he proposes is to send more public money to private banks).

Krugman used his New York Times pulpit to hurl disingenuous arguments at a free Scotland. Krugman: “Scots, What’s The Heck? The Very Bad Economics Of Independence” is a new low in anti-European propaganda. Krugman goes all out, using the oldest fascist trick: huge, irrational fear. Says he: “I have a message for the Scots: Be afraid, be very afraid. The risks of going it alone are huge.”

Is there something about Wall Street goons we do not know? because yes, it has everything to do with Wall Street, see below. Then Krugman forgets that Scotland is in Europe, and compares it to… Canada… Before enouncing in passing that “Canada pays a price for its independence”. This astounding Freudian slip reveals that, in Krugman’s mind, to be free means to be enslaved to New York banks. Canada should do like Krugman, be dependent upon Wall Street, and be paid that way. This is what Krugman’s liberal conscience says.

I will presently demolish Krugman’s false ideas, while exposing his crass ignorance. I will not bother to repeat Krugman’s unhinged disinformation: that would give it some consideration, and be confusing, as it deserves none. Instead, I will tell the truth. Raw.

(To be fully honest, Krugman published (part of) my critique; as usual the Times censors did their best to attenuate it, with various behind the scenes tricks.)

Krugman makes the argument that Scotland could not share the Pound with the rump UK, that it would be disaster. His reasoning is a piece of Wall Street banks’ religion. Wall Street propagandists identify the 2008 crisis with a “Euro crisis”. Naturlich, there was not such a thing, not anymore than there was a Jewish crisis when Hitler came to power. Hitler had a crisis, not the Jews. Similarly the banks have a crisis, not the Euro.

Indeed, since 2008 there is a crisis of the giant banks, or, more generally, of the fractional reserve system, and it’s part of the Plutocratic take-over.

But the Euro has little, if anything, to do with it. Actually the Euro spared the European countries from a devastating devaluation, and destruction by the rampaging banks and their associated politicians, judges, and the rest of the oligarchies. Corrupt them all.

For an inkling of the imaginable scale of corruption, watch Brazil: an ex-director of Petrobras, the Brazilian fossil fuel companies, risking 30 years in jail, is admitting that dozens of top politicians and lawmakers were paid 3% on all contracts for a ten year period, under presidents Lula and Roussef.

The Euro was a savior, and not a destructor, contrarily to what Krugman says. So why is Krugman insisting it’s a terrible thing? Moreover Scotland ought not, and will not, share the Pound, after a transition period. However, that’s not a problem. Why?

In the long run, the Pound is NOT supposed to exist. The Pound is just an ephemeral currency doomed to vanish (and not because it went down 10% in the last few days).

Disappearing the Pound is what the Brits signed on, when they got into the European Union. That they don’t understand this is a testimony to a lack of reading skills: it’s written black on white in the European Constitution.

OK, Britain does not have a written Constitution, so maybe the politicos there are not used to read such a document?

ALL EU countries are supposed to adopt the Euro. So Krugman’s whining is entirely inapplicable, and just demonstrates his gross ignorance of the EU Constitution (a few countries are provisionally allowed to go on with their own currency, or just peg themselves to the Euro, as Denmark does).

Obviously Scotland could go, and will go with the Pound for a while, as it is the present Scottish currency: London does not own the Pound exclusively.

Then discard the Pound Scotland will, like the old paper it is. As it is what the European Constitution says.

The United Kingdom Nuclear Strategic submarines are supposed to get out of Scotland by 2020 (that’s part of the framework proposed by the Scottish Independence Party).

That gives plenty of time for Scotland to elaborate a currency, and peg it to the Euro. Easy as pie. Many countries do this, including Switzerland.

Contrary to what ignorant American propagandists such as Krugman assert, the NCBs, the National Central Banks, print Euros. And guess what? They can also “print” as many Euros as they want.

Krugman always makes a big deal that Spain could not print as many Euros as Britain could print Pounds. That Spain decided not to do so, was a Spanish, not European decision. As it turned out, it was not needed. In recent months, Spanish long bonds were viewed as more valuable than long bonds from the USA.

So Krugman’s screaming against the Euro falls flat on his face. I guess it hurts, so he is screaming louder than ever.

The Euro is a major currency: more than half a billion people are either in the Eurozone, or enjoy a currency pegged to the Euro. That’s a more direct empire than the Dollar of the USA itself enjoys. As more and more countries stock up on Euros, the possibility of a world trade system shunning the Dollar keeps on increasing.

Keynes, Krugman’s hero, would have been very happy about this. Keynes had been tricked at Bretton Woods, in 1944: to make the Dollar into the world’s reserve currency, the USA forged false documents which the foreign delegations signed unwittingly.

Keynes knew that the Americans made it so to impose their currency to the world, as a cheap way to hardwire their supremacy. So here we are, and Krugman is one of the many attack dogs against the Euro.

It’s natural that people who depend upon Wall Street (as Princeton professors) do not like the Euro: the stronger financial Europe gets, the weaker Wall Street and its conspiracies.

There London comes in as a crucial part in the world plutocratic machine. Many of the financial practices In London are unlawful in Paris, Frankfurt, but also… New York. That’s why the branch of AIG, the AMERICAN International Group, whose dramatic derivatives trading crashed the world in 2008, was based in London, not New York. What they were doing in London would have been unlawful in New York.

So the plutocrats hates the Scottish Independence movement. Scottish independence would clearly weaken London (it would lose access to Scottish oil and gas, to start with; the British nuclear submarines would have to ask… France for hospitality: the British nuclear deterrent is exclusively based in Scottish fjords).

That den of crooks known as London would receive a huge blow to its prestige if Scotland . All the more as Northern Ireland and Wales may well follow. One may ask why the rump UK deserves a permanent UN Security Council seat, while its nuclear sub sulk in Britany’s Brest (that would be the second time the British Navy would flee to Britany in 15 centuries!).

Krugman’s objection to Scottish Independence is not the only fraudulent scheme the higher plutocratic circle have devised against those who don’t want to spend their lives on their knees, adoring “The City” of London.

Higher European circles are vassals of Wall Street (which gives them juicy jobs and contracts in return). Accordingly, just like an unreal Krugman barks against Scotland, pro-Wall Street Eurocrats loudly bellow that Scotland’s membership in the EU will not happen. That’s how mad and corrupt some Eurocrats have become.

They can say whatever. Decisions in the EU are taken by the governments of the nation-states, also known as the Paris-Berlin axis. (It’s fashionable to say all decisions are taken in Berlin, but that’s just a carefully maintained illusion.)

Thanks to those nuclear subs, and many other messy aspects of a divorce, I am sure that Scotland’s government will persuade London that it is in its best interest to help Scotland become a member of the EU.

The European Union, as I have said many times, just as the SDN (now known as the United Nations) is, fundamentally, a French idea. The reason that France gets this sort of ideas is that France was always the center, being at the center (and that’s actually why the Franks, originally German, went down there to start an empire). Nothing new, just a question of geography, it was already true in Neanderthal times: the three main trans-European routes between the Mediterranean and the Northern Seas go through France.

So the real question about Scotland becoming instantaneously the 29th European Union member boils down to the opinion of the French elite. And what’s the important fact here? Before it got united with England, Scotland was united with France. France, thus the EU, will be delighted to welcome Scotland back.

The vicious clowns in London have, ever since the Iron Lady left the scene, become ever more irrationally anti-European. In particular, London refused to join Schengen, the passport free union between the countries at the core of Europe.

Just as it would be highly inconvenient to propagandist Krugman to change currencies when he goes from Manhattan (when he is finished talking on TV) back to Princeton, it would be also inconvenient that he would have his passport scrutinized. Yet, although downtown Paris and downtown London are only two hours of train ride apart, the arrogant servants of Mammon in London force what they call “subjects” to change currency and have their passports inspected.

Full European citizens do not have to do so, as they switch between their countries of Spain, France, Italy, Germany, etc. Notice that Switzerland and Norway are also in the Schengen Area (no passport controls).

London is welcoming to Russian plutocrats, not to vulgar Europeans.

Out of 59 Scottish MP, only one is a so called “Conservative” (the word “Conservative” is misleading: they would sell their mother, if they could make a buck that way; actually they are more like anti-civilizational revolutionaries). There are more pandas in Scotland, the joke goes, than conservatives. Thus Scotland has already divorced herself from the mad financial piracy in London and its obsequious sycophants.

It’s high time to separate Scotland formally from the organized financial criminality in London to show the world inhuman plutocracy is not omnipotent, and can be rejected. The time is past due. London and its 100 tax havens can go to hell, to conspire further with Putin and Assad, among the flames, smoke, and mirrors. Hopefully the gross and pathetic lies of Wall Street servants with ready access to Big Brother propaganda will not change this.

Let Wall Street’s devoted cockroaches roar in vain. Free Scotland! Vote Yes!

Patrice Ayme’

Tags: , , , , , , ,

73 Responses to “Free Scotland From Thieves”

  1. Alex Jones Says:

    I hope that “yes” is the outcome in the Scottish vote. I believe Scotland is part of a trend away from globalism and centralism to a new devolved form of localism.


    • Paul Handover Says:

      Delighted to agree with Alex and for exactly the reasons he offers. All around the globe we are seeing countless examples of the failure, to put it mildly, of BIG GOVERNMENT.

      Just as much in my new home country as it was in my old one.

      On Sunday evening, neighbours Janell and Larry threw a short-notice BBQ. Thirty minutes after Larry’s phone call, we walked across our fields to their place, to join three other neighbours. It was a wonderful evening and the majority of the talk was about local issues: when is it going to rain, we are all short of hay, that sort of stuff.

      Towards the end, there was a general rant about the state of the world. I hesitated, aware of my ‘new boy’ status, and then quietly remarked that Jean and I were overwhelmed by the friendship and cooperation of all those living nearby. And went on to add that the contrast between how our community worked and how the American government failed to work was stark.

      Everyone signalled by grunts, words and body language their agreement.

      Bon chance, New Scotland.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Dear Paul: 100% agree. The strength of the USA is that the average state is 6 million people. The state of Massachusetts has excellent results on the PISA tests, in stark distinction with most of Euramerica. That’s entirely due to localism.

        In my more or less native Bay Area, governance is extremely local, and there is the secret of Silicon Valley: most deals are made with handshakes, or people who argue with each other, while knowing they will have to keep on living with each other. Silicon Valley exists, because it’s 3,000 miles from Washington and New York.

        They signaled with grunts and body language because of these low PISA tests, but, right now in the Bay Area, the PISA rising movement is engaged (having a 4 year old, I am in the middle of it).

        Bonne Chance Scotland, indeed. Independence (from London’s plutocracy) ought to be easy as pie for Scotland.

        BTW, the “City” is technically a plutocracy: voting there depends upon the money…


      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Although California has 38 million people, and a GDP bigger than not just Russia, but all except 4 European nations, it conducts referenda (not as much by a long shot as the Swiss). Yet, a recent referendum rose taxes on the rich. It was predicted they would flee. Yet, curiously they did not. Probably too fat, content, sleepy and still dealing around.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Alex: I fully agree. I did not develop that aspect of it, as my essay was already way too long by short-attention span standards. I am also for Catalonia independence (and maximal Corsican autonomy!)
      The regionalism is fully the idea behind the European Union. There is no reason why a regionalism equal to at least the one found in Germany be found all over, and when there are genuine nations (Scotland, Catalonia, Val D’Aoste, South Tyrol, etc.), they should even more so fly on their own.

      Contrarily to Krugman’s absurd statements, Scotland is clearly a place that could go on its own: it has a giant potential in sustainable energy. Actually some parts, some archipelagos there, already produce more energy that they can handle!


      • Alex Jones Says:

        Scotland is in a good position to develop a strategy with Iceland to use Icelandic geothermal energy production to power its needs. Scotland also is in a locus that would work well with the rich Scandinavian nations rather than distant London.


        • gmax Says:

          Alex: I did not know Scotland was volcanic in other realms than politics.


          • Alex Jones Says:

            By use of undersea cables electricity can be transferred from Iceland to Scotland. Also, Scotland can use its vast coast line for electricity generating tidal or wind farms.


          • gmax Says:

            Agreed. But that’s not geothermal. Parts of Scotland generate WAY TOO MUCH SUSTAINABLE energy, new cables have to be installed


  2. Dominique Deux Says:

    Fiery and cogent as usual. Yet, a fly in the ointment: the French citizenry may be delighted to welcome the Scots, but “welcome back”? The very memory of the Auld Alliance is buried deep. The wilful destruction of French culture is bearing its fruit. The Scots perfectly remember that elite Scottish archers fought on the Capetian side in Orleans; we don’t.


  3. Dominique Deux Says:

    I did not find the PK OP-ed”s comments.

    Yet this needs highlighting:

    “And an independent Scotland using Britain’s pound would be in even worse shape than euro countries, which at least have some say in how the European Central Bank is run”

    In other worlds, quite logicaly: Scotland, ditch the pound and join the Euro!


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Yes, Krugman saws the branch on which he croaks.
      As the transition period will last until 2020 at least (earliest time when the Trident Nuclear Subs have to surrender in Brest, France), the Pound will last until then.
      Meanwhile they can peg everything to the Euro, to avoid a panic.

      My published comment was a very compact version of the 2,000+ words essay I published. Maybe I should put it up independently? (Some people are too busy to read more than 20 lines…)


  4. Kevin Berger Says:

    I’m probably too pessimistic, but I’m not holding my breath about the possibility of Scotland being independent again. Let’s just hope that the referendum won’t be done on voting machines, that’s all…

    In a somewhat related somber vein… from

    “Michael Guay [parlant du Québec] : Qu’arrivera-t’il niveau humain, si le non l’emporte? Je pense que je peux y répondre en parlant du drame humain que fut la défaite référendaire de 95.

    En 95, j’avait 9 ans. Lors de la campagne, j’aidais ma mère en la suivant main dans la main, faire du porte-à-porte pour le camp du oui. Je me rappelle que j’aimais beaucoup les pancartes publicitaires pour le oui et que cela déterminais mon choix. Je me rappelle des chicanes de famille, les chicanes entre parents à l’entré de l’école de leurs enfants. Tout les jours il y avait des bagarres entre enfants pour le oui et ceux du non. Il y en a même un qui a été emmené en ambulance. Je faisais parti de ceux qui l’avait agressé. Le soir venu, je revois ma mère me sermonné sur l’utilisation de la violence et mon père en fond de pièce, cachant mal sa fierté.

    Alors que le tissu social s’entre-déchirait, que les attaques fusaient de toutes parts, que les familles s’émiettaient, débuta une campagne de promesse venant du fédéral. Que si le non gagnait, le Québec aurait plus de pouvoir, que tout serait oublié, que tout reviendrait dans l’ordre. J’y reviendrai, mais ce n’était que mensonges.

    Le soir du 30 octobre, je m’en rappelle très bien encore aujourd’hui. Mes parents m’avait gardé éveillé alors que mes sœurs plus jeunes étaient au lits. Nous étions au salon et écoutions à radio-canada, les résultats du dépouillement des boites de scrutin. L’ambiance était électrique au début du dépouillement puis s’est assombrit peu à peu. Est venu le moment ou ils ont annoncé le non gagnant.
    Ma mère s’est mit à pleuré. Mon père a callé sa Molson. On m’a demandé d’aller au lit, sans m’y raccompagner. Ma mère a beaucoup pleuré cette nuit-là. Mon père a bu, trop bu. Je me rappelle que beaucoup de boutique n’ont pas ouvert leurs portes le lendemain.

    À l’école, les choses avaient changé. Beaucoup de professeurs n’étaient pas dans leurs assiettes. Je me rappelle le sourire triomphant des enfants du non.. Les insultes de leurs part m’avaient fait pleurer en classe. Finalement, rien n’est redevenu comme avant. Les familles sont demeurées déchirées tout comme le tissu social. Certain ont simplement arrêté de travailler, d’autre de vivre. Il y a eu les dépressions, il y a eu des suicides. Il pesait sur nous le poids de la honte. Ce poids ne nous quittera pas pendant longtemps. Les promesses s’étaient envolées et le fameux love-in canadien n’était que du passé, faisant place à la haine, le mépris, les allusions de toute sorte au nazisme et toute accusations que leurs esprits tordus aient pu imaginé, histoire de nous écrasé moralement pour de bon. Pendant 20 ans nous avons vécus sur la défensive, indépendance, patriote et république furent des mots honnis. Le PQ cessa toute éducation en matière d’indépendance. Ils vécurent en peur de l’article 1 de leur programme. Aux jeunes militants qui n’avaient pas pu voter en 95, les vieux répétèrent de ne pas se battre. Qu’il fallait abandonner. Que manifester sa faveur de l’indépendance nuirait au parti. À l’époque ils se doutaient que le référendum avait été fraudé, aujourd’hui, nous en sommes sur. Entre-nous, nous nous surnommons la génération de la honte. Car c’est cela que nous sommes, une génération qui a grandis dans la honte d’être ce que nous sommes, Québécois.

    C’est la dernière chose que je souhaite au Écossais. Notre exemple…”


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Votre histoire est touchante. The allegation that the vote against Quebec Independence was a fraud is very grave. But entirely possible: the bush election was an official fraud, after all. In several ways (at least three: Gore won overall, Gore won in Florida, and the SCOTUS vote was a biased fraud, too).

      Scotland’s case is different: the EU is watching. By this I do not mean Brussels/EC (paid by Wall Street), but the entire 500 million people in the EU. Scotland, is not far, de facto, from independence already.

      One way or another, Scotland is going to become much more independent in the following DAYS.

      The real battle is going to be Catalonia (the “March state” founded by Charlemagne). Madrid is ready to fight. But the present French Prime Minister, the fiery Emanuel Valls, is Catalan born and raised.

      Canada, increasingly a petrostate, is a sad spectacle.

      This Scotland referendum is becoming a triumph for the Scottish Party, as the plutocratic sycophants from London come and beg, as Chris Snuggs and others have noticed…


    • gmax Says:

      I am sure they would love to rig the Scottish poll too. ’cause it is the beginning of the end for the haves.


  5. Chris Snuggs Says:


    British Establishment Lunacy

    Posted on September 9, 2014 by Chris Snuggs

    The ability of the political class in Britain to provide evidence of its crass, moronic and undemocratic arrogance is breathtaking.

    Scotland is now being offered by the dinosaur parties a MAJOR CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE that failed ex PM Gordon Brown (backed by his fellow dinosaurs) proudly announces will “change Britain”.

    But WHERE IS THE CONSENT OF THE ENGLISH, WELSH and NORTHERN IRISH to this blatant attempt to bribe the Scots with OUR MONEY to stay in the union? Normally it is in a banana republic that a major constitutional change is proposed WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE.

    The British establishment has been infected with the Brussels attitude, since of course THIS is exactly the attitude that Brussels has: to push through federalization WITHOUT THE PEOPLE’S CONSENT.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Very interesting, Chris! And I agree, that it is a scandal to propose desperate last minute constitutional changes without any democratic consultation.
      That there is an infection from what Brussels/EC has been doing, there is, indeed, no doubt.
      I was infuriated this summer by observing EU funds put to use to “clean” Alpine lakes with concrete… (long story.)


  6. Pieceofcake Says:

    pieceofcake is a trusted New York Times commenter from Konstanz Germany.

    there is a small problem with your logic – or the logic of all these ‘independence movements’ in the European North or South –
    In the end they will ALL have to become (hopefully) ‘a part of Europe’ and thus the Euro!


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      As a “trusted commenter from the New York Times”, you flood the media with your messages (whereas mine are generally censored and always delayed). I often agree with what you have to say.
      However, in this case, with your usual “trusted commenter” arrogance, you completely fail to follow what I said. Indeed, all European Union countries, to get in the Union, had to sign on adopting the EURO, even Britain did so. I said this explicitly, it was my main argument.
      I know trusted commenters are not supposed to be very smart, that’s why they are trusted, but this is a particularly egregious example of low reading comprehension!


    • Alex Jones Says:

      Europe is going to break apart. Note the rise of nationalist movements throughout Europe wanting their nations to leave the EU.


      • Dominique Deux Says:

        Wishful thinking, Alex. Yes there is a flurry of dinosaur herds stampeding around, but they’re hoodwinked by their own noise into thinking they’re “the people”. They’re merely testimony to the birthing pains of an united and efficient Europe – and as such, moderately but undoubtedly useful.

        Many more people, while fully aware of the (engineered) flaws of the EU, still go by Ben Franklin’s logic – “either we’ll all hang together, or we’ll all hang separately”.


        • Alex Jones Says:

          @ Dominique
          I would like to think I am pragmatic rather than wishful. I see first hand here in Colchester UK a growing hostility to what is seen as too much interference by EU bureaucrats, a vast influx of people from all over Europe putting extreme pressure on limited local services such as doctors, and a feeling of money leaving UK with little benefit to the people of Britain. Not wishful thinking, a desire by people to take back control from the leviathans of globalism, a desire to protect their own communities and resources from those that are indifferent and parasitic.


      • gmax Says:

        Just the other way, Alex. It is because of the EU that Scotland is going to get independent from the banksters sharks in London.

        First thing is that Scotland will ask emergency inclusion in the EU.


        • Alex Jones Says:

          Yet Britain will likely have left EU in a couple of years. The UKIP is gaining strength fast and forcing the Conservative party to take a more anti-European line. The level of anti European feeling in all of England is going to create a sea change in the political establishment of all parties against Europe.


          • gmax Says:

            When Rump UK tries to leave, it will see it cannot. Just ask the Swiss. English europhobes have collective madness, a bit like the Nazis used to. Even Hitler could not not collaborate. If Rump UK wants to become slave to Paris Berlin Washington, let it go ahead


      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Europe is blossoming, not breaking apart. Scots and Catalans want recognition for their EU status. The problem of England is that the plutocratic media have warped the perception of even astute intellectuals, into Europhobia. Chris Snuggs, here on this site, being a magnificent, even glittering, example.

        I am also extremely angry against the EC (European Commission). It puts its nose in lots of grotesque tiny things that infuriates me. But now it has just changed. But they succeeded to put a Portuguese from Goldman Sachs in (in charge of education, of course!), and the leader of the UK CHAMBER OF LORDS (NO KIDDING), a Baron, to head the mitigation of the financial plots within EUROPE.
        Moscovici, the French long with his nose in Switzerland, is in charge of reducing the fiscal cheating.


  7. Zuber Says:

    It would be better for the people of Europe if the Euro vanished. Staying out of the Euro currency union was arguably the only good decision made by any British government in the last 30 years.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      The British gov did not take the decision, plutocrat George Soros did. You know rigorously not what you are talking about. London is nothing without the rest of Europe, and can be crushed financially by the Eurozone: just forbid Euro trades in London. Does Wall Street pay you? If not, you are really pathetic.


  8. gmax Says:

    Krugman is a sucker to the establishment, for all to see. Yet he is also the most trusted voice on the …left. It is total madness, like when Hitler was a Socialist.
    And Stalin a Communist


    • Dominique Deux Says:

      There is no such thing as a prophet whom we can rely upon to get everything right. Somebody who is mostly right can utter the dumbest things. And the reverse is true! I’m ready to allow that in the morass of idiocy that is the Friedman-Ayn Rand-Thatcher legacy, there are a few very valid points.

      Ultimately we, the people, can never and must never shirk our responsibility to use our best judgment.


      • gmax Says:

        Our best judgment is that Krugman is a crook, cute and all that, but still a crook, like Obama.

        All he says is, send money to the banks, same as the old banks. Even Friedman, the invader of Iraq, says more.


      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        I agree with Gmax, and with you too. Even Hitler, or Stalin, were right sometimes, I am sure, if I searched long enough, I could point, at some points… For example Stalin was right to make his soldiers more terrified of him than of the Nazis. Hitler was also right to hate “plutocrats” (it would have been better if he had realized they were playing him like a violin, as they did with the arrogant, self-assured, but ultimately very dumb Lenin…).


  9. Patrice Ayme Says:

    @ Dominique: GMax’s attack against Krugman is similar to mine. Krugman is a big time sucker, and the best proof is that Martin Wolf, the respected chief of the Financial Times, who is supposed to be on the “right” (whatever that means) of Krugman, has just proposed radical reforms of the entire economy and banking system. Totally radical.

    Krugman is arguably worse than Obama. He actually mis-advised Obama for the stimulus, telling him a tiny bit was enough (and now Martin Wolf opts for what I call GOVERNMENTALISM).


    • Dominique Deux Says:

      The reason why I’m ready to cut PK some slack is that, in the specific French context of pseudo-economists playing Dumber and Dumberer on everyday talk shows, lambasting Hollande for not going down fast enough to France and Europe’s Ayn Randian demise, he really is a giant among dwarfs. And we need every voice we can harness to start the long climb back to common sense.

      As for Moscovici, I concur that 2 years ago, his appointment could have been counted as a huge victory. A French Socialist replacing the mad Finn Olli Rehn! But now it is clear that his role will be that of the tamed Gaul chained to the Goth victor’s carriage. Juncker flanked him with no-nonsense austerians who wield the whip. Juncker certainly lost no time in picking up Barroso’s tinfoil hat and crowning himself Barroso II, Emperor of the Clueless. And Moscovici started mouthing abject subservience as soon as he was given leave to.


      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        I appreciate Krugman, or won’t write so much around him. However, he is the most respected voice on the “left”… in Europe. In the USA, thanks perhaps to the critiques of the likes of your not so humble servant, Krugman’s face is starting to crack.
        (Notice nobody worries about Obama anymore: whereas 6 years ago my critiques brought me hatred on the left, pretty much everybody agrees now in the USA: my good friend Obama is a puppet… with quite a few broken strings.)

        The respect Krugman’s ideas get is out of measure. Martin Wolf, viewed as a conservative and plutophile (and he is), has 100 times more “left” and progressive ideas.

        So now this is not about celebritism of indivuduals, but fame, or even existence, of the ideas we need.

        Wolf of course suggests what I was already suggesting 6 years ago; demolish public-private fractional reserve, and introduce massive governmentalism. Id est, massive “”””deficit””” spending, by money printing; do this until inflation is at least 4% before throttling back… OK, the last bit is mine, hahaha.

        Instead all what Krugman proposes is ever more QE… Which reinforces the large banks (although it prevents a total economic catastrophe, it’s not clear it does more than that…)


        • Dominique Deux Says:

          Always looking for nice sum-it-up soundbites.

          What about “enough with quantitative easing, it’s time for quantitative flushing!”

          Or did I misinterpret?

          btw if Scotland does break out and the “Royal Bank & Insurance” plutos do scamper, that woud be a nice opportunity to put to the test the endless whine that the pluto’s departure is dire, not to say deadly punishment.

          Good riddance, mesays. And 11,000 trained money handlers looking for a job would be seen as sweet revenge in their loving employers’ minds, but an intelligent Scottish Govt would see a golden opportunity to build a financial SERVICES sector on the ruins of the current FINANCIAL PLUNDER sector.


          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            Very good sound bites, Dominique, and obviously the general idea pro-independence voters have in mind (there is an independence belt in the industrial zone, Glasgow to Edinburg, concentrated on male workers).
            This is also what I long proposed and Martin Wolf apparently NOW proposes (I did not get his book yet… It sounds more interesting than Pikety’s…) There is no reason that profit, in the sense of the commons willing to pay for it, drive the economy. Clearly with electricity cuts coming to Belgium, and soon all over Europe (once France gets in deficit, ENERGY deficit…), it’s surfacing…. OK, got to run to kindergarten….


  10. Alba an Aigh or Scotland the Brave. | Learning from Dogs Says:

    […] Before the main purpose of today’s post, I want to republish three comments to a recent post from Patrice Ayme, Free Scotland From Thieves. […]


  11. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to LfD, Spet 11.]

    Thanks Paul! By the way, the “Please Scotland Blow Up The EU” is another example of rightwing, anti-European Union, pro-Putin (the extreme right loves Putin, all over Europe).
    They understand naught. It’s the EU that makes a Free (from London plutocracy) Scotland imaginable.

    Rightwingers, and semi-senile Europhobes, also confuse the EC (“Brussels”, now presided by JP Juncker) and the EU.

    Actually important decisions in Europe are ALWAYS taken by national governments, and the EC obeys. So when people complain about the “EU”, what they mean is the national, elected governments.

    Right now the EC-ELECT has 5 former Prime Ministers in, and others are nearly as famous national politicians. Economic and finance were attributed to the famous French Moscovici, and the even more famous head of the Chambers of Lords, one of the two most famous Euroskeptics.

    Unfortunately, the usual agents of Goldman Sachs also got in.

    Another EU institution is the Council of Europe whose president-elect, Tusk, is the present Polish Prime Minister.

    And I did not mention the ECJ, European Court of Justice (which forced Britain to form a Supreme Court!)

    The European Union is a gigantic institution

    The tragedy of Europhobes, is that they are so voluntarily ignorant, that the only charitable explanation is that they are idiots, not malevolent as they appear to be.

    Anyway, long live independence of all the regions of Europe that deserve it, and that does not mean just Ukraine (Catalonia is next, as I explained).


  12. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to LfD, Sept 11.]

    What’s happening now is that the London plutocracy (and some of it is under orders of Putin! Not just Wall Street) is ordering around, not just the UK, but to great extent, Europe (say by Assadizing and Putinizing), and the entire world (London is the number one financial center now!)

    Having the courage to say no to that plutocracy is what Scotland has undertook. Unsurprisingly, the Plutos have put all the stops out… announcing Wednesday Sept 10, with touching unison, that they would pull out of free Scotland.


    • Paul Handover Says:

      Would love to be a fly on the wall of a few City boardrooms just now!


      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        It’s not just “The City” that’s seriously worried. The panic of Krugman and the like is revealing.

        Considering the broadside from Martin Wolf, there are feeling between pincers (MW is the respected editor of the Financial Times, who is now espousing exactly the sort of reforms I have advocated for more than half a dozen years… And I thought Obama would have pushed for, before I realized how weak and naïve he was)


  13. EugenR Says:

    Patrice, i liked your like on

    As to Scotland, it has to be understand as a historical process. The recorded European history started with the Roman empire. (Before that it was rather a east Mediterranean Sea history).

    The Roman Empire was followed by medieval feudal political structure. If characterized with one sentence it was the rule of Mafioso kind of lords, who looked at their statehood as their private property. At certain time, mainly for the purpose of war, these lords joined their forces and subjected themselves and their holdings to the King, who was the first among many. Then the system was stabilized, and the kings became rulers, who got their blessing from the local clergy and the pope.

    Later on, the residents in these kingdoms developed culture with certain uniqueness, that made them different from the residents of the neighboring kingdoms. This kind of uniqueness became more and more relevant when it became the basis for national identification. The Napoleon wars started a process of national states, that on one hand created unification in case of Italy and Germany, and on other hand separation in case of Austria-Hungarian empire. But also much later to dismantling of USSR.

    And finally, the political leaders following the WWII had no choice but to learn from the history, and were unwillingly wrapped into a new state formation, the European Union. By the way it was not initiated by some important politician but by Robert Schuman, a Frenchman with German name, (that probably played role too at the time), who came up with a very humble proposition, if we see what came out of it. Creation of European Coal and Steel Community, whose members would pool coal and steel production. I feel it is necessary to add here a link about him since no one speaks about him and all the credit for creation of EU went to more senior political figures like Konrad Adenauer and Charles de Gaulle.

    Since the collapse of USSR, the trend in Europe is on one hand towards unification. It is a rather slow and tiresome process, due to some narrow minded local politicians, who oppose the necessary process of losing their grip on the decision process in their “Home Land”. Another political-social trend in Europe is a slow process of accepting the fact that political entity’s main and almost only task is to create and economically and socially prosperous environment to its citizens. No one things anymore that state is created to fight wars for some self nominated Political-Gods or for some idea created by some half witted self-nominated prophet.

    And as to Scotland and Catalonia, they just don’t want to share their riches with those to whom they don’t feel they belong too. Its not surprising that the richest parts of Spain and also Great Brittany (Not so great and not so Britain) want the separation. Scots believe that as part of Euro Zone, with Euros in their pockets and their petrol will do economically better than with the GB and the pound. The Barcelonians just don’t like the Madridians, and why should they share their wealth with them and the Andalusians.

    And anyway lately FC Barcelona is better than Real Madrid so who cares about Spain.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      As I explained a bit many times, France being where all the paths pass through, that’s also where the ideas tend to germinate more readily. Nothing that calling explanations the French found by English names can’t fix.
      [other reply posted separately].


  14. Kevin Berger Says:

    Vue contraire :

    À propos de la possible indépendance de l’Écosse…

    Depuis quelque temps, je vois les posts FB frétiller d’excitation à l’approche du référendum du 18 septembre prochain qui pourrait voir le « oui » à l’indépendance l’emporter en Écosse. Et tout le monde de se réjouir par avance du coup supposé mortel qui serait ainsi porté à l’ennemi héréditaire, jouant ainsi le rôle d’une vengeance quasiment « méta-historique » dont la jouissance rejaillirait sur la France, comme par procuration. Sans même parler d’une fantasmatique renaissance du « celtisme » que cela entraînerait.
    Certes, en elle-même, une telle idée ne me laisse pas de marbre – c’est le moins qu’on puisse dire ! Pourtant, malgré tout ce que je pense des Anglais (comme je l’écris bien souvent sur mon mur), elle ne saurait me réjouir.
    Car, par-delà la satisfaction immédiate et un peu gamine de voir Albion ainsi bafouée en son cœur, je crains que le véritable résultat d’une éventuelle indépendance écossaise ne soit pas vraiment un événement positif. Car il irait dans le sens de ce que recherche et provoque un peu partout le techno-capital mondial : l’éclatement des nations au profit d’entités politiques restreintes et affaiblies (même si certaines peuvent être ponctuellement riches de telle ou telle ressource) se multipliant à l’infini. Bien entendu, de telles « polities » (pour reprendre le concept du sociologue Jean Baechler) présenteraient l’avantage d’être bien plus facilement intégrable au réseau planétaire dirigé par l’aigle bicéphale Londres-Washington, et bien moins à même de pouvoir lui tenir tête. Car, après l’Écosse, on peut gager que les velléités d’indépendance toutes plus grotesques et absurdes les unes que les autres se multiplieront, soit de façon « spontanée », soit en étant « aidées », comme c’est actuellement se qui se produit en Ukraine et dans tout le Proche-Orient.
    Ajoutons que je ne suis pas certain que Londres ait véritablement gros à perdre dans cette affaire. La puissance britannique classique est déjà défunte depuis longtemps : paradoxalement affaiblie par sa boursouflure coloniale victorienne au 19e siècle, blessée à mort par les deux guerres mondiales du 20e, revenue à la case départ de son archipel originel au tournant des années 50 et 60 en raison de la perte de presque toutes ses colonies, sa nation et son peuple brisés par le thatchérisme libéral des années 80, sa puissance militaire désormais en voie de liquidation, Londres a manifestement su, avant même l’Amérique, passer durant ces vingt dernières années au stade historique supérieur : celui de la puissance non territoriale. Réduite à une City de Londres quasiment autonome au sein du royaume et régnant sur un archipel réticulé de banques, d’institutions financières internationales et de paradis fiscaux répartis stratégiquement sur la planète, elle a également fusionné de facto avec la puissance américaine (qui, elle, conserve un « arrière-pays » continental, une puissance territorialisée sur laquelle s’appuie une authentique nation – mais pour combien de temps encore ?). Dans cette configuration, la « perte » de l’Écosse ne serait probablement pas une catastrophe, quand bien même perte RÉELLE il y aurait. Bien entendu, si les Écossais avaient revendiqué la même chose en 1910, on peut être certain qu’ils auraient attiré sur leurs têtes une répression d’une férocité inouïe, comme les Anglais savent si bien les mettre en œuvre contre les peuples qu’ils dominent (contre le peuple anglais aussi, d’ailleurs, comme l’histoire l’a montré à de nombreuses reprises). Mais l’heure n’est plus à de telles considérations, en ces temps de fluidification des territoires.

    Et le peuple écossais, que pourra-t-il RÉELLEMENT en retirer de positif, en dehors d’une fausse, infantile et bien furtive fierté ? Probablement pas grand chose. Et nous, une fois la possible joie de cette indépendance passée, une fois que nous nous serons rassasiés d’événements SYMBOLIQUES comme nous les aimons tant, qu’aurons-nous à y gagner, en dehors de voir la machine à démembrer les nations et les États commencer à agir en Europe occidentale comme elle le fait ailleurs ? Et, une fois de plus, les Anglais nous aurons joué un bon tour et pourront se gausser de ces couillons de « froggies » qui se seront réjouis un peu trop vite de l’extension d’un processus qui ne joue pas en leur faveur…


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Well, I have thought of all this before. Nevertheless interesting. “Polity” is a word used for a while in my essays, BTW. It’s a sort of anglization-frenchization of the Greek “POLIS”.

      What this gentleman does not understand is that the Scottish revolt is driven by the ANTI-LONDON, anti-finance, sentiment. So he is trying to be too smart by half, or to do like Krugman and confuse everybody by claiming that the enemy of our enemy is actually its friend, and our enemy. More worrisome is the re-apparition of Goldman Sachs in the European Commission elect…

      What is real interesting now is the about face of Martin Wolf, the FT’s main guy…


  15. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to EugenRLowy.]

    Jean Monnet is another French founding father of Europe. De Gaulle was rather anti-European and did not help… Although he was for Franco-German reconciliation, and friend with Adenauer, those two were effective leaders for Europe, but not real engines.

    The French also started the idea of the SDN, that is the UN, in 1916 (that’s generally attributed to USA president Wilson, who I have also exposed in my considerations as a backstabber and USA supremacist, no holds barred!)


    • EugenR Says:

      Yes Monnet, Bech from Luxemburg, Beyen the Dutch banker, and some others non of them politicians of the first line. As said before, the first line political leaders needed to be tricked to give up any of their sovereign power. Also then they signed the first unification treaty only at 1957 in Rome, as reaction to the Soviet invasion to Hungary, when they signed the treaty of European Economic Community (EEC). The Berlin and Cuban crisis at 1960 give them farther push for new agreements. De Gaul joined Adenauer only at 1954, and until 1962 was too much troubled by the Algerian to be too helpful in the process of European unification. In the mid sixties the success of unification became so obvious that no one could oppose it any more.
      Then again at 1968 a new Soviet cruel occupation of Czechoslovakia together with the radical students revolt in Paris and continuous threat from the Italian and French pro Soviet communists gave new push to unification. At 1972 the first steps toward Euro were on way. GB joined the EU only at 1973, with lots of political mumbling.
      I think Europe should thank to USSR that with its enforcement of despotic policy toward its vassal states in Eastern Europe and continuous threatening the western half of Europe, it forced them to continue to unify.


      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Dear Eugen: In my opinion, the main engine of European unification has been the Franco-German Will to (Re-)Unify. All the rest is noise.
        Once FrancoGermania is one, the rest has to follow, including London…

        Moscow, though, is an entirely different problem… That spirit did not go through its thorough beating yet…


  16. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to LfD]

    Yes, agreed. Agreed with Montbiot. Fewer arguments are more despicable than to say that the Scotts have to stay in to save Great Britain. Or is that Greater London?

    … by bringing a voice that is not from the pro-thievery of metastatic finance .The lunatics in London (Scottish born Gordon Brown an example) have spilled poison for decades. Time to kill the beast.

    In particular their anti-European lunacy, a madness if there ever was one, is getting its just desserts. Scotland will be delighted to be a pro-European voice in the EU.


    • Paul Handover Says:

      Thanks Patrice. Just five days to go!
      Paul Handover


      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        September 13, 2014 at 16:56

        I wish… Does not look very good. Gordon Brown went all around with what Blair called his “great clunking fist” (and warned Cameron to fear it!), saying whatever, and the banks and BP or HP (!) all claimed they would pull out of free Scotland: all the plutocrats and plutophiles have called up the great army from hell!

        It’s of course all ridiculous. They won’t pull out anymore than they would out of Germany. An independent Scotland would probably mean a return to the situation of 5 centuries ago, namely no more passport controls between Scotland and France. The plutocrats are peeved!


  17. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to Site Flaunting Burke as a Temple of Wisdom, in connection with Scottish referendum.]

    Hmmm… I appreciate the will to depth, and irony, but I am a bit confused by the overall message.

    Burke’s strident attack against the French Revolution of 1789 was calculated to dissuade the British People from admiring the Revolution and so to prevent them to imitate it: and thus to protect plutocracy in Britain.

    The result is that all out war followed in 1792, when the Prussians allied to Britain and Austria, threatened to exterminate the entire population of Paris. Here I quote:

    “Their said Majesties [Allies of Great Britain] declare, on their word of honor as emperor and king, that if the chateau of the Tuileries is entered by force or attacked, if the least violence be offered to their Majesties the king, queen, and royal family, and if their safety and their liberty be not immediately assured, they will inflict an ever memorable vengeance by delivering over the CITY OF PARIS TO MILITARY EXECUTION and COMPLETE DESTRUCTION…”

    So here we are, 224 years later, and Britain still has no Constitution, but an unelected chamber of Lords, and the worst financial piracy center in the world based in London.

    And here we are and 224 later, people still talk about Burke favorably?

    To search for full background of the tragic attack of Burke and company on France, google:
    Patrice Ayme How Genocide Starts


    • Dominique Deux Says:

      Burke was as forgettable and as venal as BHL, an intellectual prostitute. And much more nefarious. It is worth remembering that at the inception of the French Revolution, Britain looked at it favorably, not only as a way of weakening its old Bourbon enemies, but as a scion of its own Enlightenment. And the feeling, among the men of the Revolution, was reciprocated with Gallic enthusiasm. That was anathema to the Tories (same old, same old – picture Cameron with a wig) and they set Burke (and many others) to work.

      As for the Brunswick Manifesto, the French population, dumbified by decades of non-history non-teaching, has no memory of it. Whenever some Kumbaya-chanting ignoramus complains that La Marseillaise’s lyrics are gory and uncivilized, I remind them it was a response, and a mild one, to the Manifesto. Not that it means anything to them. I often have to explain what “military execution” means (wholesale massacre). The Revolution may have won, in that its principles are the basis of the UN, but in France, petty-minded, greedy, braindead Restauration is in full bloom.

      Now off to your Google search.


      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Yes, Dominique, indeed. I cannot figure out the French educational system. It was wrong in the 1960s, being too rigid, and not… educational enough. Now it’s the same as before, just way worse. My Hawai’i educated (Punahou, with classmate Obama) spouse was floored by the primitivism of historical education our niece and nephew got in… France.

        My 4 year old daughter went to Chinese immersion school. A year ago, she was getting, in Chinese, CP (Primary school) teaching in reading and writing. Now at the French school, she was told that she could do that, in French, a much easier language to read and write, next year. Only next year.

        Meanwhile she is supposed to spend a whole year doing stuff she was doing at the age of two. She informed us that she was doing nothing at the French school, “C’est vraiment nul! Je ne fais rien!” She asked to go back to the Chinese school! Meanwhile, she refused to go to school, something that never happened with the Chinese.

        And so on. The Politically Correct has generated the Brain Dead. A form of reproduction.


  18. EugenR Says:

    Agree!!! The tragedy of Europe was caused by its two major rivers, the Rhine and the Danube. Since The Roman times it divided the Continent. Charlemagne was the first to unite Europe across the Rhine. Unfortunately it was not long lasting. The next one who could try to do it was Napoleon. But he was to eager to fight wars. Unfortunately at the time did not exist bungee jumping, that could potentially pacify him.
    The 20 century brought three unification experiences, the WWII of Hitler, then the Soviet- Stalin ( SS ) experiment, and the last one, the EU. Fortunately this one was the only successful one.

    Let us hope that this time the unification will thrive in spite of all those short sighted, petty minded but loud speakers.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      The Roman empire actually extended well beyond the Rhine, and even Danube. When three legions (and the supporting army) were annihilated by Arminius (“Herman”), they were going back to their winter quarters, and that trek back was in Northern Germany.
      So what happened?
      Three things:
      1) Augustus counseled his successors to not try to control all of Germany. Among said potential successors, Germanicus (grand nephew Augustus, nephew and adoptive son Tiberius)’s assassination (by poisoning) was particularly catastrophic: he defeated Arminius for years, and overruled the recommendation of Augustus to stay on the Rhine.

      2) Increasing plutocracy in Rome meant ever less power for the army, and pieces of the army thus behaving increasingly like occupying and plundering bodies: this was the situation after the demise of the Severus dynasty. That, in turn, made the Germans ever bolder. By 250 CE, the Franks were raiding from ships, Vikking style, throughout not just Gaul, but Spain and even North Africa. The Goths rampaged all around the Euxine Sea (Black Sea), and even all the way down to Athens (that they plundered and burned).

      3) Why so many Germans? Obviously agriculture in the North was getting more and more productive, allowing for more and more population. At the same time, exposition to the Greco-Roman empire had partly civilized the German savages, and they yearned for civilization and the wealth of Rome. Spectacular victories over the Roman army inside the empire persuaded the Germans that the empire was richer, and weaker, than expected. The Persians deduced the same simultaneously, and invaded Mesopotamia and Armenia.

      Etc. More in a relaxing essay…

      It will be unification, under a superior philosophy, or it will be war, under superior barbarity: Putin acts accordingly.


      • EugenR Says:

        Yes the death of Germanicus, the most talented member of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, was close to restore the Roman authority upon the German tribes. His death had rather tragic long term consequences for Rome and for Europe as well. By the way, according to Suetonius he was most probably poisoned by his own son Caligula the later emperor.
        Since Germanicus no Roman Emperor tried to cross the Rhine.
        Even Trajan did not fight the Germans but the Dacians and the Parthians. After him Hadrian put seal on new ventures beyond the defined borders.


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Participants in the Sejanus conspiracy recognized both of Tiberius sons, the adopted Germanicus and Drusus had been poisoned by him. Drusus, also a talented general, and nice guy, was poisoned several years later. Tiberius did not suspect anything for years thereafter…

          As Germanicus died in 19 CE, and Caligula was born in 12 CE, he would have been 7 years old at the time, if that completely unbelievable story was true… ;-)!


  19. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to Scientia Salon; relevant here to remind us that the quasi unanimous outcry against Scottish Independence is no accident.]

    The New York Times’ censorship is subtly vicious and extremely pernicious. It’s tied in to whatever they think is politically correct at the moment. Although a subscriber for decades, I was censored in various ways without explanation more than an unbelievable 1,000 times. At the times of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, I was blocked, for years (although what I tried to say then, is common sense now).

    They manipulate the “pick” system very efficiently.


  20. SocraticGadfly Says:

    I just did a scan, coming across you via Massimo’s site. I agree that Krugman is wrong to be a fear-monger. However, as the PIGS have shown, he, and many others, are spot-on on the euro in an arbitrary zone that has no political union. You dismiss that part of his warnings, and those of others, at your peril.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Socraticgadfly: Welcome, glad to see you here. You will post without further “moderation” here, I think it’s erroneous to control every single comment (as Massimo does, to his distress! ;-))

      With all due respect, Krugman himself admitted he understood basically nothing about the Euro. Still he persists, and that’s diabolical. The Euro is backed up by the European Union. That’s its currency. Like the Death Star, it’s a work in progress. Hopefully, it will end better.

      Krugman, whom I respect and appreciates in other ways, and the most worthy at the NYT, is a primitive anti-Euro propagandist. That’s what he is paid for, basically. I am NOT paid to be a Euro lover. I don’t have a nice mansion in Princeton, I don’t get paid for pro, or anti-Euro diatribes.

      Krugman does not know about the National Central Banks (NCBs). There is nothing “arbitrary” about the Eurozone. France and Germany have decided to unify, back in 1948, and the Eurofication is part of that process.

      To say there is “no political union” in Europe is counterfactual; there is a European UNION.

      The “peril” presented by the Euro is inexistent. Recently Spanish bonds were higher valued than those of the USA.

      Anyway, I have written plenty of articles on the subject, and especially the subject of the Euro ignorant Krugman.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      In 2008, the Spanish government debt was only 37% of the GDP. The debt exploded when that government saved the private banks operating in Spain. Same in Ireland, etc.
      Nothing to do with the Euro.
      Everything to do with the banks.
      Krugman is for QE.
      The USA gave 8 TRILLION to its banks since 2008, a stealth nationalization, or, shall I say, commie-zation?
      Krugman is all for it, because banks give him caviar.


  21. Roman, Barbar and Medieval Europe | EugenR Lowy עוגן רודן Says:

    […] […]


  22. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to Learning from Dogs, September 18!]

    The hysterical media campaign against Scotland independence from London has pulled out all possible tricks. It would be a miracle if the Scots voted yes. It also shows what censorship does. There is no difference in matter of information between censorship and monopoly of opinion.
    All and any large media is, de facto, a public utility. Thus it ought to be under res-publica supervision. But I forgot that the UK, as its name indicates, does not have the pretention to believe it’s a republic.


  23. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to NYT, Fox.]

    Sometimes progress means unravelling of the intolerable. For example the Greco-Roman order, with its slavery, had to be undone. The Franks had taken over from the Romans. In 655CE, the Franks outlawed the slave trade. Something the Romans would have never done. That, in turn, led to tech blossoming.

    The intolerable right now is that a few hundreds, or at most thousands fat penguins take all the decisions, and yield all the power, in all the so-called democracies… (Except for Switzerland, where people vote the laws themselves). That’s not democracy. It’s representative oligarchy, at best, trending towards blunt plutocracy.

    Let’s have more revolts towards more local politics, as in Scotland!

    Indeed, in any case, the Scots are going to get more autonomy out of this, and the London plutocracy may think twice about its self dealing, angry anti-European rampage.


  24. Patrice Ayme Says:

    Momentary verdict:
    Scotland: Just like I said months ago. Yet Scotland won (further) independence in the negotiations before the vote.


  25. Scottish Lessons; Catalonia Next | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] was independence from the London plutocracy which was demanded, and partially obtained further, even before voting, when London finally […]


  26. Is Britain A Democracy? | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] The Scots did. They want to “Free Scotland From Thieves.” […]


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: