The archive is catalogued by 'Economics', 'Politics', 'Mockingbird', 'And in other news' and 'Thoughts on other things' 

MarkGB 

"Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world" - Henry Kissinger

and yet...

"Sooner or later everyone sits down to a banquet of consequences" – Robert Louis Stevenson

Philip Stephens may be confused. He seems to think 'elites' means 'the world'

In response to an FT article by Philip Stephens on 11th September 2014, entitled 'The world is saying No to Scottish separation'

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/443a23d6-3841-11e4-a687-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz46DFnu0NB

Mr Stephens

I suspect that there is something that the people you talk to would rather not come to terms with, or even think about. That 'something' is apparent in the fact that Scotland is having a referendum, it is apparent in the pressure for a UK referendum on membership of the EU, it is apparent right now in Catalonia, in Kurdistan, in Palestine, in Saudi Arabia; it was briefly very apparent during the Arab Spring; it is apparent in areas all over the world - there is growing unrest with 'governmental elites', and with the borders and boundaries drawn by governmental elites. This unrest is manifest in regimes of all stripes, whether these elites are 'democratic' like the EU, ruled from afar like the Kurds, or are made up of a good old fashioned family businesses like the Saudis.

We seem to have three broad types of 'elite':

1. We have the tyrants: tyrants want to be adored, but they don't care what people really think, indeed they don't want people to think at all. There are a few of those littering up the planet, and as the Arab spring showed, people have had their fill of these parasites. Sadly most of the parasitic elites have been superseded by other 'life sucking' entities.

2. Then we have the democrats: they care desperately about what we think, but only so they can say the 'right' things to get elected.  But to hell with that once they've got the keys to the door.  I recall the conversation on Mr Dimbleby's election show, as it was becoming clear that Mr Blair would have his third victory. For all of 5 minutes they talked about the low turnout and all sagely agreed that 'apathy' was a message in itself. Then…nothing. What does apathy really say Mr Stephens - does it say 'we don't care' or does it say 'we don't believe what we say will make a difference'? Anyone who has had children knows that 'not caring' is not the natural human condition.

I'm not sure that a Scottish government will be any better than control from Westminster, but I can really understand why the Scots might think so, and there has been very little apathy recently.

3. Finally we have the globalists. These are the ones who I dislike with a vengeance. They don't parade around in medals like the tyrants, they don't run for election like the democrats, they sit in back rooms in places like the IMF and the Council on Foreign Relations, and in the case of the latter, they can always be relied upon to advise Presidents who to kill and when, or who to supply arms to if direct killing is unpopular with Congress.

So maybe the next time one of these remote VIPs you talk to asks you why Scotland is even considering self determination, why not suggest that it may be because they are sick to the back teeth with elite politicians who rule from afar, and don't give a damn about what they think until just before an election. Tell them enough Scots wanted the option for it to be put to the test.

I wish the Scots well whatever they decide and I totally support their right to do so. Whatever they decide, I doubt many of them will be impressed with this article or the folks you talk to

Governments lie to their people - nine strategies of empire

When is bribing the government not a crime? When it's a bank.