7 Comments

  1. Well at least the Saatchi brothers did not lie – as some of our “libertarian” brothers are doing.

    Mrs T. (supposedly) took away the freedom of workers to “organise” just-like-Pinochet….. (he did a lot of bad things – but he did not private unions either).

    In the service of the evil “coporations” (as if these “libertarians” like large scale enterprises owned by single individuals either). As if the “freedom” to smash things (and people – “Black Legs”) up is the freedom that libertarians support,.

    “Freedom” without PROPERTY RIGHTS (the “freedom” to smash and burn) is the freedom of barbarians – not libertarians.

    And the struggle of the United States against Communism was just a an effort to boost “corporate profits” by backing dictators (so the profits of the corporations was what the Berlin Air Lift and the Korean War were about – thank you Social Justice types, I did not know till you told me…..).

    Mrs T. is also being attacked for cutting government welfare to the poor (not true) AND for not reducing government as a share of the economy (also not true – after the TRAGIC MISTAKE of accepting the outgoing Labour governments spending pledges on pay and so on in 1979 government did increase from 1979 to 1982 – but from 1983 onwards government’s share of the economy SHRANK and was SMALLER in 1990 than it has been in 1979.

    It has been interesting to watch the alliance of the “Racial Nationalist” (“biology matters”) “Right”, and the “Bleeding Heart” “Libertarian Left” come out of the shadows (together – on the same blog, which I choose not to name) to spit on Mrs T.

    The Roberts family saved a little girl in Vienna in 1938 and looked after her for two years – and ever afterwards Margaret Roberts – Margaret Thatcher was there to help Jews in peril. So the “Racial Nationalists” were never fans of Mrs T. And the lady never confused compassion for the poor with totalitarian concepts such as “Social Justice” (so the “libertarian left” do not like here either – although, please never forget, Social Justice was a key element of both Italian Fascism and German National Socialism also).

    The Black Flag people and the Red Flag people are sometimes presented as opposites – but they are not.

    Mr father (Harry Marks) faught against the British Union of Fascists (the 1930s version of the modern British “Racial Realists” and “Racial Nationalists” ) at the “Battle of Cable Street” – but he came to see that the Communist Party (and he was a member of the Young Communist League) came to stand for totalitarianism also. So he faught them as well.

    Harry Marks would not have been astonished to see the “Black Flag” (both Fascists and COMMUNAL “anarchists”) people and the “Red Flag” people (both open Communists and the cowardly informing scum who call themselves ………) come out to spit on the grave of Mrs T.

    The lady had many faults – but, as I have said here before, Mrs T. was a thousand times better than her foes.

    Then or now.

    These people are not our brothers and sisters.

    They are either no where to be found when the struggle against the totalitarians comes – or they are actually on the other side.

    Whether it is the Nazis, or the Communists or the Islamists…… any of the great totalitarian movements that have threatened the West.

    Look not for help against these threats from the “Racial Nationalists” or from the “Libertarian Left” for they will not give that help.

    But people like Mrs T. (inspite of their very real FAULTS) will always be there.

    At least they had better be – if the West is to survive.

    Like

    Reply

  2. Thatcher talked about a small state, but her usual actions were to use the whole state apparatus in order to get her way. Both MI5 and the police were heavily deployed, in breach of the rule of law, to defeat the miners- especially by preventing potential pickets from travelling.

    Of course you can argue that the end justifies the means but approval for the illegal use of state force is not a very libertarian position. Whilst you may like her economics, she was no less authoritarian than the rest of them.

    Like

    Reply

      1. Maurice Saatchi’s comments have more than a whiff of historical revisionism.

        She won elections because the electorate were afraid of her opposition turning the UK into Stalingrad and she was the way to avoid that. People were sceptical about the value of the security provided by the socialist state- the rubbish wasn’t being collected and the lights kept going out.

        The climate has changed now, the collectivists have wised up and monetarist philosophy is dead in the water in terms of political success. Look at the pusillanimous response of Cameron to the issue of tax avoidance if you need evidence. There is, apparently, a perceived “moral duty” to pay tax and there is a broad communitarian consensus among all parties and in society at large.

        Thatcher could never be successful in the current climate and the obvious conclusion, from that, is that the UK is finished.

        Like

  3. Dropping blocks of concrete (from bridges) on passing cars was only one tactic of “the pickets” Ken.

    A “picket line” is a MILITARY term – and these were paramilitary thugs.

    If the state has a function it is to oppose force – with force.

    Otherwise get rid of taxation – and let coal companies hire their own (armed) private security, to keep pickets from obstructing their front gates (or killing “Black Legs”).

    Simon is right.

    Mrs T, did win elections on the basis of her philosphy (she did not win by smileing and kissing babies).

    And what Mrs T. did others can do.

    And perhaps deal with the “entitlement state” before it utterly destroys the West.

    Like

    Reply

  4. If the state has a function it is to oppose force – with force

    Kind of depends who initiates the aggression though, doesn’t it?

    Throwing police cordons round pit villages and preventing people travelling down motorways is aggression initiated by the state, not the upholding of the rule of law.

    That is not, of course, to condone the violence initiated by the miners.

    Like

    Reply

  5. Ken “picketing” is a miltary term – a picket line.

    People have a right not to work – they do NOT have the right to try and scare others into not working. If someone wants to attack someone else’s village (for example in Notts) then perhaps they should indeed be allowed to travel – as long as the trip is a one way trip out of the United Kingdom (to North Korea or wherever they want to go).

    I do not believe a majority have the right to attack a minority – and in this case it was not even a majority (if A.S. thought he could have won a strike ballot – he would have held one).

    Who used force first is obvious – the strike was based on force.

    If you (Ken) want to attack the state then attack it for stealing (“nationalising”) the coal mines in the 1940s. That was the real unjustified use of force – not anything that was done in the strike.

    A.S. did not want a smaller state – he wanted a bigger state (indeed a Communist state).

    “How do you know that Paul?”

    I know that because he SAID SO – repeatedly.

    You do not “save pits” by going on strike – every day on strike makes it MORE likely that MORE pits would have to close.

    “Striking for jobs” is like screwing for virginity.

    A.S. KNEW that.

    The year long strike had nothind to do with “saving the coal industry” (it doomed the coal industry) – it was about “bringing down Thatcher” and “bringing down capitalism”.

    Why do you think it got the support from Libya and so on – do you think they were interesting in “saving the coal industry”?

    “aggression initiated by the state”.

    Fighting against violent treason is not “aggression” – especially when it is treason for a cause that has been responsible for the murder of between one hundred and two hundred million people over the last century – see “The Black Book of Communism”.

    Those who declare war (which A.S. and the other Communist thugs did) do not look good when they complain about “aggression initiated by the state” when they lose that war.

    If they do not like losing wars – perhaps they should not start them.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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