Without Writing

The art of writing without writing… about fighting.

Margaret Thatcher: Death of a murderous fraud


Image by unknown author, used without permission.

Good readers, step right up! Listen if you will to the tumult of supine, servile, utterly vomitive tributes to the recently deceased Maggie in the mainstream media today.

Marvel at the astonishingly convenient forgetfulness of myriad toffee-nosed hacks as they trample riotously over the graves of the British manufacturing base, public services and- literally- working people in their rush to praise this dear departed demoness; wonder at the sheer gall of the crypto-fascist swine that form orderly, oinking queues to take turns stepping into the spotlight and raising a glass to their moral and political idol… Thrill to the sight of roving gangs of neo-conservatives  slapping down any dissent or deviation from the party line!

In the news today, Margaret Thatcher, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain (from 1979 to 1990) has passed away. Bereft of life, she rests in peace. This, is, an ex-premiere.

Now, I could wax (on and wax off) lyrical about who Margaret Thatcher really was. I could explore the fact that despite her regularly wheeled out piffle about being a grocer’s daughter she was in fact brought up as a relatively priveliged right-wing zealot of an unremarkable sort… one who would not have made any impact in the world were it not for the fact that she married a millionaire who financed her insane ambition to plunge our nation back into the dark ages from whence it crawled.

But someone has done it better here: Death of a Class Warrior by Tom Mills

I could talk about how her legacy is a combination of producing two ghastly overly-monied children (one literal criminal, one obvious racist), waging a war for votes , gleefully snuggling up to some of the most horrific and murderous regimes the earth has ever SEEN (the  Khmer Rouge and Augusto Pinochet, to name but two), persecuting gay folk, and demolishing the lives of several generations of Britain’s poor people (an act continuing to this day).

But you know all that already, surely.

Instead, why don’t I talk about the fact that Thatcher represented the dark side of human nature. Whenever someone barges in front of you in a queue, that’s Thatcherism. Whenever someone mugs another person for their mobile phone, that’s Thatcherism. Whenever someone manipulates others for personal gain, that’s Thatcherism. Thatcher was very much about selfishness, ego and contempt for the rights of others. Her concept of “freedom” was a hellish one indeed: Freedom to Thatcher was freedom to take whatever you wanted, from whomever you were capable of victimizing.

Everyone you’ll ever have to defend yourself from in your life… is a little bit of a Thatcher.

As for the comment in the press… Hack journos often wrongly accuse a man as blameless as Noam Chomsky of crimes as nefarious as supporting the Khmer Rouge. But this is someone who ACTUALLY DID support the Khmer Rouge. You wouldn’t know it from the coverage today. One of history’s greatest monsters is dead. You wouldn’t be made aware of this simple fact by reading, watching or listening to the mainstream media. As ever, by disguising the crimes of the powerful, journalists make themselves complicit in those crimes.

These fawning media moral vacuums disgust me. They should disgust you too. They should disgust themselves.

I’ll finish with the sentiments of several people who have dared to speak the truth at a time when the professed sanctity of one woman’s death is used as a bludgeon to silence the truth.

Gerry Adams: “Thatcher did great hurt to the Irish and British people”
Lindsey German: “Margaret Thatcher laid the basis for policies which wrecked the lives of millions in Britain. But she should also be remembered as a warmonger.”
Frankie Boyle: “Thatcher being dead is a lot less tragic than Cameron being alive”
Ken Livingstone: “It’s a tragedy she ever came to power”
Peter Tatchell: “she showed no empathy for the victims of her harsh, ruthless policy decisions”
George Galloway:  “Thatcher described Nelson Mandela as a “terrorist”. I was there. I saw her lips move. May she burn in the hellfires”
Mark Steel: “Thanks to everyone who’s asked over the last two days, but I’m bearing up despite the news and managing to soldier on.”
Russell Brand: “Her death must be sad for the handful of people she was nice to and the rich people who got richer under her stewardship. It isn’t sad for anyone else.”

But perhaps the most incisive line was from Paul Kenny, a union leader (GMB):

“Her legacy involves the destruction of communities, the elevation of personal greed over social values and legitimising the exploitation of the weak by the strong.”

This is what was wrong with Thatcher. This is what is wrong with her devotees, and successors (i.e: most mainstream politicians and virtually all mainstream journalists). When the strong make a creed of dominating the weak, that’s what we call… that’s what we SHOULD call…



14 responses to “Margaret Thatcher: Death of a murderous fraud

  1. Mark 2013, April 9 at 1:20 am

    Chomsky did support the Khmer Rouge. Just sayin’.

      • withoutwriting 2013, April 9 at 1:39 am

        I realise that article may contain too many words for you to absorb, but frankly only an enormous douchebag could possibly interpret Chomsky’s criticism of the west’s focus on- and enhancement of- the crimes of official enemies, and their tacit support of official allies (e.g: Indonesia, when decimating East Timor in a comparable fashion to the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia), as “Support for the Khmer Rouge”. This is a done deal. You’re wrong, and you’re wrong about twenty years too late.

      • Mark 2013, April 9 at 1:41 am

        You cannot exaggerate millions of deaths. Chomsky was so desperate to be anti-American that he was led to the most obscene pedantry; to the extent where he was no longer able to enemy of America from friend. Learn to fucking read.

      • withoutwriting 2013, April 9 at 1:55 am

        no longer able to enemy of America from friend

        Learn to fucking write. Or type, if one wants to be pedantic.

        The link you provided was to a very good quality review by Chomsky and Herman of how the mainstream media had focussed on the Cambodian atrocities and had published anything and everything that might support their continued focus on these atrocities committed by official enemies, whether accurate or not. A modern equivalent is the assertion that Saddam Hussein had nazi-style gas chambers and WMDs. By pointing out that these assertions are tosh, does that make me a “supporter of Saddam”? People like you seemed to think so, around the time of the second Gulf War. Of course, they, and you, are grossly incorrect.

        This is the penultimate paragraph of Chomsky and Herman’s article (though I doubt you got that far):

        “We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments; rather, we again want to emphasize some crucial points. What filters through to the American public is a seriously distorted version of the evidence available, emphasizing alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities and downplaying or ignoring the crucial U.S. role, direct and indirect, in the torment that Cambodia has suffered.”

        And this is quite correct and uncontroversial. The US role in the Cambodian genocide was significant, and to this day doesn’t get much play in the mainstream press. Partly because of miniature self-motivating commissars like yourself.

  2. Truthseeker 2013, April 20 at 4:52 pm

    Its funny how the mainstream press paint a picture that the whole country is in mourning. The only mourners are those with nothing better to do than turn up to her funeral. Up here in the north east nothing could be further from the truth. The local NE TV ran a story on how a local working mans club linked with one of the former coal pits were celebrating on the day of her funeral. I aint heard anybody speak about her up here.

    • withoutwriting 2013, April 21 at 7:20 pm

      Quite right. And apart from a few stragglers, it’s broadly the same down South, out West, etc. as far as I can tell.

      But I suppose it’s important to remember that the media isn’t really *lying* when they say that she’s being mourned by people; they’re just talking about the only people that matter to the media: The wealthy and the corporate, two groups that Thatcher did very well by.

      This ain’t no “public media”, this is media by the elites, for the elites.

  3. David Oakley 2013, July 8 at 9:58 pm

    Thatcher gave the individule the right to self determination. She also believed in small government it’s up to the individule to look after themselves and not have the state interfering in there business or their business rewards.
    As Mr Gekko in Wall Street said greed is good its what advances us as a race if you want people to help other human beings in a society sense, then a moral compass has to be instilled in children but a moral compass is a choice it should not be forced on people.

    • withoutwriting 2013, July 9 at 7:50 pm

      Bless you. People who claim that Thatcher “gave the individual rights” are ignoring the bulk of the effects her government’s policies led to. Thatcherite policy gave individuals the right to lose their jobs; the right to starve on the breadline; the right to work longer hours for less pay and the right to lose the support of strong unions which prevented their employers from taking the pee out of them. Thatcherite policy lead to a weakening of the social contract, a separation of people within society and demonisation and disenfranchisement of the most vulnerable.

      At least that’s the story for the bulk of the UK’s population: the working classes. And that’s who we should be caring about. Was Thatcherite policy great for the upper classes and big business? Sure, in the short term. But the upper classes and wealthy businessmen are a teeny-tiny minority of our population. We shouldn’t care what happens to those greedy, moneygrubbing, backstabbing individuals now, should we? 🙂

      Greed advances us as a race? Of course it does! Why, all the great human advances have been motivated by greed! Oh no, wait, that was intelligence, imagination, solidarity and altruism among like-minded people. A simple error to make though, don’t feel too bad about it.

      And lastly… a moral compass should be instilled in children? No. We’re born with empathy and altruism in-built. Or not. Sociopaths have little or no empathy, but I do. And through the lens of my empathy I can clearly see the evil that Thatcher worshipped and the evil that she visited upon the weak and helpless, along with her chuckling, fat tory cronies and their toffee-nosed new-lab neo-con successors.

      I think it’s time to polish your lenses, Dave.

      • David Oakley 2013, July 9 at 10:04 pm

        I’m looking at it from a different perspective than you. I have made a bit of money and lost a great deal of money but I’m willing to do or die by my own decisions, I want the right to self determination if I fail I fail its my problem it’s my fault if I make the wrong choices. No one has a right to a job if you think you have a right to a job then start your own business and stop bitching you have been delt a bad hand of cards. Everyone has the chance to make something of themselves, but that’s the point they have to go and do it. If you don’t want to be dependent on an employer or feel your not being paid enough then leave your job and start a business remember this point.

      • withoutwriting 2013, July 11 at 5:53 pm

        Of course you are looking at it from a different perspective to mine. Yours is a grossly skewed perspective. Your ideology as you espouse it is an ideology of “survival of the fittest”. That’s disgusting enough, devoid as it is of the most beautiful, admirable and human of qualities, the qualities of empathy and altruism… but regardless of that it doesn’t match Thatcher’s ideology. Because Thatcher’s ideology was “survival of the already very rich minority, and screw over everyone else”.

        Only a deeply uninformed and closed-minded individual would look at Thatcherite policy and conclude- as you seem to have concluded- that Thatcherite policy had anything to do with “self determination” or “making something of yourself”. Thatcherite policy was highly socially and economically manipulative: it was not free-market based. It was not meritocratic. It was policy designed to shift the balance of power even further away from the workers and poor folk, into the hands of the established wealthy class. It was not policy that provided opportunities to the poor to “make something of themselves”, because it crippled the education system and butchered a welfare system that supported the disadvantaged to better themselves and obtain gainful employment, among other things.

        You appear to have bought greedily into the lie that Thatcher and her colleagues LOVED to peddle… the idea that taking away people’s social support would “encourage them to better themselves”. It’s the same lie told by New Lab and the Con-Dems when they claim that “people are addicted to benefits; we must take away their benefits to make them work!” when in reality, it’s the lack of a decent minimum wage that keeps people on the pathetically inadequate benefits that they receive. It’s a convenient lie, because believing the lie allows one to sleep at night while screwing one’s fellow human beings over, if one is so inclined. 🙂

        Regarding your “Don’t like having your social safety net taken away? START A BUSINESS” nonsense… What business should the vast majority of the British populace start, when they have a low quality education, no liquid capital, severe debt, no margin for risk or error and little or no support from the state? Twaddle of the most depraved sort, sir.

        As for your declaration that “the world and government owe you nothing blaaaah!”… I’m sorry, it’s just utterly stupid. Governments do owe the people they govern plenty. That’s why they’re elected. They promise to do things for the people, and the people elect them. One of the things goverments do owe the people they govern is basic social support, which includes things like a functioning welfare system, a good, free education system and a nationalised health service. All the things that your beloved Maggie started taking away from them in the eighties.

        Frankly you should be deeply, deeply ashamed of your lack of common understanding, and your ridiculous ignorance on the topic. Go and read more.

  4. David Oakley 2013, July 11 at 7:35 pm

    Sorry my friend you just dont get it from my view thats all, I know how the world works, everybody can make it, when my printing business went down and I had no money I started a window cleaning business and then grew from that. You are a typical I want to be looked after welfare state supporter and have the likes of me and people like me pay for it.
    We do have a basic support system for people who need support, but thats all it ever should be BASIC NO MORE THAN THAT.
    PS the advantage of having your own business is the fact you can screw the goverment back, now that is a true conservative.

    Get real you may not like it but its the way it is and always will be.

    • withoutwriting 2013, July 12 at 12:05 pm

      Good job ignoring all the refutations of your weak-ass arguments in my previous reply, by the way. 😉

      You sir, are a typical coin-tosser. Put a hundred idiots in a room, and get them tossing coins. Sooner or later, one of the idiots will toss ten heads in a row.

      They will then consider themselves a master coin-tosser, and start lecturing others on how to toss coins.

      If your purported window cleaning business succeeded, it was blind luck on your part. Know how I know that? Because success in business is virtually always based on luck. You’re lucky enough to start a business that people want to use, at the right place, in the right time, etcetera, etcetera. Business people who succeed? Coin-tossers. For every business that succeeds, a dozen fail. And that’s nothing to do with worth, skill or hard work.

      Not to mention the fact that you had certain advantages. You were- you say- in the print beforehand. So you had experience, you’d had the capital and training to start your previous business in order to gain that experience, etcetera. Even if you started from nothing the second time around as you claim (which I doubt, because SOME capital is needed to start any business), you were already ahead of some poor kid who left school at sixteen and ended up working in McDonalds to earn a crust.

      So, unfair advantage plus blind stinking luck = a few quid. Well done you, give yourself yet another pat on the back.

      The country (and the world) is full of very very skilled people (many more skilled than you, simply through force of probability) whose businesses fail. The world is full of hard workers (many of those who work harder than you, again just through force of probability) who can’t earn a decent enough wage to support themselves and their families.

      Why? Because state-capitalist systems like ours aren’t meritocracies. The fittest DON’T necessarily survive. The already wealthy increase their wealth, and occasionally some tiny minority of people get lucky and make a few bob. That’s the way the system works, currently. And people like you sit around pontificating on how worthy you and your ilk are, and how UN-worthy those poor souls on Jobseeker’s allowance or disability benefit are. Shame on you.

      It’s comfortable for- and stimulating to the ego of- people like yourself to think “I’m where I am because I deserve it!”.

      It’s uncomfortable for people like you to start thinking… “Oh wait, that guy over there lying in the gutter deserves it about as much as I do.” But that’s the truth. Because a person’s worth isn’t based on whether they succeed in business. It’s not based on whether they’re secure financially. It’s not based on what car they drive, or what restaurants they eat in.

      A person’s worth is based on how good they are. How much they help others, how much positive energy they add to the human equation and how much they contribute to society as a whole. We’re social animals, not backstabbing lone wolves, no matter how much you and your friend Maggie claim otherwise.

      So define “basic support”. I suggest that a decent free education system accessible to all, good welfare benefits and a free, nationalised, good quality health service are all merely basic support. Frankly, they cost virtually nothing to run, compared to all the wars and bank bailouts that Maggie Thatcher and her successors love so much (and that you’re supporting).

      As for your claim that “Durr! Dat’s just de way it iz, we’re all out for number one!” It’s not the way it is. People help each other out every single day. People support each other to live and lead meaningful lives. Nobody except the gated-community daily-mail devouring bozos are in isolation from others. People are socialists in their bones, whether they name the quality or not.

      It’s just the odd self-centred idiot that ruins it for the rest of us. 😉 I think you can guess to whom I’m referring.

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

%d bloggers like this: