Margaret Thatcher – A tyrant or a patsy?

Following the death of Margaret Thatcher on 8 April, whole swathes of the national press in the UK were covered with this story (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/gallery/2013/apr/09/margaret-thatcher-death-newspaper-front-pages#/?picture=406864740&index=17). The Daily Mail covered its front page with the story on four consecutive days (http://www.thepaperboy.com/uk/daily-mail/front-pages-today.cfm?ArchiveStartRow=13). Her funeral was elevated to a state occasion. Yet former Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson just had a simple ceremony on the Scilly Isles (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1034634/Lady-Thatcher-honoured-State-funeral.html), even though he had done a better job in keeping Britain out of wars (http://barneteye.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/where-was-state-funeral-for-harold.html), and was apparently opposed to the New World Order as being propagated by the CIA. Why?

It seems to me that the Establishment made a massive fuss over here death because it was in their interests to do so. The current economic crisis has been engineered in order to consolidate power, and that involves not only bank takeovers, but also the transferring of wealth from the people to the power elite. I don’t think that was Margaret Thatcher’s intention, but that’s what they used her for. Now, in death, they are using her again, for the same purpose.

Richard Cotrell, a former Conservative MEP, has written a scathing account of the Thatcher premiership, headed ‘Thatcher’s true legacy: Her Majesty’s national socialist state’ (http://endthelie.com/2013/04/09/thatchers-true-legacy-her-majestys-national-socialist-state/#axzz2Q2HfrgOJ). “Thatcher was the culmination of the steady transformation of the British political personality into a national socialist state … The natural flowering of British national socialism is none other than Tony Blair”, he wrote. On his personal encounters with her, he wrote: “We small band of brothers in the European Parliament were marked out for especial displays of scornful rebukes – and worse”. I found that interesting in the light of the glowing tributes from current EU leaders, including one from Martin Callanan, leader of the conservative ECR group, which includes the UK Tory MEPs, who said that Thatcher had left an “extraordinary legacy” and, together with US President Ronald Reagan, “helped to transform the political map of Europe” (http://euobserver.com/news/119736). It illustrates the hypocrisy in the current outpouring of grief.

Yet was National Socialism her intention? Despite her having appointed a self-confessed Nazi, Alan Clark, as a Minister, I eventually came to the view that she probably genuinely believed in Milton Friedman’s monetarism, and in the democratisation of the country by transferring control from the state into the hands of individuals, and that she was single-minded and ruthless in furthering that idea. The problem with that, of course, is that you need more regulation rather than less regulation, if you are to avoid the whole thing becoming a game of Monopoly, in which the winner takes all. That is what is happening, and the end game is a corporate takeover. Whereas Margaret Thatcher was a conviction politician, Tony Blair had no convictions; he should have had, and should have been serving a long time for them.

There is a story that in her one visit to the Conservative Research Department, she produced a book by Friedrich Hayek called ‘The Constitution of Liberty’, slammed it down on the table and declared “This is what we believe” (http://www.margaretthatcher.org/archive/Hayek.asp). The problem was that Hayek had added an appendix explaining “Why I am not a Conservative”. Margaret Thatcher was dedicated to changing the philosophy of the Conservative Party, on the basis of a previous book by Hayek, ‘The Road to Serfdom’, ironically dedicated “To Socialists of all parties”. Yet even Hayek took the view that the government has a role to play in the economy through regulation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek).

In 1947, Hayek was a co-founder and the first president of the Mont Pelerin Society, described in 1984 (the year) as “a secretive group of economists which meets every two years, but issues no findings or recommendations” (http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Article=WorldOrder&C=7.4). In 1970 the presidency went to Milton Friedman, who was advancing his own ideas of Monetarism, which Hayek did not support. Indeed, he was concerned that the Mont Pelerin society might split into a Friedmanite and a Hayekian wing. It was Monetarism that Margaret Thatcher implemented, though Milton Friedman, too, became a critic of the monetary regime that the Thatcher government had established.

Israeli born Gilad Atzmon describes the relationship between Friedman and Thatcher, and also how Friedman’s values were influenced by his strong Zionism (http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/gilad-atzmon-milton-friedmans-capitalism-and-the-jews-revisi.html). “Friedman argues that the free market and competition is good for the Jews. Yet he is also adamant that Government intervention is a disaster that leads to anti Semitism and other forms of institutional bigotry”,  writes Atzmon. He suggests that Friedman himself probably did not realise the full meaning of his economic model, which would eventually bring the West to its knees, requiring massive government intervention. Watching the video interview with Friedman embedded in Atzmon’s web page, I’m not so sure; he may or may not have been working in the interests of the Israeli state and financial elite. Certainly it now looks as if the Mont Pelerin Society was, as with other societies, taken over by vested interests; in a statement of resignation from the Mont Pelerin Society, Paul Craig Roberts wrote in 2008: “I do not want to be associated with an organization that is a front for American hegemony and wars based on propaganda, lies, and deceit. If Milton Friedman and F.A. Hayek were still alive, I am certain they would join me in resignation” (http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts257.html). He is co-author of the book ‘The Tyranny of Good Intentions: How Prosecuters and Law Enforcement Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice” (http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/pages/books/the-tyranny-of-good-intentions-how-prosecutors-and-law-enforcement-are-trampling-the-constitution-in-the-name-of-justice/). Milton Friedman commented on the first edition, published in 2000, “a devastating indictment of our current system of justice”.

Tony Gosling, on ‘Margaret Thatcher, and the man in the shadows’, wrote: “The taboo not a single commentator has broached though is the shadowy ‘advisory’ role played throughout her premiership by European banking fraternity’s Labour peer Lord Victor Rothschild. He was revealed in the book the Thatcher government tried to suppress, Peter Wright’s Spycatcher, to be behind London’s top secret service appointments” (http://rt.com/op-edge/margaret-thatcher-man-shadows-929/). Indeed, in the same book I find that Victor Rothschild was a key figure within MI5, and “composed a series of elegant memorandums … defending the Security Service’s right to provide intelligence requested of it by No 10 Downing Street. Edward Heath’s reaction was “You should not be indulging in politics, there are mechanisms for this sort of material”. So it seems his successor, Margaret Thatcher, had her own man in MI5, but whether she was using him, or he was using her, is an open question.

“When she refused to join the EMU, the forerunner to the vice-like Euro, she was promptly knifed in the back by those who sing her praises today”, writes Tony Gosling. What puzzles me is why they had to make such a fuss of it. In theory the Cabinet could have outvoted her at any time. Were they wimps, or were they all funded by the same financial dynasty, and not jumping until their strings were pulled? Understanding this – at all levels, from the Cabinet down to tiny membership associations – has to be key to understand how tyranny works, and how it can be countered.

Thatcher’s legacy was continued with Tony Blair, but it didn’t start with Thatcher. Cecil Rhodes set up a secret society in 1891, together with William T Stead and a confidant of Queen Victoria, with the then Lord Rothschild in the shadows. Its purpose  was to extend the British Empire by means of financial manipulation, all in the name of the “English speaking idea” of bringing civilisation and peace to the peoples of the world.  When Stead realised Rhodes’ real intentions, he objected and was marginalised, and then teamed up with another magnate, Andrew Carnegie, and did great things, like building the Palace of Peace in The Hague, and setting up the International Court of Justice. But the wars continued, and the current financial crisis is just the latest in a series of manipulated crashes.  Sadly, the International Court of Justice is now in the hands of the Anglo-American Establishment; it will never, for instance, indict Tony Blair. I’ll be talking about the ‘English-Speaking Idea’ en July at an Alternative Week’ at the Chataux Gresillon in the Loire region of France (http://gresillon.org/spip.php?rubrique31).

 

Advertisements