Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

gruffydd

The Hanged Journalist Who Was Smeared By Thatcher

Recommended Posts

Did you know she also used to eat babies and poke needles in the eyes of puppies?

Flippancy aside, and since one of her best buddies regularly had his enemies taken on one way helicopter joy rides into the middle of the Pacific ocean, nothing would surprise me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Flippancy aside, and since one of her best buddies regularly had his enemies taken on one way helicopter joy rides into the middle of the Pacific ocean, nothing would surprise me.

Oh yes her and Pinochet were tight.

Oh the hours they would spend laughing and joking together while Regan threw liberals onto the fire.

Happy, happy days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest X-QUORK
She used to hang around with Pinochet, so it surprises me very little all these dark mutterings about her character.

Not a very nice (Iron) Lady if you ask me.

I recommend reading The Shock Doctrine - Naomi Klein, it opens the eyes somewhat about what was done in the name of Friedman's market reforms, Chile being but one example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I recommend reading The Shock Doctrine - Naomi Klein, it opens the eyes somewhat about what was done in the name of Friedman's market reforms, Chile being but one example.

Is it a powerful argument X?

I mean can you link the Right to hundreds of millions of deaths the way you can with Socialism in the 20th century?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest X-QUORK
Is it a powerful argument X?

I mean can you link the Right to hundreds of millions of deaths the way you can with Socialism in the 20th century?

Try reading it and you'll arrive at your own conclusions KB. Your hatred of anything approaching temperate politics puts you beyond the point of reasonable discussion, so I won't waste my breath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Try reading it and you'll arrive at your own conclusions KB. Your hatred of anything approaching temperate politics puts you beyond the point of reasonable discussion, so I won't waste my breath.

Somehow I always seem to find myself defending politicians,which on here is only a step away from putting in a good word for an Estate Agent. I have had some involvement in politics,although only as a District Councillor.

What I would say is that the majority of those who do it undoubtedly think that they are motivated by the right reasons.Once you convince yourself of this it is then only a small step ti justifying the means by the end.I'm sure that this is how people end up doing things like Pinochet did.They see a degree of chaos around them and decide to sort it out at all costs.I am convinced that most are honest but often misguided.If you follow this to it's ultimate conclusion you end up with a Hitler or a Stalin,bith of whom I am sure could have made a reasonable stab at defending their actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Try reading it and you'll arrive at your own conclusions KB. Your hatred of anything approaching temperate politics puts you beyond the point of reasonable discussion, so I won't waste my breath.

My point is if your going to vilify the deaths of a few thousand people from those on the fringes of the right, don't ignore the hundreds of millions that died under socialism.

The BBC case in point will run dozens of programmes every year about Hitler (even though he was actually a type of socialist) but have forgotten that Stalin ever existed. When was the last time any of you watched a BBC documentary on Stalin?

Now killing or letting starve anyone is a horrible crime in the name of any version of politics. But to anguish only over the deaths at the hands of those you disagree with then ignoring or forgetting about a vastly larger number of deaths because you admire the motives of the man responsible is dishonest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it a powerful argument X?

I mean can you link the Right to hundreds of millions of deaths the way you can with Socialism in the 20th century?

Er, yes if you go back a few more decades & probably even if you don't.

Capitalist England killed 17 million in India.

Capitalist Europeans killed 18 million in the Atlantic Slave Trade.

Capitalist Europeans killed 3-5 million during the invasion of the Americas.

King Leopold of Belgium killed 8-10 million in the Congo with the major help of Capitalist Enterprises.

The countless Wars between competing Capitalist countries in Europe amount to around 100 million alone. The Capitalist

reordering of WWI killed around 15 million.

Hitler who was very much on the right was responsible for around 55 million in WWII.

Capitalist America killed around 4-5 million in Indochina alone, including around 1 million in Cambodia & Laos (before Pol Pot). Indcidentally, Ben Kiernan of the Cambodian Genocide Program reminds us that the U.S. 9 year carpet bombing of the agricultural areas in Cambodia most probably led to the 1 million who died of famine in Cambodia under the brutal Pol Pot, who only actually killed (in executions) around 600,000 (the others dieing of famine) exactly the same amount as the CIA estimated they themselves (US) had killed in bombing.

Reagan himself was responsible for the deaths of around 100,000 in Guatemala, 100,000 in El Salvador & around 30,000 in Nicaragua. As chomsky says, not just normal deaths, but Pol Pot style mutilations.

Plus, Communist death tolls tot up to around 40 or 50 million if you take a median of the reliable estimates rather than going with the highest estimates & even then most of them were famine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Capitalist England killed 17 million in India.

Can you back that up? I think your very wrong.

Capitalist Europeans killed 18 million in the Atlantic Slave Trade.

You mean the Statist, Royalist Europe. Britain with her reduce monarchy and parliamentary democracy outlawed slavery and use the Royal Navy to enforce the ban on other nations.

Capitalist Europeans killed 3-5 million during the invasion of the Americas.

Again I would love to see you back this up, but also again we are talking about Statist, Royalist Europe, mainly the Spanish.

Er, yes if you go back a few more decades

But basically in the modern (post Adam Smith) capitalist era, no, you can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The BBC case in point will run dozens of programmes every year about Hitler (even though he was actually a type of socialist) but have forgotten that Stalin ever existed. When was the last time any of you watched a BBC documentary on Stalin?

Firstly, Hitler only called himself National Socialist to gain popular appeal. He crushed the unions and was a fervent anti-communist, killing around 27 million of them (probably even more than Stalin did). He protected the bourgeois

& his Social reform was very much like all Capitalist countries have enacted to avoid overthrow from the poor

conditions Capitalism had us living in.

Secondly, we fought the 'good fight' against Hitler. It led to the deaths of around 55 million. Of course they are

going to justify it with propaganda.

Thirdly, America was full of Anti-Communist propaganda. Britain probably understood that Stalin's probable actual

executions of around 2-5 million were probably about on par in comparison to people like Suharto & other Capitalist dictators we supported proportionate to the size of the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Er, yes if you go back a few more decades & probably even if you don't.

Capitalist England killed 17 million in India.

Capitalist Europeans killed 18 million in the Atlantic Slave Trade.

Capitalist Europeans killed 3-5 million during the invasion of the Americas.

King Leopold of Belgium killed 8-10 million in the Congo with the major help of Capitalist Enterprises.

The countless Wars between competing Capitalist countries in Europe amount to around 100 million alone. The Capitalist

reordering of WWI killed around 15 million.

Hitler who was very much on the right was responsible for around 55 million in WWII.

Capitalist America killed around 4-5 million in Indochina alone, including around 1 million in Cambodia & Laos (before Pol Pot). Indcidentally, Ben Kiernan of the Cambodian Genocide Program reminds us that the U.S. 9 year carpet bombing of the agricultural areas in Cambodia most probably led to the 1 million who died of famine in Cambodia under the brutal Pol Pot, who only actually killed (in executions) around 600,000 (the others dieing of famine) exactly the same amount as the CIA estimated they themselves (US) had killed in bombing.

Reagan himself was responsible for the deaths of around 100,000 in Guatemala, 100,000 in El Salvador & around 30,000 in Nicaragua. As chomsky says, not just normal deaths, but Pol Pot style mutilations.

Plus, Communist death tolls tot up to around 40 or 50 million if you take a median of the reliable estimates rather than going with the highest estimates & even then most of them were famine.

Agree with some of what you say, but;

Stalin's policies clearly created the famine in the Ukraine and elsewhere deliberately and the Mao used hunger as a deliberate weapon against his own people killing millions. You talk like these famines were an accident, they weren't.

Also never forget Hitler was a national 'socialist'............the left always seem to forget that one. He may have crushed unions but he also created his own in the 'style' of the left...............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You mean the Statist, Royalist Europe. Britain with her reduce monarchy and parliamentary democracy outlawed slavery and use the Royal Navy to enforce the ban on other nations.

Are you having a laugh, the object of the slave trade was to get cheap labour for the plantations, it happened because of capitalism.

The BBC case in point will run dozens of programmes every year about Hitler (even though he was actually a type of socialist)
He wasn't in anyway a socialist. Does the fact that North Korea calls itself democratic mean that it is democratic?. Come on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Firstly, Hitler only called himself National Socialist to gain popular appeal.
He wasn't in anyway a socialist.

I beg your pardon, I have heard this one before.

Hitler spent his youth in the Socialist German Workers Party. He spent his life preaching Socialist mantra. He found the National Socialists. Wrote a decidedly socialist manifesto. Hired prominent socialists to the party.

Ah, yes, but he was only ‘pretending’!

Socialists say: Nothing to do with us guv, honest...

Let me pick out a few points from the 1925 Nazi party manifesto, and ask yourself, are these policies of capitalists or of the socialist?

Your see very quickly that the facts speak for themselves, fascists are a type of socialists.

We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood.

All citizens must possess equal rights and duties.

We demand:

That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

We demand the nationalization of all trusts

We demand profit-sharing in large industries.

We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.

We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalisation of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small trades people, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.

In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.

The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centres, by prohibiting juvenile labour, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.

We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press. In order to make possible the creation of a German press,

We demand freedom for all religious faiths in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or offend the moral and ethical sense.

COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD

In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.

The formation of professional committees and of committees representing the several estates of the realm, to ensure that the laws promulgated by the central authority shall be carried out by the federal states.

The leaders of the party undertake to promote the execution of the foregoing points at all costs, if necessary at the sacrifice of their own lives.

Your be telling me that that other great fascist Mussolini wasn't a socialist either next!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you having a laugh, the object of the slave trade was to get cheap labour for the plantations, it happened because of capitalism.

He wasn't in anyway a socialist. Does the fact that North Korea calls itself democratic mean that it is democratic?. Come on...

Yes, Britain drove the slave trade for a few hundred years. Pirates and privateers by Alexander Winston is a great read - examines state-sponsored piracy in the West Indies, which was heavily tied up with the slave trade. To Hell or Barbados by Sean O'Callaghan is another good read - it explores Irish slavery in the West Indies (Cromwell transported 50-70,000 Irish slaves across the Atlantic).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you back that up? I think your very wrong.

15-20 million (Chomsky)

19 million (Lancet)

You mean the Statist, Royalist Europe. Britain with her reduce monarchy and parliamentary democracy outlawed slavery and use the Royal Navy to enforce the ban on other nations.

Nah, Britain & France & the U.S. were liberal & Capitalist before they abolished the Slave Trade & the Royalists cannot be described as anything other than Rightist.

Again I would love to see you back this up, but also again we are talking about Statist, Royalist Europe, mainly the Spanish.

The killing of the native Indians didn't just stop in 1890 you know, it has continued throughout the 20th century. Rummel (historian) estimates 75,000 deaths in Brazil during the Military period alone ('65-'80). That's the fascist military regime America installed in '64. In fact Rummel estimates 235,000 deaths of Indians in Brazil alone from 1900-1980, much of which was under U.S. installed fascist regimes like Vargas. Gerald Colby estimates 800,000 during the plundering of the Amazonian Rainforest in Brazil.

There are countless figures on the 10s of thousands of Native Americans killed by Corporations & such in Bolivia just in the 1970's, around 50,000 in Guatemala in the 80's.

We don't even have to go to the figures of 13,778,000 by Rummel, 100,000,000 by Stannard 30,000,000 by Aletheia, or 5-30,000,000 (Chomsky) etc, for the full lot, including before the 1900s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I beg your pardon, I have heard this one before.

Hitler spent his youth in the Socialist German Workers Party. He spent his life preaching Socialist mantra. He found the National Socialists. Wrote a decidedly socialist manifesto. Hired prominent socialists to the party.

Ah, yes, but he was only ‘pretending’!

Yes, that was all.

Socialists say: Nothing to do with us guv, honest...

Let me pick out a few points from the 1925 Nazi party manifesto, and ask yourself, are these policies of capitalists or of the socialist?

Thanks for making my point, did he do those when in power?. No.
Your see very quickly that the facts speak for themselves, fascists are a type of socialists.
Only if you have a particularly bad grasp of politics or maybe of reality in general. Indeed the reason fascism was so popular with the elites was because it opposed socialism and communism which are in no way nationalistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest X-QUORK

All this commie/capitalist death count **** waving detracts from the point that Maggie kept some pretty unpleasant friends. Just because I think Pinochet was a nasty piece of work, it doesn't mean I deny the nastiness carried out in the name of so-called socialism.

We often hear Friedman worshippers decrying the lack of freedom citizens suffer under socialism, yet they fail to mention the methods used to enforce free market ideas in former socialist countries. Modern history seems to skirt around the rather inconvenient truth that democracy was trampled and lots of people were killed to implement what is laughably looked on as capitalist "freedom".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, that was all.

Thanks for making my point, did he do those when in power?. No.

Only if you have a particularly bad grasp of politics or maybe of reality in general. Indeed the reason fascism was so popular with the elites was because it opposed socialism and communism which are in no way nationalistic.

not that your read it but this book covers the issue in great depth. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Liberal-Fascism-Hi...3722&sr=8-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All this commie/capitalist death count **** waving detracts from the point that Maggie kept some pretty unpleasant friends.

How many countries did Maggie Invade?

How many did the left wing government replacing her?

We often hear Friedman worshippers decrying the lack of freedom citizens suffer under socialism, yet they fail to mention the methods used to enforce free market ideas in former socialist countries.

The whole point of a Friedman style government is that you have a very small state that does not enforce anything beyond property rights and the law of the land.

You don't 'enforce' the free market any more than you push water up hill with a rake. What your suggesting is a contradiction in terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All this commie/capitalist death count **** waving detracts from the point that Maggie kept some pretty unpleasant friends.

You should check out my latest video, it's about the 9/11 attack in Chile that brought Pinochet to power, not the 9/11 attack in New York.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   289 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.