Marchessini Blog & Forum

Fighting Women

There is an interesting letter in yesterday’s Times by a man called Tim Cain, who was an infantry officer for 28 years. He says that he is surprised that the MOD is considering forcing the army to accept women in the Infantry, at a time of shrinking budgets. To provide appropriate extra facilities for the relatively tiny numbers of women involved would be a waste of scarce resources.

An even more interesting letter is from Colonel Finlay Maclaren, who says that for three years he served on the board responsible for assessing potential officers at Sandhurst. He once had three exceptionally athletic female candidates, who all jumped at the chance to attempt the more demanding male obstacle course. Of the eight obstacles, two female candidates managed to complete three, and the other one, only one. In short, none came close to meeting the male standard.

The difference in physical strength between the sexes is significant and few females are up to the present infantry standard necessary to serve on the front line. If these standards are lowered in order to meet female quotas, military effectiveness will be severely reduced. This happened of course with the police, who used to have standards of size, weight and strength in order to qualify. When they decided to allow women to become policemen, these standards had to be scrapped, of course, because women do not meet them.


The Truth Is Never Racist

There is a continual attack on the police, both in the United States and in the UK, for being “racist” and “brutal” towards black people. These attitudes are misguided. In the United States, according to the FBI, homicide is the leading cause of death among young black men, who are ten times more likely to be murdered than whites. Blacks are just 13% of the population of the US, but they are responsible for the majority of all murders in the US. Furthermore, more than 90% of black victims are killed by other blacks. Blacks commit violent crimes at 7 to 10 times the rate that whites do.

Many of these murders are never solved. In 2012, Chicago had 507 murders. Only 26% of them were solved. But the Left Wing and sociologists, although they are aware of these facts, do not even acknowledge them, let alone make them a focus. One of the Left Wing’s allegations is that black criminal behaviour is a response to “white racism”. How is it then that black crime rates were much lower in the 1940s and 1950s, when black poverty was higher, and there was plenty of racial discrimination? Yet, again, the views of the Left do not stand up to reality.


Are Women Killers?

With reference to a recent letter in The Times,Female soldiers and the killer instinct”, the fact that females lack the killer instinct, that they have much less physical courage than men, as well as much weaker bodies, are not “unsubstantiated claims”, but obvious facts. I am eighty years old, and I have spent my life with women in twenty countries. Most women get frightened if one raises one’s voice, let alone touches them. People must understand that the word “stereotypes” is used by Feminists to take the place of the phrase “normal women”. Nor are the armed forces meant to “reflect the society from which they come”. The armed forces are meant to contain the strongest and bravest people. Would Manchester United play women on their team in order to “reflect society”?

There are also several other points not mentioned in the letter. For example, when the Americans came back from Iraq, 15% of the women soldiers were pregnant, and the US Army had to arrange nurseries and care facilities for them. Is this what armies are meant to do? Then there is the question of sexual jealousy. As soon as there are women in the armed forces, the men will start fighting for them. Is this good for discipline in combat? And, in case of danger, soldiers are likely to protect their girlfriends, rather than their comrades. It really is not a good idea.




Domestic Gestapo

It is reported in the press that the Home Secretary will be announcing powers to allow the police to prosecute men who are guilty of “psychological and emotional abuse”.  I must say that I do not think that this has been carefully thought out.  Under the terms of the bill, a man could face up to fourteen years in prison.  It is important to remember that all the women have chosen their husbands or lovers.  If they find they do not like them, they can divorce the husband or leave the lover.  But to send them to jail is monstrous.  For those who are married, the wife made marriage vows to look after her husband for the rest of her life.  If she sends him to jail, those vows become lies.

Even more important, the government does not have the right to interfere in people’s private affairs.  We are meant to live in a country where there is personal freedom.  Furthermore, to try to decide who is right and who is wrong in a domestic squabble would be an administrative nightmare.

I would strongly urge the Home Secretary to rethink this matter.



There was a letter in the Daily Telegraph recently that contained some common fallacies about Fascism. In particular, it stated that the “Stalin regime was just as Fascist as Hitler’s”. In fact, neither Stalin nor Hitler were Fascists.

The Fascist Party was founded in 1919 by Mussolini, and its stated purpose was to fight Communism. So Stalin, by definition, could not be Fascist — he was the enemy of the Fascists. Similarly, the Nazis were not Fascists either — they were Socialists. Indeed, the word ‘Nazi’ comes from the capital letters of the party’s title, which was the National Socialist Party of Germany. Furthermore, the Nazis had no qualms allying themselves with the Communists when it suited them. All three governments were violent dictatorships, but only one was Fascist. To state that all violent dictatorships are Fascist is quite incorrect.


One Way Or The Other

I was extremely interested by a recent column in the Sunday Times by Hannah Betts on the harassment of women in the streets.  I certainly agree that this is extremely unpleasant for the women.  The problem is what to do about it?  Fifty years ago, this problem did not exist.  Women were respected, and rarely harassed in the street.  But since then, there have been several changes in the world.

To begin with, the traditional view of women being weaker than men, and, therefore, having to be protected, has disappeared, because of women’s assertions that they are “equal” to men.  If they are “equal”, then they do not need to be protected, and men naturally assume that they can speak to them the same way that they speak to men.

Secondly, there is the question of attire.  Since time immemorial, women’s attire indicated their place in society, and their intentions.  Modest women dressed modestly, those who did not were indicating interest in men.  Therefore, men always knew how to behave to each woman.  This principle has now been destroyed, and even upper class women often wear clothes that are meant to be sexy, but are, in effect, just vulgar.  Men, therefore, are confused.  Many women argue that they should be free to wear what they like.  Indeed, they are free to wear what they like.  But the point is, they must then accept the consequences.  What reason does a woman have to wear vulgar and tarty clothes, except to attract men’s attention?  What other reason can there be?  Suppose, for example, three women walked into a pub, one wearing conventional dress, the second wearing a skirt up to her crotch, with her boobs out, and the third completely naked.  Would each of these three women expect to receive the same reaction from the men in the pub?

The reality of life that Feminists always ignore is that you can do what you like, as long as you are prepared to accept the consequences.  Women claim to be “equal to men”, but then they complain of sexual harassment.  If women are equal, how can there be sexual harassment?  Men never complain of sexual harassment.  The reverse side of women’s claim to be “equal” is the loss of the traditional respect that they have had from men for centuries.  It is one thing or the other – women cannot have it both ways.

Miss Betts mentions “men’s attitudes never seem to change”.  Actually, attitudes often change.  It is not their attitudes, but their nature that does not change.  Human nature never changes, neither men’s nor women’s.  It is the same now as it was at the beginning of time, and it will still be the same at the end of time.  An important part of men’s nature is that they are attracted to women.  We hope that will not change, because otherwise there will be no more babies, and the world would come to a stop.  How good a man’s manners are depends upon his upbringing, but one cannot change his nature.


Open Letter to Tim Cook

Dear Mr Cook,

In his famous essay, On Language, George Orwell pointed out that “Sloppy language leads to sloppy thinking”.  You have stated publicly last week that you are proud to be “gay”, and that you consider being “gay” “among the greatest gifts God has given me”.  I would point out to you, with respect, that the only reason that you have been able to make such an extraordinary statement by using the word “gay”.

For several centuries, the word “gay” has usually referred to someone who led a “loose or immoral life”, in particular, to prostitutes.  It had never specifically been used for homosexuals.  But, in the last thirty odd years, because the homosexual community did not like the words used in the past to describe them – “sodomite”, “pederast”, or even “homosexual” – because they gave too clear a picture of homosexuality, they adopted the word “gay” to describe themselves.  More to the point, however, they have persuaded other people generally to accept “gay”.  Of course, the word “gay” is a euphemism – a word that is used to conceal a distasteful fact by the use of a pleasant sounding word.  This “shyness” does not exist elsewhere.  In France, for example, the word “pede” (short for pederast) is still commonly used.

For example, could you have said publicly “I am proud to allow other men to shove their cocks up my bottom”?  Everyone would have laughed.  Could you have said that among the greatest gifts God has given you, is the opportunity to “suck other men’s cocks”?  More laughter.  Yet, this is exactly what all homosexuals do.  That shows the extent to which the use of euphemisms has permeated into modern life, a continuous effort to gloss over reality.

You are certainly free to commit as many homosexual acts as you please, but please stop trying to pull the wool over our eyes.  We are not all stupid, and you are insulting our intelligence.


Big Brother

The press reports about Nicky Morgan’s (the Secretary of Education) recent statements on teaching in schools, are somewhat confusing. She first says that pupils should be encouraged to respect other people, even if they do not agree with them. Most people would agree with that. But it does not follow that, therefore, they should respect other people’s faiths – that is absolutely impossible for anyone with firm religious views. I have several homosexual friends, but that does not mean that I approve of homosexuality. I have some Muslim friends, but that does not mean that I approve of the Muslim religion. Is the Minister aware, for example, that in the Muslim religion one is not allowed to kill one’s father, or one’s brother, or one’s friends, but one is free to kill as many “infidels” as one wishes. Indeed one is encouraged to do so. Does the Minister approve of that? Only dictatorships try to control what their citizens think. In any free country, that is anathema. It is people that one respects, but not necessarily their beliefs.

Miss Morgan is also quoted as saying that she is a “committed Christian”. How can she then support same-sex marriage? Being a Christian does not just mean believing in Christ – it means practising the Christian faith, believing Christian dogma, and accepting the Bible. The Bible states in ten or twelve places that homosexuality is “an abomination”, so how can any Christian approve same-sex marriage? It is not up to the government to decide what people should believe. Children should be educated according to the beliefs of their parents, their religion and the schools that their parents choose. Not by the government.

It was reported that the Yesodey Hatorah girls school in north London was downgraded because it blacked out science exam questions on evolution. But evolution is not science. There is no firm evidence backing evolution, it is simply a theory of Darwin, and we must not forget that Darwin was a Christian, and not opposed to the Christian faith. Schools should not be coerced to force evolution on their pupils.



The Times columnist Ben Macintyre obviously has a rather short memory. He attacks Mr Farage, and UKIP, for adding an MEP to their group, whose views Macintyre does not approve of. He clearly does not remember that the democracies of the West allied themselves with the most vicious and bloodthirsty government in the history of Western Europe, namely, the Russian Communists, in order to defeat Hitler. Russian experts estimate that the Russian Communists murdered between 60 and 80 million of their compatriots, and ruled over a vicious dictatorship for seventy years. How does that compare with one Polish MEP?

Macintyre also referred to “wife beating”, but this is simply a bad translation from Polish. No one beats their wives, except drunken yobbos. What was referred to is smacking your wife’s bottom, which is quite different. It does not hurt, and it simply shows who is in charge. Furthermore, contrary to your opinion, most women like it.

Macintyre quotes Mr Korwin-Mikke on rape (although K-M is not the MEP whom UKIP has adopted), as saying “Women are always pretending that they are showing some resistance, and this is normal”. Macintyre does not accept this, so I must say that every single woman who did me the honour of granting me her favours, always said “NO” at first. Every single one. Of course, this is “normal”. That does not suggest that all women submit – many say “No” and mean “No”. But they all say “No” to begin.

Macintyre objects to Mr Korwin-Mikke’s statement that the difference between rape and consensual sex is “very subtle”. With great respect, he obviously does not have much sexual experience. The men that I know have spent countless evenings wrestling with young women, which sometimes ended with success, and sometimes with failure. As Mr Korwin-Mikke says, the difference is “subtle”.

Macintyre also objects to Mr K-M’s statement that democracy is the most “stupid form of government ever conceived”. Well, clearly everyone is not obliged to agree with that, but clearly Macintyre is not aware of the number of well known people who do agree with Mr K-M. For example, Aristotle said “Democracy is government in the hands of men of low birth, no property and vulgar employment”. George Bernard Shaw (a Socialist) said “Democracy is the form of government that substitutes election by the incompetent many, for appointment by the corrupt few”. The American writer H L Mencken said it was “The worship of jackals by jack asses”. Lord Byron called it “Aristocracy by blaggards”. And no democracy in the history of the world has lasted longer than two hundred years. So although Macintyre and many others may disagree with Mr K-M, it would seem that not everyone does. It, therefore, seems that he has gone over the top by calling Mr Iwaszkiewicz an “extremist monster” for remarks made by somebody else.

Finally, the fuss he made about the UKIP song, shows how intolerant England has become. It is simply a political song, and what is wrong with that? It is sung in calypso style. What is wrong with that? In Germany some years ago, a song came out about Gerhard Schroeder, the then Prime Minister, which said that Mr Schroeder “has his hand in our pockets”. There was no fuss about that, and it climbed to number one in the German charts.

Mr Macintyre must learn to be more tolerant.


You Cannot Have it Both Ways

A recent article by Linda Kelsey in the Daily Telegraph contained certain misconceptions. The most important thing in marital relations is to understand what exactly marriage means. Most people in England no longer understand that marriage is not simply a declaration of whom you are sleeping with – it is a promise. A promise to stay with, and look after another person. If you are religious, you make the promise before God, if not, you make it before the world. Anyone who breaks their promise is considered a bad person.

People who live together, without marriage, often consider themselves “married”, and often consider that they have a “commitment” – but they do not. Without that formal promise, there is no marriage, and without marriage there is no responsibility. I know two couples, each of whom had lived together for 28 years, when one day, the man left, leaving three children behind. What commitment was that?

As society has always been based on marriage, it is normal for governments to encourage marriage, and give married people benefits. But people who cohabitate and have not made any promises, cannot ask for the same benefits. They have no responsibility, and, therefore, no rights. One has to choose in life. If you do not wish to take on responsibility, you do not marry, but then you cannot expect to get the same benefits that people who have assumed obligations receive. It is one way or the other, you cannot have it both ways.

Miss Kelsey said that “the law has failed to keep pace with social change”. The law is not meant to keep up with “social change”. The law is meant to be something one can rely on, come hell or high water. One must remember that everything in the world goes around. Everything has happened before, and will happen again. We should not delude ourselves into thinking that “social change” is progress. It is simply the fashion of the moment, like the length of ladies’ skirts.

As for Nicholas Mostyn, I happen to be a lawyer, and I can tell you that he is talking rubbish. My son-in-law, who is a successful QC, also has a very dim view of Judge Mostyn. One cannot pretend that those who have made a promise, and a commitment, are in the same place as those who have not. Otherwise, civilisation disappears.

1 2 3 51 Page 1 of 51

If any issues on this site affect you, please leave a comment.

All comments will be responded to appropriately.