Marchessini Blog & Forum

Left-Wing English

In his famous essay “On Language”, George Orwell wrote, “Sloppy language leads to sloppy thinking”. Unfortunately, that is exactly what the Left Wing has managed to accomplish in the last fifty years, namely, to make language sloppy so that they can distort it.

Category One – Sexual:
Their outstanding success has been the substitution of the word “gay” for the word homosexual. Indeed, there have always been at least a dozen words in English that meant homosexual, some proper English words, and some slang. Yet, suddenly about thirty-five years ago, without any law being passed, or vote being taken, everyone was obliged to use the word “gay”.  How did the Left manage to persuade everybody in the Anglo-Saxon world to use this ridiculous euphemism? The French don’t say “gai”. They continue to use “pédé” (short for “pédérast”).

Furthermore, the penalty for not using the word “gay”, is being called the new word “homophobe”. “Homophobe” was invented in 1963 by George Weinberg, a homosexual, but was not used until it appeared in the American pornographic magazine SCREW in 1972. After that, it was used more and more by the homosexual lobby. It has no clear meaning – it is used only to smear anyone, who does not approve of homosexuality. How were people persuaded to use it? Clearly this has happened through the media, who are not only very Left Wing, but also ruthless. The result is that freedom of speech disappears, except for those brave enough to speak.

Category Two – “Ist” Words
The “ist” words are those words that end in “ist” – like “racist”, “sexist” etc. They have no precise meaning and therefore can be used in any way that suits the Left. What does “sexist” actually mean? No one knows, but it can be used to attack and smear any opponent.

Category Three – Euphemisms:   
We are in an era of promiscuity, and yet people are reluctant to use the proper words, and use euphemisms. A girl does not say ‘my lover’ any more – she says “my boyfriend”, even if he is 70 years old. Yet the correct definition of the word “lover” is “someone who loves you”. What is wrong with that? Similarly, the word ‘mistress’ — according to the Dictionary — means any woman who has a sexual relationship outside marriage. But it is a romantic word, and occurs everywhere in English poetry. Indeed, the word “mistress” is short for “mistress of my heart”. Why are women afraid to say it?

Indeed, even ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ are out of fashion. People call each other ‘partners’. What is the point of that? To try and deny that there is a sexual relationship? Then there are “single mothers”. Again, they are not given their correct title of “unwed mothers”, in order to try and confuse them with divorced mothers and widows. There are more than 700,000 unwed mothers in this country, all of them receiving money from the government. Why? Many of them are teenagers, but whatever their age, no one forced them to get pregnant in this era of contraception. And why should anybody be responsible for them? Even worse, they are all breaking the law, because they receive benefits as “single mothers”, but all of them have lovers who live with them, and who disappear on the day the social worker comes to visit. They are cheating the government out of about £3 billion.

Then there is the new title ‘Ms’. For thousands of years women were called ‘Miss’ or ‘Mrs’ to announce that they were either unmarried (Miss) and under the protection of their fathers, or married (Mrs) and under the protection of their husbands. Now, Feminists do not want to be in either category, so they have invented ‘Ms’. Again this has been imposed on the general public without exception. With what right? Finally, there is the word ‘misogynist’. This is a proper English word, and, of course, comes from the Greek. Those of us who speak Greek, know exactly what it means, which is “someone who hates women”. But there are very few men in the world who actully hate women. Most men love women; some do not have strong feelings, but very few men HATE women. Yet Feminists have tried to change the meaning of the word, by using it wrongly, and pretending that it means anyone who does not agree with Feminism. Outrageous really, and yet one does not hear objections.

Category Four – Political:
The most crucial inaccurate use of a word at the moment is the word ‘inflation’. For generations, inflation meant how much money was being created by the government, whether by printing or by debt. At some point the government decided that it did not like people knowing how much money it was creating, and it made up a new definition of inflation, namely the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Now it is true that when there is inflation, the CPI usually goes up, but not necessarily, and not to the same degree. Furthermore, the government decides which items go into the CPI, and changes these items regularly to suit themselves. At one time, neither food nor energy was included in the CPI, although I believe that recently it has again been changed. The result is that today we are told there is no inflation because the CPI is not going up, and yet we have QE which means the government is creating money like crazy. This is a complete fraud, and leads to a series of disastrous decisions by the government, and the Central Banks.

There has been a tendency for some years to identify parties not as Left Wing, or Right Wing, but as Centre-Left and Centre-Right. In other words, no one is allowed to move too far from the consensus, and any differences between the parties are mainly in the details, not the principles. But the real issue in politics today is whether one is Socialist (or a Socialist sympathiser), and believes that the government should control all areas of human behaviour, or whether one chooses freedom, which means a Right Wing party. Yet this issue is never mentioned any more.

Another confusing word is “tax”. Now, taxes have existed since the beginning of government, because it is impossible to run a government without some income. But whenever one hears the word ‘tax’ today, people are usually referring to Income Tax. Now, Income Tax is quite different from previous taxes. It is quite simply appropriation, about which the taxpayers can do nothing. It is only about a century old in mainland Europe and a little bit older in England. When people grumble or complain about taxes today, they are invariably referring to Income Tax. Income Tax has no rational basis, it simply a desire by government today to raise more money, in order to obtain votes by handing out this money. Indeed, when the U.S. Government passed an Income Tax law in 1913, they had to first amend the U.S. Constitution because Income Tax was prohibited by the Constitution.

Another word from the Left is the word “generalisation”. Generalisation simply means the conclusions that one draws from one’s experience in life. All intelligent people have conclusions. But the Left does not like that word, because they do not like conclusions from life, which are always against them. So they try to pretend that there is something wrong with “generalisations”. But on the contrary, rational thought cannot exist without conclusions from experience.

Category Five – Love:
Not surprisingly, there is a lot of confusion about the word “love” in English, because there is only one English word, ‘love’, to mean several different feelings. The two feelings that come up most often are strong affection, and sexual passion. When people use the word “love” they are often confusing these two things, and mixing them up. What most people do not grasp is that sexual passion, although it may be wonderful, is not going to last, and, therefore, it is not a good basis for marriage. On the other hand, deep affection can last forever, and that is a better basis for marriage. The result is that most people are under the impression that as soon as sexual passion goes, they are free to leave their wife or husband. They think that marriage is based on sex.

But marriage should be based on something else – on deep attachment. Marriage is simply a promise – a promise to stay with another person, and look after them for life. When one gets married, no one promises that one will be happy, or that one only has to stay as long as one is happy. Happiness does not come into it. Otherwise, marriages will disintegrate, which is what is happening now. For the first time in recorded history, the number of married people in this country has fallen below 50%. Of course, there can be serious reasons for divorce which have to be taken into account – like drug abuse, homosexuality, alcoholism, violence, lunacy etc, but wanting to go to bed with somebody has never been a reason for divorce. Marriage is about staying together.


Whose Child Care?

In the run up to the election, every party is offering various incentives for “childcare”. Indeed, childcare has now become so established that no one even questions its validity.

Having a child is not only a personal and human decision – it is also a financial decision. There have been, and there still are many people who have waited to have a child until they can afford one. Anyone who chooses to have a child in this era of contraception must be responsible for the consequences thereof. But now, not only are people encouraged to have children irresponsibly, but we have the added question of childcare for those women who want to have a child, but also wish to work.

Despite all these years of “democracy”, most people still have not grasped the fact that the government has no money. It does not have a rich uncle, or a fat trust fund. It only has the power to tax its citizens. Of course, it can borrow money, but that too will have to be paid for by its citizens. Therefore, any time funds are transferred to some particular group in the country, it means those funds are being taken away from others.

The question of childcare is particularly painful because families where the wife chooses not to work are obliged to pay for the childcare of families where the wife does work. In other words, those parents who have chosen not to have a child until they can afford one, must pay for the children of families who have children in an irresponsible way, but most of all, people who believe mothers should stay at home and look after their children are forced to pay for the behaviour of the wives who wish to work at other peoples’ expense. In short, those who believe in traditional values are ridden roughshod over for the benefit of those who choose to act selfishly. A more iniquitous arrangement is difficult to imagine, and yet no one complains.


Christian Theology

With reference to recent newspaper reports on the Vatican’s refusal to approve the homosexual envoy from France, the confusion of most commentators is due to their inability to differentiate between “tolerate” and “approve”. Homosexuality has been tolerated in the UK and elsewhere since 1965, but homosexuals are not satisfied with that. They wish to be “approved”. The Catholic Church generally, and the Pope in particular, have made it clear that homosexuality is tolerated in the Catholic Church. But it can never, ever be approved, because it has been a major sin in the Catholic Church, and all other Christian churches, for two thousand years. That is not going to change.

The Pope’s recent statement, which is often quoted, “If a person seeks God, who am I to judge?”, does not indicate any change in Catholic dogma. The phrase “seeks God” means someone who has stopped committing homosexual acts, and is trying to come closer to God. Homosexuality is tolerated in the Christian church, but can never be approved.


What Is Rape?

There was an interesting column by David Aaronovitch in the Times Opinion recently about rape, entitled ‘We need the truth, not “I believe the victim” ’. I certainly agree with him that the politicisation of truth, and the assumption of people to be guilty for what they represent, is pernicious, and repugnant. Mr Aaronovitch quotes an American journalist, Elizabeth Bruenig, as saying that “the kernel of the controversy is about politics, not journalism”. This is an idiotic way of saying that facts do not matter – only political views matter.

I must, however, disagree with him about any “imbalance against victims”. I am certain that the “old girlfriends” that he refers to have a very different idea of what is “rape” than most people do. Under the old Common Law, it was required that a woman be “unwilling”, and that the man use “violent force”, and that is what most people continue to believe. In the United States, the law requirements vary from state to state, but in the U.K. the law of rape was altered sometime ago, and the requirement of “violent force” was been deleted. That means it is now very difficult to tell what is rape, and what is not.

I do not know where the figure of 5% of rape claims being false comes from, perhaps from the United States, but it certainly is the opposite to the truth. In this country only 7% of rape allegations go to court. Of those that do, roughly half are convicted and half are acquitted. The other 93% are thrown out by the police and prosecutors, because there is no evidence to support them.


What Non-Doms Mean

It is amazing that after all this discussion of the non-dom situation, very few people understand what a non-dom is. A correspondent in The Times, John Scott, falls into the fallacy of thinking that there is no difference between a UK foreign resident and a non-dom. Most UK foreign residents remain here for life, and eventually they, or their children, become UK citizens. Non-doms are foreigners who come to England for a specific period of time, in order to work at certain specific jobs, namely jobs that can be done in any country, like shipping, insurance etc. They never intend to live their lives out in the UK, and eventually they go back to their own countries to die. I happen to know many non-doms, and almost all of them have done just that.

The purpose of the non-dom law was to entice foreigners, who could work anywhere, to come here, instead of Rotterdam or Hamburg or Copenhagen, and it is the non-dom law that has made London the centre of shipping and insurance activities, among others, for the past century. What people like Mr Scott do not grasp is that, by their very nature, non-doms can move to any other country if they so wish. Many years ago, I was discussing the subject with the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I asked him “Would you not mind all these people leaving England?” He replied, “Where would they go?” In a country where the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not grasp the point, it is unlikely that most other people will either.


Greek Puzzle

The leader in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal on Greece entitled ‘The Case for Letting Greece Go’, although well-intentioned, suffers from an insuperable flaw, namely the assumption that Greece can be saved by “reforms”. A look at history would show that this is not true; Greece has never been a self-sustaining country. Since modern Greece was founded in 1832, the Greek Government has defaulted six times (this will be the seventh), and for half of these years was either in default, or in restructuring.

Yet, I have not seen any commentator on Greece mention the real problem. The U.K. has a population of about 65 million, and has about 500,000 civil servants. Greece has a population of about 11 million, and by analogy should have a civil service of 85,000 to 90,000 people. In fact, its civil service has 790,000 people. In other words, there are 700,000 people in Greece who are being paid by the government, but doing nothing. In fact, 50,000 of them do not even have desks, so they do not bother to go into the office. Now, if you add their families to these 800,000 people, we are talking about 3 million people, or about 30% of Greece. What can any Greek Government do about that? Under the Samaras Government, after a long struggle, 12,500 civil servants were sacked. The first thing the present government did was to reinstate them. Nobody wants to face this problem. Greece wants money without conditions, while the Euro Zone is misguided enough to think that magical “reforms” will solve the problem, which view is in the fantasy world.

Yet the Euro Zone is reluctant to let Greece go. Contrary to the view of this leader, a “Grexit” will mean that all the member countries will have to reflect the Greek losses in their national accounts (at the moment, all the Greek bonds are valued at par). If Greece goes, the others will take big hits in their accounts, which are already very fragile. They obviously do not want that. But, as the article says, they cannot give the Greeks money without conditions either.


Political Correctness Or Manners?

With reference to an interesting column by Claire Cohen in the Daily Telegraph (Hold the door open to a new age of chivalry) about relations between the sexes, I would suggest that what causes most of the problems is that people worry about political correctness, instead of thinking about manners.

For example, when people go out for lunch or dinner, it has been established for hundreds of years that the host pays. Usually the host is a man, but not always. A woman can host a lunch or dinner party. Occasionally, she may even invite a man to lunch or dinner. Miss Emma Watson and women in general do not understand that offering to pay is patronising and insulting, and suggests that the man cannot afford to invite a woman out. When a man invites a woman, he is either courting her, or else she is a friend. In either case, to suggest that he cannot pay is a put down. Holding the door open is quite another matter. It is good manners to hold the door open for anyone, man or woman. That has no ramifications.

Miss Cohen is quite right to mention that most men think that women want the “best of both worlds”. Women claim to be tough and independent, when it suits them, but fragile little flowers when it does not. They claim to be equal to men at work, but they want paid maternity leave and flexible hours. Is that equal? They say they are equal to men, yet they claim “sexual harassment”.  If men and women are equal, how can there be sexual harassment? Men do not complain of sexual harassment.

The important point that many women today no longer grasp, is that what has attracted men to women since time immemorial, and that is the fact that they are weaker than men, which made men want to look after them. If women now pretend that they are just as strong as men, and do not need looking after, then what reason do men have to want to look after them, or treat them in the traditional manner?



With reference to a column in The Times by Rachel Sylvester, on immigration, (MPs not immigrants are the real problem) she is quite right to say that the majority of people have no objection to immigration, but that they very much feel that the matter has been handled incompetently by our politicians. Indeed, they are quite correct.

One of the characteristics of the English is that they believe the world ends at the Channel, and they never bother to see what Europe is doing. Thus, our government has not noticed the fact that France and Germany have no problem with immigration. Why? Because they have sensible rules. Some years ago, the Home Office shamelessly announced that they had “lost” 500,000 immigrants. More recently they announced that they had “lost” 250,000 immigrants. Clearly, they seem to be improving. The reason this could not happen on the Continent is because they have I.D. cards for all immigrants.

Most immigrants come to England via the Channel, which means they have to travel through France, and usually through Germany too, to arrive at the Channel. Why do they not stop in France or Germany? Both are rich countries, and more sparsely populated than England? Because they all want to take advantage of the UK’s insane benefit laws, whereby an immigrant can receive benefits from the day he arrives. Now, in both France and Germany, you are not allowed to receive benefits unless you have worked for at least twelve months in that country. Now, why has not England done that? One reason under UK laws is that you are required to have the same benefit laws for immigrants as for your own citizens. France and Germany do, but in England that would mean toughening our own benefit laws. One has to conclude our politicians are much less competent than those on the Continent.


The Naked Truth

That Greeks do not pay taxes turns out to be a myth.  In 2013, the latest year, revenue in Greece was 47% of GDP, the 12th highest in the world.  In Germany, it was only 44% of GDP, yet people still pretend that “Greeks do not pay taxes”.



I noted in the press that Alan Bennett thinks the English are best at hypocrisy. I must say I agree with that, but I think the hypocrisy is slightly different from the examples that he mentions.

Some years ago, a Scottish couple came to England to work for a few years. They wrote to the Times, and said that their first impression on meeting English people was how friendly they were. They invariably said to the Scottish couple, “You must come and have dinner”. Eventually, the Scottish couple understood that when one says “You must come and have dinner” that means you will never go to have dinner. That is English hypocrisy.

Certainly, to close public libraries is insane, but I do not think we can blame English people for that. We can only blame their politicians who, by definition, are hypocritical. Similarly, on the question of education, fifty years ago, England was at the top of the education tree in Europe. It now has been confirmed by EU statistics that we are at the bottom. There was an amusing story in the press about a black family, who, having lived in England for some time, decided to go back to Barbados with their children. When they got back to Barbados, they naturally put their children into school, and were amazed to be told that the children had to be put back, because the Barbadian education system was well ahead of the British one. This occurred because Harold Macmillan, many years ago, “opened” the education system, and both the Communists and the Socialists poured into it, and over the years destroyed it. On the Continent, there are very few private schools, because there is no call for them. The state school system is very good, and everyone goes to it. But in England, 8% of students go to private schools – a percentage that is unheard of. The reason is that the state schools are now so appalling, that anyone who can afford it takes their children out of the state system.

The hypocrisy is in people continuing to pretend that our state schools are satisfactory, instead of drastically reforming the system, and going back to traditional methods. On the contrary, the government forces universities to accept state school students (over 50% now), even though they are completely unqualified. I attended a lunch at Cambridge some years ago, with several distinguished dons. During lunch, one of them said to me, “Half of my students do not know what they are doing. They have no business being here.” I then asked the other dons their opinion, and they said three quarters of their students did not know what they were doing. So I then asked them how many of these students would receive a degree. “Oh”, they said, “We don’t fail anyone at Cambridge anymore.” Can there be anything more hypocritical than that? Giving degrees to unqualified students for political reasons?

Finally, Mr Bennett refers to the police, where again there is hypocrisy, and here, with respect, he is quite wide of the mark. Our policeman are now hobbled by masses of paperwork put on them by the Blair Government, and do not have time to walk the streets any more. One never sees a policeman on the street these days. Nor is it true that they are biased in favour of white middle class people. They are prepared to do their duty, but they are hobbled. What people do not realise, either here or in Europe, is that black people commit a large proportion of crime. Some years ago, there was a rash of muggings, and one day the police revealed in the press that more than 90% of the muggings were committed by black people (as they comprise only 3% of the population, that was pretty good going). Needless to say, this bit of information never appeared in the press again. But there was an amusing letter in the Times, from a black man, who said that “Just as paedophilia was the white man’s crime, mugging was the black man’s crime”. Furthermore, he said that if we want blacks to continue on our international teams, we would just have to swallow the muggings. I laughed, but I do not know how many other people did. In the U.S., the largest single cause of death among young black men is murder, and over 90% of the murders are committed by other young black men.

1 2 3 53 Page 1 of 53

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

All comments will be responded to appropriately.