Marchessini Blog & Forum


One very often hears today the word “inequality”, but it is rarely made clear as to what “inequality” means. Certainly, nobody means the difference between the IQ of Joe Bloggs and Albert Einstein, or the looks of Greta Garbo and Gladys Bloggs. The only thing it can mean is money. People are simply complaining that they do not have enough money.

This has been going on since the beginning of time, and it must be compared to the wealth or money of other times. In the 1870s, when Cornelius Vanderbilt received an annual dividend from the New York Central Railroad (just one of his companies), the sum was $17 million. At that time, the average weekly wage in the U.S. was $3. How does that compare with today? In the 1930s, Harrison Williams became the first billionaire in America. The average weekly wage was still $3. Furthermore, there were no benefits at that time. Nannies were paid a sovereign a month. How does that compare with today?

It is clear from the above that people are not complaining that they have less money than in the past. They are simply saying that they want more. In short, the call for “equality” is just a call for confiscation. One must be very clear about that.


Let Them Eat Cake

I refer to an article by Ben Farmer in today’s Daily Telegraph (Christianity ‘banned from business’ by gay cake court ruling). I happen to be a lawyer, and the decision of District Judge Isobel Brownlie in the Northern Ireland cake case was legally faulty. To begin with, in a free country, every person is free to withdraw his labour at any time, nor does he need any reason to do so. Secondly, the cake in question was not only something to eat, it was also a political message. In addition to one’s freedom to withdraw one’s labour, everyone is also free to reject any political messages that they do not agree with.

Finally, Mrs Brownlie’s statement that the plaintiff had been treated less favourably than other customers is also fallacious. If a customer, who was opposed to same-sex marriage, had asked for a cake on which was written, in very big letters, “Down with same-sex marriage”, would Judge Brownlie have ruled that this cake must be accepted? This case cost £40,000 of public money, and resulted in a £500 fine. There are too many judges in our legal system today who do not understand the law.


Miss Wilson’s Love Life

Miss Ruth Wilson, an actress, was quoted in an article by Carol Midgley in The Times (‘It’s always women who have to do the sex face, not men’) for complaining because “penises cannot be on screen, while breasts can”.  Clearly, Miss Wilson thinks that Nature is very unfair, and should be changed, but I am not hopeful on her behalf. When my children were young, I taught them from the age of nine, that “life is very unfair”, which they learned. Obviously, Miss Wilson has not.

She also complains that it is always the woman who is “orgasming” on the screen. The obvious reason is that women can, and do have several climaxes, while men can only have one before the love making ends. The fact is that since the beginning of time, love making has been an act of domination by the man, and submission by the woman. If the woman is making noise, it is because she has a penis inside her. But the man has nothing inside him, and men do not make noises. Is not Miss Wilson aware of that?

Is it possible that Miss Wilson is a virgin?


But Whose Fury?

The Daily Telegraph’s American commentator, Jamal Simmons, has the wrong end of the stick in his column of 4th May 2015 about black/white relations in America. This is obvious in his first allegation, that Michael Brown, an “unarmed teenager”, was shot by the police in Ferguson, Missouri. It is true that Michael Brown was 19 years old, but he was over 6 ft tall and weighed over 200 lbs. He is not what one thinks of as a “teenager”.

Furthermore, although he was “unarmed”, that did not prevent him from punching a police officer in the face twice, and also trying to grab the police officer’s gun and turn it on the officer to try to kill him. This is not everyone’s idea of an “unarmed teenager”. Indeed, most people would consider that attempted murder by the black young man is a crime. The point that Mr Simmons, and many others, refuse to acknowledge is that the rate of violence among blacks in the U.S. is much higher than among whites. Indeed, most black young men die by violence, and 90% of those are killed by other young blacks.

There are in the United States, two under-classes – one is the blacks, and the other is the Hispanics. Now, the Hispanics have a lower standard of living than the blacks, they do not speak English very well, and many of them are illegal immigrants — but if they get their girlfriends pregnant, they marry them. Blacks, however, do not marry their pregnant girlfriends. As a result, most black families are fatherless, and many young blacks are out of control. It is no good attacking the criminal justice system. The police after all are only human beings, and they are put under considerable pressure, so their reactions cannot always be ideal.

For reasons best known to themselves, most people today are reluctant to admit that there are differences not only between races, but also between nations. In Europe, the English and the Germans are much more violent than the rest of Europe, and they are always at the top of the rates of violence in European statistics. Central Americans have much higher rates of violence than the blacks in America. These factors have to be taken into consideration in protecting people.


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.

1 2 3 54 Page 1 of 54

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

All comments will be responded to appropriately.