Marchessini Blog & Forum

Teenage Voting

Matthew Parris’ column in last weekend’s Times was about giving 16-year olds the vote, and I find it difficult to understand his reasons.

Everyone knows that it is education and experience which gives people the ability to reach commonsense decisions. Certainly, I do not believe anyone will think that a 6 year old child would have a sensible vote, or a 10 year old child would have a sensible vote, or a 14 year old would have a sensible vote. Why should a 16 year old have a vote? Indeed, for 100 years or more, it was necessary to be 21 years old to have a vote. During all those years, one finished school at 13 years old, and young people usually married and had children before they reached the age of 21. Yet, today, Mr Parris is suggesting that children, not even finished school, should have a vote. Surely, this is the opposite of common sense.



Civil War

In an article in the International New York Times last week, about the Spanish Civil War, there were several inaccuracies. To begin with, the Left Wing politicians in Spain have an inaccurate idea of the Civil War. Civil war means that roughly half of a country has opposite views, and to try and suggest that half of the country is wrong is inaccurate and disingenuous.

One of the fallacious suggestions was the statement that the Spanish Government was democratically elected. This was quite untrue. The fact is the Government could not agree, and so a Coalition Government was formed, in which the Communists were the strongest party. Furthermore, the country was in chaos. The Communists organised strikes everywhere, and those who lived on the land, marched and took land by force. That is not a democratically elected government.

The meaning of the word Fascist is also incorrect. The Fascist Party was established by Mussolini in Italy in 1919, in order to fight Communism, and it is in that sense that Franco was Fascist. Afterwards, once he gained power in Italy, Mussolini imposed general Fascism on the Italians, but Franco continued to oppose Communists without imposing a totalitarian government.

Finally, in 1977, after Franco died, there was a 1997 Amnesty in Spain, to help the country heal its wounds. Nevertheless, the Communists continued to attack all memories of Franco. Yet they ignored all the atrocities committed against Franco by the Communists. Streets in Valencia were renamed to honour Lenin and the Soviet Union. As usual, the Left ignored the truth.


Moderate Moslims

In today’s Times, one of their journalists, David Aaronovitch has a column entitled “How do we condemn atrocities carried out in the name of Islam without alienating the majority of moderate Moslems”. This is not a new question. It has been often brought up before. But it is a question which fails to grasp the reality of the Moslem faith.

The truth is that there are no “moderate” Moslems. What people call “moderate” Moslems are the ones who are not prepared to kill. But that does not mean that they are on our side. They may not be prepared to kill, but they support the aims and beliefs of those who are doing the killing.

If they were “moderate” these Moslems would denounce the behaviour of the terrorists, and would help the authorities to catch them. Do they do that? No, of course not. After the violence in Paris, none of the Imams denounced the behaviour of the terrorists. Is that “moderate”? It is important to remember, that in the Moslem religion one is not allowed to kill one’s father, or one’s brother, or one’s friend, but one is perfectly free to kill infidels. That is what we are – infidels.

Mr Aaronovitch says that “The battle is on for Moslem hearts and minds”. But it would seem that the battle has already been won.



In a column by Alison Pearson in today’s Telegraph, she mentioned the question of which child should inherit the title and the family seat. She went on to say that “the principle of primogeniture is as cruel as it is archaic”.

            I would suggest that she thinks about the matter again. Whenever something has existed for thousands of years, there is usually a good reason for it. The point is that there must be some way of passing on titles and properties, and primogeniture has been considered the best way to avoid rows and disputes between brothers and sisters.

            One of the few kingdoms where there was no primogeniture was the Byzantine Empire. As a result, there were continuous rows between brothers, cousins, nephews and uncles. Indeed, many people consider the lack of primogeniture to be the reason why the Byzantine Empire fell.

            The suggestion by Feminists that there are no differences between men and women is absurd. The differences are obvious.


What Happened to the Communists?

An article in the Times today, about a new book regarding Franco, reminds us of the fact that all articles about Franco contain the unspoken assumption that his adherents were devils with hooves, while the Communists were angels, who never put a foot wrong. This is, of course, very childish. The Spanish Civil War was started by the Communists, and they behaved as badly as Franco’s men, if not worse.

The article is also inaccurate about the Amnesty Law of 1977, which, it states, banned prosecutions “relating to Franco’s rule”. It actually banned prosecutions relating to the Communists’ rule, as well as to Franco’s rule. It was only on the basis of that compromise that Spain was able to go on after Franco. To abolish that compromise now would be dishonourable, and also dangerous, because people’s feelings are still strong. One has to be very naive to believe that a book written after seventy years, by a violent opponent of Franco, will have any connection with the truth.

Finally, the article mentions that an estimated 110,000 people who opposed Franco lie in mass graves around the country, but it does not mention how many people who opposed the Communists are lying in mass graves.


Why, Oh Why?

The recent death of Geoffrey Howe recalls the most iniquitous thing that he did during his tenure. In 1972, working with Edward Heath to take Britain into the Common Market, the toughest single obstacle was how were they to pass into UK law the 13,000 pages of legislation already on the Brussels books, let alone the unending flow of those laws which would follow?

Under normal procedures, this could have taken so much Parliamentary time as to derail the whole process. But Howe’s inspiration was to insert just one brief sub-section in Section Two of the European Communities bill, which stated that any directive from Brussels could automatically be made into UK Law by means of a statutory instrument, and rubber stamped by ministers without Parliament having a look in.

This bill passed by the narrowest of margins 309–301 with the aid of several Labour and Liberal pro-marketers. It was the greatest single abdication of parliamentary self sovereignty in 700 years.

Why, oh why?



Box Office

There have been several references in the press lately about the fact that male actors usually get paid more than female actresses. There was an article in the Telegraph today, quoting Jennifer Lawrence complaining on this subject. It is lamentable that actresses are not more knowledgeable on this subject, or they would know that all actors of both sexes get paid according to how many people they bring into a theatre – sex has nothing to do with it.

In the 1930s, when Greta Garbo was the biggest star, she got paid the most money, although she was a woman. Similarly, when John Wayne was at the top of the box office lists, he got paid the most money. This discussion is uninformed and useless.


Not Howe but Why?

The obituary on Lord Howe in the Telegraph today, overstates his importance in Mrs Thatcher’s fall. It was not Lord Howe’s speech that destroyed Mrs Thatcher – Mrs Thatcher’s fell because she did not win the leadership contest under the rules agreed. She lost by only four votes and she could have gone on to a second ballot, but in the end she was persuaded not to.

What destroyed Mrs Thatcher, and it is not well known, were the women Conservative MPs. The majority of the male Conservative MPs had supported her, and with four votes from the women, she would have won, but the women, all of whom had been helped by Mrs Thatcher during their time in the Commons, voted 25-0 against her. That makes it very clear that their objections to Mrs Thatcher were personal rather than political. She was very bitter about it.


Prison Revolution

In a letter to the Times today, Lord Woolf brings up once again his old “donkey” that there are too many prisoners in the UK. It has repeatedly been proved that this is not so. The reason that the UK has more prisoners than any other country in Europe is because the UK has more crime than any other country in Europe. In other words, if you commit crime, you will have to go to jail. It has also been proved that the thing that professional criminals are afraid of is long jail sentences; therefore, the way to stop crime is to send habitual prisoners to jail for long periods.

Of course, this is not possible because governments do not want to build jails; they want to be given jails for free. In other words, what we require for prison stability in this country is exactly the opposite of what Lord Woolf suggests.



With reference to a column in today’s Times by Mr David Aaronovitch about Senator McCarthy, it is extraordinary how this myth has gone on for so long. The United States has the same law as France, in that all government documents more than thirty years old must be open to the public. Twenty years ago, Senator Daniel Moynihan bravely asked for the McCarthy documents to be made public, and, of course, what they found was that not only was everything that McCarthy said true, but there were many Communists in the government that McCarthy did not know about.

Instead of being a hero to the country, McCarthy continues to be vilified, despite the above facts.

1 2 3 58 Page 1 of 58

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

All comments will be responded to appropriately.