Marchessini Blog & Forum

The Way To Deal With Putin

A recent correspondent in the Financial Times has not grasped the point about the Ukraine and Russia. The point is that the Russians do not consider the Ukraine a separate country. They consider, and have always considered, it a part of Russia. It is important to remember that the Ukrainians and the Russians come from the same race, which is called “Rus” (hence the name Russia). Their language was identical for hundreds of years, and, even today, it is very similar. Even more importantly, until the Soviet Union was dismembered twenty years ago, the Ukraine had not been independent since 1240, when the Mongols sacked Kiev. Finally, Russian blood has been spilled in defending the Ukraine and the Crimea. Has any American blood, or English or French blood been spilled in the Ukraine? As for the Germans, they fought to subdue the Ukraine, so they are now in a very poor position to criticise the Russians.

The Crimea, where more Russian blood was spilled, was never part of the Ukraine until Khrushchev, who was Ukrainian, arbitrarily gave it to the Ukraine in 1954. In those days, it did not matter, because it was all part of the Soviet Union. But today, it does matter. The Crimea has always been the base for the Russian Black Sea Fleet, and is vital for Russia’s security.

The most important question is, what right does the West have to interfere in a country that is not attacking it in any way? The West, it seems wants to bring the Ukraine into the EU and NATO by force. And yet, it keeps talking about peace.


Minister of Logic

Mr Cameron has repeatedly demonstrated his inability to reason, but in the recent discussions about Europe and the referendum, he has outdone himself. As regards the “negotiations”, he has refused to confirm that if negotiations fail he will take us out of Europe. He pretends that the reason for this is that he does not want to upset the Europeans. The fact is, whether the Europeans like it or not, unless he has the threat of exiting behind him, why should the Europeans pay the slightest attention to him? His real reason, of course (because Mr Cameron combines duplicity with lack of logic), is that he does not want to leave Europe, and he hopes to find a way to stay, whether the negotiations are successful or not. He also made the statement that he “does not expect” negotiations to fail. As any serious negotiations are against the rules of the EU, he is very much odds against to get anything worthwhile. So his confident statement is a farce. One cannot speak like Alexander the Great, when one is only Cameron.

The other point is that he refuses to say exactly what he will be asking of the EU. He tries to support this statement by saying one should not disclose one’s aims from the beginning. Again, this makes no sense. How can you gain your objectives if you do not make clear what they are? Again, the truth is that he does not want to leave the EU, and regardless of what he is able to negotiate, wants to pretend that it is a triumph. If he stated his objectives, then it would be clear which ones he failed to obtain.

What is amazing is the low level of this duplicity, and how Conservative MPs are swallowing it. It is disastrous that our Prime Minister does not understand logic. Perhaps if he had gone to a better school …?


What is ‘Grooming’?

Allison Pearson, in her column in the Telegraph (In the face of such terrifying evil, who is the racist now?), asks how the Yorkshire Police can mount a raid on Cliff Richard’s home in pursuit of evidence, linked to a single allegation of child sex abuse thirty years ago, but South Yorkshire Police are incapable of pursuing multiple allegations against multiple men, who “raped 1,400 children” 16 years ago.  There are two answers to her question.  The first answer is that Cliff Richard’s home was raided because he is a celebrity.  Nobody really thinks that the police would raid Joe Blogg’s house, because of a single allegation about him, dating back thirty years?  The other answer is that she uses the word “rape” and the word “children”, both of which are inaccurate.  There were no children involved.  They were all girls who had passed the age of puberty, or, in other words, teenagers.  Furthermore, although what happened was statutory rape, and is a crime, it was all consensual.  So most people, women as well as men, do not worry very much about consensual rape of girls who behave like tarts.

It is important to think about how the Pakistani men find these girls.  Many of them are girls who play hooky from school (in other words naughty girls).  Many of the others are from care homes (by definition, also naughty girls), who have been let out for a day or two.  How do these men persuade these girls to go to bed with them (because that is what the hypocritical word ‘grooming’ means)?  We are told with candy, cigarettes, and rides in flashy cars.  In other words, very easily.  That is why, with respect, it is quite inaccurate to say that the girls were “powerless” or “defenceless” children.  Why should any young girl go off with a Pakistani, whom she does not know, and who is much older than she is, unless she is looking for trouble?

The question that no one asks, but which should be asked, is do the Pakistani young men treat their own girls the same way?  Of course they do not.  They have respect for their own girls, but no respect for the white girls, because they behave like tarts.  Why is this considered “different values”?  Fifty years ago, there were two sorts of girls in Britain – respectable girls and tarts – and no one objected to young men having a fling with the tarts.  Are these not the same values?  The difference is that today, it is the white girls who behave badly, and the Pakistanis who do not.

But, of course, our English community does not want to accept that our girls have become tarts, and they are trying to blame the police and the council for not doing anything about it.  They pretend that the girls have been somehow “let down” by society.  Now these girls are suing the police and the council, and receiving enormous awards.  Just because they were naughty girls.  But what can the police do if a girl wants to behave badly?  Have a policeman follow each girl around?  It is not a crime to talk to young men on the street, or to get into a car with them.  What could the police do?  What would be much more effective is if parents made sure their daughters went to school every day, instead of trying to sue the police.


Is This Freedom?

Jean-Claude Juncker did not wait very long to show us why we did not want him as President of the European Commission. Even more importantly, he has shown us why many of us do not wish to stay in the EU any more.

He has given David Cameron an ultimatum that he must replace his candidate to the Commission with a woman. In short, he makes it clear that the EU is a dictatorship, that it is a Left Wing dictatorship, and that Left Wing views must be imposed on all the members, including us. Not that we are the only ones Mr Juncker was cross with. Most governments have put forward men for these most important roles. How can there be any doubt that the EU is a dictatorship – a “sophisticated dictatorship” as someone said, but a dictatorship nonetheless.


Big Brother

There has recently been an extraordinary scandal in the football world. It seems that two friends, and football figures, who had been sending each other emails, have been violently attacked from all sides.

The circumstances of this matter are amazing.

To begin with, these messages were private, and the Football Association usually does not interfere with private messages, although that is an unwritten custom.

Secondly, these messages were obtained in the middle of the night by investigators employed by the owner of the club. It is difficult to understand how it can be legal to break into someone’s house in the middle of the night, and take their emails.

Thirdly, the level of the emails is incredibly trivial. Here are some of the “damning texts”.

  • “Not many white faces amongst that lot but worth considering” – On a list of potential signings.
  • “I hope she’s looking after your needs. I bet you’d love a bounce on her falsies” – On a player’s female agent.
  • “Go on, fat Phil. Nothing like a Jew that sees money slipping through his fingers” – On football agent Phil Smith.
  • “He’s a snake, a gay snake. Not to be trusted” – On an official of another club.
  • “A picture entitled Black Monopoly (where every square was a ‘Go to Jail’ square)” – sent to members of staff.

It is impossible to have such violent attacks on freedom of speech in a free country. Unless these ridiculous politically correct attacks are stopped, we will be in a big brother environment.



Over the weekend, Martin Amis wrote in the Telegraph about the “possibility” of understanding Hitler. I find it difficult to understand why Mr Amis thinks that Hitler is less understandable then other violent dictators. Stalin, for example, killed more people than Hitler (60 to 80 million, against Hitler’s 6 million), and many more Jews.

Throughout history, there have been countless massacres, executions and incredible tortures far worse than anything the Nazis did. The Nazis, being efficient, used gas chambers, because they were quick and painless. When the Turks took Constantinople in 1453, they would throw Christian babies into the air, and spear them with their swords as they were coming down.

Is that more understandable?



Falling In Love

60% of brides-to-be have admitted that they have used “underhand tactics” in order to receive a proposal. 33% say they “bullied” their partner into proposing, by threatening to leave him. 17% sent themselves flowers from a nonexistent admirer, and 10% deliberately got pregnant.

As 60% have admitted using “underhand tactics”, it is likely that about 90% used them!



One of the well known names of the 1990s has come to the fore again, with the news that has been put on the market by its present owner, the American company Sabre Holdings.

Sabre has clearly done one of the best business deals of the century. never made any money in any financial period of its existence, and lost £250 million. Nevertheless, Sabre bought it in 2005 for £577 million. That is a lot of money to pay for a company that has never made a profit. Now, after nine years of losses, they are trying to unload the company, and they have admitted that they are unlikely to obtain £577 million, or anything like it. What a good business deal. Who is Sabre?


Men Should Take Back

I was interested and surprised to see Mr Jan Ball’s article in the Summer issue of the Salisbury Review, entitled “Women Take All”, not only because I find the subject very important, but because this is the first time I had seen anybody mention it. The fact is that something quite extraordinary has taken place in the world over the last 50 years. Over this relatively short period of time, the power in the Western world has moved from men to women. Even more extraordinary, this has happened not because women took power by force, but because men allowed them to take power, without any serious resistance. There was an interesting photograph recently of the Defence Ministers of Sweden, Denmark, Holland and Germany, all sitting together on a bench. All of them were women, three with short skirts. What do four middle-aged women know about Defence? Yet everyone pretends that they do.

How did women accomplish this? Mr Ball suggests that they created circles of power – a “consensus” – and anyone who tries to step outside of the “consensus” is liable to be punished. But, for this to work, men have to accept the “consensus”, and go along with it. Why do they? The basis of this “consensus” is that men and women are “equal”. Everyone knows that this is nonsense, yet the “consensus” accepts it. Instead of accepting the “consensus”, just look at the facts.

Men are much stronger than women, and can throw women around. Women have the curse, men do not, and men find it disgusting. Women have babies, men do not have babies, nor do they wish to have babies. There is no physical activity in which women can compete with men. Moving to intelligence, countless IQ tests have proved that the average IQ of men and women is exactly the same, but there are big differences in distribution, and in particular abilities. For example, men have a much wider distribution of IQ than women. In other words, geniuses and idiots are usually men. Women’s IQs tend to be closer to the mean. It also means that at the higher levels there are fewer and fewer women. With regards to specific abilities, women are very good at any tests involving words – better than men. Also, their minds are quicker than men’s (but not necessarily more accurate). On the other hand, women are not good at tests involving spatial relationships. That is why there are very few women engineers – it is not that they have not been allowed to be engineers; it is that they are no good at it. Another interesting comparison is Bridge. Many more women than men play Bridge, but at the top tournaments women have to play in a separate section, because they are not good enough to play with the men. Or take chess. Women have played chess for hundreds of years, yet of the one hundred best chess players in the world, only one is a woman. Some people try to pretend that women are cleverer because they do better at school, but that is nonsense. They do better at school because they are more conscientious and they work harder than men, but at the top of the intellectual tree, you will find very few women.

Then there is the question of emotions. Women are much more emotional than men. Everybody knows that, and yet people try to ignore it. There was an interesting incident a few years ago, when Japan appointed a woman to the position of Foreign Minister. This was hailed as a great step forward, and the lady chosen was not just any woman. She was the daughter of a previous Prime Minister, and she had spent her life in politics. Yet a fortnight after she had been appointed, when one of her civil servants was rude to her, she burst into tears. Within a few days she was quietly replaced. A more significant, but less known example, took place in the voting when Mrs Thatcher was dropped as Prime Minister. Although Mrs Thatcher won the majority of the votes, it was considered not enough of a majority for her to stay. Now, the interesting thing was that the majority of Conservative male MPs voted for Mrs Thatcher. At that time, there were 25 Conservative women MPs, all of whom had been helped by Mrs Thatcher to find seats, and all of whom had been helped by her once they came into the Commons. Yet, they voted 25-0 against Mrs Thatcher. This lost the election for her. If even half of them had voted for her, she would have succeeded, and if all of them had voted for her, it would have been a landslide. As a majority of male MPs had voted for her, it is impossible to believe that the women’s vote of 25-0 against was based either on politics or on commonsense. Clearly it was based on emotion – and emotion of the worse kind. And yet, this vote changed the direction not only of the Conservative Party, which went well to the Left, but of the whole country. Everyone knew that Mrs Thatcher was never going to sign Maastricht. If she had stayed, we would not be in the EU. Those 25 ladies put us into the EU. Should 25 ladies be taking decisions that are going to affect 65 million people? Another more recent example was the vote on same-sex marriage. A majority of male MPs voted against same-sex marriage. But the women’s vote pushed it through. Should women be deciding matters like homosexuality?

And there is the question of sex. It is often argued as to whether it is men or women who have greater sexuality. Yet anyone who has considerable sexual experience knows that it is women who have the greater sexuality. A man – even a young man – can only have two or three orgasms. But a woman – with a good lover – can have countless orgasms. Obviously, the biggest difference between the sexes is the fact that nature has given men cocks. As a result, men bonk women. But women do not bonk anyone. They just get bonked. In short, the sexual act is an act of domination by a man, and submission by a woman.

The only way that women can pretend that they are discriminated against is by hypocrisy. For example, women complain that there are not enough female MPs. They suggest that as half of the world is female, they should comprise half of the MPs. Before testing the logic of that assertion, it is important to understand that the fact on which it is based is fallacious. The total number of men and women in the world may be roughly the same, but the number who wish to become MPs is very different. In the Conservative Party several years ago, the ratio was 7 men to 1 woman who wanted to become a MP. It does not require much mathematical ability to see that in order to have people of similar ability, there would have to be 7 times as many men as women. Yet even with equal numbers, it would still be bad logic to pretend that the number of women MPs should be the same as the men. Our Foreign Secretary, Mr Hammond, had the nerve to make recently the idiotic statement that “the last time he looked”, half of the world was female. Clearly, Mr Hammond is not familiar with logic, or he would realise that if half of the MPs should be women, or half of board members should be women, then half of plumbers should be women, half of lorry drivers should be women, half of street sweepers should be women. Is this what women want?

The hypocrisy in the women’s movement is very deep. They pretend to be “equal”, but at the same time, they want to be given whatever advantages they need. A good example is “childcare”. No one is obliged to have children, and no one is obliged to work, but if a woman does decide to work, it must be a financial decision – she must receive more money by working than the extra family costs that her job creates. But women insist that they should receive “affordable childcare”. They do not understand that the government has no money. All it has is the right to tax its citizens. So “affordable childcare” would have to be paid by the rest of the country. In other words, women who work want women who do not work to pay for their children. This is outrageous. Finally, we come to the famous “sexual harassment”. This too makes no sense. If women and men are “equal”, men should be able to treat women exactly the way they treat other men. And yet women object to being treated like men, while at the same time they insist they are equal.

What is Mr Ball’s comment to this problem? He says that men are “too stupid”. I do not agree. What men are is cowardly. They may be brave in battle, but against women, they are cowards. Indeed, Mr Ball says that he winces at the idea of attacking women. Why? Women do not wince at attacking men, and the world is rapidly becoming, as Mr Ball insists, a gynocracy. There is only one action that can turn it back. Men must recognise and address the situation, instead of pretending that nothing has changed. Then they must attack the hypocrisy and the absurd desires of Feminism. Why would men be reluctant to do this? I would ask those who are reluctant, “Would Alexander the Great have accepted Feminism? Would Charlemagne? Would Bismarck? Would Napoleon? Would Richard the Lion Heart?” Would they be washing up, or pushing the pram?

Women have been given the power that they have today because of the cowardice of men.


Persecution of Christians

I was interested by the article of Christie Davies in the Summer issue of the Salisbury Review, about homosexuals “persecuting” Christians, and I would suggest that the reason that this is taking place is quite clear. The problem is that our country has not grasped the difference between “illegal” and “immoral”.

When it was suggested in 1965 that homosexuality should no longer be illegal, many people in this country, including myself, felt that people should not go to jail for their sexual habits. After all, if Michelangelo and Leonardo had spent their lives in jail, the world would be a much poorer place. However, nobody said that homosexuality had become moral. The government decides the law, but morality is decided by God and the Church. In the famous example of Prohibition in the U.S., drinking was made illegal, but it was never immoral. For people who are religious, and who believe in their religion, homosexuality has always been immoral, but there are many immoral things that one does not go to jail for. What happened, however, was that homosexuals immediately wanted to pretend that homosexuality was now “moral”, and the religious world did not resist them sufficiently strongly. Homosexuality has long been a major sin in the main Christian religions – the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches – and even in a recent article, the Archbishop of Canterbury admitted that homosexuality was also a sin in the Anglican Church. So how can it be considered “moral”?

This pretence is strengthened by all the euphemisms that are used regarding homosexuality – “gay”, “partners”, “same-sex marriage”, etc. The most interesting thing is that none of the homosexuals, who have publicly “outed themselves”, have indicated whether they are a “bugger” or a “buggee”. Since Ancient times, there has always been an enormous difference between the two, and there still is today.

1 2 3 49 Page 1 of 49

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

All comments will be responded to appropriately.