Students are dangerous

25 Aug 2010 at 16:18

Askelon

Uncategorized

No Comments

It seems that almost every time one looks in the newspapers, students are demonstrating somewhere in the world. Recently, there were many days of violent demonstrations in Greece. Now, in Greece, students are “sacred”, and the Police is not even allowed to go into the universities. That means that students are priceless for those who wish to cause trouble — invariably that means the Socialists or, in Greece, the Communists. It is very easy to get young people stirred up about something, and once that is done, demonstrations can be arranged very easily. The headlines always are “Students Demonstrate”, but the demonstrations are always organised and led by the Left. In Greece, there is a particularly strong Communist party. Indeed, at one time, there were three separate Communist parties. The Left use the students as a shield, because the Police are always reluctant to fire on students. At the same time, the Left obtains the credit for the students demonstrations, although the students are not necessarily demonstrating for the purposes that the Left-wing wish. One cannot have a good demonstration any more, unless one has a good quantity of students as shields.

Perhaps the most famous student demonstrations in the twentieth century were the 1968 demonstrations in Paris, which eventually toppled De Gaulle. These demonstrations are still spoken of with pride by the Left Wing, and they are sometimes referred to as “The voice of the people”. France has a law like the United States whereby, after 30 years, all government documents must be opened to the public. In 1998, therefore, 30 years after the demonstrations, all the documents about them were opened. It was reported in the press that the documents had made clear that the French Security Service had been aware at the time that the demonstrations had been organised by the Cubans, and had been financed by the Russians, yet there was very little public reaction to his news. “The voice of the people” indeed.

Jacket for Scams & Hypocrisy The book “Scams & Hypocrisy” by D P Marchessini is published by Askelon Publishing.

  • Share/Bookmark

The Real McCarthy

02 Aug 2010 at 16:12

Askelon

Uncategorized

No Comments

Senator McCarthy has been one of the biggest whipping boys of the Left over the last 50 years. McCarthy’s great crime in the eyes of the Left was that, in the late 1940s and early 1950s, he alleged that many people working in the U.S. State Department were Soviet spies. This was considered bad behaviour, not only by the Left, but also by such people as President Harry Truman and George Marshall, the Secretary of State. McCarthy not only received no help in this matter from the U.S. Government, but he became unpopular, and was eventually hounded out of Congress.

Towards the end of the Second World War, the U.S. Secret Service (later the CIA) began a project called the Venona Project, whose purpose was to break the Russian code and eventually they succeeded in doing so. From then on, all Russian communications to the United States were read by the Secret Service. Some years later, when the programme was terminated, the documents were sent to the archives in Washington.

Now, the United States has the law that, after 30 years, all government documents must be open to the public. In 1995, therefore, Senator Daniel Moynihan, of New York, bravely insisted that the government open up the documents of the Venona Project. The results were stupefying. Every single person named by Senator McCarthy as a Soviet agent had, indeed, been a Soviet agent. But even more surprising, there had been many Soviet agents that McCarthy had not been aware of. Indeed, the State Department had been riddled with Soviet agents. Despite these facts, no one has tried to rehabilitate McCarthy’s reputation. Although the Venona papers have been sporadically mentioned in the Press, even in the New York Times, no one has tried to make clear what was in them.

Jacket for Scams & Hypocrisy The book “Scams & Hypocrisy” by D P Marchessini is published by Askelon Publishing.

  • Share/Bookmark

Arkansas truth

23 Jul 2010 at 15:56

Askelon

Uncategorized

2 Comments

At a certain time, while Bill Clinton was Governor of Arkansas, drugs began to be smuggled into western Arkansas, the most remote part of the State. This smuggling was done by plane. Planes are rather difficult to conceal, so all the State Troopers were well aware of what was going on. Nevertheless, no attempt was made to stop the smuggling. Some years later, it was finally ascertained that the man who was in charge of this drug smuggling was a Mr Dan Lasater. And who was Mr Lasater? Mr Lasater was Mr Clinton’s business partner in Little Rock. He later made himself famous when he said before a Congressional Committee, “What is wrong with bringing in drugs if you don’t charge for them?” Yet Clinton did not come in for any criticism for this matter. He was not even mentioned.

In the Arkansas of the Clintons, there were a lot of bribes floating around. The Clintons accepted bribes, but they also gave bribes. There was a two-way traffic. Clinton had a bodyguard and chauffeur called L.D. Brown, who was treated as one of the family, and who was frequently consulted for advice by both Clintons. After leaving the Clintons, L.D. Brown wrote a book called “Crossfire”, which was non-political, and simply detailed his life with the Clintons. Among other things, Brown revealed that he had been Clinton’s “bag man”. One of Clinton’s methods was to give money to black ministers, who then made sure that all their black parishioners voted for Clinton. The Whitewater investigation was informed that L.D. Brown was Clinton’s “bag man”, and he was interrogated. But, of course, nothing came of it. The Clintons also accepted bribes. Brown also revealed that one money spinner was “Fund Raisers”. Under Federal laws, no one was allowed to give more than $1,000 to any political party or candidate. It was, therefore, necessary to assemble a large group of people in order to get a sizeable amount of money. Clinton found it easy to obtain a large number of donors to contribute, because they were assured that they would get their money back. One very rich backer would then give Clinton the total amount “raised”, and all the official donors would be reimbursed. Perhaps the most famous bribe was the $100,000 that Mrs Clinton received through a “Commodity Account”. It is public knowledge that Mrs Clinton put $1,000 in the Account and, in six weeks, received $100,000 back from her broker. Now, no one in the world is clever enough to be able to do that, but if there were somebody who could do that, he would be sitting on his yacht in the Mediterranean, not sitting in a small brokerage office in Little Rock, Arkansas. But the story was even worse. The records of all Hillary’s trades show that they were all in Cattle Futures. At the time, the cattle market was in the biggest bull market it had ever had. One might therefore be excused for thinking that Hillary just got lucky and rode the coat-tails of the bull market. But, in fact, all of Mrs Clinton’s trades were SHORT. In other words, she made one hundred times her money, going short in an enormous bull market. Even a small child would not believe that.

Hillary had a big love affair with Vince Foster, who was one of her law partners, and also the Clintons’ lawyer. Wild Bill also had a mistress in Little Rock, a lady called Beth Coulson, who was the only high-class woman in his life. The Clintons accepted each other’s lovers, and would often dine together. Little Rock is a small town and these things were well-known. Mrs Clinton and Vince Foster bought a cabin together in the woods near Little Rock, and would often go and spend the night there. They would also travel together, and once even went to London together. What Mrs Clinton did object to was what she called “extra-marital sex”. In particular, Wild Bill often would go cruising at night, with L.D. driving him. They would go to a bar or disco, where Bill would point out a girl that he fancied. L.D. would then go up to her and say “How would you like to dance with the Governor of Arkansas?” Most of the time the girls did want to, with L.D. watching. After some preparatory dancing, Wild Bill would take the wretched girl out to the back and have her suck his cock. Very elegant and refined behaviour. This was often discussed with L.D.

After Clinton got to Washington, things became much worse. Thirty-five of his business associates and/or political allies were indicted for fraud, and three were murdered. This was unprecedented in the Presidential history of the United States. Another crime that Clinton committed was to cover up the murder of Vince Foster, who was his lawyer and only friend. Foster’s body was found in a Washington park, lying flat, in an unnatural stiff position. He was lying on the grass several hundred yards from any pavement, yet his shoes did not have any grass or mud on them. He owned a gun, but the gun in his hand was not his own gun. Where was his own gun? His hand was around the trigger in such a contorted way that it would have been impossible to fire the gun. The bullet hole in his throat did not coincide with the gun in his hand. There were many more details, making it clear that his death could not be suicide. Did Clinton appoint the fbi to investigate the matter? No he did not. Well, did he appoint the Washington DC Police to investigate the matter? No, he did not. He appointed the Washington Park Police, whose only previous experience was breaking up canoodling couples, and who had never investigated a murder before. The poor Park Police even forgot to look for the bullet. When they went back, three weeks later, it was gone. When they went to the White House to search Foster’s office, they were not allowed in by the White House Counsel, Bernie Nussbaun, until his own minions had hoovered the office and made sure there was nothing in it derogatory to the Clintons. This became well-known. The amazing thing was that the Republicans, who had a majority in Congress, did not do anything about this. They just sat on their hands and let him get away with it. There was an uproar later, but it was too late. The committee that was formed to investigate was too futile, and the White House staff stone-walled behind Clinton. One White House secretary, who was questioned, used the phrase “I don’t remember” 178 times during her testimony.

But Clinton was not finished yet. He still had the Lewinsky scandal to come, when he was caught committing perjury. Of course, only a child would believe that Lewinsky was the only White House intern that Clinton had his hands on. She was the ugliest of the lot, and it would be impossible for Clinton not to have had contact with the more attractive ones as well. Indeed, one of them was seen buttoning her blouse as she came out of his office. Perjury is a Federal crime for which one goes to jail. A lady in Texas, who was tried about the same time as Clinton, had to go to jail for doing exactly the same thing. Clinton not only did not go to jail, but he remained President, and although he was impeached by the House of Representatives, the Senate did not ratify the impeachment. This was shocking to Europeans. It was Third World behaviour.

But the most shocking action that Clinton committed took place on his very last day in office, when he pardoned Marc Rich, the well-known fugitive. Now, Clinton was not related to Marc Rich — he was not his brother, nor his cousin. Indeed, he had never even met him. Why, therefore, would he pardon a well-known fugitive? It is perfectly obvious that Rich must have given him an enormous bribe. And yet this possibility has never been raised in America. American naïvety is amazing, and Clinton relied on it. He knew that he would get away with it.

Jacket for Scams & Hypocrisy The book “Scams & Hypocrisy” by D P Marchessini is published by Askelon Publishing.

  • Share/Bookmark

Gender Hypocrisy

05 Jul 2010 at 12:26

Askelon

Uncategorized

No Comments

One of the strangest hypocrisies in the world is the belief, held by a large part of the Western world, that men and women are indistinguishable beings, and that they share the same qualities and abilities. Thousands of years of human experience has shown us that this is nonsense and, indeed, our own eyes and ears show us that this is nonsense. But not only does the “politically correct” part of the world believe this, but even many people who are not “politically correct”, but are not prepared to resist this idea.

Yet it is clear that this idea is opposed to reality. Looking first at some of the physical differences between men and women, men do not have the curse; men do not have babies; men do not have breasts, men do not feed their children by their breasts. Women do not have physical courage. Nor do women have a fraction of the physical strength of men. Women also have big differences on the emotional side. Women’s minds work by their emotions. They do not respond well to facts and logic. That is why men and women do not understand each other very well. Furthermore, if women become upset for any reason, they immediately start crying. This is very effective, because men do not know what to do when women cry, but men do not respect it.

Then there is the question of intelligence. Many tests have shown that the average intelligence of men and women is exactly the same. But within that standard there are many differences of distribution and of particular abilities. For example, men have a much wider range of IQs. In other words, geniuses and idiots tend to be men. Women’s IQs tend to be closer to the medium. In other words, nature does not want women to be too stupid, because they will then not be able to look after their children. Nor does it want women to be too intelligent, because then they will not be interested in looking after their children. Then there are differences in abilities. In tests involving words, women do better than men, and women think much faster than men, although not necessarily as accurately. But in say spatial relations, women are no good at all. That is why there are very few women engineers – it is not because they are not allowed to be engineers, it is because they are no good at it. Similarly, that is why they are not as good as men at chess. Another example is bridge, which is played by more women than men. At the middle levels, women are more reliable than men, but at the top levels women cannot play with men.

There is also a big difference in sexual relations. Women who have a good lover will be much more affected by his love-making than the man will – both physically and emotionally. The trouble is that satisfactory love-making between men and women is continually declining. Firstly, because the incidence of love-making in the Western world is declining, but, secondly, because the quality of love-making is deteriorating. More and more men are wimps.

These differences are enormous, and yet a large part of the world pretends that there is no difference between women and men, and we see, today, women soldiers, women sailors, women policemen, women firemen. Many people even pretend that the numbers of men and women in any occupation should be the same. As the number of men who wish to go into every occupation is many more than women, the “parity” that women demand is impossible. What is baffling is how all this has happened. After all, the feminist laws that have been passed, were passed and accepted by men. Why did they accept things that are against nature and against logic, one wonders? Clearly, normal men are decreasing, and wimps are on the war path.

Jacket for Scams & Hypocrisy The book “Scams & Hypocrisy” by D P Marchessini is published by Askelon Publishing.

  • Share/Bookmark

But Is It Tennis?

21 Jun 2010 at 08:57

Askelon

Uncategorized

No Comments

One often sees articles in the sports pages complaining that tennis nowadays has become dull and stereotyped, and lamenting the absence of “colourful” characters like McEnroe and Connors. The truth is that McEnroe and Connors did not make tennis exciting — in the ’50s and ’60s when tennis really was exciting, there were no McEnroes or Connors. The reason that tennis today has become dull is that the game that the top players’ play is not really tennis — it is a perfectly good game, but it is not tennis.

The word “tennis” is, of course, short for Lawn Tennis. As its name implies, Lawn Tennis was invented for, and meant to be played on, grass. For the first one hundred years of its existence, all the major tournaments were on grass, except for the French Open. As a result, the best players always won. Today, it is the opposite way around: the only major grass tournament left is Wimbledon, and even that has been watered down. The courts have been made softer, and the balls have been made lighter, making the courts less like traditional grass, and more like slow courts. Why is tennis no longer played on grass? For the usual reason — money. Grass courts are more difficult to build, more expensive to maintain, and can only be used in the summer. The tennis season, which used to extend only from April to September (apart from Australia), now has big money tournaments twelve months a year, almost all of which are televised. It is, therefore, necessary to have hard courts and artificial indoor courts. (It is difficult to exaggerate the importance of television — it provides most of the money with which the players are paid, and gives the exposure that the advertisers want. As a result, everything is arranged to suit television’s convenience.)

What is not widely appreciated, however, is to what extent the change in surfaces has altered the game. Apart from the tradition of grass, the beauty of grass, and the fact that grass is much easier on the players’ feet, the grass surface is also vital to the quality of the strokes. As long ago as the 1920s, Bill Tilden, perhaps the greatest and certainly the most intelligent tennis player of all time, pointed out that good players rarely hit flat shots, because they are unreliable; they hit almost every shot with spin — either topspin or underspin. Grass is the only surface on which these two spins are equally effective. The game is thus evenly balanced . On clay and other slow surfaces, underspin is useless because the ball sits up; on very fast surfaces, there is not enough time to put topspin on the ball. It is only on grass that both spins can be used effectively, and thereby create the variety of stroke play which makes the game vastly richer and more interesting.

Today, even at Wimbledon, because the grass has been made softer and the balls lighter, players rarely rush the net. This is despite the fact that, some years ago, the service rule was altered, so that the server is allowed to have one leg over the service line before he hits the ball, which, in effect, gains him one step in getting to the net. What kind of grass court tennis is that — without net rushing? A result of the new equipment is that it enables the players to hit the ball much faster on any surface, and has consequently caused the margin between the top players and the others to narrow. (As Rod Laver once said, “In the days of the wooden racquet, one had to be quite talented to play well.”) The result has been more speed, less skill. When combined with the continuous changes in tournament surfaces, it has caused tournament results to become haphazard and inconsistent, with the top players frequently losing to unknowns.

One is often told how much better the players of today are than those of two generations ago. What people mean, of course, is that, because of the money and the equipment, there are many more good players playing on the circuit today than there were forty years ago. There were then many fewer tournaments and less than twenty strong players. The player who is 200th in the computer rankings today would easily beat all but the top 20 players of forty years ago. But if Federer or Nadal were to play against Laver at his peak with wooden racquets, who would win? Would the best players of today have beaten Tilden, Budge, Kramer or Sedgman at their peak with the same equipment?

There is also the distasteful phenomenon that players today are allowed to cheat. The Rules of Tennis clearly state that “play shall be continuous”. Each time that a player stops play to contest a ruling, therefore, he is not only being discourteous and unsportsmanlike, but he is also breaking the rules of Tennis. The leading culprit was McEnroe. Not surprisingly, players very rarely stop to argue about a line call when they are winning — it seems to happen only when they are losing, and when their opponent is going well. Inevitably, the interruption disrupts their opponent’s rhythm and concentration, while giving themselves a chance to re-group. That is quite clearly cheating, and yet it is allowed to continue. Is that “tennis” ?

At Wimbledon in 1949, one of the finest matches in Wimbledon history was contested between Ted Schroeder, the pre-tournament favourite, and Frank Sedgman, who was the best player in the tournament apart from Schroeder, and who was to win the next two Wimbledons. Although it was only the Quarter-Final, it was widely considered that this match would probably decide the winner of the tournament, and so it proved. The match did not disappoint. Sedgman quickly won the first two sets, but Schroeder struck back to win the next two. In the fifth set, games followed service, and with the game score 4-5, Schroeder was serving to save the match. The score reached 30-40, which was match point to Sedgman. Schroeder then hit a tremendous service which Sedgman was unable to return, and which appeared to make the score deuce, when suddenly the baseline judge on Schroeder’s side raised his hand to call a foot-fault. Schroeder had been foot-faulted on match point! It is interesting to compare his reaction with what goes on in tennis today. He did not say anything to the linesman, nor make any gesture of annoyance. He simply bounced the ball a few times, then hit a second serve, followed it to the net, and went on to win the point. He then won the game, then the match, and eventually won Wimbledon. That is what tennis is all about.

Jacket for Scams & Hypocrisy The book “Scams & Hypocrisy” by D P Marchessini is published by Askelon Publishing.


  • Share/Bookmark

The Hustler

07 Jun 2010 at 12:04

Askelon

Uncategorized

No Comments

In 1973, Bobby Riggs organised the Battle of the Sexes, an exhibition tennis match in which he, a 55 year-old man, would play the No.1 lady player in the world, Margaret Court, who won more major tournaments (24) than any woman player in tennis history. Bobby Riggs had been a gambler and a hustler all his life. When he won Wimbledon in 1939, he had already received reprimands from the tennis authorities for betting on the matches. He later became a professional tennis player — one of the best in the world — and he also took up golf, which he played for big money. He pretended to be a four handicap, but he really played to scratch. One of his tricks when playing in Florida was to wear long-sleeved shirts, so that his opponents would not see how tanned his arms were, and would think he had just come down from the north.

In the Battle of the Sexes, people did not believe a 55 year-old man, no matter how good he had been earlier, would be able to beat the best lady player in the world, and the odds on the match were 2/1 against Riggs. Riggs backed himself heavily and won the match easily: 6-2, 6-1. This naturally upset a lot of women. Two or three months later, Riggs was challenged by Billie Jean King, the No.2 lady player in the world at the time. This time, however, in view of Riggs’ triumph against Court, the odds were the opposite: 2/1 on Riggs, and 2/1 against Mrs King. Amazingly, to all those who knew Riggs well, he lost very tamely: 6-4, 6-3, 6-3 to Mrs King, double faulting on match point, something he had never done in his entire career.

The Feminists were now satisfied and, since then, whenever the Battle of the Sexes is mentioned, it is always stated that Mrs King beat Riggs. Amazingly, no one ever mentions that Riggs first beat the No.1 woman, Mrs Court. But those who knew Riggs well (that is, knew not only what a strong competitor he was, but also what a hustler he was), know the reason for the result in the King match. Riggs took the 2-1 odds on King. Having made a bundle backing himself against Miss Court, he made another bundle backing Miss King against himself.

After all, it was only an exhibition.

Jacket for Scams & Hypocrisy The book “Scams & Hypocrisy” by D P Marchessini is published by Askelon Publishing.


  • Share/Bookmark

What price democracy?

24 May 2010 at 14:06

Askelon

Uncategorized

No Comments

Although everyone continues to use the phrase “democracy”, and it is considered by many people to be the best form of government, it is interesting to consider how many genuine democracies there are in the world today. To begin with, history has shown that a republic is usually a much more successful form of government than a democracy. Rome and Venice are good examples of successful republics. The difference is that, in a republic, people do not vote directly for candidates — they vote for electors who then choose the candidates. Switzerland is a Republic today and, compared to the countries of the West, it is much better run. The United States is also officially a Republic, because the Founding Fathers did not think the average man would be able to choose between presidential candidates. They therefore wrote the Constitution, so that the voting would be for Electors, (distinguished people from each State), who would then choose the President. This sounds rather sensible, but it was negated by the political parties, who put up slates of Electors already committed to a party in advance. In effect, this turned the United States into a democracy. However, the Electors still have the legal right to vote for anyone they wish to. Some years ago, some of the Southern Electors voted for Senator Strom Thurmond as President, even though he was not running. England is also not, strictly speaking, a democracy, because of the House of Lords. Even after Asquith took much of the power away from the Lords in 1911, the House of Lords continues to have both prestige and influence.
As regards the rest of Europe, the picture is not encouraging. After 14 years of democracy, the Germans produced Hitler. In 1958, the French politicians were unable to govern France any longer. They threw up their hands and called for De Gaulle. Spain has had a chequered career of democracies, monarchies and Civil Wars, as has Greece. Italy has, theoretically, been a democracy since the War, but it has proportional representation, making it hard to govern. That is probably why they have done so well. Eastern Europe has been either under the Nazis or under the Communists, until recently. In the Middle East, there are no democracies. There are Socialist dictatorships of various kinds. And that is also the case in Egypt. In the Black African countries, democracy is a joke. They are either dictatorships or one-party states. When someone once mentioned the slogan “One Man, One Vote” to Ian Smith, the Rhodesian Prime Minster, he replied “Yes, but in Africa, it is: One Man, One Vote, One Time”.
One country where democracy seems to have worked since the War is Japan, perhaps because the Japanese are more disciplined. In the South American countries, dictatorships alternate with Communist governments. Brazil makes an effort to be a democracy, but corruption is rampant. Some years ago, a well-known Brazilian politician was caught stealing, and had to leave the country. Surprisingly, he not only came back some years later, but ran for political office again. His election slogan was: “He steals, but he is efficient” — he was elected. In Mexico, it is even worse. Many years ago, a friend of mine had a romance with a Mexican girl, whose father was a Minister in the government. After six months in office, he resigned. My friend asked the girl why her father had resigned after such a short time. She said “In Mexico, in six months, one can steal as much as one needs. There is no point to stay on.”
And yet the Americans think that democracy can be established in any country in ten minutes. They do not grasp that, for a democracy, you need not only an educated population, but political traditions and principles that have existed for many years. The idea of establishing a democracy in Iraq, where there were three separate groups of people – all of them hostile to each other — was particularly insane.

Jacket for Scams & Hypocrisy The book “Scams & Hypocrisy” by D P Marchessini is published by Askelon Publishing.


  • Share/Bookmark

World hypocrisy

10 May 2010 at 10:00

Askelon

Uncategorized

No Comments

Everyone knows that we live in an age of hypocrisy. Now there is nothing new about hypocrisy, it has been with us since the beginning of time. What is new is that the nature of this hypocrisy has altered. The dictionary tells us that hypocrisy is “sham or pretence”. In the past such sham or pretence was usually used in support of the institutions of society — the Church, the Army, the State, the aristocracy, society, etc. All these institutions have decreased drastically in importance over the last fifty years, and are now in full retreat. Yet the flow of hypocrisy continues unabated — indeed it is greater than ever. The reason is that hypocrisy has simply changed direction, and the hypocrisy that one hears today is much less about institutions, and much more about individual people. It invariably has to do with individuals trying to justify themselves, even if they have to insult other people’s intelligence to do so. Whether it is a cabinet minister refusing to resign after a blunder (refusing even to admit that he has made a blunder); or a girl who batters her mother to death with a hammer and blames it on premenstrual tension; or a law school which awards a graduation degree to a girl who has been caught cheating, while at the same time announcing that, “No one can come to our school, and get away with cheating”. At every level of society, the level of hypocrisy today has become shameless.

Another aspect of today’s atmosphere is that where in the past hypocrisy was invariably laughed at, (sometimes even by those who were putting it forward), there is very little ridicule today of even the most shameless hypocrisy. Outrageous justifications are taken quite seriously, and even given importance in the press. It is one of the facts of life today that almost all levels of competence have been lowered. From cabinet ministers to street-sweepers, it has become very difficult to find any longer people who know how to do their job properly. This incompetence is inexorably intertwined with the general hypocrisy — instead of having to admit that they have simply been incompetent, everyone now pretends that it was someone else’s fault. As they are not laughed at, they continue to do so again and again. Eventually the idea of responsibility for one’s actions disappears.

One of the reasons that Socialism is fallacious is that its theories takes no account of human weakness or folly, and it invariably assumes that anyone who finds himself in a disagreeable position must be there because of the fault of others. In short, they deny that there is any such thing as personal responsibility. As it is only human nature to try to avoid fault or responsibility if one can, it is not very difficult to persuade people that nothing is ever their own fault. Nor is it surprising that the bubble of hypocrisy in the modern world is getting bigger and bigger. What is regrettable is that more people do not take the trouble of pricking it with ridicule. That is the one thing against which hypocrisy can not stand.

Even the Royal Family is not immune to hypocrisy; indeed, they specialise in it. The most astounding Royal event took place when Prince Charles stated, on television, to all his subjects, that he had not seen Camilla during the first six years of his marriage. He said that he had not seen her until the marriage “broke down”. This was obviously nonsense. If he had not been seeing her, why did the marriage break down? Diana made it very clear that she considered Camilla to be the only obstacle in her marriage. But, secondly, literally thousands of people knew that he had been seeing Camilla. Neither he nor Camilla are discreet. Everyone in their circle knew, and also many others not in their circle. Usually, one lies to avoid people finding out something disagreeable. But, in this case, everyone already knew the disagreeable facts, so Charles was trying to deny something many people knew to be true. That is very arrogant, as well as dishonest.

Another instance of Royal hypocrisy took place when it was reported in the national Press that Princess Diana had been caught making dozens of telephone calls from Kensington Palace to the home of Oliver Hoare, a married man, whose marriage she broke up. When Diana was asked about it, her reaction to the Press was to start crying and say: “Why is everyone picking on me?”. Immediately the story disappeared from the Press and the matter was never, ever, heard of again. What kind of free Press is that?

Finally, Diana’s accident also was full of hypocrisies. First of all, trying to blame the accident on the chauffeur being “drunk” was absurd. The chauffeur had had two glasses of red wine with his dinner, as he did every night of his life. But that is not the point. The point is that chauffeurs only go as fast as their clients want them to go. If the client wants to go 20 miles-an-hour, the chauffeur drives at 20 miles-an-hour. If they want to go 80, he goes 80. If the car was going very fast, it was because Diana and Dodi wanted him to go fast. But there is still another fact that is even more amazing. Long before the accident, the police had a file on Dodi, because he might have become the future King’s step-father. After the accident, supposedly there was the most intense investigation in police history. Yet it was never announced by the police that Dodi was a cocaine addict, that he had cocaine every night of his life, and that he was almost certainly drugged the night of the accident. That is hypocrisy with a vengeance.

Jacket for Scams & Hypocrisy The book “Scams & Hypocrisy” by D P Marchessini is published by Askelon Publishing.


  • Share/Bookmark

The nicer guy

27 Apr 2010 at 17:45

Askelon

Uncategorized

No Comments

‘Fascism’ is a word that is used very often in the modern world, and yet very few people understand what it means. The Fascist Party was founded by Mussolini in 1919, and its purpose was to fight Communism. So it started on the side of the angels. But once Mussolini took power in Italy, it turned into a violent dictatorship, and the word Fascism came to mean a non-Socialist violent dictatorship. Surprisingly enough, the Nazis were not Fascist — they were Socialists. Indeed, the word ‘Nazi’ comes from the initials of their party, being the National Socialist Party in German.

Nor were the Nazis anti-Communist. Indeed, they were allies of the Russian Communists, who supplied them with oil. The wave of German tanks that spread all over Western Europe ran on Russian oil. If Hitler had remained allied to the Russians, it is unlikely that England would have been able to hold out alone against Hitler and Stalin, and we would all be speaking German today. However, for reasons best known to his psychiatrist, Hitler invaded Russia and destroyed himself. In the meantime, Mussolini had allied himself with Hitler. So the two allies were called ‘the Fascists’, although only one of them was Fascist. We were allied with the Communists, but nobody called us Communists. As the War went on, Hitler moved more and more to the Left, and the Nazis became more and more Socialist.

Who was the nicer guy?
For the last 60 years, we have been hearing continually about the Nazis and the Holocaust. Although this was a horrible event, it is also one of the biggest hypocrisies in the world. Not because the Holocaust did not take place (of course it did), but because I have never heard a Jew, or even a non-Jew, admit the fact that Stalin killed many more people than Hitler, and many more Jews. It is, nevertheless, a fact.

Estimates of the Nazi concentration camps are that between three and six million people died there. Suppose we take a medium number of four and a half million — of course, all of them were not Jews. Estimates, by Russian experts, of the people murdered by the Russian Communists is between 60 million and 80 million people. Now, it is not possible to tell exactly how many Jews died, not only because the Russians did not have concentration camps where people could be counted and people were killed in different ways or sent to die in Siberia, but also because the Germans killed Jews during a period of four or five years, while the Russians were killing Jews for 30 years. But Jews were an important element in the Russian nation, and they also excelled in politics, and in the arts, and professions. So, of the estimate of between 60 and 80 million people murdered by the Russian Communists, a very large number were Jews.

The situation in Russia was more complicated, because there were many Jews high up in the Communist Party. Stalin, being more intelligent than Hitler, never attacked the Jews openly. But that did not change the fact that there was very strong anti-Semitism in Russia and, in particular, Stalin himself was a violent anti-Semite, who went on quietly killing Jews. The extent of his feelings are shown by the fact that he killed his own friends because they were Jewish; he killed members of his own family because they were Jewish; he even killed ex-mistresses because they were Jewish. It is an interesting reflection on the world that one has never heard any public person state these facts, although we hear about the Holocaust almost every day in the Press. It shows the power of the Left.
Jacket for Scams & Hypocrisy The book “Scams & Hypocrisy” by D P Marchessini is published by Askelon Publishing.


  • Share/Bookmark

Perfidious Albion

12 Apr 2010 at 09:50

Askelon

Uncategorized

No Comments

In 1998, the Ministry of Defence invited a delegation from Chile to visit manufacturers of military weapons in England and to, hopefully, buy some. The MoD paid for their flights, arranged their itinerary, and met them at the airport. The leader of the delegation was General Pinochet, Chief-of-Staff of the Chilean Armed Forces, and previously President for 15 years. Having retired as President in 1989, General Pinochet then ran for office in the next elections. He did not win, but he received 43 percent of the votes, which is more than Mrs Thatcher ever received. When their tour was over, most of the Chileans went back to Chile, but because General Pinochet had a bad back and needed a small operation, he decided to stay in England and have it done here.

In order to understand what was about to happen, one must know something about Chilean history. Although Chile had always been a Christian Democratic country, in 1970 there were two Christian Democratic candidates, who split the CD vote, and allowed Salvador Allende to be elected. Allende is usually referred to as a “Socialist” by the Western press but, in fact, Allende was Head of the Chilean Communist Party, which fact he did not try to hide. He openly declared himself in favour of a violent revolution. Because he was the most charismatic on the Left, the Socialists allied themselves with him. In the fourth year of his four-year term, it was clear that Allende would not be re-elected. He had destroyed Chile; the inflation rate was 600 percent; and Communist gangs roamed the countryside. Obviously, no one was interested in displacing Allende violently, as he would be displaced automatically in a few months.

Allende, however, did not wish to be displaced. He was a traitor and he brought 15,000 Cuban troops into Chile. Together with his Chilean Communist troops, he hoped to take power by force. That was the background of the Chilean Civil War, which ended with Allende dead, and Pinochet in power. Pinochet restored order and not only lowered the inflation rate, but made Chile an economic model for all of South America. Of course, Pinochet was very unpopular with the Left, because he had made fools of them, and they immediately started to allege torture. Now, whenever and wherever the Communists are defeated and sent to jail, they automatically allege torture. They did it in Malaya, they did it in Greece, they did it in Spain, and they did it in Chile. The point of alleging torture is, first of all, it sounds horrible and, more importantly, it cannot be disproved — you cannot prove a negative. Some of the mud always sticks.

At the time that General Pinochet was in England, a Spanish Communist Judge called Garzon was preparing a case against him, with which he hoped to extradite him from England. Now, there was no legal way that Garzon could have extradited Pinochet, because the supposed “crime” took place in Chile, Pinochet was in England and Garzon was in Spain. It was as if the English claimed the right to extradite people from China who had committed a crime in India. However, Garzon had something up his sleeve. In one of the absurd International Human Rights Conventions, there is a statement (not legal of course) that anyone who has committed “genocide” can be extradited by any country. Of course, there had been no genocide in Chile, so this was absurd, but Judge Garzon, in his documents, claimed that General Pinochet had killed all the Communists, and that that was equivalent to genocide. Even more absurd.

While this was going on, General Pinochet had gone into the hospital. His aides had heard about the Spanish Judge Garzon, and they asked the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office whether Pinochet was in any danger. Both of them confirmed that Pinochet was in no danger whatsoever. On October 2nd, his aides asked the MoD and F.O. again, and were told again that he was not in any danger. By October 15th, the rumours continued and, again, Pinochet’s aides consulted the MoD and the F.O., and were assured that Pinochet was not in any danger. The third lie.

The next day, October 16th, Pinochet was arrested. Treachery. There were quite a few things about this arrest that were defective. First of all, Pinochet had been a former Head of State and ally of Mrs Thatcher’s; he was invited and brought to England by the MoD; he had stayed in England for medical reasons; and Judge Garzon’s request for extradition had no basis. But there was still another reason why this request for extradition was faulty — it was technically “illegal”, because Judge Garzon had not written it properly. At this point, the English Government actually interfered. Garzon’s request for extradition was returned to Spain, to be corrected, and the Crown Prosecution Service went to Spain with it, in order to teach Garzon how to do it properly. The Crown Prosecution Service exists to prosecute cases in the U.K. on behalf of foreign countries. It was unheard of for it to actually go to a foreign country and actually write the extradition Order for them. Garzon sent the Crown Prosecution Service to Juan Garces, a well-known Communist and friend of Allende’s, who had been with Allende when the Presidential Palace in Chile was burned. The worst treachery was that, during the six days that Garzon’s Extradition Order was being corrected, there was nothing holding Pinochet in the U.K. any more. He was free to go. But neither the MoD nor the F.O. told him so. They kept him in the U.K. on false pretences. What sort of government is that?

When the corrected Extradition Order finally arrived, the Home Secretary, Mr Jack Straw, refused the many petitions for Pinochet’s release, and pretended that he would have to let the matter go to court, because there was “nothing else” he could do. Yet, a year before, when Germany had asked for the extradition of an IRA bomber, who had committed violent acts in Germany, Mr Straw refused to hand her over. He claimed she was pregnant, and pretended that she might suffer from PMT. An IRA bomber! Another example of Mr Straw’s “honesty” involved the female spy Miss Norwood, who was found to have passed nuclear secrets to the Russians throughout the Cold War. Straw decided not to even try her, let alone put her in jail.

Another lunacy was that by law, in Spain, no one was allowed to go to jail over the age of 80. As Pinochet was 82, he obviously could never go to jail in Spain. So what was all the fuss about? Obviously, the Left simply wanted a show trial for propaganda. During the trial in the Law Lords which followed, Pinochet was kept under house arrest.

Not long afterwards, the Chinese Communist leaders visited England. The Chinese Communists, as people who are familiar with the Orient know, butchered not millions, but tens of millions of their own people. But when they came to London, they had tea with the Queen in Buckingham Palace, while Pinochet, who saved Chile from Communism, was under arrest.

Perfidious Albion indeed.
Jacket for Scams & Hypocrisy The book “Scams & Hypocrisy” by D P Marchessini is published by Askelon Publishing.


  • Share/Bookmark
← Older Entries