Friday, September 08, 2006

German Reich the model for Europe, says German Minister

In 962, Otto the Great revived Charlemagne’s empire as the first German Reich and was crowned Holy Roman Emperor by Pope John XII. This Reich became known as the Sacrum Romanum Imperium Nationis Germanicae (Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation) and Otto’s octagonal crown became the symbol of the concept of European unity. Now Germany’s Culture Minister, Bernd Neumann, has voiced what some have suspected for decades: that Germany is creating the European Union in her image. He said the German Reich ‘from today's viewpoint (serves) as a valid model of the functioning order of a superstate.’ The context of his statement is highly significant, being the opening of an exhibition which is dedicated to ‘The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, 962 – 1806’. He said that this touches on ‘every great trend...which makes very clear to us the inner historical legitimacy and consistency of European unification’. It is therefore the Reich that laid the foundation for the ‘structures and developmental processes (which are) of great significance for the federal construction of Europe.’

Such statements have been in circulation for decades, most notably articulated by the CSU (Christian Social Union) politician and grandson of the Austrian Kaiser Otto von Habsburg, who said: ‘the European integration of our times...follows the grand outline and principles of the Reich, which survived 1806, because they are of lasting validity.’ Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, echoed this very theme when he insisted that the origins of today's EU should acknowledge ‘a common imperial ideal (Reichsidee).’ He will attend celebrations in Berlin next year to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the Treaty of Rome. The German press already reports that the religious consecration will validate the EU, and will highlight ‘the spiritual foundations of Europe's political unification’ (Lammert lädt Papst in den Bundestag ein; Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 28.08.2006).

Is it really of no importance that a German Minister is now stating that Germany and the Eastern European countries ‘belong together’? Is it really of no relevance that he observes that the German Reich is the model for European Union? And is it really of no significance whatsoever that the first German Pope for a millennium intends to bestow his blessing on the whole Empire? Cranmer wonders who will ultimately wear the Reich’s-crown…


Blogger Croydonian said...

If I might quote Voltaire, it was "Neither holy, nor Roman, nor Empire".

8 September 2006 at 13:08  
Blogger dizzy said...

For some reason I can't get the Dambusters theme tune out of my head.

8 September 2006 at 13:10  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Dizzy,

His Grace is much amused by your contribution, and welcomes you again to his venerable blog.

But raising this subject has had quite serious consequences for some. Was not Sir Ian Gilmore, a minister in Margaret Thatcher's government, forced to resign for alluding to this very theme? Why is this 'plot' as unmentionable as any allusion to the Vatican's agenda? Is it fear of the 'conspiracy theorist' tag?

8 September 2006 at 13:24  
Blogger Croydonian said...

Your Grace, no, it wasn't Iain Gilmour, but rather the saintly Nicholas Ridley. In an interview in The Spectator some years back he referred to the EU 'as a German racket to take over Europe', or words to that effect. The German embassy was not best pleased, although the reckoning is that a Garland cover cartoon of Ridley having added a Hitler moustache to a picture of Kohl was what had really caused offence...

8 September 2006 at 13:59  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Croydian,

How unforgivable it is to forget that name! In truth, it must be because, in His Grace's mind, there was only one such, who helped to light such a candle as shall never be extinguished.

It would appear, then, that the most recent Mr Ridley was more a victim of The Spectator's cartooning and sub-editorship than a martyr to the truth.

8 September 2006 at 14:48  
Blogger Croydonian said...

I fear so Your Grace. While I am a partisan for the Doughty Street boys and girls, there was a stage in the 90s when they were routinely stitching up their interviewees and so on.

8 September 2006 at 15:05  
Blogger Peter O said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8 September 2006 at 15:12  
Blogger Peter O said...

I'm confused as to why you put a Swastika in the Euro flag? We're taking the first Reich here afterall.

But on the subject as to whether the EU should be modelled on the HRE, I wonder whether it's a rather innapropriate model. It may have started as a kingdom under one monarch, but it soon splintered into a myriad of fiefdoms and principalities. Sometimes the Emperor had power, sometimes he was politically impotent. At all times though he needed consensus from the Electors in order to govern and legislate.

Hmmmmm..... perhaps Brussels could learn a thing or two afterall...

8 September 2006 at 15:14  
Anonymous Ulster Man said...

This German racket thing is not really news, it's just not talked about. How else could Germany get a proper army, or a seat on the UN's security council, or its finger on an nuclear button, unless it did so through the EU's increasing competences? It was John Laughland who wrote about the German insistence on the single currency being called the Euro, so that it could be suffixed with Mark -


Convenenient, eh?

8 September 2006 at 15:17  
Blogger Cranmer said...

I'm confused as to why you put a Swastika in the Euro flag? We're taking the first Reich here afterall.

Mr Peter,

Welcome to Cranmer's venerable blog. A reich is a reich, and the vision for the Nazi's third had it foundations on the preceding two. Your observations on the propensity for empires to fracture was made by Margaret Thatcher when, in talking of the EU, she asserted that the 'age of Empire' has passed. Her enemies did not agree, and she was ousted. The theme was expounded by Boris Johnson, here, though he ignored the cohesive effect of a common religion - Catholicism - which would once again give the EU an emperor.

8 September 2006 at 15:28  
Blogger Peter O said...

Your Grace,

Surely Boris is forgetting that most of Northern Europe is Protestant (Lutheran actually which I believe is very close to the doctrine you presented in your first few Prayer Books?) and also that much of the "new East" is Orthodox of various persuasions.

8 September 2006 at 15:31  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

Cranmer's article thread -- German Reich the model for Europe -- reads even more powerfully if you also link over to The Brussels Journal and read this article about (the alleged) German (mis-)use of the European Area Development Concept.

The plot thickens?

Actually there exist other, far stronger reasons for pulling out of the EU completely, and ending the EU project with haste. But these fall well outside the topic under discussion here.

8 September 2006 at 15:36  
Blogger dearieme said...

D'ye mean that those of us who sneered at The Fourth Reich, or The Bruxelles Reich, were right all along?

8 September 2006 at 15:40  
Blogger dearieme said...

Oh, here's a new one. "Brussels rules by divine Reich." Almost a joke, eh?

8 September 2006 at 15:42  
Blogger Hettie said...


Your explanation of why you put a schwastika in the EU flag seems not satisfactory to me. Maybe you care to elaborate on the similarities between the first and third Reich or provide other more pertinent reasons otherwise I might come to believe that you created this image to help justify your worries about the creation of a holy Catholic empire in Europe with Germany in the lead. These worries might be founded, but implying that German-Roman Empire was nazi is certainly not.

In other words I didn't expect to see such an unworthy stunt on your venerable blog.



8 September 2006 at 15:47  
Anonymous Rick said...

I wonder how seriously Tessa Jowell is taken in Berlin........?

I think that the word "Reich" causes such a frisson among English speakers rather like the word "Crusade" for Muslims........if we look at "Vereingtes Koenigreich" we have United Kingdom; "Frankreich" gives us France; and "reich" gives us rich.

Merely because German has fewer words that English each word has to convey several meanings.

What references to the Holy Roman Empire yield is simply the loose affiliation under a central coordinating body with a Roman Catholic ethos. It is directed against Turkey which the British Govt is most keen to see in the EU.

Look at the world through German eyes, Britain is pushing hard to admit Turkey into the EU which would immediately enfranchise 2 million Turks in Germany and properly lead to a surge in immigration.

Britisgh foreign policy in Europe is not an unalloyed joy to other countries

8 September 2006 at 16:29  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

British foreign policy in Europe is not an unalloyed joy to other countries.

It is certainly an unalloyed joy to all Arab countries.

The British Foreign Office has official Dhimmi status.

Unless we wake up and do something, Europe's largest Mosque will be situated (according to present plans) adjacent the 2012 Olympic Park in London for all the world to see on TV.

8 September 2006 at 16:54  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes I know it will have room for 40,000 Muslims

8 September 2006 at 17:42  
Blogger istanbultory said...

I tend to agree with Rick on this issue. The word "Reich" is liable to be misunderstand by native English speakers but it does have a number of connotations in German apart from the one with which we are all familiar.

The rhetoric about a second Holy Roman Empire is merely designed to appeal to the CDU (but more particularly the CSU) grassroots and is a fairly explicit swipe against Turkey's ambitions to enter the EU. That is exactly how it is perceived here in Turkey where confusingly the German Foreign Minister (from the SPD) was on a visit yesterday to boost Turkey's EU candidacy hopesand offer support to the Turkish government what with all the bad vibes coming from the EU re: its membership bid...

8 September 2006 at 19:50  
Blogger istanbultory said...

I am more concerned about French ambitions to re-energize the EU integration project than the fuzzy rhetoric of a fragile coalition government in Germany.

Take for example, the French presidential frontrunner, Nicolas Sarkozy, who has put Europe at the heart of his election campaign, calling for a "mini-treaty" to replace the European constitution and the end of national vetoes. He has also served notice that, if elected, he would press for radical reforms to the EU and argues that many countries can gain a mandate to ratify a slimmed-down treaty through national parliaments rather than plebiscites.

The timetable envisaged would mean negotiating the mini-treaty next year and ratifying it by the end of 2008…..

9 September 2006 at 08:56  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Roman and not the German Empire is the model for the EU

Thank you for your important blog. While the political elites in Germany appear to be dreaming of the German Holy Empire, the French elites are probably dreaming of founding the successor of the ancient Roman Empire. The map of the Roman Empire corresponds nicely to the French plans for “Eurabia”. According to Bat Ye'Or, the author of the book "Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis”, in a continuous flow of joint resolutions, Arab and European officials called for the diffusion of Arabic and Islamic culture in Europe. The resolution of the 1975 conference of the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation anchored the Arab cultural autonomy by calling for the European governments to facilitate "the creation of generous means to enable immigrant workers and their families to participate in Arab cultural and religious life." Naturally, Islamic elites are dreaming of their ancient empire. The French President Jacques Chirac proclaimed in 1996 during his visit to Cairo "Europe and Muslims should write history together."

Honorable people and politicians believe that the European Union will bring peace to Europe. How likely is that outcome?

Unlikely. In 1939, the philosopher Albert Nock wrote an illuminating article: "The idea that the State originated to serve any kind of social purpose is completely unhistorical. It originated in conquest and confiscation--that is to say, in crime. It originated for the purpose of maintaining the division of society into an owning-and-exploiting class and a propertyless dependent class--that is, for a criminal purpose." "Like all predatory or parasitic institutions, its first instinct is that of self-preservation. All its enterprises are directed first towards preserving its own life, and, second, towards increasing its own power and enlarging the scope of its own activity."

"Many now believe that with the rise of the "totalitarian" State the world has entered upon a new era of barbarism. It has not. The totalitarian State is only the State; the kind of thing it does is only what the State has always done with unfailing regularity, if it had the power to do it, wherever and whenever its own aggrandizement made that kind of thing expedient. Give any State like power hereafter, and put it in like circumstances, and it will do precisely the same kind of thing. The State will unfailingly aggrandize itself, if only it has the power, first at the expense of its own citizens, and then at the expense of anyone else in sight. It has always done so, and always will. "

The European Union might have been intended as a project of peace but it has also been planned as a new powerful superstate and as powerful state such the EU "will unfailingly aggrandize itself," "first at the expense of its own citizens, and then at the expense of anyone else in sight.”

Albert Nock’s Golden Rule of sound citizenship is: “The first and greatest lesson in the study of politics: You get the same order of criminality from any State to which you give power to exercise it"

The German Holy Empire was rather powerless and hence more benign than the powerful Empire of ancient Rome. As Frédéric Bastiat pointed out, Rome was “generalized, organized plunder”. And he observed that “antiquity offers us, in fact, everywhere, in Egypt, in Persia, in Greece, in Rome, the spectacle of a few men manipulating as they liked a mass of mankind enslaved by force or imposture.” “This tendency of the human race, it must be admitted, is greatly thwarted, particularly in our country, by the lamentable disposition—the effect of classical education—common to all political theorists of placing themselves outside humanity in order to arrange it, organize it, and educate it in whatever way they please.” Finally, “to acquire an idea of Roman morality, imagine in the heart of Paris [at Bastiat’s time, nowadays Brussels ?] an organization of men who hate to work, determined to satisfy their wants by deceit and force, and consequently at war with society”.


9 September 2006 at 12:02  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr, Mrs, Miss, Ms Anonymous,

His Grace thanks you for your intelligent contribution, but reiterates his exhortation to avoid 'anon', since it is impossible to know to which anon one is responding.

Please call yourself Colin, or some such, not least because our regular Colin has been absent of late, but also because it facilitates the process of dialogue should someone wish to respond to you. His Grace simply does not encourage responses to anonymice.

Thank you.

9 September 2006 at 15:05  
Blogger istanbultory said...

Oh Anonymous one! Do find a name for yourself
You make some interesting points. On the federalist intent of the EU, I believe we need to carefully scrutinize the words and actions of French policy elites much more than those in Germany, which as a country, is much more inclined to passively follow the French in whatever they might propose rather than initiate action on their own.

French political leaders - now including Sarkozy - are ingrained with the notion that France should push for a more integrated Europe as a political and economic counterweight to the United States and China.The French position is that without agreement between France and Germany, the European Union cannot work (in the fashion they envisage). For Paris,therefore, Germany is the junior partner and a useful prop in French federalist designs.

I am quite sure that we will be faced with a renewed Franco-German federalist cavalry charge in 2007...After all, we will have a German presidency of the EU plus a newly-elected French president next year.

9 September 2006 at 15:17  
Anonymous Rick said...

It is always worth looking at the world from another position on the map. Viewing the world from France with a Med coast and an Atlantic coast and one very large neighbour to the North gives a different foreign policy set.

Germany with more borders than any other European state has a balancing act with a yearning to the East.

Poland has a perspective that its neighbours to east and west have a poor track record and that the only country to have fought with them was Britain.

It is worth looking at the major European countries none of which has the economic or military power today to be dominant, yet each seeks to emerge on top.

If it is viewed less as a cooperative venture or pooling of interests and more as a merger/takeover, the scope for game-theory is evident.

Sarkozy has yet to get elected but he can in fact advance no other foreign policy objective simply because France has no alternative - its imperial possessions once it was ejected from India - are what ? Syria ? Lebanon ? Cameroun ?...............certainly not Australia, Canada, USA..............

France has funded its ambitions by shackling Germany, but under Merkel that will not happen. It is simply inconceivable that Merkel will play second fiddle to France since there is no advance to Germany when a Kanzlerin speaks English and is her Foreign Minister who knows what deals Schroeder put together and he is the one she must watch

9 September 2006 at 19:04  
Blogger istanbultory said...

Despite growing Euroscepticism from the German people, German politicians voted unanimously for the Euro constitution in the parliamentary vote and Merkel doesn't see it as Germany's role to abandon it. A decision not to revive the constitution (in whatever form) can only come from France.

9 September 2006 at 19:32  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

anonymous, with his 12:02 PM post, has just detailed exactly what I was alluding to in the final paragraph of my earlier, 3:36 PM post. Although, he has continued on to make additional, highly intelligent points, associations, and cross-references (all greatly appreciated).

Particularly so in respect of Bat Ye'Or's excellent analysis. Without her book, none of us would be any wiser. Bruce Bawer is another, much more recent author, writing about the same phenomenon.

The origins of the Euro-Arab Cooperation council, actually dates back, if memory serves me well, to 1973. It is this executive body, active within the EU, that has actually facilitated the large-scale, almost unhindered immigration of Muslims into Europe, from Spain to Iceland, from Finland, to Eire.

I could never understand, for example, why Denmark, or Norway, or Sweden, should have a significant (and now problematic) Muslim immigrant population, until I learned of this French inspired "treaty."

It's origins lie in the appeasement, by France (and possibly Germany too), of the Arab World in response to OPEC's oil embargo following the 1973 Yom Kippur war.

Through French eyes, the fusion of European and Arab culture was to provide a bulwark -- or alternative centre of gravity -- against perceived American cultural dominance of the western world.

I can think of no better reason for Britain's immediate withdrawal from the European Union project. This secret (and utterly insane) deal is justification enough.

And the most amazing thing is, we probably know far more about these arrangements than 99% of our dunce politicians. Another case of men being led by donkeys (and feminists).

10 September 2006 at 05:22  
Blogger istanbultory said...

In addition to anti-Americanism, anti-Israel policies and legitimizing PLO propaganda in Europe the European Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation, has also been active in promoting the diffusion of Arab and Islamic culture in European universities and the creation of Arab cultural centres in most European capitals. EAD has also lobbied hard for the “reform” of European school books to include anti-Israel propaganda...

10 September 2006 at 11:39  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

Anti-Israeli propaganda, courtesy of Ken Livingstone's London Transport.

Go Here then scroll down to bottom of blog page.

You will find several worthy blog posts in between, but you will need to scroll down all the way to see the photo I am referring to, entitled: Picture from Eurabia.

10 September 2006 at 14:19  
Anonymous Rick said...

Over at DhimmiWatch this item appears:

Author faces trial in Turkey over book on Armenian genocide

This presentation of the case against Elif Shafak for "insulting Turkishness" unfortunately dodges the issues of religion in both the genocide of Armenian Christians by Muslims, and concerning the tensions in present-day Turkey resulting from its maneuvering to join the EU. Like so many other fronts in the jihad, it is being misrepresented as merely a "nationalistic" struggle. From AP: "Leading author faces trial in Turkey" .................contd

10 September 2006 at 17:34  
Blogger istanbultory said...

In June 2006, the Public Prosecutor in Istanbul actually dismissed proceedings launched against Shafak and her Turkish publisher on the basis that the book was a work of literature and it was therefore not appropriate for prosecution. That decision was appealed by an extreme nationalist lawyers grouping "Unity of Jurists" in July. They managed to get the Istanbul High Criminal Court to proceed with a trial.

To date, no author tried under Article 301 of the Turkish Penal which deals with "insulting Turkishness" Code has actually been convicted.Nevertheless, it is quite staggering that an author in an EU candidate country is being prosecuted for a couple of remarks made by fictional characters in a work of fiction...

For more see:

10 September 2006 at 18:15  
Anonymous Colin (formerly anonymous) said...

Following the request by His Grace Archbishop Cranmer and by GC, Anonymous has been renamed Colin. And Colin would like to thank his Grace, GC and Mission Impossible for their kind remarks. The blog of Archbishop Cranmer seems to stand out from the crowd by its intellectual sophistication.

Since we all seem to agree that the goal of the European elites is the building of a powerful empire in Europe, the question is what will the expanding EU Empire do to its citizens and neighbours?

If the history of past Empires is any indication, successful integration in the EU will bring exploitation and oppression to its citizens and blackmail or in case of noncomplicance war to its neighbours. Is this outcome inevitable?

Unfortunately, history has shown over and over again that power without checks and balances leads to abuse. But aren't checks and balances built into our democratic society?

Obviously insufficient because the political elites continue to build their Empire and simply neglect the will of the people. In nearly all countries, the majority is against the Empire building of the European elites. However, the elites feel nothing and nobody should stop them to achieve their dream. What actually is their dream?

World supremacy. But wait a minute, that seems to be a far-fetched hypothesis.
Is it really?

In 1902, the British geographer Halford Mackinder published an analysis entitled "The Geographical Pivot of History". In this article he formulated what became a very influential geopolitical idea, the Heartland Theory:

"Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;
who rules the Heartland commands the world-island;
who rules the world-island controls the world."

Today, Mackinder's Hearland Theory has still a strong influence on political strategy. For example, the former security advisor to US President Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, holds that the key to world supremacy lies in control of the Eurasian continent. He lucidly describes the geopolitical strategy of the US in his book "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives".

According to Brzezinski, "Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopolitically axial." "For half a millennium, world affairs were dominated by Eurasian powers." "A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions." "About 75 percent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about 60 percent of the world's GNP and about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." "All of the potential political and/or economic challengers to American primacy are Eurasian. Cumulatively, Eurasia's power vastly overshadows America's. Fortunately for America, Eurasia is too big to be politically one."

This is probably precisely what the European elites want to change; they want to play chessboard, to make Eurasia politically one. Europe's political elites are well aware of the Heartland Theory. The former German foreign secretary wrote the preface for the German translation of Brzezinski's book. And the former French President and author of the European constitution, Giscard d’Estaing, told the President of Soviet Russia, Michael Gorbachev, already in 1989, at a time when the [1992] Maastricht treaty had not even been drafted, that "Europe is going to be a federal state ... You have to work out with us, and the European leaders, ... how to become a part of it...”

The content of the conversation has been reported by Vladimir Bukovksy, a former Soviet dissident who in 1992 had access to Politburo and Central Committee secret documents which have been classified and still are now. These documents show that the idea of turning the European common market into a federal state was agreed between the left-wing parties of Europe and Moscow as a joint project which Gorbachev in 1988-89 called our “common European home.”

Source: "Former Soviet Dissident Warns For EU Dictatorship"

The former German left-wing chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder, is now working for the government of Russia. During his reign, he agreed to France's demand of an EU military independent of the US dominated NATO and arranged the EU membership of Turkey, the gate to the oil rich regions of Eurasia, which less than 100 years ago were part of the Ottoman (i.e. Turkish) Empire. The chessboard plan of the EU and Turkish elites is obvious.

But there is an obstacle which has to be overcome: The citizens of the European nations. The citizens like their nations. How could this problem be solved? By a proven power method: "Divide and conquer!" The identification of the citizens with their nation can be destroyed by large scale immigration and the punishment of opposition. For example, laws against discrimination hate speech, blasphemy, xenophoby, racism etc.

This requires extensive surveillance to thwart opposition. However, citizens will not easily accept that. Furtunately, there is terrorism. It provides the necessary justification for controlling bank accounts, emails, telephones, mobile phones, internet activities, data banks, and video cameras able to automatically recognize faces. Nobody will be able to escape surveillance. And opponents will be beaten into submission for fear of punishment. The European arrest warrant provides the legal framework for incarcerating European opponents in Turkish prisons. In addition, some opponents might have to fear for their life, e.g. Theo van Gogh, Hirsi Ali, Danish cartoons etc.

The new laws and surveillance activities are claimed to be necessary for protecting citizens from evil terrorists. In Germany, not a single terrorist bomb has exploded yet. Nevertheless, video cameras and other surveillance measures are now being installed stripping German citizens of their basic civil liberties.

The elites of new nations or empires always need dangers to position themselves as saviors. The need for such emotional manipulations gave birth to several nationalistic or empirial ideologies of the past. For example, the elites of the second German Empire founded in 1871 were talking endlessly about internal enemies(Jewish citizens) and external enemies (France & Britain). These idealogies took on a life of their own, transformed the German population formerly living in a large number of small states and renowed for its peacefulness into warmongers resulting in two World Wars and the Holocaust. The Sowjet Empire declared as internal enemies (farmers & revisionists) and as external enemies (capitalist countries). The nascent EU Empire also needs internal enemies (xenophobes, racists, right-wingers) as well as external enemies (globalization, USA, Israel). Whoever wondered how an evil ideology such as the national form of socialism (called National Socialism) and Antisemitism developed, should observe the development of antiamerican and anti-israel fanatism in the EU. Socialism for a nation has been replaced by welfarism for a continent (called "the European model") and antisemitism is now called anti-zionism. The fact that Israelis dared to defend themselves, we learned from the main-stream media and from French President Girac, is an inappropriate response. The same President declared a few months ago that he would respond with atomic bombs to terror attacks on France.

Now, we have everything in place what builders of transnational Empires need: destruction of national identities, laws against opponents, surveillance, enemies, danger and salvation by the new rulers. Is anything missing?

Of course, an important element is missing in the equation: religion. Intellectuals always gained influence by claiming to know the cure, the salvation from evil. In the past, the postulated cure was termed religion. The intellectuals (formerly known as priests) have learned by experience and self-interest that they have to serve politicans in power if they want to survive, gain influence and a decent life. It's their business to talk the population into submission since the elites in power are few and the people are many. Only a credible reason, a legitimation, can do the trick, can make the majority accept their own exploitation by a small minority. Emperor Constantine knew it. Archbishop Cranmer knew it. Marx knew it ("Religion is the opium of the masses"). And last but not least, our contemporary intellectuals know it.

What kind of religion would be advantageous to the power elites of the EU?

The Christian religion has no longer the necessary credibility and numbers to legitimize exploitation and war because it has been replaced by a new, a secular religion. The high-priests of of progressivism claim to have received a revelation by a supreme force, the force of history, how to salve humankind from the evil of capitalism.

The secular religion of progressivism (socialism, welfarism etc) is very helpful for the purpose of the EU elites since it vehemently favors the power of the state for everything. And the never ending quest for so-called "social justice" has the advantage to legitimize exploitation of the population without an end. However, the legitimization of war poses a great problem for progressivists. But it can be done. History has already witnessed wars for democracy and bombardments for Human Rights. However, the major problem for the EU power elite is that the believers of the "religion" of progressivism are declining in numbers. Demography predicts that progressivism might end up in the dustbin of history because of a relative lack of believers.

Clever rulers want to secure power by forming an alliance with the largest possible number. Demography tells the EU rulers that Islam is important for their plans of world supremacy. It is not difficult to predict which religion the EU elites will favor. In 312, when a large part of the population of the ancient Roman Empire already had become Christian, Constantine claimed to have heard a loud voice saying “With this sign [the cross] you will conquer”. Now, the EU rulers appear to be hearing a similar voice, the loud voice of demography, saying “With this sign [the crescent] you will conquer”. For conquest, the industry of Western Europe is able to produce the necessary high-tech weapons, Turkey is able to provide a sufficient number of young soldiers willing to die as cannon fodder and their women are expected to keep supplies coming. Thus the situation is sufficient clear for the elites of the EU. Therefore the power elites of the EU follow Berthold Brecht's ironic advice for the government "to dissolve the people and elect another."

What will the future hold in stock for the present citizens of the “soft power” EU?

The EU is an undemocratic monster (for details, Professor Hans H. von Arnim’s book “The European Conspiracy” ) and as such a threat to civic freedoms and peace on the Eurasian continent. The EU Empire will destroy the wealth created by its people by ever increasing taxation, regulation and money suppy (leading to inflation) to finance the expansion of its power and territory.

At present, EU soldiers (from France and Germany) are in the Republic of Congo allegedly to secure democratic elections. However, what the mass media did not mention is the fact that Congo has considerable oil reserves and that the majority of goods are imported from France ( Such a report would destroy the established story line that the US is an evil empire sending soldiers for oil and the EU the good guy, a humanitarian organization.

As history shows no empire exists forever. What might be the future of this large scale social experiment, the building of the EU Empire?

Empires have been destroyed by ouside or inside forces. In regard to outside forces, only the USA and in the future possibly China are able to militarily destroy the EU. However, such a war is not a likely event considering that all possess atomic bombs.

The most likely scenario is the desintegration of the artificial entity EU by inside forces.

The economic policy of market interventionism by Brussels will result in economic decline, increasing poverty, ethnic tensions and fighting about the distribution of the ever smaller cake and finally separation and formation of new entities and states. The development can be observed in the fate of many multicultural states. Nearly all have come apart, e.g.Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire, India, Ottoman Empire, Austria-Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Jugoslavia, and the Sowjet Union.

The outcome of the economic policy of interventionism, as applied by Brussels, has been analysed by an economist who predicted already approximately 100 years ago the break-down of the Sowjet economy: Ludwig von Mises. He employed the term "interventionism" for the so-called "social market economy", "Third-way" (between socialism and capitalism), "social justice", "welfare state" etc. and he analysed its economic effects in his book "Interventionism".

His conclusion was that "Interventionist measures … create unemployment, depression, monopoly, distress. They may make a few people richer, but they make all others poorer and less satisfied."

"If governments do not give them up and return to the unhampered market economy, if they stubbornly persist in the attempt to compensate by further interventions for the short­comings of earlier interventions, they will find eventually that they have adopted socialism."

"Furthermore, it is a tragic error to believe that democracy and freedom are compatible with interventionism or even with socialism. What people mean by democratic government, civil liberties, and personal freedom can exist only in the market economy. It is not an accident that everywhere, with the progress of interventionism, the democratic institutions have disappeared one after the other and that, in the socialist countries, oriental despotism has been able to stage a successful come­back."

"Mankind has a choice only between the unhampered market economy, democracy, and freedom on the one side, and socialism and dictatorship on the other side. A third alternative, an interventionist compromise, is not feasible."

"It is not fate that determines the future of human society, but man himself. The decay of Western civilization is not an act of God, something which cannot be averted. If it comes, it will be the result of a policy which still can be abandoned and replaced by a better policy."

10 September 2006 at 23:10  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

Thank you "Colin" for providing one of the all time great contributions to the Cranmer blog.

Clearly, such lengthy yet articulate articles will leave some readers dazed, as they feel the pain of their treasured, and stubbornly held illusions & delusions beginning to dissolve, or fall apart.

Others, will feel energized; whilst others still will feel anger and an increased determination to enact revenge.

Of course, it is inevitable, there will also be some who will look at such truths like a rabbit peering into the headlights of an approaching car. They will be quick to quote Karl Marx in their usual, morally indignant riposte fashion.

It is worth mentioning (en passant) that the street "Hoodee" fashion is only a reaction to the uncomfortable feeling of being watched in your own town or city centre by sinister forces (hundreds of cameras). You cannot blame the youngsters for seeking to protect their individual privacy in a gang-like response.

Personally, I am beginning to reach what I would consider an inevitable conclusion ... that sometime within the next 6 years, the lid is going to blow off the political pressure-cooker that is currently building. An insurrection of some kind, will have to be instigated. Violence, or the threat of violence, may (tragically) need to be part of that mix. The reason for this is that the moghuls controlling the EU project are not going to relinquish their power in response to normal, democratic mechanisms. You can deduce this from their highly arrogant response to voter rejection of the EU constitution in three separate referenda.

Those people most responsible for these destructive and arrogant policies actually deserve severe, personal punishment: the sequestration of all their assets at least, exile to the Sudan, or the same fate as Romania's Ceausescu. A life of penury would be a richly deserved fate for Peter Mandelson: co-creator of New Labour and now EU Minister for Trade.

I say destroy (withdrawal, mock, show contempt for, ignore, boycott, abstain from voting in, etc.) the European Union in Brussels and by similar means destroy the United Nations in New York.

The sovereignty of the English Parliamentary system must be restored, and our traditions cherished and upheld.

As for Islam, it is a false and phoney "religion." More accurately, it is a cult, that worships not God but its creator, the madman Mohammed. It is an obscene insult to mankind to have such a stupid yet imperious and aggressive cult used as a weapon to subjugate otherwise proud, intelligent, and inherently conservative people whose culture is second to none. Ultimately, Islam will have to be destroyed, even if this means the mass slaughter of its followers. Mecca and Medina should be bombed into rubble, to remove all traces of its icons and hoaxed origins. All Saudi-sponsored Immams should be slaughtered wherever they are found. The world will never know true peace until this is done.

The West can invade the Eastern and Central provinces of the Arabian Peninsula and take back all the oil fields it originally developed and paid for (i.e., those same oil fields our Dhimmi media routinely describe as Saudi owned). Such a process can be called "Reverse Nationalization."

The alternative to such decisive and brave action, is a rapid return to servitude and medievalism.

More of you should watch Samurai movies. They are spiritually uplifting at the best of times, but the fundamental lessons they teach are sorely needed medicine now.

Six years ago, I could never have imagined writing such uncompromising comments anywhere. But, since 2001 I have learned much about Islam, Muslims, history, and the true nature of Western political institutions. Only when the truth hits you, can you see the true path out of the maze.

11 September 2006 at 05:52  
Anonymous Rick said...

Colin, I think you should arrange baptism with Cranmer....your spelling of "Sowjet" suggests "Colin" is a name unfamiliar to you. Anyway the Mackinder Plan is especially well-known in US military circles and is the basis of many European adventurers like Hitler, Ludendorff and their antecdent Napoleon. Indeed that Napoleon enjoys a tomb in Paris whereas Hitler was interred in what became a car park, shows the different ways in which dictators are honoured - of course Stalin went to rest with Lenin until Khrushchev had him interred in concrete elsewhere.

The EU is a bit like Priandello's Six Characters - it lacks an author - and so it does what the Duke of Wellington said of Russia - "If it does not grow, it rots". The EU is therefore not so much an institution as a mindset, an Ersatz Religion in which there are Believers and Non-Believers and a whole series of rituals is created for the Cardinals (Commissars) who attend conclaves (Summits) to address theological issues as they pertain to worldly power (Directives) and it is possible to see how the world of politics has acquired all the trappings of the Roman Church.

We have politicians whose only knowledge of history is their own desired place in it as the pivot upon which all turns. They see the populace rather as the Pharaohs saw theirs - as a workforce to build pyramids.

THe trouble is when you look at TV pictures of summits and press-conferences, the inanities uttered, the reach for the handshake, the photographs, the communique, the simple question - why ? is devastating.

Politics is ritual - a series of curtain calls but no script. Europe has lost its manufacturing pre-eminenence, lost its empires, and is bereft of energy supplies. It sustains its populations only through huge state spending and taxation, and to reduce the inflationary consequences of these deficits has allowed trade deficits with China to mount............but as China moves up the pricing curve European inflation will explode and these societies will crumble just as they did interwar, and just as was threatened by internal frustration unless the war of 1914 harnessed popular anger into other channels.

Yugoslavia did not collapse until western subsidies were cut off - then each scrambled for the exit from a Serbo-Croat union which in human terms was like removing diced carrot from mixed vegetables.

The reason I do not subscribe to Cranmer's thesis on The Pope is that I see something more sophisticated which makes Anglicanism look parochial.

The Catholic Church is rentenching, cutting back, pruning to the core as harsh winds blow across the Continent to preserve the Church through the New Dark Ages to a time when despair becomes prevalent in Europe as economic decline becomes more marked and the fragmentation of the political system leads to the collapse of secular icons.

The fervent Muslims are so not through piety but through experience of failed secular institutions in their homelands - a sense of faith in the one true god rather than amoral politicial institutions................that feeling will spread to more and more Europeans if they don't first flirt with New Fascism.

To show how far this isolation from the ruling class has spread see this quotation from Tony Blair, which to my mind completely reverses the understanding of most people -

Blair to Haaretz: Western leaders see the danger of Islamic extremism, but our public still does not

By David Landau and Aluf Benn, Haaretz Correspondents..........

THe public begs to disagree

11 September 2006 at 08:47  
Blogger istanbultory said...

I agree that the ideology of European federalism has become a form of substitute religion for much of the secular majority in Western Europe. I also agree that the rise of organised, militant Islam has less to do with an upsurge in religious devotion but represents a political counter challenge to a number of failed "secular" kleptocracies in the Middle East. One could also emphasize the power of Saudi petro-dollars in spreading Wahabbi Islam which is, of course, indisputable and well-documented.

In relation to Rick's extremely valid point on the retrenchment of the Catholic Church in Europe, it was interesting to note that in his sermon yesterday in Munich, the pope criticized the German Catholic church for its reluctance to evangelize and to actively seek converts to the Catholic faith.He said that "evangelization should be foremost, the God of Jesus Christ must be known, believed in and loved, and hearts must be converted if progress is to be made on social issues and reconciliation is to begin..."

The Islamic community has, however, no hesitation in organising itself effectively in Europe. Prof. Faruk Sen, one of the leaders of the Turkish community in Germany, said at the weekend "As a society, we should start giving Islam political and social recognition. Muslims make up the second largest religious group after Christianity and they should be just as accepted in Germany as the Jewish community and be considered a component of the religious infrastructure here." In addition to receiving political, social and legal recognition, Muslim organizations should be financially supported by the government, said Sen. One of Sen's other wishes is the integration of Islam in schools' religion curriculum. Apparently, the construction of a mosque in Duisburg is being sponsored in part by the state of North Rhine-Westphalia. Although there's not a single state in the Islamic world that would ever extend the same kind of support to a Christian community.

On the one hand, we have the apparent desire of the Pope to
be more pro-active in seeking out more converts. On the other hand, we are faced with a concerted push by Muslims across Europe to gain access to state funding,official recognition and a say in the religious education of all children in state schools. And the Church of England is fixated on peripheral issues such as gay Bishops and "accommodating" various factions....

11 September 2006 at 14:08  
Anonymous Rick said...

Good points ! I should be surprised if Ruettgers will fund a mosque - the CDU toppled the SPD fiefdom in NRW. As aside - the British drew up two states in postwar Germany (Labour Govt) designed to guarantee SPD control in perpetuity - those states were NRW and Niedersachsen - both now CDU after decades of corruption and Vettenwirtschaft.

The real problem in Germany is Kirchensteuer. Once Bismarck stole the Church lands and guaranteed a share of income tax revenue the churches were creatures of The State and did not need to evangelise so long as tax revenues were rising

11 September 2006 at 15:38  
Anonymous Rick said...

Aber weil der Stadtteil sozialer Brennpunkt mit "besonderem Erneuerungsbedarf" ist, finanziert hier auch der Staat mit: Über drei Millionen Euro aus EU- und Landesmitteln fließen nicht in die Moschee, sondern in ein ihr angeschlossenes interkulturelles Begegnungszentrum.

The old trick...the EU and German public funds do not flow into The Mosque but into the attached Intercultural Institute - exactly as in the one in Tower Hamlets

11 September 2006 at 15:44  
Anonymous Lena Mouse said...

Sorry for my absence. You seem to have so much time for blogging, I have to wonder if you have families!

This is a bit beyond me, and I'm not sure where Cranmer is coming from, and you all seem to know far more than I do. A woman's perspective might discourage a tendency to believe this issue is so clear cut. Germany has EU plans, France has them, the UK has them. None of these has to 'win'. The EU may end up being a mixture of all political and cultural histories, and thus something new altogether. Whatever, I certainly want my children to grow up in a Europe free of the conflicts that have bedevilled this continent for centuries, and if that means we have to give and take, so be it.

11 September 2006 at 20:42  
Blogger istanbultory said...

I too want "my children to grow up in a Europe free of the conflicts that have bedevilled this continent for centuries", but not at the price of surrendering to a Franco-German diktat that leads inexorably to a federal Europe. The EU constitution continues to rear its ugly head...
and is likely to be revived (in whatever form) in 2007 with a deadline for ratification by the end of 2008. That alone should be cause for concern.

As for voluminous blogging, I don't watch tv and my better half is used to my various foibles by now...

11 September 2006 at 21:26  
Anonymous Rick said...

THere are many people in Europe who see the EU as protection from their own govt. A company can be formed in Britain for £20 inside an hour - EU Courts forced Germany to allow Germans to incorporate with Ltd companies rather than spend £8000 and wait months to form a GmbH. A friend tells me a local businessman in his are of Germany flies the Union Flag in gratitude.

So for many people their own nation constricts them and they look at the EU as a counterweight
to their own controlling govt.

It is worth remembering that Italians see the EU as upgrading their govt, Germans see it as constraining is hard for people in Britain to understand why some people see it as checks and balances because British society is very different from that on the Continent where State Power has traditionally been more controlling

11 September 2006 at 22:42  
Anonymous Colin said...

Thank you mission impossible, rick and gc for putting up with my lengthy comment about the politician's plans for building an EU Empire. And thank you for many helpful comments and explanations.

@ lena mouse,

"I certainly want my children to grow up in a Europe free of the conflicts that have bedevilled this continent for centuries, and if that means we have to give and take, so be it."

It's a kind and honorable point of view. The problem is that human behavior is governed by certain laws of nature which cannot be changed at will. The most important law in regard to politics, freedom and peace is the well known fact that power corrupts. "Power makes evil" said Hermann Goering from his own observations.

Hence, if you want your children to live in freedom and peace you ought to take care that power is limited.

"conflicts that have bedevilled this continent for centuries" because of unlimited power by the absolutism of French kings, by Robespierre, by Napoleon's dictatorship, by the Russian czar, by the German Emperor, by Mussolini, by Hitler, and in the future by an EU dictatorship.

"None of these has to 'win'."

The EU is not about one country winning and another losing. The citizens of all EU countries will lose because the EU commission is an unelected powerful institution, a post-democratic government.

"Germany has EU plans, France has them, the UK has them."

Persons have plans and talk about it. Countries don't talk and thus cannot have plans. German, French and British politicians have EU plans. The majority of the people in Germany, France, the UK and the other countries are against the EU plans of their politicians. Democracy is defined as the rule of the people. Who is the ruler, who has the power, if politicians don't carry out the plans of the people but their own ? It is an oligarchy, the rule of few. Democracy is the label, oligarchy the content.

The politicians claim that their EU project is about bringing peace to Europe.

Rulers always claim that they work hard to protect the people, that they will bring prosperity and peace. No politicians ever said that he would bring war. Do they tell the truth ? Just look at history, an endless record of wars started by people in power.

"Power always involves lying, theft, oppression, and betrayal. Governance requires to dupe humans. The world of governance is a world of oppression." (Grand Ayatollah al-Udhma Yousof al-Sane’i)

"The EU may end up being a mixture of all political and cultural histories and thus something new altogether."

The French revolutionaries also claimed to bring something new: « Liberté, Egalité et Fraternité ». And what was the result? New forms of dictatorship, mass killings of French citizens, nationalism, and two centuries of wars.

Lenin claimed to bring something new. The result was mass killings of its citizens, socialism, poverty and a century of wars.

Hitler claimed to bring something new. The result was national socialism, mass killings of Jewish citizens, and world war II. Thank God, the British saved us from this novelty.

Mao claimed to bring something new. The result was poverty, mass starvation, and a war against Chinese citizens termed cultural revolution.

Grand Ayatollah Khomeini claimed to bring something new.

And now the EU politicians claim to bring something new. The result will be ....

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." (George Santayana)

"so be it"

Distilling centuries of experience, the Romanian peasants had a characteristically pithy proverb "A change of rulers is the joy of fools."

In my humble point of view, only the British people are able to once again save Europe. This time by demanding a referendum. See Frederick Forsyth address to the Bruges group:

All Europeans with the exception of Germans have the right to hold a referendum. Despite the fact the rulers of Germany and not its citizens started two world wars, contemporary rulers in Germany claim to act like good parents to protect their immature children from making mistakes because they know what is best for them.

Best wishes from Germany for a British referendum.

“The history of civilization is the record of a ceaseless struggle for liberty.” (Ludwig von Mises)

12 September 2006 at 01:25  
Blogger istanbultory said...

Colin stated that "In my humble point of view, only the British people are able to once again save Europe. This time by demanding a referendum..."

Neither the French or Dutch governments will be submitting "European Constitution mark 2" to their respective electorates having learned the intrinsic danger of letting the people express their will as in the 2005 referendums. The next British prime Minister (most likely Gordon Brown but this is no longer the certainty it once was) will almost certainly not want to opt for a referendum as it would overshadow the first year or two of a government that is, in any case, most likely to be divided internally and unpopular in the country at large. No matter what form of constitutional text is on offer, it would be overwhelmingly rejected in Britain. Poland, the leader of the 2004 EU entrants, has also stated that it will not submit the current constitution to parliament for ratification or hold a referendum. The Poles plan to submit their own proposals in early 2007. Germany will propose
keeping the text intact, but attaching a declaration on the "social dimension of Europe" to address some of the concerns that led to the rejection of the constitution in France. Finnish Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen said on 9 March 2006 that he would work with other European leaders on a new text, but that it would be very close to the existing one. This, he said, was "a result from many, many compromises, and I'm quite sure that whenever we find the final conclusion, it will be strongly based on the text we now have". All in all, we should expect a cherry picking exercise followed by an intergovernmental conference to cobble together a condensed version of the existing treaties plus parts of the existing constitutional text. Denmark, Sweden, the UK, Poland and perhaps the Czech Republic will negotiate and secure sufficient opt-outs from certain less desirable parts of the newly-formulated text as to allow the avoidance of referendums or ensure easier parliamentary ratification....

The new treaty text will almost certainly extend centralisation. There will be more joint action to be decided by majority voting, in immigration and asylum policy for example.The EU will have a president and a foreign minister.

Thats what the EU leaders will collectively agree to and impose on the member states. We simply won't be asked to express an opinion.....

12 September 2006 at 05:37  
Anonymous Rick said...

Whatever happens elsewhere Ireland is consitutionally obliged to hold a referendum

12 September 2006 at 06:42  
Blogger istanbultory said...

An Irish No might save the day but…
The Irish were pressured and cajoled into holding a second referendum on the Treaty of Nice after the shock of the 2001 Nice Referendum result – a rejection of the Treaty by a margin of 54 to 36 per cent.

The second Irish referendum on the Nice Treaty, held on 19 October 2002, represented a return to ‘normal’ Irish voting patterns on EU issues. Nice Mark II saw the Treaty ratified by a margin of 63 to 37 per cent. Crucially, turnout increased by about one third, from 35 to 49 per cent. In the interim between the two referendums, the Irish gov. tackled some of the key concerns of voters who had either stayed away or voted against the Treaty in the first poll. Especially on the Irish position of military neutrality in the future European security and defence architecture. In the second referendum, government ministers and all the political parties and several key civil society organisations sang from the same Pro-Nice hymn sheet as did Irish state tv. As recently as June 2006 “The European Constitution is essential for the future success of the enlarged EU” the Irish PM commented. The rest of the Irish political elite agrees. This country will forge ahead on the strength of the European Union… There is no other way for us, no alternative”, concluded Mr Ahern. Quite so. Overall attitudes to the European Union are favourable in Ireland, with nine out of ten people believing Ireland has benefited from its EU membership. The majority of opinion polls in Ireland show that just over half of Irish respondents are ‘for’ developments towards political union.
Opinion polls in Ireland show that support for the European Constitution in Ireland was at about 58% in December 2005- i.e, 6 months after the French and Dutch rejections!!!!!

In short, a No vote in Ireland (which is far from likely) would automatically result in a second referendum in which the Irish would be systematically intimidated into producing the “correct” result.

12 September 2006 at 08:47  
Blogger istanbultory said...

Venerable Cranmer!!!!

European Catholic bishops have commissioned a high-profile group of experts (all of whom are Catholic) to draft a report on the EU's common values. They are motivated by a desire to get a reference to “God” into the soon-to-be-revived European constitution. Apparently, Frau Merkel has had some role in this latest initiative.
“Catholic high-level group could fuel EU 'God' debate” (12/9/2006)

12 September 2006 at 09:54  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

The chaplain of a Church of England bishop has compared the Islamist subway bombers in London last year to Old Testament heroes, Christian crusaders and even the angry Jesus in the Temple.

Canon Philip Gray claimed that the July 7, 2005 London subway bombers shared the same "religious passion" as the Christian crusaders of the Middle Ages. "Behind modern fanatical Islamic terrorism lie many spiritual and religious passions and narratives also found in the Christian tradition." he wrote recently in his diocesan newspaper.

Gray’s article was to commemorate the fifth anniversary of the 9-11 attacks on the U.S. The 39 year old priest is the chaplain to Bishop of Blackburn, Nicholas Reade.

Blackburn is of course the north English town with a substantial Muslim population (that has already rioted) and has the feeble, Dhimmi MP, Jack Straw for a parliamentary representative.

Whilst referring to London's Islamist bombers Chaplain Gray said Christians, like Muslims, "rejoice over the deaths of martyrs."

These dubious musings by an English priest are, unfortunately, not unusual among leftist Western religionists. Such prelates, uncertain and sometimes even ashamed about the doctrines of their own professed faith, are reluctant to identify objective evil, and even more reluctant to criticize non-Western cultures or religions. They strain to find parallels between perceived Western or Christian failings and the enormities of anti-Western and anti-Christian movements.

For many leftist prelates, Western Civilization and Christianity are everlastingly the oppressors. All others are permanently the oppressed victims, whose flaws can only be understood as understandable reactions to Western/Christian crimes.

Gray concluded: “We need to consider the same religious passion and spiritual single mindedness lies at the heart of a London bomber and a Christian crusader."

“If we as Christians believe we have some comment to make about a response to terrorism, then we must do so with something approaching reality, not just grand statements from the top of ivory towers,” Gray wrote in his original diocesan article.

As remedies for religious extremism, Gray suggested “inter-faith work,” “community building” and “clear moral teaching, particularly within the armed forces.” He was of course referring to the British military, whose religious zealotry and mindless violence are apparently more of a threat than that of Islamic radicals. Of course, Gray did not mention any innate problems with political Islam and its inability, unlike Judaism and Christianity, to acknowledge the rights and dignity of non-believers.

The Church of England declined to defend Gray’s comments, pointing out that he spoke only for himself. But a self-professed “radical” religious think tank in Britain called Ekklesia defended Gray for having “raised important issues.”

"Those who read the article that Philip Gray has written will see that he is not providing any justification whatsoever for the 7/7 attacks,” insisted Jonathan Bartley, head of Ekklesia. “Rather he is pointing to the violence within the Christian tradition which many would like to forget, explain away, or abdicate responsibility for.

Bartley continued: "If Christians are to speak meaningfully about terror, as Gray has highlighted, they will need to face up to the violence contained within their own scriptures and indeed some manifestations of Christianity today."

In the parlance of some on the theological left, all “violence” is equal. Hence, Jesus’ rout of the money changers out of the Temple belong to the same moral category as Islamic zealots blowing up packed commuter trains. Samson’s pulling down the pillars of the pagan temple to which he was chained by his captors is also “suicidal terrorism.”

Geopolitically, the theological left cannot morally distinguish between Islamist terror strikes and Western defense measures. Never mind that one side deliberately targets civilians, while the other tries to avoid them, or that one side rejoices in death, while the other laments it. And never mind that one side seeks to impose a theocratic police, while the other side is defending pluralistic democracy with rights for all.

The theological left, consumed by disdain for its own faith traditions, is blind to the crimes of other faith traditions. Rejecting Christianity’s and Judaism’s belief in universal sin, Western leftist prelates prefer to target Christianity and Judaism as uniquely sinful.

Like the secular left, the theological left is inclined towards self-hatred, and its ideologies often espouse a cultural death wish. The death of the West is of course a goal to which radical Islamists are gladly lending a hand, hence the often odd if furtive philosophical agreement that occurs between Western leftists and Islamic theocrats.

Original article by: Mark D. Tooley, who directs the United Methodist committee at the Institute on Religion and Democracy


12 September 2006 at 10:05  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Catholic high-level group could fuel EU 'God' debate

Mr GC,

Thank you for this 'red alert'.

His Grace is very interested in this unsurprising development, and will be posting on it after rumination.

12 September 2006 at 11:00  
Anonymous Rick said...

By Dr. Irene Lancaster

Dear Friends

Although I am now in Israel, I am still following events in England with increasing disbelief. An example is this item of news which has just been sent to me.

May I point out that Biblical figures from the Hebrew Bible (i.e. the Old Testament) do not play the same role in Jewish thought as do Jesus and the disciples for Christians. Jewish Biblical characters are deliberately portrayed as flawed like any other human being. Moses is not Jesus and neither is he Mohammad.

It is therefore sick in the extreme to take Samson as a prototype of correct Jewish behaviour. Even the actions of suicide at Masada were frowned on by the rabbis of the Talmud. Jews believe passionately in life, which is something our enemies understand very well. Samson is regarded as very flawed - a sad figure - especially as he allowed himself to be taken in by a woman. This has the ring of truth about it. There are, however, no sermons given in synagogues in which Samson's behaviour is ever justified.

As for the Red Sea episode, it is absolutely untrue that we sing songs of triumph at Passover. On the contrary, we say half Hallel, i.e. we are partly glad that we escaped death from the Egyptians who were going to murder us, but half of us also grieves for the loss of Egyptian life at the time. How many other ancient middle eastern peoples grieved for their enemies in this way?

I do wish that Christians would stop taking our Bible literally. This is not how we take it ourselves. For a start, the Bible does not tell us much about how to keep festivals and doesn't even mention Purim and Chanukah. Moreover, the more Orthodox read the Bible through the light of the Talmud, which is in Aramaic, and very difficult.

I am not at all surprised that this Canon is based in Blackburn, near Clitheroe, where I myself was barracked before leaving for Israel, when I pointed out mistakes in a lecture given in the Church Hall on the history of Israel, sponsored by the local strategic partnership in cahoots with the local Muslim group. Seriously scary. I was accused by the three males involved of harassing the speaker and worse, no-one came to my support.


On the eve of the visit of the Chief Rabbis of Israel to Lambeth Palace, may I respectfully suggest that there be some impetus towards teaching Judaism through Jewish eyes in Anglican seminaries and elsewhere. Because the ignorance of this Canon is truly shocking and his misrepresentations will only encourage anti-Semitism among Muslims and others.

Best wishes


Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA
Trustee: Foundation for Reconciliation in the Middle East

Virtueonline Blog

12 September 2006 at 12:54  
Blogger istanbultory said...

Yes, I thought His Grace might exercise an interest in the activities of the group of experts working on a statement of common values for the European Const. (redux) appointed by the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Community. It was this same Bishops' Commission which declared thus before the last European Parliamentary Elections in June 2004:

'...At stake in these European elections therefore are fundamental values. Only by voting in these elections will Catholics be able to help realise the dream of Pope John Paul II of a European
Union, “of men and women committed to bearing the fruit of these values, putting themselves at
the service of all for the sake of a Europe of the human person, in which the face of God is

From an "An opportunity to
make our values real"-
COMECE Statement in view of the Elections to the European Parliament on 10-13 June 2004

12 September 2006 at 16:13  
Anonymous agatha said...

why does EU always come up. its one of the moost boring topics ever. i think its all rubbish. admittedly im real thick but i dont actually get his story wats about. german pope wants close union with eastern countries. so wat he explorin the rest of the world.

12 September 2006 at 21:11  
Anonymous Colin said...

@ agatha

A life in freedom, prosperity and peace might be boring. That's true.

However, a life lacking these essential ingredients of happiness is not boring. It mostly is a life of misery.

People living in oppressive states are able to tell you. And that's the reason whey they emigrate from these countries to Europe. Have we already forgotten all the misery which dictorships brought to Europe in the past?

Is is boring to be worried that this might happen again. Should we substitute boring discussions about the dangers of the future for gossip about the private lives of the royals, celebrities, and the lastest fashion ?

12 September 2006 at 21:43  
Anonymous Lena Mouse said...

Agatha, I sympathise, and I have to watch my words before every syllable is forensically dissected again by Colin. I like this blog, but the issues are complex and I don't undersatand them all. I'm a Christian, care about politics, but just don't see what you all see. If the Pope and Germany are trying to dominate the EU, I'm sure the French and British simply won't let them. They don't make the rules; we all have to agree; we don't live in an unaccountable dictatorship.

Freedom, prosperity and peace is what we've had for the last 50 years, and the EU has played a role in that. It may not be the cause of peace and prosperity, but it has contributed to it. At least combining steel and coal forced the two great warring nations to cease their conflicts. As Churchill said, 'Jaw jaw is better than war war'. Treaties we can cope with; bombs we cannot.

12 September 2006 at 22:06  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

lena mouse, you state: It [the EU] may not be the cause of peace and prosperity, but it has contributed to it.

So I ask, in what way has the EU contributed to the maintenance of peace? Can you provide any evidence?

In any case, there has never been any danger of military conflict between any European states (except for the Balkans, and the EU contributed to that) since 1945. The claim that the EU will guarantee peace for Europeans is false, and simply an instrument of socialist collectivist propaganda. One cannot prove the claim, so if that is so, which it is, then the claim itself is specious.

I think you are confusing the EU with NATO, don't you agree?

Yes, indeed, the issues are complex; too complex for 18 year olds to understand and vote on. Which is why we shall have to revisit the voting ages for both sexes.

All the evidence points to the unequivocal fact, young women understand these complex issues even less than young men. So, strict equality between the sexes will have to be looked at again. There are good reasons why women were denied the franchise for centuries.

The Representation of the People Act was passed by the House of Commons in June 1917 and by the House of Lords in February 1918. Under this act, all women aged 30 or over received the complete franchise. I would be in favour of restoring that arrangement, as these days, immaturity and frivolity amongst twenty-something British women is rampant.

An act to enable women to sit in the House of Commons was enacted shortly afterward.

It was not until 1928 that the voting age for women was lowered to 21 to place women voters on an equal footing with male voters. This was done at a time when the scourge of socialism was at its height, when Britain's empire was beginning to unravel, and when we were still suffering from 658,700 confirmed dead young males from the First World War (plus 359,150 more young males who went missing in battle - in other words bodies blown to smithereens or buried deep in the mud, or lost at sea never to be found). Considering the population at that time, these figures represent nearly a whole generation of young males lost / destroyed. The psychological impact is incalculable.

The experiences of that war led to a sort of collective national trauma afterwards for all the participating countries. The optimism of the early 1900s had evaporated and those who fought in the war became what is known as “the Lost Generation” because they never fully recovered from their experiences.

That is why you (women) got equal franchise. Meaning ... it was a decision, made in error, when the nation was in a state of weakness or semi-paralysis.

Perhaps not you, as an individual (even though by your own admission, you cannot follow complex issues) but certainly most of your contemporaries have been an utter disgrace since, and the sooner the franchise is taken away from women under 30 (i.e., until they have grown up and learned to handle complexity with objectivity) the better for Western Civilization.

13 September 2006 at 05:50  
Blogger istanbultory said...

Lena mouse, the principles of openess, accountability and transparency are at the heart of democratic government. The EU practices none of these principles. And yet 70% of laws passed by the UK parliament are now EU laws. Take for example the issue of immigration and asylum.

Over the years, the co-operation of Member States in the fields of migration policy led to unaccountable, executive policy-making -one of informal, intergovernmental cooperation, conducted through working groups and committees designed to exclude scrutiny by the European Parliament but more importantly control by national parliaments.

Thus the important Dublin Convention (1990) on asylum applications was a product merely of the “Schengen group” of national representatives, while the Schengen agreement on open borders was drafted by working groups and input into the text of the rules from national parliaments was almost entirely lacking. Yet these texts were later to form the basis of EU migration policy . The Justice and Home Affairs agenda has a tendency to grow invisibly –think of EUROPOL or the European arrest warrant- over which there is little control from any parliament in the EU.

The result of this very unaccountable system of policy-making over migration?
The Amsterdam Treaty of 1997 handed complete control of our immigration to the EU. The EU controls it, not the UK Home or Foreign secretary, and they have no power, no options but to do as EU policy dictates, and accept it.

13 September 2006 at 06:15  
Anonymous Rick said...

At least combining steel and coal forced the two great warring nations to cease their conflicts.

Sorry Lena but that had nothing to do with it at all. France had always wanted German coal and steel especially in Saarland and had annexed them in 1919 which is why The League of Nations demanded a referendum when they voted overwhelmingly to return to Germany.

The fact is Germany lost 12% population in war - imagine if Britain lost 7.5 million dead. The country was divided and occupied by the Soviets in the east and nuclear weapons were pointed from both sides in your direction.

Defeat is what stopped militarisation in Germany - talk to families whose POWs did not return until 1955 or how 250.000 men were fighting at Stalingrad and just 5000 survived.

The EU was Germany defeated doing what France wanted as Britain stood aside and let France dictate postwar terms - just as in 1919.

13 September 2006 at 07:26  
Anonymous lena mouse said...

I'm a bit dumbfounded by Mission Impossible's sexist comments. Cranmer's blog is not just for men, and neither is political understanding.

Elizabeth I? Victoria? Margaret Thatcher?

You may have a very low opinion of the female intellect, but history proves that whenever England/Britain has had a female leader, they put the men into the shadows.

13 September 2006 at 09:43  
Blogger istanbultory said...

Yes, I think Mr. Mission Impossible was a little intemperate there.

As far as I am aware, His Grace permits contributions from whoever provided that such contributions are learned obscenity-free.

Suffice to say that we should confine our thoughts to the issue at hand and avoid wandering into a lengthy digression.

13 September 2006 at 10:13  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr GC,

Indeed, thank you. Mr Mission Impossible may hold views which others find unpalatable, but his erudition and intelligence are welcome.

His Grace certainly accords with the requirement to keep threads on topic.

13 September 2006 at 10:54  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

lena mouse ... you are making a pre-conditioned response. I beg to differ. Let's face it, anything that women find disagreeable in men's opinions these days is termed sexist.

You write: but history proves that whenever England/Britain has had a female leader, they put the men into the shadows. I put this to you ... is that not (very) sexist?

Of course it is. It is also foolish. What I said was not foolish. It can be backed up by various surveys and a study of modern history.

Quite frankly, you appear to have a habit of commencing your posts with some kind of "woman knows best" preface. You are not alone. This is how 80% of Anglo-Saxon women think (or have been conditioned to think). Perhaps this constitutes another good reason to remove young women from direct political input, because this kind of silly distraction cannot be allowed to continue. The stakes have become too high. When you reach 30 years of age, then you can consider yourself ready to vote because you should be experienced enough, and far less narcissistic than your younger contemporaries.


Take absolutely no notice of gc.

He is an obsessive soft-fruit, and a boyish troublemaker. His 10:13AM post was completely unnecessary and reveals his true nature.

He constantly engages in syrupy charm offenses to garner sympathy for his underhand behaviour. Recently, he has made around five direct appeals to Cranmer, trying to drag the Blog owner over to his way of thinking. People who come to Blogs in order to create little gangs need psychiatric therapy.

Unless 'gc' would like to begin deleting some of his past posts, then I may yet be tempted to present a summary of exactly what I mean, as Exhibit 'A'

Despite promising twice, to refrain from hostile comments in this Blog, he continuously abuses his privileges whilst seeking to fan the flames of anymosity with someone he dislikes.

The simple fact is, I don't post worrying if my comments may be considered intemperate by dishonourable little men.


So lena mouse, you may be "dumbfounded," but that is because you have probably lived a life where men have metaphorically bowed and scraped in front of you, in awe of your infinite "wisdom" and (ill-formed) opinions; simply because you are a female. Britain has more than its fair share of such emotional casualties. And yes, we all know how wonderful and special English women are.

The only disdain I have towards the female intellect is when women try to be what they are palpably not ... men. This tendency is a peculiarly English phenomenon. I have travelled to both India and China, so I have already seen many viable alternatives.

And of course, I never stated that this blog is just for men. That is just your immaturity coming through; throwing unfounded accusations here and there just because a few of your illusions have been held up for what they are.

Regarding Queen Victoria, she was hardly a great leader. You have the illusion of her 'greatness' simply because she sat on the British throne at the height of its imperial powers. Perhaps you should study your history more?

If you decide to reply directly, please try to use facts and evidence, and not attibute to me things I have not said or written. Thank you.

PS: Cranmer. The objective of keeping posts on topic is most desirable. The issue of the female franchise is related to the marked tendency (proven by survey) for females to "group-think", to accept totalitarian impulses placed upon them meekly, and to generally lean far more than males towards socialism and welfarism. This has pertinence for the growth and administration of the EU. Some of the worst (dogmatic & incompetent) ministers to be found in Europe (both Brussels and individual countries within it) have been women.

13 September 2006 at 11:25  
Anonymous Rick said...

Lena Mouse

I'm a bit dumbfounded by Mission Impossible's sexist comments. Cranmer's blog is not just for men, and neither is political understanding.

Don't be dumbfounded - just read the speech of Elizabeth I to the departing troops at Tilbury and take it to heart !

13 September 2006 at 11:31  
Blogger istanbultory said...

1. One of the great failures of the conventional media in western Europe has been its failure to monitor the Vatican's diplomatic activities with sufficient scrutiny. Before what was imagined to be the final ratification of the European Constitution, the Vatican was busy quickly negotiating concordats all over Europe. Since the Vatican purports to have the legal status of a country, these agreements are classifiable as international treaties. Why the frenetic diplomacy?
The Church, of course, aimed to codify its privileges quickly, so that they could not then be challenged under European law.
Article 52 of the (deceased?)European Constitution says that the European Union will respect "the various forms of relationships between the Churches and the States".

As a result of the Vatican's diplomatic push, 15 member states of the 25 EU members now have concordats with the Vatican.

The importance of the Catholic
Bishops' establishment of an experts group on the drawing up of a document of "Common European Values" should not be ignored. The Vatican never leaves anything to chance and is particularly adept at getting its way in the opaque world of "behind closed doors" decision-making so common to the EU institutions.

2. Interesting to note that the Catholic Church in Scotland has been issuing threats to the Labour Party again. "The Scotsman" reports today that Labour should no longer take the Catholic vote for granted. Bishop Philip Tartaglia, of Paisley,warned, Catholic support for Labour was "clearly waning" and claimed Labour politicians were "running roughshod" over core values such as the family while supporting homosexual marriage. They'll be suggesting a Concordat next...

'Catholic vote at risk, bishop tells Labour'

13 September 2006 at 12:36  
Blogger Croydonian said...

As ever, much excellent comment to chew over, and worthy of rumination before diving in to the core issue.

However, if His Grace will permit me to post on the ancillary topic that has arisen, one might note that a male only electorate would have delivered Socialist governments in every UK election from 1945 to 1983 (if memory serves) presuming, naturally, that previous results did not then modify subsequent voting behaviour. I have not, as yet, been able to lay hands on the documentary evidence.

Furthermore, whatever MI's misgivings about the attitudes and behaviour of young women, I would think that much the same charges of possible lack of understanding and so forth could be levelled at young men. A further problem would be the ethical issue presented by the taxation of those not allowed to vote.

13 September 2006 at 13:00  
Anonymous Colin said...

Dear Lena mouse and Agatha,

Thank you for taking the time to discuss our comments. Please forgive me for trying to dissect your comment. It was not my intention to hurt your feelings.

The question of trusting our politicians seems to be the main point of differences between our views.

The gentlemen on the blogs including myself argue that politicians cannot be trusted and they cite evidence from history and legislation which appears to make the discussion more complex than necessary.

On the other hand, the two ladies on this blog, Agatha and Lena Mouse, find this complexity boring. They seem to say, we live in a nice country, I trust our leaders.

In our personal lifes, we know from our own first hand experience and from the gossip of friends and colleagues whom we may trust and whom we cannot. We would not buy a used car from a person we do not trust. The feeling of trust has the purpose to protect us by guiding our decisions.

Decisions much more important than buying a used car, some of the most important decisions for our well-being and happiness, are made by our politicians (e.g. taxes, education, health care, economy, jobs, public transportation, laws, policing, immigration, etc.). We do not know these politicians from personal experience but only from their fabricated public image.

Thus it all comes down to the question, should we trust people we do not know to make the right decisions for us in our best interest. In analogy to buying a second-hand car, should we give the full power of attorney to a dealer of second-hand cars, who we do not know personally, because he tells us not to worry, because he claims that he will do his very best for us? We don't trust him sufficiently to take such a risk.

However, the risk for the well-being of our life is much smaller by buying a used car than by trusting the people in power to act more in our than in their own interest.

In regard to the car dealer, since we do not simply trust his propaganda, we do not give him the full power of attorney to our bank account. Moreover, we do not find it boring to read about experiences previous customers had with this dealer and the car we want to buy.

In regard to politics, much more is in danger than buying the wrong car. If we do not give full power of attorney to a car dealer, why should we carelessly trust our prosperity, our freedom and our happiness to politicians and give them more and more power over us?

Humans are not angels. Give a human being power over other humans and there is a good chance that he or she will abuse the power. You can observe it everywhere, in families (e.g. beating of women and children by physically stronger men), in schools (called bullying), in companies (called mobbing), by civil servants of the government (called bureaucracy), by the EU in Brussels (called regulations), by states (called war).

If you do not mind that your children might become cannon fodder for the planned EU military, then you have a good reason to feel bored by this kind discussion about the dangers of an EU Empire.

If you do not mind that your real income and that of your family is likely to decline as a result of the regulatory network and the money printing of the EU, then you should feel bored by discussions of the impact of the EU on your life.

If you do not mind that your country might be torn apart by a civil war (as in Yugoslavia or Lebanon due to population changes) because of the immigration policy of the EU and the differential fertility of some immigrant groups, then you have a good reason to feel bored by this discussion.

If you do not mind that you or your daugther might - in the not too distant future - have to submit to the laws of sharia or be forced to walk around in a burka, then you have an excellent reason to feel bored about the dangers of the nascent EU Empire. After all burkas can be quite fashionable.

However, if you care for your well-being and that of your family, you might want to consider the experience of past generations with large and powerful states as compared to smaller and less powerful states.

I am sorry but I cannot express it any better than the American philosopher's Albert J. Nock in his summary of historical experience until 1939. Before buying a used care, you would certainly ask others of their past experience with a car dealer. Similarily, before buying the argument, that a large and powerful EU state is good for you, let us ask Albert Nock to tell us about the past experience of humans with state dealers. Here is what he said:

"The weaker the State is, the less power it has to commit crime. Where in Europe today does the State have the best criminal record? Where it is weakest: in Switzerland, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, Sweden, Monaco, Andorra. Yet when the Dutch State, for instance, was strong, its criminality was appalling; in Java it massacred 9000 persons in one morning ... It would not do the like today, for it could not; the Dutch people do not give it that much power, and would not stand for such conduct. When the Swedish State was a great empire, its record, say from 1660 to 1670, was fearful. What does all this mean but that if you do not want the State to act like a criminal, you must disarm it as you would a criminal; you must keep it weak. The State will always be criminal in proportion to its strength; a weak State will always be as criminal as it can be, or dare be, but if it is kept down to the proper limit of weakness--which, by the way, is a vast deal lower limit than people are led to believe--its criminality may be safely got on with.

So it strikes me that instead of sweating blood over the iniquity of foreign States, my fellow-citizens would do a great deal better by themselves to make sure that the American State [or for our purpose the EU]is not strong enough to carry out the like iniquities here. The stronger the American State [or the EU for us] is allowed to grow, the higher its record of criminality will grow, according to its opportunities and temptations. If, then, instead of devoting energy, time, and money to warding off wholly imaginary and fanciful dangers from criminals thousands of miles away, our people turn their patriotic fervor loose on the only source from which danger can proceed, they will be doing their full duty by their country. "


Thus, the main question is who you should trust more: Personal and historical experiences or propaganda (whether by car dealers politicians)?

Psychological research has revealed that ladies are enjoy extensive gossiping about the behavior and character of men as lovers, partners and husbands and about relationships of and with other women. Why?

Evolutionary psychology tells us that it is a proven method to find out whom to trust. Such information is important for the well-being of women and their children.

On the other hand, men like to talk about hierarchy, power games and women. Why?

Because knowledge of power games alerts them to dangers or chances for their place in the hierarchy. And their position is essential for their chances of being selected by women as partner for reproduction.

Therefore the gentlemen on this block find it interesting to talk about EU politics (i.e power games of the EU hierarchy) whereas the ladies feel bored by such topics and ask for a break. Women are more interested by personal life stories.

Begging for forgiveness to the ladies and to His Grace about my lengthy, theoretical and boring discussions, I would like to compensate you by mentioning the religious and sinful life of Frau Merkel which might be relevant to her role in the Catholic Bishops’ Conferences of the European Community.

"Her father, Horst Kasner, is a Lutheran clergyman who in 1954, the year she was born, moved from Hamburg in West Germany to a village amid the lakes and forests of Brandenburg in East Germany. Mr Kasner swam against the tide of people fleeing from East to West. It was an extraordinary step for an educated West German to decide to bury himself in the depths of East Germany, but he said the village needed a pastor.

There was certainly no financial inducement to move: as Mrs Merkel has recalled: "My father had to learn how to milk goats, and my mother was shown by an old lady how to make spinach from stinging nettles. The means of transport were a strange moped and a bicycle." The move east was in some ways especially hard on her mother, a teacher of Latin and English whom the Communists debarred, as the wife of a clergyman, from practising her profession."

" Mrs Merkel has no children, so she has never faced the often overwhelming pressure on German mothers to be at home for their children when the school day ends at lunchtime. She has been married since 1998 to Professor Joachim Sauer, a distinguished scientist whom she met many years ago when studying physics in East Germany. Both of them had been married before, and they lived together for years before getting married.

The seemingly relaxed way in which she lived in sin was an affront to West Germany's Christian Democratic Union, which she joined after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. The CDU is a predominantly Roman Catholic party which believes in upholding the outward forms of traditional morality, and it kept on telling her to get married.

In 1993, Cardinal Joachim Meisner of Cologne observed in a disapproving tone that "apparently there is in the present government a woman minister of Christian background who lives outside marriage". This was a reference to Mrs Merkel."


I hope this story is more enjoyable for the ladies on this block so that I might be forgiven for having been boring in the past.

13 September 2006 at 13:01  
Blogger istanbultory said...

Not boring at all. I hadn't know that the Roman Catholic church took such a disapproving view of Mrs Merkel in earlier years. I knew that she was a divorcé. Merkel was, of course, her first huband's surname. It's always struck that me that Merkel is about as atypical of the typical CDU member as Blair is of the Labour Party. Blair, of course, is is a privately-educated, Oxbridge graduate and a barrister who comes from an upper-middle class, Conservative supporting family.He has only briefly been a socialist, occasionally a social democrat and governed largely as a European style Christain Democrat. He also claims to be Anglican when he isn't...

13 September 2006 at 13:22  
Anonymous Rick said...

I hope this story is more enjoyable for the ladies on this block so that I might be forgiven for having been boring in the past.

Oh I don;t know.......Edmund Stoiber as CSU candidate who completely botched things against Schroeder selected as Family Minister designate a young lady with family - Katherina Reiche - who was not in fact married to the man she lived with and expressed no intention of doing so

13 September 2006 at 13:24  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

Croydonian ... please do some research! There is ample evidence (analysis) that both New Labour (twice) and Clinton's New Democrats (twice) would not have won handsome majorities had the female vote not been so disproportionately in favour. The bias is 7% or more.

I note you have not yet found any documentary evidence for your counter-statement. But, if you ever can provide a gender breakdown of those earlier elections you refer to, or links to the same, then I'd be interested. You can e-mail me via my nom-de-plume.

You wrote ... I would think that much the same charges of possible lack of understanding and so forth could be levelled at young men. I believe I addressed that issue in my earlier, 5:50AM (UK time) post, which is presumably why I wrote, and I quote:

Which is why we shall have to revisit the voting ages for both sexes.

Your taxation point (criticism) is interesting, valid, and well taken.

En passant ... I am often amazed at the number of times intelligent people completely miss words or comments that should be staring at them in the face. Are we all in too much of a rush?

13 September 2006 at 13:27  
Blogger Croydonian said...

MI, yup, I'm guilty of speed reading etc.

Since I think this might be of wider interest, I'll hope for our host's indulgence yet again:

"Similarly, the virtual elimination of the 'gender gap', which at most earlier elections delivered a much stronger Conservative vote among women than among men, was one widely noticed feature of the first two Blair victories".


13 September 2006 at 14:04  
Anonymous Vikki said...

In addition to having the franchise withdrwawn from women would it not also be appropriate to call for the law which allowed men to beat their wives to be reinstated? Do we forget that knowledge and wisdom go hand in hand? I make bold to say intelligence and erudition would be incomplete without interpersonal skills!
Back to the thread dare I ask why the UK was not a member of the EU at the begining? The word myopia has a very attractive sound to it doesnt it? I do not seem to see how this has changed. Having said that I suppose being a member of my gender automatically prevents me from understanding this very complex topic which is so easily understood by the Albert Einsteins on this forum! Eintein? Would that be... German...again?

13 September 2006 at 14:13  
Anonymous Rick said...

would it not also be appropriate to call for the law which allowed men to beat their wives to be reinstated?

Vikki, I fear such practices are something you should negotiate personally with your other half. We endeavour to remain mainstream on this site and leave the esoterica as regards dress and proclivities to consent adults and bedrooms.

Your particular requirements are perhaps not best met now that our friends from Scott Pinkney have gone to recuperate

13 September 2006 at 15:41  
Blogger istanbultory said...

Many thanks for returning us to the topic of the thread.

Why was the UK not there from the beginning in the 1950s?
First, the supranational characteristic of the Community held little appeal for the British political elite and electorate. Second, European affairs were seen as secondary to the British public. Third, there was a consensus that membership in the Community could damage Britain's strong trading links to its Commonwealth countries and that membership could jeopardize Britain's political ties to the Unites States.
In 1958, Britain proposed that the Common Market be expanded into a transatlantic free-trade area. After the proposal was vetoed by France, Britain engineered the formation (1960) of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). However, the idea developed that remaining outside of the EC would lead to economic and political isolation, and Britain would have little influence in Europe. This was followed by two applications to join the EC by Britain in the 1960s, both of which were vetoed by the French...surprisingly enough.

13 September 2006 at 15:45  
Anonymous Shoshanah said...

Mission impossible- Male power and control are pervasive in every culture- You are someone who believes in patriarchal domination, its natural you want ban us from voting. Fear of women thinking on their own, growing strong in government, transforming the home, being part of the labor force and being financially independent makes men like you think the way they do -You need to be aware of women's experiences!!!!

Is gender equality so very threatening to you? Or do you prefer to stand with the Taliban??
Or is it you just have a weird sense of humour?

13 September 2006 at 16:24  
Anonymous Rick said...

The only Shoshanah I ever knew put everything down to free-floating testosterone - I suggest you do too........ -:)

13 September 2006 at 16:46  
Blogger istanbultory said...

A whiff of digression in the air...

The group of experts of the Catholic Bishops Conferences of the EU have been beavering away on the development of "common values" for the EU masses.

Msgr.Noel Treanor, the secretary-general of the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the EU noted -“We hope that our initiative will help to create a space in public opinion where leaders can assume the responsibility of being courageous and of directing us in the vision of the founders. Often times we talk about leadership and lack of it. Leadership, to my mind, does not grow in a context where civic public opinion is weak or is indifferent”.

Does any of this matter?
It was Msgr. Noel Treanor who said
at a meeting in London on 24 April 2003 that:
"...the dynamic polarity between the churches and the EU institutions will lead to a form
of mutual interactive control"

I suspect we will be hearing more of Msgr. Treanor in the months and years ahead...

13 September 2006 at 17:06  
Blogger Croydonian said...

I can see His Grace being interested in this story: 'Pope lashes evil of jihad'.

A propos the French vetoing of British attempts to join the EEC, as it then was, some Frenchman or other commented 'They wrecked the last attempt at European unity, and they will not be allowed to do so again'. This 'attempt' was widely taken to mean the Napoleonic system.

13 September 2006 at 17:15  
Anonymous Rick said...

Recommended reading: Lecture by Pope Benedikt XVI at University of Regensburg 12 Sept 2006 on Islam and Christianity

13 September 2006 at 18:11  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

Sorry fellow contributors, but I think a response to vikki and shoshanah is in order. Then we can all get back on topic.

Now who do we have here creeping out of the woodwork? We can certainly see what subject is most important to you despite your protestations to the contrary. You (i.e., vikki and shoshanah) have contributed little or nothing hitherto, then suddenly are provoked into theatrical indignation because someone has dared to publically and boldly question current dogma.

Another observation (already noted by other commentators) is that the "fair sex" seems to employ vile accusations at the least provocation. Is there anything else you would like to allege about my person? ... nah, don't bother. I am actually only 150cm tall, bald as a coot, dirt poor, and have never had a girlfriend. I guess I am impervious.

Mmmm. What if I accused you both of being closet misandrists? Because, that is what I suspect you are, deep down.

shoshanah writes: Male power and control are pervasive in every culture as if that were an evil in itself. Are you sure there are no exceptions? shoshanah, are you someone who equates males and male power with evil? After all, that is a central tenet of feminist theory (which you have studied avidly) is it not?

You are someone who believes in patriarchal domination. Am I indeed? How do you know? Or have I simply turned you into an hysterical wreck?

Now listen up. I certainly do believe in patriarchy. Unashamedly I do, and anyone one who understands the present condition of western culture would be wise to believe the same. Domination no, not at all -- at least, not in the prejudicial form you are trying to frame it in.

Fear of women thinking on their own, growing strong in government, transforming the ... blah-blah ... ad nauseam. Frankly, you have been reading too much feminist literature. Isn't it time you grew up and understood what the true nature of men and women is?

gender equality stop lying shoshanah ... it isn't gender equality you want, it is gender superiority.

As for vikki's would it not also be appropriate to call for the law which allowed men to beat their wives to be reinstated?. Dearie me, do you always react so extremely, and with such polarity? I was writing about raising the voting age (for both sexes actually) and now you are accusing me of encouraging wife beating!! Go on, scroll up and read my posts again. Can you not see how silly you sound? How can I take such a mind seriously?

Of course, I could write in a patronizing style, to charm you into thinking me fabulous, in the manner one or two other contributors have already done above, but if you'd use your grey matter, you'd realize I am treating you as you have demanded to be treated --- like men, but men with skirts.

vikki ... would you be mature enough to consider, if not accept, that more men suffer from domestic abuse (both physical and psychological) than women do? That was demonstrated by research over 10 years ago, and presented in a 1-hour UK TV documentary, but further debate was suppressed by the feminist media. Furthermore, some studies have found women are statistically more likely to instigate violence than men during domestic arguments. This represents the "great cover up" the female victim culture industry doesn't want you to know about.

A recent WHO survey found that British girls are amongst the most violent in the world.

Three times as many girls than boys were excluded from schools in the UK last year. See a report here.

Says one young commentator, who seems to have more honesty than either vikki or shoshanah combined ... Girls are much more worse [sic] than boys because they are sly and they are bitchy! Boys have one fight and its over, with girls it can go on for weeks [or] months and it can't be stopped because girls do it sly so adults can't see whats going on.

Feminism ensures the death of a culture. Only patriarchy ensures its long term survival.

See this book at Amazon or alternatively read it here for more damning evidence.

People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Furthermore, women who say they believe in democracy should stop trying to censure free speech by acting like gender fascists.

Now, may I suggest you get back to Catholicism, Frau Merkel, and the Socialist Republic of Europe, before other contributors get totally confused over the primary subject matter of this Blog thread.

13 September 2006 at 18:21  
Blogger istanbultory said...

Rick, thanks for alerting us to His Holiness' Regensberg rant.

Benedict XVI certainly trashed the Reformation in his Regensberg lecture. He claimed that the Protestant Reformers had attempted to remove the sense of faith as a “living historical Word,” based on their theory that the existent faith system was totally conditioned by an alien system of philosophy. They attempted to remove the place of “logos” from Christian thought and thus arose the principle of “sola scriptura,” which, “sought faith in its pure, primordial form.”

The Pope not on conciliatory form there...

13 September 2006 at 18:27  
Anonymous Rick said...

Funny I thought Luther's aim was to get back to the Judaic origins without all the Roman paganism that had been grafted onto the Faith and to order the Old Testament more true to the Hebrew Bible

13 September 2006 at 18:38  
Blogger istanbultory said...

"Superstition, idolatry, and hypocrisy have ample wages, but truth goes a-begging" as thr great Luther said.

13 September 2006 at 19:00  
Anonymous vikki said...

gc,heard you but I beg to digress.....

mission impossible,I am sorry I do not rant.What you've just done should probably be reserved for members of my gender not the other way round! Afterall as the 'fair sex' we are permitted a bit of pettiness aint we? Ever heard of these words,humour,satire,figurative.....Need I say a little laughter is good for the soul.......Have a great day!

rick,you lost me! Did I hear you say some things should be dicussed privately? No sir! when Prescott decided to display his boxing prowess,I suppose he did it privately...! How much ....more.Do you understand what it means to be defranchised? its a very progressive proposal isnt it? Why then cant we call for these laws order to beat women into submission......;)Do you now see why these......cannot be discussed behind closed doors:-)

13 September 2006 at 21:27  
Blogger Cranmer said...


13 September 2006 at 21:50  
Blogger Croydonian said...

Perhaps Your Grace, but note the wit shown by your contributors when they digress.

13 September 2006 at 22:53  
Anonymous Colin said...


Thank you for the link to the Pope's Lecture at University of Regensburg. I read it with interest and some disappointment. With interest to see if he really is the profound thinker we have been told he is by the media. And with some disappointment because, although his hypothesis of the Greek influence on Christian religion, European culture and Western science is probably correct, it does not solve any of our contemporary problems. However, I might be wrong. Therefore I would be grateful for your ideas about his lecture.


I cannot discover any "rant against protestantism" in this lecture.

According to the link given by Rick, the Pope said (my translation):

"Because of the scholastic tradition, the reformators were confronted with a systematisation of faith entirely determined by philosophy, i.e. heteronomy of faith by a method of thinking not derived from faith. The faith did not appear any longer as a lively historical word but instead caged in a philosophical system. In contrast, the 'Sola Scriptura' (scripture alone) searches for the pure and original form of faith, how it exists in the original biblical word. Metaphysics appears as a demand from somewhere else, from which the faith has to be liberated so that the faith can again be entirely himself."

It seems to me that the Pope is mainly critizising Djihād (Holy war) by talking about the historic dialogue in 1391 between the learned Byzantine Emperor Manuel II. Palaeologos and an educated Persian about Christianity, Islam, and the truth of both. The Emperor asked his dialogue partner the "central question" (according to the Pope) concerning religion and violence: "Show me what is new that Mohammed has brougth and there you will find only bad and inhuman things such as that he has dictated to propagate the faith, which he preaches, by the sword."

After this citation, the Pope continues: "The Emperor then explains detailed why propagation of faith by violence is illogical. It is contradictory to the nature of God and the nature of the soul." He cites the Emperor: "God does not like blood and irrational actions are against the nature of God. Faith is the fruit of the soul not of the body. For guiding someone to the faith, the ability of giving a good speech and of correct thinking is needed and not violence and threat. To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need his arm, nor weapons, nor any mean to menace somebody with death ..".

The Pope continues in his own words: "The essential sentence in this argumentation against conversion by violence is: Not acting according to reason is against the nature of God. .. For the Emperor educated in the tradition of Greek philosophy, this sentence is evident. However, for the Muslim doctrine, God is absolutely transcendental. His will is not tied down to one of our categories, also not to our category of rationality... Here we arrive at a crossroad concerning the understanding of God and the concrete implementation of religion, which directly challenges us today. Is it only Greek to believe that to acting contrary to reason is contrary to the nature of God, or is this always valid and by itself? I think that here is visible the consistency between what in the best sense is Greek and the fait in God based on the bible."

The Pope explains that the tradition of Greek philosophy and its foundation on logic (e.g. Socrates) has influenced the New Testament and Christianity. He claims that three waves of de-hellenizations (synonym for abandonment of reason ?) have happened. In his view, science is the last wave and the reason of science too narrow because it does not have room for the human questions of from where and whereto, the questions of religion and ethics. Thereby ethics and religion are supposed to lose their uniting force. The pope said: "This situation is dangerous for humankind: We can see it from the dangerous pathologies of religion and reason which a necessary consequence of the reduction of reason to exclude questions of religion and ethics."


My comment:

His theory on the relationship between Christianity and Greek philosophy with its emphasis on reason seems to be helpful to explain the development of science in Western culture.

However, I cannot see that the Western culture is endangered by science and a lack of ethics. It appears to me that Western culture is endangered by people who want to replace it with their own religion and traditions. And this is not the consequence of a lack of reason in the Western world but of a lack of children. Children adopt cultural traditions and religions not by reasoning but by education. World-wide, religion and cultural traditions are transmitted from parents to children and not by chosing among several offers. Religion behaves nearly like an inherited trait. Children with culturally inherited traits grow into adolescents. And male adolescents want to dominate others in order to improve their chances of reproduction. In the animal kingdom as in human history, young males challenge the established leaders and replace them sooner or later. Groups with larger number usually displace the smaller groups. The hight of Western civilization coincided with a fertility boom in Europe. The result was the conquest of other civilizations and continents.

If the Pope were correct that science and a lack of Greek and Christian rationality is the cause of the problems of the West, the Byzantium Empire would still exist today. Since - at the time of Byzantium - modern science has not yet been invented by Francis Bacon and there was no lack of Greek philosophy and Christian reasoning as the Pope demonstrated himself by citing the discussion of the Emperor with a Muslim intellectual.

On the contrary, it is precisely a lack of scientific understanding which causes the doom of the Western culture or the application thereof. Mission impossible has already given links to literature indicating the cause for the survival of paternalism. If emancipated women chose to produce less children than paternally oppressed women, it is only a matter of time until a feminist culture is replaced by a paternal culture. No amount of talk and legislation can change the law of nature that children are essential for the survival of a group and its tradition. It's not a matter of religion or of the correct political ideology. It is simply a matter of numbers. The sad fate of North American Indians sufficiently proves the point.

14 September 2006 at 00:35  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

Vikki ...
Ever heard of these words,humour,satire,figurative.....Need I say a little laughter is good for the soul.......Have a great day!
Here, you are simply trying to cover your tracks; demonstrating you can't be trusted. Your underlying conceit is visible to those who are unafraid to see it.

On the contrary, it is precisely a lack of scientific understanding which causes the doom of the Western culture or the application thereof.

Indeed, indeed.

But, what is an emancipated woman?
Someone who denies her biology, her culture, and her duties as one half of a gender pair. And whilst doing so, attacks the dignity and essence of manhood, thus lessening the chances to reproduce offspring. The successive application of this evil, over several decades, has brought western civilization within sight of the abyss. Given the opportunity, white women are now more likely to breed with brown/black skinned males than with their own kind. This is the result of ideology running amok. It has also added urgency to the increasingly desperate attempts by Black African males to enter Europe. Do not fool yourself into thinking they are being motivated only by work or money!

Look at Canada. Two mass shootings in educational establishments within a relatively short period, by individual young white men incensed by being humiliated by the feminist polity, and pushed to the margins by something they know runs counter to one's natural instincts.

Thanks to Magneto-Resonance Scanners, science is only now beginning to unequivocally show just how much male and female brains differ, despite 40 years of visceral denial by feminist theologians. Male brains are larger than female brains, and different brain areas are used to respond to the same stimuli, with a markedly, emotional amplification in the female brain. They have also evolved entirely differently: hunter-gatherer + risk taker + hierarchy versus consumer + risk averse + cooperative profile. One is not superior to the other, it is just that they are different, and we should be acknowledging this difference not only in education, but in politics and religion. We need to put a sharp axe through bi-sexuality.

Young males throughtout the west have been made to suffer immeasurably due to being constrained by a feminist straight-jacket in education, causing their performance to almost fall off the scale. A massive rise in young male suicides and self-harm acts has also resulted. This is the true legacy of the "cult of the emancipated woman."

Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, Rene Descartes, et al, were reacting to centuries of moral decline in the Roman Church, where untrammeled wealth had been accumulated within seas of poverty, where religious worship could only be mediated through priests, and where the priests themselves had become laws unto themselves, taking mistresses, bribes, and neglecting their constituencies. Henry VIII took advantage of the prevailing mood against Rome -- he did not create the schism per se.

Science is also a gift from God. The expression of creativity is the soul speaking as much as the rational and educated mind. We love each other in order that we ourselves (and our offspring) can survive. Cooperation achieves far more than competition, but it must be cooperation from the heart, and not imposed from the outside by dogma.

Human rationality is not a constant. Context and circumstance makes sure of that; expediency too. Religious faith, on the other hand, is a constant. It keeps us rooted. We all know what happens to a large and beautiful Oak, when its roots are attacked.

For me, the Popes' designs on Europe are noble and welcome, for without his interventions what do we have? The vulgar and ultimately destructive religion of Secularist Dogma or the viral cult of Mohammedan Dogma that has successively strangled all cultures (even highly evolved cultures) that it has dominated, for the past 1400 years. Both of these have successfully misapply rationalities. Therefore, the study of scientific rationality must go hand in hand with true faith, in order to both counter what seeks to destroy us, and then to ultimately bring about their final destruction and eradication.

This coming age will be the New Enlightenment.

14 September 2006 at 05:25  
Anonymous Rick said...

rick,you lost me! Did I hear you say some things should be dicussed privately?

Sorry to have lost you Vikki - I was trying to be subtle in refusing your request to be beaten, suggesting that if you are into S&M and other sexual practices they were best discussed with your partner and not with mainstream types as we hope are on this site.

I can see you totally failed to grasp what I nuanced and I am sorry because it means only plain speaking without any inference or allusion is clear to you, and that is disappointing.

14 September 2006 at 05:44  
Anonymous Rick said...

Colin, I concur. I was somewhat taken aback by references to rants against Protestantism and printed off the whole lecture to see if it was the same one I had read.

Anyone who has read books by Cardinal Ratzinger will know "rant" is an inappropriate word, the man is an intellectual and an interesting one.

He was I thought complimentary towards The Reformation - at least the Protestant bishops in Germany felt very positive towards his comments throughout his trip and the ecumenical service.

I thought his main issue was
a) Islam spreads through violence which is not the Word of God but of Man

b) The Faith held "mysteries" from The Greek which (I suppose Greek Orthodoxy has retained) so The Faith was not merely what is written down (here I think he juxtaposed Koran as the ultimate word with Sola Scriptura) but what is experienced in worship within the Church.

c) That Scientific Research has become divorced from a system of Ethics and turned into a series of Mechanics and Mechanisms without ultimate purpose or constraint.

I do not disagree. Robert Oppenheimer had similar feelings on the Manhattan Project, Josef Mengele lacked them when working for the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Berlin. Much of genetic research is - especially in Italy - lacking in a moral framework but beeded in a commercial one.

There are many doctors in the Christian Medical Fellowship but pressures from The State try to force them to conform to State priorities.

I think The Pope alludes to Faith being more than "a suit to be worn on Sundays" and more like underwaer to be worn daily in all the is said and done. It is I feel a fair point, and one which should stop people doing evil all week and seeking redemption on Sundays.

I rarely hear the Archbishop of Canterbury mention the word "Christian" and I rarely hear The Pope mention the word "Catholic" in place of the word "Christian".

I am struck that as an intellectual theologian of note, Benedict seems to have the common touch, and that Rowan Williams as a reputed intellectual lacks it completely.

14 September 2006 at 05:59  
Anonymous Ian Paisley said...

"For me, the Popes' designs on Europe are noble and welcome..."

Not if you are an Ulster Protestant.Or a Polish Baptist. Or a Greek Orthodox priest. Or a Serb living in Croatia.

14 September 2006 at 08:57  
Blogger istanbultory said...

Ratzinger certainly speaks like a bookish theologian. He is certainly more knowledgeable about Protestant views than any pope before him. “Rant” may not have been the most appropriate word to use in the Pope’s Regensberg address. Although the Catholic News agency reported interestingly in its headline that the Pope had “trashed” the Reformation at Regensberg. The present Pope clearly, unequivocably denies Sola Scriptura (as indeed a pope must in accordance with his office and his faith). If Protestants wish to enter into dialogue with the Catholic Church, they must know in advance that it will be on the terms of the papacy, not on Protestant terms. Indeed, Pope Benedict XVI made a plea for non-Catholic Christians to recognise papal primacy just a few months back in June 2006.

I seem to remember that when he was the Vatican’s top doctrinal watchdog under the previous pope, Benedict angered Protestants by declaring their denominations were “not churches in the real sense.”

14 September 2006 at 09:56  
Anonymous Rick said...

Yes but I would expect the Pope to state the case for The Vatican and Protestants to state the case for The Reformation - it does not stop areas of common belief vis-a-vis Islam being areas to focus on.

14 September 2006 at 11:48  
Anonymous Rick said...

14 September 2006 at 11:50  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

Somehow ... Protestantism needs to temper its suspicions and enter into an alliance with Catholicism, in the face of our common enemy.

See Daniel Pipes' article and this website

The Irish people (Ulster and Eire) have more than enough intelligence to face up to, and overcome, the inevitable, historical challenges.

14 September 2006 at 11:53  
Blogger istanbultory said...

Re: the common enemy.
Justice Minister Piet Hein Donner (apparently a Christian Democrat?) has announced that the Netherlands should permit Muslims more freedoms to behave according to their traditions. And Sharia law could be introduced in the Netherlands democratically, in the minister's view...
There's an emergency parliamentary debate on Thursday morning to discuss the remarks made by Mr. Donner in a book published on Wednesday.

Incidentally, immigrant Muslims have the highest incidence of unemployment, domestic violence, disability payments, truancy and crime in the Netherlands.

14 September 2006 at 12:12  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

Muslim situation in parts of Sweden is arguably even worse. For shocking report see here.

14 September 2006 at 12:19  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

Rick, not sure if my new web-browser is playing tricks but that 11:50 AM link ( of yours opens my screen to reveal an unexpected, but extremely tasty dish (jpeg). I do admire your choice of Secretary! How do you manage to concentrate with such a distraction? Enjoy! :-)

14 September 2006 at 12:25  
Blogger istanbultory said...

Mr. Mission Impossible,
Parts of the Swedish City of Malmo do, indeed, appear to be under the sovereignty of the Mohammedan.
But what causes me particular concern about the Netherlands is the matter of demographics.
As is well known, within 10 years, Muslims will constitute an absolute majority in both Amsterdam and Rotterdam...

14 September 2006 at 12:37  
Anonymous Rick said...

Thanks for the info Mission Impossible - she is unknown to me in any context - I wonder if using and forgetting the last "h" off the URL picked up the efforts of someone else ?

Anyway, nothing embarrasing in a young lady doing stretching exercises before cooking dinner

14 September 2006 at 12:45  
Anonymous vikki said...

Mission impossible......I could hardly recognise myself in your write up.I could have were describing....Jezebel!;)I am certainly not guilty of what you've accused me of.The only thing I am guilty of is having a sense of humour! I was not accusing you of encouraging wife beating.I was merely drawing an analogy which you failed to grasp.I did not agree with what you were saying but sought to put it across to you in a different way while at the same time having a good laugh. I thought we could agree to disagree as intellectuals. While I still do not agree with you or the way you've gone about this I do apologise if I upset you in any way.

rick,.... I knew you were writing from 'Scotton Pinkey'which was why you 'lost me'not because I didnt know what you were saying! The same way you couldnt have told me my analogy was lost on you! You need to go for confession......:-)Pope Benedict would be pleased to hear from you.....BTW if you have a bit of time check "our previous thread"

14 September 2006 at 13:11  
Anonymous Rick said...

The same way you couldnt have told me my analogy was lost on you! You need to go for confession......:-)

No, in fact I was thinking of a newspaper article I read from the 1860s where a man was selling his wife at the local market - prior to the Divorce Laws being introduced it was only the rich who could petition Parliament for an Act.

I thought of your poor husband been driven to beat you and presumably indulge your fantasies and reflected on those women who go to Ann Summers parties.

As for The Pope, I doubt he would find my Calvinist streak to his liking, but no doubt we could discuss the importance of Martin Luther as a formidable German hero forgotten by C21st Century European schoolchildren.

14 September 2006 at 13:48  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

vikki ... formulating ones arguments / points of view takes lots of practise. Furthermore, conveying humour in succinct writing is an art. Please be informed ... I was never upset. I reacted because I am pedantic about truth (and as no man is the singular vessel for truth, then what I mean by that is: accuracy, consistency, and sincerity). Otherwise, I do wish you well.

As we attempt to repair the social and cultural damage done these past 40 to 50 years or so, we do need our women with us, as one. And certainly not as some Marxist inspired, self-pitying or accusatory gender victim. Women must cease thinking men (and testosterone!@?*!) are evil or out to get them, even if they are "only" thinking this subconsciously. Time to practise a little self-analysis, eh?

Evil ideologies have pitted western woman against western man (after first making her think man was already pitted against woman). Both genders need to be fully cognisant of the evil intentions of such propagandists. That way, we can destroy them together, as they deserve to be! Join with us, because ... with us is where you truly belong young lady!!!

14 September 2006 at 13:55  
Anonymous vikki said...

rick why do you read such newspapers? Looking to sell someone....? Maybe we should forget about Luther and go for John Calvin/Knox! Would be interesting!

14 September 2006 at 14:34  
Anonymous Rick said...

probably of interest to you Mission Impossible

Vikki...........sometimes it is necessary to look at yesterday, to research history, to read local newspapers which were not printed today..........I have even read books as old as 1714 - viz Mandeville's Fable of the Bees and Adam Smith in the 1776 edition..............

14 September 2006 at 14:57  
Anonymous vikki said...

rick,trying to justify wanting to sell.....? ;)I am sure you'd have enough material for our friends on the forum for their phD thesis if they've not already done that:-)

14 September 2006 at 17:15  
Blogger istanbultory said...

To think that Rotterdam, the home city of Erasmus (a reasonable kind of papist), the city which sided with the (Protestant) Dutch rebels during the Eighty Years' War will soon fall to the Mohammedan hoardes...

14 September 2006 at 18:11  
Blogger istanbultory said...

To think that Rotterdam, the home city of Erasmus, will be a city largely of Mohammedans by about 2015. In fact, the local Muslims are not wasting any time...Rotterdam now has an Islamic University. And there's an extremely interesting article entitled "The First Model for The EU: Ottoman State" on the web site.

The writer argues that
"The Ottoman State was an element of balance in Europe, Middle East and North Africa. It was a common point where the demands of a large number of sections of society with different ethnical structures and religions met....
As long as the West looks upon its culture as the superior culture in all aspects –endeavoring to humiliate other cultures without making efforts to understand them, and tries to globalize one, and only one, culture- the world will not come out of its present difficulties..."

How shall we save ourselves from the Mohammedan hoardes and another Pax Ottoman?

14 September 2006 at 18:27  
Anonymous Rick said...

rick,trying to justify wanting to sell.....? ;)

Why should I justify what was historically true - it is how the poor loosened themselves from marital ties in the nineteenth century. You should reflect that there was no State marriage before 1837, no adoption law before 1926, and no marriage registration forms before 1753.

BTW...what did your spear-side say about your wish for leather and lash ?

14 September 2006 at 18:37  
Anonymous vikki said...

You've lost me again! My Bible says the pure in heart shall see..... God.What does yours say......?

14 September 2006 at 19:21  
Anonymous Rick said...

Well that lecture of the Pope in Regensburg University certainly caused the Muslims to come out and was plain and simple and clearly got the Turks and French Muslims steaming.

Simple words simply spoken...but oh so true.

14 September 2006 at 21:12  
Anonymous Rick said...,1518,437140,00.html

14 September 2006 at 21:13  
Anonymous Colin said...

GC asked

"How shall we save ourselves from the Mohammedan hoardes and another Pax Ottoman?"

The Japanese model might work. However, it appears to be too late for that.

The collapse of the welfare state might take care of the problem.

The future is relatively easy to predict.

The immigrants are motivated by the benefits of the welfare state (which economically is a form of communism). Like their communist ancestors, the welfare system is unsustainable and will collapse in the not too distant future.

The politicians are well aware of the situation but are unable to abandon the welfare system without losing power in the election process. Therefore the government-dependent European Central Bank has been ordered to print more money so that the governments can pay their debts and keep everybody happy. The money expansion results in inflation leading to economic recessions and an economic crash. When a major economic crash happens, people lose everything, their jobs, their pensions, their income and their wealth.

As usually in times of danger, people desperately look for a savior and for culprits, in other words for a strong man, i.e. a dictator.

In regard to culprits, when people are poor, everybody is suspect who does not share their fate: the rich, the capitalists, the multinational corporations, the Jews, the Westerners. Since most people do not understand the working mechanisms of economy, they suspect a conspiracy.

Self-proclaimed saviors promise to solve the problem by punishing or destroying the culprits. Lenin claimed to save the Russians from the desaster of WW-I by punishing the capitalists. Hitler claimed to save the Germans from the economic disaster (a result of excessive money expansion) by punishing the Jews. (In Christian tradition the Jews have always been accused of being greedy capitalists. Historically, antisemitism is a form of early anticapitalism). The Islamists claim to save the poor Islamic masses by destroying the rich and hence evil Western civilization and to subdue the Jews and Christians in order to establish the eternal peace of a worldwide Islamic state.

Fear leads to paranoia, paranoia to fighting and fighting to separation, probably along historical and religious lines. The development of the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia might serve as a model.

Economic collapse, followed by fighting (e.g. Chechnya), formation of new states, war between the new states, the call for a savior, a strong man such as Milosevic or Putin. These is the sequence of events to come in Western Europe. The EU is not about peace but about Empire building. It is the same old story all over again. And the result will also be the same: fighting, war and suffering.

The politicians claim that the EU superstate is necessary to maintain peace in Europe. This is utterly nonsense because the present situation is fundamentally different from the past situation before World War II. The difference is that France and Great Britain now have atomic bombs. Any attempt to again start a war of conquest, for example by a German government, would result in complete annihilation.

To come back to the question posed by GC, immigration is likely to become insignificant after the collapse of the welfare state since the incentives will be missing (e.g. not many people are immigrating to the former Soviet Union) and the newly formed states will want to secure their borders.

The collapse of the welfare state might also bring the fertility rates of European families back to normal. Because children were once a necessity for securing the living standard of parents at old age. The welfare state has destroyed the incentive for having children as it destroyes most incentives for people to take care for themselves.

The important French economist Frederic Bastiat expressed already in his 1848 analysis of the "Government" most clearly the motivation behind communism, socialism, social justic, and immigration into the welfare state (

"Man recoils from trouble, from suffering; and yet he is condemned by nature to the suffering of privation, if he does not take the trouble to work. He has to choose, then, between these two evils. What means can he adopt to avoid both? There remains now, and there will always remain, only one way, which is, to enjoy the labor of others." "The State is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."

To enjoy the children of others, is the present working mechanism of the state-run pension systems. The costs of children are privatized while their benefits have been socialized.

Finally, coming back to GC's question: "How shall we save ourselves from the Mohammedan hoardes and another Pax Ottoman?"

The answer might be that it is most likely to happen by the self-destructive mechanism of the welfare system which is the main cause of immigration of the poor and uneducated people from these countries.

14 September 2006 at 23:05  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

North African cities, such as Tripoli and Tunis, are jammed to the gunnels with Black Africans, who have hiked, hitch-hiked, or even sailed to such places from Central and West Africa. Chad has emptied itself of young men in this fashion. These Black Africans, who physically stand out from their Berber and Arabic "African Cousins" are looked down upon by these North African states, and often physically abused by authorities. The Black Africans somehow get-by, by doing menial jobs for slave wages, because their objective is not to stay where they rest and re-group (hundreds can be seen congregating at various town squares, street corners, shopping areas, etc.) but rather their ultimate objective is Europe. This is primarily why the Libyan and Tunisian authorities tolerate them. They are the Arabs' secret weapon. Gaddaffi is no dummy. He may be slightly insane, but he is a wily old fox. He has realized that a nuclear capability (which he recently disclosed, and which has since been cleaned up by the Americans) is no longer necessary to achieve his purpose.

For sometime, the EU has been paying Libya a fee in order to make it worthwhile for Libya to at least try to mitigate the influx of young Black African males into the vastness of Libya and thus reduce the numbers making the boat trip out of Tripoli harbour to Malta, or Sicily. Malta's recent entry into the EU has only exacerbated the problem. This money (i.e., your own tax-deducted money of course) was offered to Gaddaffi with the usual Socialist excuses and palliatives.

Now, Gaddaffi has spotted a weakness in the arrangement, and demanded an increase. Thus, the payment has now been converted into extortion, or if you like, a Jizyah tax. Jizyah = a tax paid by non-Muslims living in a Muslim State. Since the non-Muslims are exempt from military service and taxes imposed on Muslims, they must pay this tax to compensate. It guarentees them security and protection.

Only last week (early September 2006) Gaddafi told a meeting of the African Union (AU) that Europe should pay if it wants to stop the flow of African immigrants: "In our final statement we will ask Europe to pay 10 billion euros per year if it really wants to stop migration toward Europe [...] Earth belongs to everybody. Why they [young Africans] emigrated to Europe – this should be answered by Europeans."

At least 200,000 Africans (circa 95% of which are young males) enter Europe illegally every year.

Gaddafi’s price of 10 billion euros means that Europe has to pay 50,000 euros for every immigrant it does not want to take in. Last year the European Commission paid Gaddafi 2 million euros to 'reduce' the flow of immigrants passing through Libya.

It should be remembered, that Libya is NOT a poor nation. Far from it. Its people appear poorer than they should be because the income from their vast oil wealth has been hoarded by a tribal elite based in the northwest of the country. To pay Libya fees for doing anything on our behalf betrays the fact we (in Europe) have already invested $Billions developing their oil & gas infrastructure.

In my personal opinion, all EU commissars found responsible for these kinds of insane policies are candidates for criminal prosecution attracting the most severe penalties, including and ultimately, execution either by hanging or firing squad.

In 2004, a politician by the name of Anna Lindt, ex Swedish Foreign Minister, and one of several female socialists politicians who have done most to drag Sweden down to the gutter, and demographic oblivion, was executed by a Serb (whilst shopping) for her past support of Muslims (Kosovo, etc). Predictably, the western news reports claim she was murdered by a deranged young man. No, the truth is, she was executed for her past treachery against her own civilization.

That young Serb had a very strong justification for his action, and had the guts to carry it through. We will be faced with similar moral choices soon.

15 September 2006 at 05:19  
Anonymous Rick said...

Therefore the government-dependent European Central Bank has been ordered to print more money so that the governments can pay their debts and keep everybody happy.

Therein lies your error Colin. The ECB is the most independent central bank on earth and the politicians have only just realised how independent it is.

There is no evidence that the ECB has expanded credit, merely that its uniform policy applies unevenly in different economies - even the Fed had different interest rates in different parts of the US in the beginning.

The ECB is locked into overall deflation as a policy. Britain is the basket case with house-price inflation showing how much credit is in the system and Chinese imports keeping consumer-inflation suppressed and only high energy prices preventing any govt tax increases

15 September 2006 at 05:24  
Anonymous Ian Paisley said...

Several of the Jewish Prophets point to the possible Islamification of Europe: “nations from the north will beseige Jerusalem” It is possible that these verses mean that Europe will convert to Islam and will march against Jerusalem. I believe it might be the will of God. I believe that history has already been decided by the Almighty and we must keep that in mind when we see these events.

15 September 2006 at 06:10  
Blogger istanbultory said...

Some excellent posts above.

Its not just Rotterdam or Amsterdam...Oslo will have a non-Western majority in a few decades, if the current trends continue. It is possible that in Norway, Sweden and Denmark, the native population and their descendants will become a minority in their own country within this century.

According to EU sources, around half a million illegal immigrants enter the EU each year. The French government estimates that it has 200,000-400,000 illegal immigrants. The British government estimates (and this estimate is almost certainly on the low side) that 310,000-570,000 people are in the United Kingdom illegally.

To avoid an eventual Pax Ottoman (redux) and ensure the protection of European civilisation, what can be done as a first step? Our governments might (if they were not beholden to the ideologies of political correctness and multi-culturalism) actually work to ensure that illegal aliens are identified and deported without delay. Alas, the establishment of a common European asylum policy agreed upon at Tampere a few years back only hinders this goal as it formally limits the powers of member states to set their own standards on expulsion of illegals. Another (even worse) proposed directive on common standards on return is currently under consideration.

Clearly, European nations need to tighten and more vigorously enforce immigration laws, and demand that newcomers, especially Muslims, buy into our culture or leave (voluntarlily or otherwise) as well as ensure that immigration is “repatriated” to national control…but will any of this come to pass?

15 September 2006 at 06:59  
Anonymous Rick said...

I believe that history has already been decided by the Almighty

Fatalism is at the heart of Islam but not Judaism or Christianity...........I suggest you reflect upon your religious belief, it certainly is not that of Ian Paisley.

15 September 2006 at 08:17  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older