Monday, September 18, 2006

Roman Catholic values to dominate the EU

As the Pope tries to work out how to reason with the unreasonable, it is worth reflecting on the Vatican’s assertion that all religions are not equal. Allusions to secret gatherings of high-powered Roman Catholics are usually dismissed as the pastime of obsessive conspiracy theorists, but the admission is so barefaced it can scarcely be a plot in any covert sense at all. As the Vatican and Germany (along with Italy, Poland, Lithuania, Malta, Portugal, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Ireland) continue to agitate for God and/or Christianity to feature in the Constitution for Europe, the Commission of the Bishops' Conferences of the European Community (COMECE) has appointed a high-profile group to define the EU's ‘common values’, and to raise awareness of such values throughout the Union.

The interesting thing is that this expert group consists only of Roman Catholics. There are no Protestants, no Orthodox, and no representatives of Enlightenment secularism. There is no acknowledgement that these movements contributed anything to European values at all. The implication is that such values may be identified within and articulated through Catholicism exclusively. One member, a former Belgian ambassador to the EU, said: ‘The aim of the project is to raise awareness of European values among the public at a time when most people are totally ignorant or unaware that there is “something more” to the EU than the single market or agricultural policy… The EU process has clearly been based on a certain number of values, but in the course of the process they have been largely forgotten.’

This ‘something more’ is, of course, the Catholic faith. It has been a leitmotif in the EU for decades, and the case was made most eloquently by the almost-pope Cardinal Maria Martini of Milan, who was invited in 1997 to address the European Parliament in a symposium on ‘Remembering the Origins of the Process of European Integration’. He outlined the importance of a single faith (Catholicism), declaring: ‘The Europe we must build is a Europe of the spirit,’ and he reminded the Parliament: ‘If the process of European integration is not anchored in truly religious foundations… it will seriously compromise the future of all Europeans.’

Significantly, a COMECE spokesman has admitted an agenda, albeit ‘indirect’, ‘aimed at influencing a political declaration on the EU's values and ambitions’. The resulting document is planned for adoption on 25th March 2007 - the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome. The Pope has already agreed to be present to bestow his blessings on the project.

Protestants/Orthodox/Atheists not invited.

Pax Romana pax Europeana est.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Muslims not invited either, Your Grace.

Wonder why...

18 September 2006 at 14:01  
Blogger Croydonian said...

Just a brief addition:

Robert Schumann was a knight of the Order of Pope Pius IX, and his beatification is possible. (source)

Jean Monnet was devoutly catholic. (source)

Adenauer was a devout catholic. (source)

So was De Gaulle, if to a lesser degree.

18 September 2006 at 14:31  
Anonymous Rick said...

all religions are not equal. Allusions to secret gatherings of high-powered Roman Catholics

Can we be precise please ? Roman Catholicism is NOT a religion - it is a denomination.................Christianity is the Religion and Jesus Christ is Head of The Christian Church

18 September 2006 at 14:45  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Rick,

Theological precision is an art, and His Grace was trying to avoid the distinction you draw. Some, of course, would insist that Rome is a 'cult' (as Islam has been termed), yet the purposeful deployment of such a word may become a stumbling block for others who may wish to engage in debate on the primary issue.

As much as His Grace may be sympathetic to your Reformation understanding, he was attempting to avoid the Papal error.

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

His Grace has ruminated most profitably. I too have been actively scrutinising the COMECE archive, which is a veritable treasure trove of papist ambition. The document entitled “The Evolution of the European Union and the Responsibility of Catholics”, 9 May 2005, in particular, explicitly establishes a tightlink between the goals of the European subsidiary of the Catholic Church and the designs of the Eurocracy:

‘…For Christians, the political challenges associated with changes met on the route of European integration have a spiritual dimension. To be a Christian means to be a pilgrim…Our advance towards the Kingdom of God is inseparable from our commitment to the service of the political community: such a hope opens for us a common future and invites us to decide at each step what is the better way…’

I rest my case and detect a foul papist plot in the offing…

18 September 2006 at 15:32  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

But surely the whole point of Anglicanism was that we were not like those excitable Continental types ? It should be considered a proud boast that the CoE has nowt to do with the EU.

(I'm talking about the 'old' CoE of course, before it turned into the Guardian at prayer. Its current incarnation would send Francis Drake to his nearest Papist begging forgiveness).

18 September 2006 at 18:12  
Blogger Anoneumouse said...

Well, bugger me, caught between the rock and a hard place. We are all Bogamils now

18 September 2006 at 18:36  
Blogger istanbultory said...

Cranmer takes a dim view of sodomy.
A grievous digression but Mr. Iain Dale has alerted us to the existence of a new pro-Bliar blog. Comments are allowed and I have been busy in my Benedictus 16 incarnation...

18 September 2006 at 19:26  
Blogger Man in a shed said...

Now, your grace, you can't say the thought of a Catholic run EU doesn't give you a warm feeling all over ?

18 September 2006 at 21:28  
Anonymous Colin said...

His Grace has raised an interesting argument worthy of thoughtful consideration.

My sincere thanks to Croydonian for the links showing that Robert Schumann, Jean Monnet were devout catholics. I did not know that. In regard to Adenauer, I am not so sure about his devoutness. He was mayor of the Cathologic city of Cologne and a clever fox. And as we all know, in a democracy, politicians always claim to be just like the average guy of the majority.

Anyhow, I would like to learn more about the relationship between the EU and Catholicism. Is there any hint of a relationship between Schumann, Monnet and the Action Française, a strong Catholic and anti-republican movement in France ?

"It was founded in 1898 during the Dreyfus affair, partly in reaction to the left wing revitalisation that was happening around the defense of the army captain, launched by Emile Zola's famous J'accuse." The widely read daily paper "Action Française" was established in 1908, when Monnet was 20 and Schuman 22 years old.

Should they as devout Catholics have been completely uninfluenced by the devout Catholics of the Action Française ?

According to Wikipedia, one of the members of the Catholic Action Française founded in 1925 The Faisceau (French for bundle, fascicle), a short-lived French Fascist political party.

Does anybody know if there is any evidence of a relationship between the ideas of the Action Française and the masterminds of the EU?

18 September 2006 at 21:49  
Blogger Croydonian said...

Interesting stuff Colin, and thanks for the thanks. I will do some digging.

18 September 2006 at 22:09  
Blogger Croydonian said...

A bit of digging around makes a link with Action Française and the characters above look unlikely, given the nationalistic and monarchist leanings of AF. What I can say is that the Front National and so on have shown leanings towards Levebfre and Tridentine Catholicism, and vice versa. Both are also tied into French monarchism.

I found this: "The anti-Semitism of the Royalists is derived from the writings of Charles Maurras and from the traditional, pre-Vatican II anti-Jewish teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. The main royalist group is Restauration Nationale (National Restoration), the heir of Action Française (French Action), chaired by Pierre Pujo. It publishes the fortnightly Aspects de la France (founded in 1947), which is now very active in supporting the so-called “souverainistes” -- those who oppose the supremacy of the European Union over national sovereignty." (source)

Incidentally, beware of sporting a tie or anything similar with a Fleur de Lys emblem while in France, as you will be taken for a monarchist for sure, and quite possibly a FN supporter.

18 September 2006 at 22:48  
Blogger Croydonian said...

In the interests of bringing further information to the table, there is much consideration of Rome and the EU at Ian Paisley's European Institute of Protestant Studies. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the analyses is perhaps neither here nor there, but it includes a wealth of quotes from figures relevant to this discussion.

18 September 2006 at 23:13  
Anonymous Colin said...


Thank you very much for doing the digging and for providing the relevant information.

His Grace was so kind to direct our attention to the fact that there seems to be a close collaboration between the Pope and Mrs. Merkel. His Grace's interpretation seems to be that this might indicate a conspiracy of two actors of the German Empire against the Anglican church or against Protestantism. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I share His Grace's impression that these two German politicians are conspiring.

However, it seems to me that it is not a conspiracy of the Catholic church and the evil German Empire against the Anglican and Angloamerican world. On several occasions she has expressed a positive attitude toward the UK and the USA as compared to her messages in regard to France, Russia and Turkey, which are lacking such positive emotions.

Thus what might be going on between Mrs. Merkel and the Pope?

First, I presume that the election of a German Pope by the Catholic church did not happen by chance but was the result of a strategy as was the previous election of a Pope from Poland. It seems to me that the Catholic church previously perceived the secular religion of communism and the Soviet Union as a danger and is now perceiving Islam and the aspirations of Turkey for EU membership as a danger to its power. In both cases, the Catholic church tried to obtain more influence in those countries which they consider to better serve their purpose by electing a member of these countries for Pope.

Second, Mrs. Merkel has expressed on several occasions that she prefers a close alliance with Turkey instead of an EU membership and that it wouldn't be easy to achieve this after the start of EU negotiations with Turkey. I do not know if she made these statements just for obtaining more votes from the right or if this is really her strategy. Such a strategy isn't necessarily based on an anti-Islamic feeling because it also seem to make political and economic sense. Political sense because of the size of its population Turkey would replace Germany as the most powerful country in the EU and economic sense because additionally Germany would have to pay a large share of the EU support for Turkey. But also in regard to religion, I doubt that Mrs. Merkel, a woman enjoying power, would like to support the spreading of teachings claiming the inferiority of women. The latter interpretation is supported by the seemingly close relationship between Mrs. Merkel and the famous German feminist, Alice Schwartzer, an strong opponent of women's role in Islam. Furthermore, the large majority of Turkish immigrants do not vote for Merkel's party but for lefist parties which might be one of the reasons why Mr. Schroeder from the Social Democratic Party and Mr. Fischer of the Green Party pushed for the EU membership of Turkey.

Both, the Cathologic church, Germany and Mrs. Merkel will lose power and money if Turkey becomes a member of EU. Therefore, I assume that the Pope and Mrs. Merkel are probably conspiring against the Turkish membership in the EU. This interpretation is supported by three observations.

(1) Although not a single bomb has yet exploded in Germany, new anti-terror laws will be enacted shortly permitting the state to control everything and everybody.

(2) Mrs. Merkel pushed for Rumania and Bulgaria being quickly accepted as a member of the EU. Some politicians correctly said that this was premature because these countries are not yet ready for the EU. Hence why this unnecessary speed? Turkey's lever for forcing its way into the EU appears to be a new oil pipeline crossing its territory. An alternative pipeline is being built in Rumania and Bulgaria. The Rumanian-Bulgarian oil pipeline and the EU membership of their countries is likely to terminate the Turkish chances of blackmailing the EU.

(3) The Pope is not so naive, as many commentators in the Mainstream Media claim, to not expect Islamic riots against Christians when citing the offensive statements of the Byzantine Emperor. It was easy to predict what would happen following his lecture after having witness the events following the Danish cartoon crisis. My interpretation is that he and Mrs. Merkel wanted to provoke a strong reaction in the Islamic world including Turkey in order to have a good reason for demanding higher standards and counter-measure in the EU. The same probably holds for the Catholic values of the EU. It is a provocation for the Islamic party of Erdogan. His own followers already accused Erdogan - even before the Pope gave his famous lecture - of selling out Turkey to the EU. My prediction is that the Pope and Mrs. Merkel will constantly increase the difficulties for Turkey to become member of the EU while claiming that no offense was intended. Turkish politicians understand quite well what kind of game is being played. That's why they insist that there is no problem for the Pope to visit Turkey. Another major player is the Turkish military. Their dominance of the Turkish state if Turkey becomes a member of the EU. The Turkish military seems to already have chosen another leader, a hardliner, more likely to boycott the EU membership by suppressing the Kurds.

Stay tuned to watch the finesse of the game between the Turkish military and Mr. Erdogan on one side and the Pope and Mrs. Merkel on the other side. Many male politicians in Germany (including Mr. Schroeder of the social democratic party, Mr. Kohl, her boss and the ruler of her party, and her competitors for power within the party) had to discover to their amazement that they were unable to cope with the intelligence and strategic ability of this woman.

19 September 2006 at 01:40  
Anonymous Rick said...

Colin the use of the word "conspiracy" whenever two Germans converse is I think paranoia worthy of those who torch embassies. There is little unknown about Josef Ratzinger's views and reading his many published works show he is primarily a theologian of major standing, something that few intellectuals in modern Europe seem capable of understanding because of their own limited education and focused ideology.

The Pope does not want Turkey inside the is an American gift to a Turkish ally, originally to buy access to northern Iraq for the invasion. Why I should give legislative power over my life to persons wholly alien to my culture and heritage is one Blair et al have failed to explain.

The CDU and CSU are also opposed to Turkey joining but that may have more to do with enfranchising 2 million Turkish SPD voters than any principle.

Konrad Adenauer was a Catholic, he was also very wily. Ranged against him was Kurt Schumacher and an SPD tempted to re-unite Germany as a neutral power like Austria. Adenauer wanted Germany anchored in The West - he could not do so as a right-winger opposed to Communism since that theme had been trashed between 1933 and he used Catholic Anti-Communism to rally the party - CDU - which he created from the ruins of the old Zentrum Party.

19 September 2006 at 07:10  
Blogger istanbultory said...

A number of important points raised. I agree with Rick that the German angle can get a little belaboured in discussions of the EU’s past and present. I will mention only 1 issue alluded to above.
While B16 has vigorously opposed Turkey’s EU candidacy on the basis that Turkey is a Muslim country, the left (the British, Spanish and German centre-left in particular) have warmly embraced Turkey’s EU efforts. Why should they do so? Especially in Germany?

In German elections, the Turkish vote (700, 000) is a decisive factor in parts of Berlin, Cologne and other cities in Germany's Ruhr industrial region. Before the 1998 German parliamentary elections, the Turkish "Republican People's Party" (CHP) appealed to ethnic Turkish voters to vote for the SPD and Prime Minister Yilmaz recommended to naturalized Turks not to vote for the CDU. As leading Turkish journalist noted after the Left’s narrow victory in the 2002 German elections: “The votes that buoyed up the social democrats in Germany’s last elections came largely from its Turkish citizens. Sensitivities concerning foreigners in the country people and the policy of supporting Turkey’s EU candidacy played a key role in terms of nearly half a million Turkish people voting for the SDP. The Christian Democrats lost the elections by only the slim margin of 6,500 votes...”

The key point here, as Fjordman has observed, is that Leftists and Muslims have a mutual short-term interest in keeping the Leftist parties in power, and a mutual long-term interest in weakening the traditional, Judeo-Christian culture of Europe, which Socialists at best view with indifference, at worst as an evil obstacle blocking the road to the Socialist Utopia. (“Electing a New People: The Leftist - Islamic Alliance”)

See also:
Will Germany's Turks Pick the Next Chancellor?

Spiegel 25 Sept. 2005,1518,374755,00.html

19 September 2006 at 08:23  
Blogger istanbultory said...

One of the few benefits of the Iraq war has been that Labour appears to have lost, perhaps permanently, a core constiuency of its support. As in Germany, Labour has long relied on its placid (largely inner-city) Muslim vote to prop up its "rotten boroughs" or raise its tally of back bench cannon fodder at general elections. But no more. In 2001, it was estimated that nearly three-quarters of Muslims backed Labour; today, polls indicate Muslim support for the party barely hovering around 30 percent. Muslim support has transferred to the Liberal Democrats, Repect as a result of the Iraq debacle, etc.
We have the Dear Leader to thank for something at last...

19 September 2006 at 10:01  
Blogger Croydonian said...

Lest there be any confusion from the other thread, I'd like to out myself as a lifelong germanophile.

19 September 2006 at 10:38  
Anonymous Ulster Man said...

Did you know a Conservative candidate - Adrian Hilton - was sacked by Michael Howard for writing about this very topic in The Spectator, two years previously? Boris commissioned the articles.

The Catholic Herald called him a bigot, so he was sacked. THere's justice for you.

19 September 2006 at 11:06  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Reform is necessary in many areas such as welfare provision. Child Benefit should be paid for the first child and subsequent, but above four children no support should be available from the taxpayer whatsoever.

It should also be the case that since married spouses if foreign-born cannot claim any welfare benefit for the first two years, so too should it be refused any illegal immigrant.

19 September 2006 at 11:48  
Anonymous Colin said...


You said:

"Why I should give legislative power over my life to persons wholly alien to my culture and heritage"

This is precisely the important question and the reason why I do not like anti-Turkish, anti-Arabic or anti-African diatribes. Personally, I like and respect other cultures. But my love of and respect for the people from other cultures does not imply that I also should enjoy seeing our Western culture destroyed and its people enslaved in one way or another.

My impression is that Mission Impossible has similiar feelings because he is able to see the good as well as the ugly when he is talking about his experiences in Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

To use an analogy, many people admire and love sharks or tigers without having the desire to become the main course on their menu.

In relation to Croydonian's coming out "as a lifelong germanophile", to love Mozart, Bach, Beethoven and (who should we take as philosopher ? To make our leftist readers happy, let's say Marx) does not imply people will also enjoy to live under a Nazi regime.

19 September 2006 at 12:16  
Anonymous Colin said...

There are many important comments and suggestions on this thread which I enjoyed reading.

But let me focus on the second part of Rick's statement

"Why I should give legislative power over my life to persons wholly alien to my culture and heritage is one Blair et al have failed to explain."

I am talking about the fact that politicians do not even attempt to explain to their voters, whose interests they are claiming to protect, why they should submit their life to persons alien to their own culture.

Several observations suggest that politicians are masquerading as an average guy, i.e. as John, François, Heinz or Mustafa etc., while actually they are not. Politicians are not a random sample drawn from the population. How many people have the strong desire for dominating all others and what kind of personalities has the best chance of overcoming all these obstacles on its way to the top?

The famous German psychiatrist Ernst Kretschmer once made the following observation: "Psychopaths, in peacetime we examine them, in wartime they rule us."

Today's leading authority on psychopaths is the Canadian psychiatrist Robert D. Hare ( In his book "Without Conscience", he summarizes his findings:

"Psychopaths are social predators who charm, manipulate, and ruthlessly plow their way through life, leaving a broad trail of broken hearts, shattered expectations, and empty wallets. Completely lacking in conscience and in feelings for others, they selfishly take what they want and do as they please..." The signs of psychopathy include traits such as "glibness, grandiosity, lack of guilt, and shallow emotions, as well as social deviance traits such as impulsiveness, lack of responsibility, and antisocial behavior." "Psychopaths are found in every segment of society ..". The results of an analyses of psychopaths in corporations are described in his book "Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work". With high propability, the findings obtained from business organizations can be extended to political organizations. Summing up their findings about Snakes in Suits, Hare and his co-author conclude "Psychopaths are incapable of empathy, guilt, or loyalty to anyone but themselves."

Being "incapable of empathy, guilt or loyality", psychopaths don't care to give power over your life to persons wholly alien to you. Their grandiosity dictates what they want: power not just over a middle-sized nation but over an entire Empire. They even proclaimed - similar to the proclamations of the SU - that the EU will soon overtake the USA. Some designs were or are even more grandious: Supremacy of a postulated Aryan race, world domination, international communism, the only remaining superpower, world caliphate, etc. "Completely lacking in conscience and in feelings for others, they selfishly take what they want and do as they please...", e.g. conquer Persia, Empirial China, Germany, Russia, Poland, Iraq, or sell their power, country, and people. The history of humankind is full of examples.

As Hare observed for psychopaths in the normal population, they "ruthlessly plow their way through life, leaving a broad trail of broken hearts, shattered expectations, and empty wallets." In regard to politics, one might want to add:

Broken hearts: disillusionment with politics and ideologies and not rarely millions of deaths.

Shattered expectations: no work, no riches, loss of lives for jihad without the promised world caliphate.

Empty wallets: Debts, inflation, high taxes, economic decline, ruined pensions.

The renowed American journalist H.L. Mencken (1880 – 1956),having observed many politicians, elections, and governments wrote:

"Politicians seldom if ever get [into public office] by merit alone, at least in democratic states. Sometimes, to be sure, it happens, but only by a kind of miracle. They are chosen normally for quite different reasons, the chief of which is simply their power to impress and enchant the intellectually underprivileged….Will any of them venture to tell the plain truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the situation of the country, foreign or domestic? Will any of them refrain from promises that he knows he can’t fulfill – that no human being could fulfill? Will any of them utter a word, however obvious, that will alarm or alienate any of the huge pack of morons who cluster at the public trough, wallowing in the pap that grows thinner and thinner, hoping against hope? Answer: may be for a few weeks at the start…. But not after the issue is fairly joined, and the struggle is on in earnest…. They will all promise every man, woman and child in the country whatever he, she or it wants. They’ll all be roving the land looking for chances to make the rich poor, to remedy the irremediable, to succor the unsuccorable, to unscramble the unscrambleable, to dephlogisticate the undephlogisticable. They will all be curing warts by saying words over them, and paying off the national debt with money no one will have to earn. When one of them demonstrates that twice two is five, another will prove that it is six, six and a half, ten, twenty, n. In brief, they will divest themselves from their character as sensible, candid and truthful men ..."

Isn't this Dr. Hare's description of psychopathic personality?

And such personalities don't care to explain "Why I should give legislative power over my life to persons wholly alien to my culture and heritage" as Rick has correctly observed.

19 September 2006 at 14:56  
Blogger Croydonian said...

As ever, elegantly put Colin.

19 September 2006 at 15:48  
Anonymous Rick said...

Well put Colin...........let us not forget which profession/trade proves most suited to such persons able to employ thespian skills and lie with merit..............lawyers.

Which professional group is over-represented in Western legislatures ?

19 September 2006 at 15:58  
Anonymous vikki said...

I beg to digress.Please bear with me.(copy from previous thread)I reiterate the last thing I want on this forum is a war of words. However some people are just plain impossible!

MI,is it any wonder your mission is impossible? What sort of intellectualism is full of vulgarity? Iam not a fan of fruning graplecard but I suggest you take a look at his definition of Islam.....! Perusal of the Book of Proverbs specifically on wisdom would do no harm!

Colin, I do not agree with this statement of yours. You said "From time to time, Vikky appears to be making an emotional statement along the lines of received wisdom that women are the victims of evil men." If you can cite just one example of these I'd agree with you whole heartedly.

19 September 2006 at 19:47  
Anonymous Rick said...

Quand je suis le plus faible, je vous demande la liberté parce que tel est votre principe. Mais quand je suis le plus fort, je vous l’ôte parce que tel est le mien

Nice quotation from Louis Veuillot which seems most apt I think

19 September 2006 at 19:48  
Anonymous vikki said...

"Quand je suis le plus faible, je vous demande la liberté parce que tel est votre principe. Mais quand je suis le plus fort, je vous l’ôte parce que tel est le mien

Nice quotation from Louis Veuillot which seems most apt I think"

Care to explain?

19 September 2006 at 20:17  
Blogger istanbultory said...

If its any help, I have knocked together a bit of a rough and ready translation but its perfectly servicable nonetheless. I suspect Mr. croydonian would have done better than I. Naturally,I make no interpretation of the words below. To do so would be to digress. A cardinal sin.

"When I am at my weakest, I ask you for liberty because such is your principle. But when I am at the strongest, I take it away from you because such is mine"

19 September 2006 at 20:38  
Blogger istanbultory said...

I can't quite get the last sentence right in that translation. But frankly, I am too knackered to give a hoot. Good night one and all.

19 September 2006 at 20:42  
Anonymous Rick said...

Mais quand je suis le plus fort, je vous l’ôte parce que tel est le mien

When I am strongest I hate you because that is mine........"

the first part of the couplet was perfectly translated GC

19 September 2006 at 22:09  
Anonymous Colin said...

Oh Vikky,

How smart and kind of you to post your important comment on both threads to make sure to get noted. I shall follow your example and copy my reply to MI and my strong defense of you herewith:


Thanks a lot for your appreciation which is mutual, for sharing your experiences and for your suggestions of Libanese menues. I will follow your guidance in order to change my habit of trying as many excellent Indian restaurants as possible when I am in the UK. The stories of your experiences in SA and Iraq are fascinating to me. You are a truly interesting man and I hope you might from time to time tell us one chapter or another out of the book you did not find the time to write.


I am glad you are still with us. Somehow, I was already missing your contributions about the best way to solve the clash of civilizations. Unfortunately, I can't remember what it exactly was except that you wanted to put on your running shoes. But that was a joke you said. If you don't mind, could you please briefly summarize your intellectual contributions so that I am better able to answer your question about my incorrectly postulated emotionality of your statements. The alternative would be to check all your valuable comments, which would keep me busy for weeks.

Or would you also be satified if I borrowed a bit from you by saying, Vikky, I was just trying to have a good laugh?

Since we all like to have a good laugh, what about a few citations from the famous British scientist Richard Dawkins such as

"Yes, testosterone-sodden young men too unattractive to get a woman in this world might be desperate enough to go for 72 private virgins in the next."
-- Richard Dawkins, "Religion's Misguided Missiles" (September 15, 2001)

"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, "mad cow" disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate."
-- Richard Dawkins, The Humanist, Vol. 57, No. 1

"My last vestige of "hands off religion" respect disappeared in the smoke and choking dust of September 11th 2001, followed by the "National Day of Prayer," when prelates and pastors did their tremulous Martin Luther King impersonations and urged people of mutually incompatible faiths to hold hands, united in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the first place."
-- Richard Dawkins, The Devil's Chaplain (2004)

Oh Vikky, again for a laugh: Please be patient with us men. We just have one X-chromosome compared to the two of women. And the substitute for this lack is the Y-chromosome which is a bit short. Nature has been unfair to us. We are the victims. We need special protection. Would you mind to fight for the rights of us handicapped men by asking the MPs of your country to change the laws for divorce in our favour so that Heather Mills has to pay for poor Paul instead the other way around. And then there is this former male feminist, Warren Farrell. He must be crazy because he claims that his research has proven that women earn less than men because the latter work harder and more dangerously than the former. For having a good laugh about this poor crazy chap, let's watch the video of his lecture at C-span:

Oh Vikky, my dear,

Please forgive me, I did not know that you already made several important intellectual contributions to the topic of Islamism. Your real name is Dr. Phyllis Chesler, the famous American feminist. Why didn't you say so. You wrote "The Death of Feminism" and stated "Is feminism really dead? Well, yes and no. It gives me no pleasure, but someone must finally tell the truth about how feminists have failed their own ideals and their mandate to think both clearly and morally. Only an insider can really do this, someone who cares deeply about feminist values and goals. I have been on the front lines for nearly 40 years, and I feel called upon to explain how many feminists — who should be the first among freedom- and democracy-loving people — have instead become cowardly herd animals and grim totalitarian thinkers." ( You are absolutely correct to complain about our lack of respect for such a major intellectual contribution.

And even more importantly, you worked for more than 20 years on your book "Woman's Inhumanity to Woman" demonstrating that "most women have a repertoire of techniques with which to weaken, disorient, humiliate or banish other group members." Because one of the biggest taboos is against any overt display of female aggression, you wrote, these attacks are invariably covert, indirect. And thank you also for providing in your book such ample quantities of harder data (particularly about the social lives of girls, a popular new area of study) and compelling sagas of intrigue, deception and puppet-mastery that put the doings of Cardinal Richelieu to shame. However, since you described the problem so well, Vikky, I am wondering whether we shouldn't at least give the benefit of the doubt to Mission Impossible that some of his past experiences with women might not have been of the most pleasant kind?

Oh no, how could I have overlooked that. Now, I recognize your style. You are always hiding great wisdom behind a good laugh. So let's laugh together by watching your video (clip #783) on, your debate with the Algerian Islamist Ahmad bin Muhammad over Islamic Teachings and Terrorism on Al-Jazeera TV. I bow in admiration of your wit, your superior intelligence and your courage so clearly displayed in this debate. What a really outstanding woman you are, Dr. Wafa Sultan. Your arguments were so much more forceful, logical and convincing that Pope Benedict's lecture in Regensburg (Germany) proving that women are more than just intriguing beautiful monsters, that they also have a powerful mind. May I remind you what you stated at Arabe Al-Jazeera TV, something that is forbidden to tell at Western TV channels. As as a rebuke to the claim that Islamist violence is the result of Western Imperialism, you sat the record straight by explaining

"The Crusader wars about which the professor is talking – these wars came after the Islamic religious teachings, and as a response to these teachings. This is the law of action and reaction. The Islamic religious teachings have incited to the rejection of the other, to the denial of the other, and to the killing of the other. Have they not incited to the killing of Jews and Christians? If we had heard that a tribe in a distant corner of China has a holy book and religious teachings calling to kill Muslims – would the Muslims stand idly by in the face of such teachings?

The Crusader wars came after these Islamic religious teachings. When these Islamic teachings were delivered, America did not exist on the face of the earth, nor was Israel in Palestine... Why doesn't he talk about the Muslim conquests that preceded all the wars he is talking about? Why doesn't he mention that when Tariq bin Ziyyad entered Andalusia with his armies, he said to his people: "The sea is behind you, and the enemy is in front"? How can you storm a peaceful country, and consider all its peaceful inhabitants to be your enemies, merely because you have the right to spread your religion? Should the religion be spread by the sword and through fighting?..."

Thank you for your enlightning intellectual contributions, Vikky, as well for your jokes to lighten up the tensity of debates. And please come back with more jokes so that we can laugh together no matter how relevant for the topic. Honi soi qui mal y pense.

19 September 2006 at 22:26  
Blogger Rigger Mortice said...

we should all swing together!

20 September 2006 at 12:08  
Anonymous Colin said...

Yeah, as suggested by Rigger "we should all swing together!"

Let's put on our dancing shoes to have fun together.

20 September 2006 at 15:01  
Blogger Croydonian said...


Rigger used a curtailed quote, with the implied continuation 'or we shall swing (hang) separately'.

20 September 2006 at 15:49  
Anonymous Colin said...

More evidence for my assumption that Mrs. Merkel and the Pope are "conspiring" against the EU membership of Turkey and that the intention of the Pope's lecture was to provoke Islamic violence.

Today, the German media reported that Mr. Stoiber, leader of the CSU and one of the most influential members of the governmental coalition in Germany, said something that Mrs. Merkel as chancellor of the country would not be able to say. He demanded to stop the negociations of the EU with Turkey for membership. The reason he gave was that Turkey could not become a member of the EU because of its aggressive comments, especially of Mr. Erdogan, against the Pope's lecture and that this would be incompatible with the liberal tradition of Europe.

The Pope, according to media reports, demonstated his determination to resist Islamic threats by driving among his believers in an open car instead of using his protected Papamobile. This guy has courage. Maybe he hopes for getting shot to deliver a reason to stop Islamic migration to Europe?

According to another report, Ali Agca, the Turkish man who attempted to shoot the previous Pope while driving in an open car, has written a letter to the present Pope from his Turkish prison warning him to not visit Turkey because he surely would get killed during his visit. It seems that the Turkish government is trying to save its chances for EU membership by using Mr. Agca as inofficial "spokesman" in order to prevent the predicted outcome.

I expect more provocations to come from the Pope while naturally denying that any offense was intended. He already gave order to distribute the entire text of his lecture in Islamic countries "with the good intention" to demonstate that the reaction to his lecture is based on a misunderstanding. Who is able to believe that the distribution of his entire lecture in Islamic countries will calm down the mostly illiterate masses?

20 September 2006 at 15:51  
Anonymous Colin said...


Thank you for enlightening me about the subtleties of the English language.

Nevertheless, I hope Vikky will continue to enjoy us all with her funny stories about the tragedies of her blogging life.

20 September 2006 at 15:59  
Blogger istanbultory said...

Interesting remarks as ever. Has Merkel or the CDU officially commented on Stoiber's perspective on curtailing Turkey's accession negotiations? Or is Stoiber in fact serving as the mouthpiece for Merkel on this issue? Perhaps it is a coded attack on the SPD. after all, the German foreign Minister was in Turkey 2 weeks ago to launch the Ernst Reuter Initiative for Intercultural Dialogue and Understanding. ( This initiative is designed to "foster intercultural dialogue" and keep the SPD and Turks resident in Germany on good terms)

As for the previous pope's would-be assaisin Mehmet Ali Agca, I wouldn't exaggerate his importance. He is a bona fide lunatic (in fact, he has been medically certified as such)who is currently held in solitary confinement in a maximum security prison in Istanbul and will remain so until 2013 at the earliest. Agca now claims to be the Messiah and is not well viewed, to put it mildly, in either the ultranationalist circles from which he originally sprang or Islamist circles.He is without influence or credibility, a kind of David Icke figure for the Mohammedan masses.

20 September 2006 at 16:31  
Anonymous Rick said...

Stoiber is no friend of Merkel, but he is the Leader of the CSU and PM of Bavaria in which the city of Regensburg lies.

You seem to think the CSU and CDU are the same party, they are not. Stoiber's main issue at present is the removal of Health Minister Ulla Schmidt (SPD) from Merkel's Cabinet.

The other issue is that in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern surveys suggest 40% voters would go NPD, particularly young voters - don't forget that in local elections the German voting age is 16. Stoiber needs a hard line for fear of watching parties outflank the CDU/CSU on the right.

As for the Pope travelling in an open-top car - I prefer to believe a magic carpet. There are 20 Popemobiles stationed around the world - no security service anywhere will let him use anything else.

20 September 2006 at 17:43  
Anonymous Rick said...

I retract my comment on the Pope's vehicle above - and apologise - I have just seen him on German TV in St Peter's Square in an open-top Popemobile

20 September 2006 at 18:22  
Anonymous Colin said...


Thanks for the information about Mehmet Ali Agca which I was not aware of. Since he is in prison, I simply assumed that the Turkish authorities would not let him write a letter about an issue of great national importance with their consent.

You asked: "Has Merkel or the CDU officially commented on Stoiber's perspective on curtailing Turkey's accession negotiations?"

Not to my knowledge. I doubt that she could speak freely about the issue without risking her coalition with the pro-Turkish SPD and it foreign-minister.

"Or is Stoiber in fact serving as the mouthpiece for Merkel on this issue?"

I assume so but honestly I do not know. However, one thing is certain, both have the same interest in keeping Turkey out of the EU. Opinion polls indicate that about 25% of the Turkish population would like to emigrate to Germany. Even if the numbers are not that high, it would certainly amount to a few millions and that would mean the end the of the rule of both conservative parties. CDU and CSU would lose their power for good.

For "Muslim Vote Tips the Balance in Netherlands", see

20 September 2006 at 19:00  
Anonymous Colin said...


"Stoiber needs a hard line for fear of watching parties outflank the CDU/CSU on the right."

Exactly. Hence it is possible that everything is just part of the usual deceptions of politicians and nothing is going to change.

On the other hand, why so much diplomatic work and international complications if a few sentences on TV before the next election in a few years are sufficient to trick the voters into believing she would do something about the Turkish EU membership? And why would Mrs. Merkel simply watch the power base of her party and her role in history disappear. I assume that she will do what politicians always do, namely trying to get and to keep power.

20 September 2006 at 19:20  
Blogger istanbultory said...

many thanks for those insights from Rick and Colin.So presumably Stoiber (and by implication, Merkel) are genuinely disturbed by the emergence of the NPD as a serious and organised threat on the far right.
My assumption is that the CDU/CSU sense (quite accurately) that Turkey will not be able to meet the formal accession criteria, negotiations will not proceed beyond the early stages and thereby Turkish candidacy will grind to an automatic halt, with no intervention required from Berlin or anywhere else.Interestingly enough, most Turks hold to a similar viewpoint.

20 September 2006 at 19:41  
Anonymous Rick said...

Germany's problem is that Britain is the leading proponent of Turkish entry. Jack Straw pressured the Austrians into agreeing.

Germany has to watch what games Britain is playing............sometimes people here forget that other countries see Britain as a threat to their own security with some of the wacko positions it takes - after all we never get to know what goes on in the Council of Ministers - just what spin the BBC gives

20 September 2006 at 19:42  
Blogger istanbultory said...

Yes, Rick makes a very valid plot. For many EU member states the whole issue of Turkey's EU candidacy appears to very much as an unwanted and frankly unacceptable Anglo-American proposition.
Turkish politicians openly admit that without the UK's fierce diplomatic pressure on Austria, negotiations would never have opened at all in October 2005.

20 September 2006 at 20:48  
Anonymous Colin said...


"Stoiber (and by implication, Merkel) are genuinely disturbed by the emergence of the NPD as a serious and organised threat on the far right."

It's correct that they are genuinely disturbed about the NPD. They and the other German parties are even talking about legally banning this Nazi party. They talk about a new threat from Nazi reawakening. And that's why they want to ban the NPD in order to save democracy etc.

However, this is not the real reason. The NPD mainly consists of psychopaths of low intelligence. Since the Nazis lost a large part of Germany and are responsible for the destruction of the rest as well as for the horrors of the Holocaust, they will never again gain a sufficient large following to win an election as they did in 1939.

Last weekend, the NPD has won about 7% in a provincial election in Northern Germany (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern). Several years ago, the won even more votes in other provinical elections. They never were able to gain sufficient votes for entering the national parliament. Thus, all this talk about the dangers of the NPD to democracy is purposely deceptive.

The NPD will take votes away from the CDU/CSU. They fear that this will cost them the majority which they hope to gain at the next election together with the liberals (FDP). It's about power, not about democracy.

"Turkey will not be able to meet the formal accession criteria, negotiations will not proceed beyond the early stages and thereby Turkish candidacy will grind to an automatic halt."

In my view, the first part of your sentence is correct but not the second.

In regard to the formal accession criteria, as far as I know the criteria for starting negotiations were never met and the accession criteria probably will never be applied correctly. Romania and Bulgaria did not meet the accession criteria either and became members because Merkel pushed for it. Turkey never met the criteria for starting the negotiations in the first place.

The EU started the negotiations anyway with the justification that Turkey has promised to solve the problem in the near future.

The criteria are just a part of the strategy of deception to calm the anxieties of the native European population and to delay resistance. In 5 or 10 years, suddenly in a few months time, before resistance can built up, the EU will declare that the major criteria have been met and that Turkey is now a member of the EU.

"candidacy will grind to an automatic halt,... most Turks hold to a similar viewpoint."

I assume (but do not know) that spreading this viewpoint is part of the deception strategy of the Turkish government to calm the anxieties of the Turkish population. Becoming part of the Christian EU is most likely to cause anxieties among the strongly Islamic followers in Erdogan's party. It is the same game, the EU is playing: Telling the population not to worry, nothing has yet been decided and probably it will not happen anyway.

It has already been decided by the EU elites that Turkey will become a member of the EU in order to have a better access to the oil fields for the planned EU Empire. And since Turkish men are excellent soldiers, they can be used as cannon fodder for invading or threatening neighbouring countries.

Turkish membership of the EU is going to happen, if Merkel and the Pope are unable to stop it. The only reason why they might want to stop it is the fact that it endangers their own power.

20 September 2006 at 20:57  
Anonymous Rick said...

They and the other German parties are even talking about legally banning this Nazi party.

Actually it is the SPD whicvh pushes to ban this party - Peter Struck has raised the issue again. The Constitutional Court stopped the last attempt to do so because it is unreasonable to ban a political party in the interests of another party.

The German system is getting back to the multi-party system of Weimar because party allegiance has corroded. Teachers and civil servants join the SPD because to get promotion they need to show civic engagement - whilst politically active they get automatic promotions - others lose out on the career track in the private sector.

20 September 2006 at 22:04  
Anonymous Colin said...

"Britain is the leading proponent of Turkish entry" according to Rick and GC.

I agree.

Since centuries the politicians of the UK, have used the old Roman power strategy "divide et impera" (divide and rule) to weaken the competitiors for power on the continent.

Also in their colonies (e.g. in India and Ceylon), the British elites cleverly put one ethnic group against the other.

Since France's big government and Germany's big business teamed up to rule Europe, the British politicians used the same ethnic strategy to destroy the French-German hegemony by introducing the nationalistic Turks in the EU. "Proud to be Turkish" seems to be a favorite slogan in Turkey.
But GC, you should be able to tell us more about Turkish nationalism.

From the point of view of conquests, the Turkish people have every reason to be proud. Having been nomads in central Asia, they moved to Persia to fight as soldiers for the Persian Empire, converted to the Zarathustrian religion and took over Persia, then they helped as soldiers the armies of Islam, converted to Islam, conquered the Byzantine Empire and the Arabs and established the Ottoman Empire. Twice, they tried to conquer Europe with the help of an huge and powerful army. Next, they helped the American Empire with their soldiers to contain the Sovjet Union. And now, they want to help the EU Empire as soldiers and otherwise to become an EU member.

To prevent any competitor of the USA to dominate the Eurasian continent (see the Heartland Theory in the other thread), the US politicians are applying the same strategy as the Romans and the UK. They are forcing Turkey into EU in order to weaken the emerging EU Empire.

The French know that the purpose of the Angloamerican strategy is to prevent the political integration of the EU. For this reason, former French president Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, the architect of the EU constitution, fiercely opposed the EU membership of Turkey because - he said - that would be the end of the process of political integration.

But it seems that the more socialist-oriented European elites assume that they could use Islam for their own purposes to destroy capitalism and American supremacy.

However, the strategy of the European lefist might fail as it did in the case of the Islamic revolution in Iran. The progressivists of the Left, arrogantly believing in their superiority as always, thought by helping Islamist fanatics, who they consider to be primitives, that they might get rid of the pro-American shah and later take over power from those "primitives". They were in for a surprise. To late, they realised that they could not use Islam but had themselves been used instead.

The elites of the UK and the USA might be up for a surpise too. The result of the British and American anti-EU strategy might be similiar to the American anti-Russian strategy in Afganistan. The result was that they destroyed the Sovjet Empire by giving power to Islamists. This time, they might hand over large parts of the Eurasian continent to an aggressive anti-Western and anti-American Islamist ideology, which in conjunction with European technology, might weaken their quest for world supremacy more than the EU alone. The winner of the intra-European conflict of the last century was the USA. This time, the winner of the emerging intra-Western conflict might be the emerging Chinese Empire.

Rick said "sometimes people here forget that other countries see Britain as a threat to their own security". To his correct statement I would like to add that history has shown that politicians sometimes forget that their short-sighted power games may - in the long run - threaten their own security .

"Qui vivra, verra."

20 September 2006 at 22:50  
Anonymous Rick said...

Also in their colonies (e.g. in India and Ceylon), the British elites cleverly put one ethnic group against the other.

Not just in the colonies, British inner cities have been a superb example of this policy.

We tend to forget that the Ottoman invader into Asia Minor was conveyed in Venetian ships, that they were co-opted by one faction seeking power in Byzantium and thus established a foothold.

Foreign policy runs awry. After Waterloo BRitain strengthened Prussia which was a key ally until Bismarck was dropped in 1890 and Queen Victoria's nephew went on his passive/aggressive trip with his English mother - locking her up in Kronberg/Ts. and then antagonising his English uncle, Edward VII.

Ludendorff taught us all a lesson by conveying Lenin to Russia in 1917 to weaken Russia's war effort; and the British then conveyed Trotsky to Russia by British warship to try to undermine Lenin.

21 September 2006 at 05:41  
Anonymous Rick said...

Oh and to add to it - with Trotsky in charge of the Red Army we provided Intelligence by helping build up the GRU with British agents such as Capt George Hill of MI6

21 September 2006 at 05:43  
Blogger istanbultory said...

Excellent comments before.
There is a certainly an anxiety felt by many people that some of the values that are important to Turkey are being sold out by the EU drive. Until about 2004, the country's hopes were behind the EU drive. Now people are becoming confused. There is a fatigue, and nationalism has become an escape route. It is also clear that a modernization process driven from above but with little support from below cannot transform a traditional society.
The growing nationalism comes at a time when Turkey's government, led by the Justice and Development Party (AKP), is beset by internal problems that appear to be stalling its reform drive.

Actually, Turkey did, at least in formal terms i.e., the European Commission's perspective, satisfy the Copenhagen criteria for the opening of negotiations last October. The overwhelming majority of Turks appear to believe that the EU discussions will only lead to a dead end. Meanwhile, there is growing concern that in order to join the EU, Turkey will have to make unilateral concessions regarding Cyprus, accept the Armenian claims of genocide by the Ottoman Turks in 1915, and accede to EU pressure on dealing with its minorities. It seems like it's very painful for Turks to redefine their identity according to EU norms.

In my view, the Cyprus problem seems likely to collapse Turkey's accession talks by the end of 2006 or early 2007. Turkey will not ratify the extension of its customs union with the EU to the ten new members (including Cyprus) unless the EU delivers on its promised restoration of trade links with Northern Cyprus. The EU cannot because of Cyprus's veto. The collapse of the accession negotiations would strengthen nationalist forces within Turkey. In the long run Turkey may - like Ukraine and Russia - need to opt for forms of association with the EU that are less than membership.

Russia is preparing to offer a sympathetic alternative to a Turkey rejected by the EU. Over the past five years relations between this once hostile pair have developed very, very rapidly. Russia is Turkey's second biggest trading partner (after Germany), with bilateral trade amounting to about $20 billion a year. Two million Russian tourists a year visit Turkey. Both countries are suspicious of US efforts to promote democracy in their region. Each likes the fact that the other does not lecture it on human rights. President Putin and Prime Minister Erdogan met four timesin 2005. Both countries talk openly about Turkey and Russia becoming leading and allied Eurasian powers.
I suppose from this perspective, we can see why the US, in particular, is so intent on locking Turkey into the EU architecture.

Suggested reading:
"The Curse of Euro-Nationalism: Why the U.S. should beware the EU - Industry Overview"
National Review (August 2006) John O’Sullivan

21 September 2006 at 05:55  
Anonymous Rick said...

On the other hand Turkey is playing ganes in Central Asia so Russia wants to balance Turkey against Iran. Russia has a petro-currency rather than a real consumer market for Turkish goods.

Nationalism is a force the EU tried to destroy foolishly. It was the whole basis of German Romantic Poets to have a Germany just as for Garibaldi it was an Italy.

The fact that Germany's eastern borders were always fluid and it envied Austria-Hungary's posessions was not the fault of nationalism but of rather rambling and dilapidated Ottoman. Russian and Austrian empires in the age of steam and iron.

The EU would fall in much the same way to whichever power had a national identity or any identity of an ethnic or religious integrity.

Hungary is an exercise in definition on the streets at this moment.

The use of immigration to eradicate nationhood is an old one - from both Soviet and Nazi traditions - it is now used by 'democratic' governments to attain their own purposes of weakening traditional ties........forgetting these are the ties that bind..

21 September 2006 at 09:04  
Anonymous vikki said...

I would ask for your permission or would it be forgiveness to commit a cardinal sin. Digression !

Many thanks gc, for unravelling Nebuchadnezzar's. (rick's) mystery writing. I thought it was yet another "writing on the wall". No doubt my French teacher would not be amused......

Colin, I knew you would not be able to cite examples because there are simply non to cite. However I do appreciate your effort at peace keeping.You are doing a superb job. Would a... job at..... the UNO be in order...? Perhaps I should send in my nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize......
Yes Colin, I do love to laugh as you can see from this comment copied from Iain Dale's archives.

"vikki said...
l write further to my previous comment above i.e goose and gander.I'm still incensed at the same time l'm trying to be objective. If the UK ratified the treaty and the USA did not, does it not simply mean there is no agreement? Did UK have any justification in handing the men over while the treaty is still one-sided and when to begin with it was not intended for cases of this nature.(As the facts before me suggests)it might help to change the word fraud in this case to terrorism:-)it would lend more credence to the the case wouldnt it! Since we are making so much noise about single currency, may l humbly submit that we do not not need the euro,the dollar would do! After all we have relinquished our sovereignty by becoming the 51st state of the USA! Did l ever hear the USA denounce communism? Or is it imperialism? Whatever happened to USA's maxim "equality for all people..."?"

While I am all for a good laugh, I have to add I am not about to apply for the post of a Court Jester even if its vacant :-)

21 September 2006 at 09:57  
Anonymous Rick said...

Retournon a nos moutons !

21 September 2006 at 11:09  
Anonymous Ulster Man said...

Sadly, Vikki, the Court Jester, who provided quite a few weeks of merriment, absconded, possibly on 'training', but he is missed very much on this blog.

Cranmer, a friend of mine took one look at the comments your posts attract, and was scared off by the intellectual rigour. While I don't want these relaxed (I enjoy this group of commentators very much!), would you consider a Cranmer-for-the-intellectually-challenged blog? You could call it something more user friendly, of course.

The Peter Hitchens comment about this (and Guido) being the only two blogs he would consider paying for is a compliment indeed. It is also one I second (not that I want to swell the CofE coffers).

21 September 2006 at 12:22  
Blogger Croydonian said...

Cranmer, a friend of mine took one look at the comments your posts attract, and was scared off by the intellectual rigour. While I don't want these relaxed (I enjoy this group of commentators very much!), would you consider a Cranmer-for-the-intellectually-challenged blog? You could call it something more user friendly, of course.

Diet Cranmer? Cranmer Lite (sic)?

21 September 2006 at 14:07  
Blogger istanbultory said...

Cranmer's home for simple folk?
Kranmer's gaff?
Cranmer's Reformation in the Hood?
ad infinitum

21 September 2006 at 15:29  
Blogger Cranmer said...



Sounds like a name for fire-lighters...and thus a joke in most poor taste.

21 September 2006 at 15:53  
Anonymous Rick said...

Just call it "Mass Hysteria"

21 September 2006 at 15:57  
Anonymous Colin said...


I am glad to see you back in the game.
I was already missing you.
And thanks for your courteous response.
Mother forgive me, for I have sinned in this regard.
Clearly, you have won the debate by pure generosity.
Happy ? :-)

21 September 2006 at 18:03  
Anonymous Colin said...


Many thanks for your most interesting insights from the Turkish point of view.

"unless the EU delivers on its promised restoration of trade links with Northern Cyprus."

I did not know that. Thanks a lot. As far as I know, this problem hasn't been mentioned in the media here.

"The EU cannot because of Cyprus's veto."

In regard to Cyprus' veto, the EU elites might just search again for their usual thumbscrews (EU budget, funding, priviliges or isolation etc., remember what happened to Austrian politicians because Austrians dared to vote for the wrong party). They will try to beat such a small country as Cyprus into submission. After all, the EU is about peace, isn't it.

21 September 2006 at 18:28  
Anonymous Colin said...

Rick wrote,

"forgetting these are the ties that bind.. "

True, too true.

Without binding: no cohesion,
without cohesion: conflicts,
conflicts without cohesion: civil war,
with civil wars: end of politicians' Imperial dreams or tyranny.

Politicians always claim that people should calm down because government knows best. However, history has sufficient evidence for the folly of those in power.

The pervasive presence of folly in governments through the ages has been convincingly described by Barbara Tuchman in her book "The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam".

"Barbara Tuchman defines folly as "Pursuit of Policy Contrary to Self-Interest." In THE MARCH OF FOLLY, Tuchman examines 4 conflicts: The Trojan Horse, The Protestant Secession, The American Revolution, and The American War in Vietnam. In each example an alternative course of action was available, the actions were endorsed by a group, not just an individual leader, and the actions were perceived as counter productive in their own time. Many individuals are guilty of folly (Tuchman also calls this woodenheadedness), but when governments persist in folly, their actions can adversely affect thousands, even millions of lives. Folly is a child of power. "The power to command frequently causes failure to think."

As Mrs. Tuchman observed, "the power to command frequently causes failure to think."

Because of the intellectual blackout caused by power, the EU elites forget that their own power depends on "the ties that bind."

21 September 2006 at 18:56  
Blogger Croydonian said...

No poor taste intended Your Grace.

21 September 2006 at 19:01  
Anonymous Rick said...

Barabar Tuchman is fine but I still find the great Hannah Arendt the doyenne

21 September 2006 at 19:07  
Anonymous vikki said...

Nous tous ne parlons pas français !

21 September 2006 at 22:00  
Blogger Peter Hitchens said...

Mais quand je suis le plus fort, je vous l’ôte parce que tel est le mien

When I am strongest I hate you because that is mine.

Probably the most personally significant thing I have read in a very long time , and very relevant to my current situation , that may sound overblown ,however , it is true.
Thank you for posting it.

21 September 2006 at 22:19  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I should like to think you are really Peter Hitchens and not, as he complained on Guido Fawkes Blog, someone mis-appropriating his real name

22 September 2006 at 09:21  
Anonymous vikki said...

"Mother forgive me, for I have sinned in this regard..."

Colin, Old Mother Hubbard? I see, you were simply saying the hail mary prayer.....pardon me:-}

22 September 2006 at 10:45  
Anonymous Rick said...

Read Daniel Hannan's article in the latest edition of The Spectator

The EU is administered by a 25-member politburo, which rules through a series of Five Year Plans, endorsed by a rubber-stamp parliament. There are seven former communists now on the politburo, including a Hungarian who served the MSZMP at a very senior level. Those who harbour reactionary beliefs, however — championing the national principle, for example, or upholding the traditional doctrines of the Catholic Church — are generally barred. Although there are regular elections, the results are not allowed to overturn the ruling ideology. If people are foolish enough to vote against the system (as the Danes, Irish, French and Dutch, in the grip of false consciousness, have done at one time or another), their votes are ignored.

22 September 2006 at 11:55  
Blogger Richard littlejohn said...

someone mis-appropriating his real name

So Peter Hitchens also uses an alias?
So do I .I write eassays under the Nom de Plume Melanie phillips.

22 September 2006 at 13:10  
Anonymous Colin said...


Good remark :-)

23 September 2006 at 00:04  
Anonymous Colin said...

Rick emphasized that "The EU is administered by a 25-member politburo, which rules through a series of Five Year Plans"

A former Soviet dissident shares this view as reported by the Brusselsjournal on March 27, 2006

"Vladimir Bukovksy, the 63-year old former Soviet dissident, fears that the European Union is on its way to becoming another Soviet Union. In a speech he delivered in Brussels last week Mr Bukovsky called the EU a “monster” that must be destroyed, the sooner the better, before it develops into a fullfledged totalitarian state."

23 September 2006 at 00:18  
Blogger istanbultory said...

I too have another incarnation, that of Benedictus 16, which I have used to some destructive effect in the Catholic blogosphere.

24 September 2006 at 12:44  
Blogger The Emerson Avenger said...

So what about the Unitarians? According to German anti-fascist and anti-racist groups the German Unitarians might better be referred to as Unit-Aryans. . . According to the online allegations of anti-fascists and anti-racists the German Unitarian "religious community" was subverted by convicted Nazi war criminals following WWII.

3 November 2006 at 03:18  
Blogger Superb Jon said...

The mafia fascist molestor league elected Baerpheon O'Phalleigh O'Bamaugh as president with the most Catholic cabinet in history, now they md Blair a Catholic, too. Vatican Osservatore Romano editor Vian said on May 18th that Obama "is not a pro-abortion president." Proves Vatican abortion stand to encourage Catholics to breed and to encourage non-Catholics to abort out of spite. The Vatican likes the abortion status quo in the USA for this reason. Their purpose is only conquest, not faith. Carolignian Brzezinski spawned Zia al Haq, Khomeini, and bin Laden - breaks up superpowers via Aztlan and Kosovo as per Joel Garreau's Nine Nations. Brzezinski, Buckley and Buchanan winked anti-Semitic votes for Obama, delivered USA to Pope's feudal basket of Bamana Republics. Michael Pfleger and Joe Biden prove Obama is the Pope's boy. Obama is half a Kearney from County Offaly in Ireland. Talal got Pontifical medal as Fatima mandates Catholic-Muslim union against Jews (Francis Johnson, Great Sign, 1979, p. 126), Catholic Roger Taney wrote Dred Scott decision. John Wilkes Booth, Tammany Hall and Joe McCarthy were Catholics. Now Catholic majority Supreme Court. Catholics Palmisano, Grasso, Damato, Langone, Mozilo, Ranieri, Dioguardi, Palmieri destroyed American industry. Subprime construction mobsters had hookers deliver mortgages to banks. McCain's Keeting started it all. They find American cars too advanced to use or their mechanics to fix. Ellis Island Popecrawlers brought in FDR. Since Pio Nino banned voting they consider our Constituion and laws immoral and illegitimate and think nothing of vioating them or passing legislation that undermine them. They believe that they can not be fully loyal to their superiors if they do not go the extra stretch and break the law intentionally. Their slovenly, anti-intellectual work ethic produces vacuous, casuistrous blather and a tangle of hypoctical, contradictory regulations. Their clubhouse purges provided praetorian training for corporate misgovernance. Every American boom has been caused by an Evangelical Revival and every major Depression by the domination of new Catholic immigrants. NYC top drop outs: Hispanic 32%, Black 25%, Italian 20%. NYC top illegals: Ecuadorean, Italian, Polish. Ate glis-glis but blamed plague on others, now lettuce coli. Their bigotry most encouraged terror yet they reap most security funds. Rabbi circumcises lower, Pope upper brain. Tort explosion by glib casuistry. Hollywood Joe Kennedy had Bing Crosby proselytize. Bazelya 1992 case proves PLO-IRA-KLA links. Our enemy is the Bru666elles Sineurabia feudal Axis and the only answer is alliance with Israel and India. They killed six million Jews, a million Serbs, half a million freemasons, a quarter million Gypsies, they guided the slaughter of Assyrians and Armenians, and promoted the art of genocide throughout the world now they are relentless in their year to canonize nazi pope. They had no qualms hijacking American policy in Vietnam or Balkans to papal ends, but when American interests opposed those of the papacy in Iraq and Iran, they showed their true fangs (Frum, Unpatriotic Conservatives). See George Marlin's history of the Conservative Party in New York or Paul Johnson's Modern Times, extolling the rise of Carolignianism of Adenauer, de Gaulle, and Gaspieri, forgetting that Hitler, too, was Carolignian and a Catholic altar boy. They could not countenance a Mormon President or a Kenyan Pope! They broke their own coalition with their foreign adventures and with their unwillingness to extend home and school subsidies to other races, as evidenced by their missing their own Obama moment when they could have elected a Kenyan pope. Obama was Brzezinski's revenge, to break up the USA, as feared Kenyan pope would break up Vatican.

16 October 2009 at 15:45  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older