Thursday, November 19, 2009

Rompuy-Stiltskin – the first President of Europe

Who is he?

God knows.

But perhaps that’s the point.

Just as the Son of God was incarnate as a humble carpenter in Galilee, so Satan does not always appear as an angel of light: sometimes he just skulks incognito, concealed in tenebrous anonymity until the time is right for him to reveal himself. And Herman Van Rompuy-Stiltskin looks far more like the spawn of Gollum that a credible, charismatic, inspirational ‘President of Europe’ who can 'represent the interests’ and 'fulfil the purposes’ of European Union on the world stage. Of course, one should not judge by appearances, but in this instance Cranmer will make an exception. The first President / Emperor of Europe for five centuries is everyone’s third choice and has all the appearance of low-key, lightweight, compromise non-entity; there is nothing presidential about him at all. He looks like just another committee man, of which we have too many already.

Cranmer thought they were after a man of sufficient stature to hold the allegiance of all people, and to lift us out of the economic morass in which we are sinking.

And yet...

Rompuy-Stiltskin has called for a massive extension of the presence of the EU in town halls, schools and sporting events. He wants an EU national anthem. He sees no place for Turkey in the EU – ever – because the EU is a ‘Christian club’.

He has talked of Europe's Christian ‘fundamental values’, which would be undermined by admitting Turkey into the union. He said: “An expansion of the EU to include Turkey cannot be considered as just another expansion as in the past. The universal values which are in force in Europe, and which are also fundamental values of Christianity, will lose vigour with the entry of a large Islamic country such as Turkey.”


What is interesting is that a ‘Belgian official’ has attempted to defuse this with the explanation that ‘things that are said in opposition, as David Cameron will soon find out, are different from what you find yourself saying when in government’. He continued: “Serious politics, however, is to judge someone by what they say and do when in power."

Cranmer begs to differ: serious politics is to judge someone by the extent to which they honour when in power the pledges made whilst in opposition. It is to do with such notions as consistency, sincerity, integrity, reliability, truth and honour.

It is noteworthy that when The Times introduced Herman Van Rompuy-Stiltskin last week as being ‘harmless’ and a ‘nice guy’, their opening sentence was: ‘He is a devout Roman Catholic’.

They also said he has ‘a quiet sense of purpose’. Perhaps ‘devout’ in this instance is synonymous with ‘cradle’, or euphemism for non-convert, like Tony Blair, whose devoutness is more to his own liberal agenda than to any particular orthodoxy.

And it would be very useful indeed to have a devout Roman Catholic leading Europe’s secular government while a devout Roman Catholic also occupies the Vatican: they can oppose Turkey together. It is highly unlikely that a ‘devout Catholic’ in opposition would be inclined to oppose Turkey’s accession on the basis of Europe’s ‘fundamental’ Christian values, only to discover, when in power, that Islam shares all of those values and they are not so uniquely fundamental to Christianity after all.

Whatever else is or is not known about this nonentity, he is no democrat, and so perfect to lead a fascist, totalitarian, anti-democratic, obfuscationally bureacratic Tower of Babel.

When the first Irish ‘No’ vote on the Lisbon Treaty created a slight headache, Mr Van Rompuy said ‘this doesn’t mean that we cannot continue to work in a creative way in the direction which the Constitution points in’.

Creative way?

He clarified: “I don’t object if we break up the Constitution into smaller parts, as long as we continue to work in the same direction: in the direction of more Europe.”

So there you have it: there is just one direction in the world of Rompuy-Stiltskin, irrespective of the express will of the people.

He also supports proposals for an ‘EU Tax’ to finance the Union, which he has identified could come from a specifically ring-fenced swathe of ‘green taxes’ (so that’s what they’re for).

As ever, the whole process for the appointment of Europe’s first president was a Franco-German stitch-up.

The spirit of Charlemagne broods ever closer. Van Rompuy’s appointment is the politics of pure jealousy. Everyone knows that the most credible and competent operator who could have ‘incarnated’ the EU on the world stage was Tony Blair. The problem, of course, is that his shekinah incandescence would have eclipsed the humble halos of President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel. And the EU Commission are also jealous to guard their status: whenever Tony Blair spoke, their voices would have been as whispers and their protestations nothing more than pathetic squeaks. Who would have listened to President Barroso if President Blair were co-regent?

Herman Van Rompuy has succeeded precisely because he has no charisma, no initiative, no personality and no presence. In short, he has no teeth and is therefore no threat either to the Franco-German axis or to the omnipotent European Commission.


Anonymous godefroi said...

The best thing I have heard about M. Van Rompuy is that he quite rightly doesn't want to add Turkey to the stew of poverty and corruption currently seething in Easten Europe, creating a conduit for Islamic migration westwards which would be impossible to block without starting World War Three.

19 November 2009 at 20:28  
Anonymous Zach Johnstone said...

Your Grace,

I was even more gobsmacked by the appointment of Baroness Ashton as High Commissioner. It is an affront to the credibility of international diplomacy that somebody with no experience in this field whatsoever should be even contemplated.

Unelected at local, national and supranational level, she finds herself with power that transcends that of Miliband. She has no more claim to this role than I do.

Why her? I just don't understand...

19 November 2009 at 20:57  
Anonymous Voyager said...

This will be lovely. Turf wars as Commission fights European Council and Sarkozy and Merkel saw away at these new figureheads.

It will be highly amusing to watch this - Merkel has a history of watching the bodies floating past and Sarkozy cannot stand anyone taller than himself

19 November 2009 at 21:30  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And so it begins... the naked greed, the horse-trading and the Euro-plebs of so little matter that they have no voice, only their capacity to be taxed.

I so hope that I'm wrong about reincarnation...


19 November 2009 at 22:09  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Zach Johnstone,

You say you do not understand, but that is precisely the point. She is the EU's 'foreign minister' precisely because she has no foreign policy experience: she is a blank canvas (to put it politely) onto which the Franco-German hegemony can impose its own foreign policy priorities. It is even more significant that, unlike Rompuy-Stiltskin, she is not even a democraticaly-elected politician.

19 November 2009 at 22:13  
Anonymous Smeagol said...

Gollum Gollum! - Nasty Hobbits!

19 November 2009 at 22:29  
Blogger Paul Halsall said...

You are such a vile man, Cranmer, that it is no wonder you wanted to top yourself recently.

19 November 2009 at 22:56  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Your Grace

Auberon Waugh always used to say that our country had sunk to such a state that we richly deserved to be ruled by a bunch of Belgian Bus ticket inspectors.

Has Mr 'Rip' Van Rompuy any previous form in this latter profession?

'Tickets please!'

19 November 2009 at 23:01  
Blogger The Monarchist said...

His Grace almost sounds disappointed that a man of no charisma was chosen to lord it over Europe.

I for one am saddened that Her Majesty has been scandalously reduced to a subsovereign of a massive unelected bureacracy and presidential-style super republic, and that Britain has become a federal province of Europe.

19 November 2009 at 23:07  
Blogger Gnostic said...




19 November 2009 at 23:27  
Anonymous not a mouse said...

Brilliant post, Your Grace. You have the whole whirlwind under a walnut shell!!! [As dear Geffrey might have envisioned such alchemy.]

Yes - Gnostic. Right again!

19 November 2009 at 23:58  
Blogger Robert said...

Utter disaster for Europe. Utter disaster.

Van Rompuy is a Vatican puppet. He is intent on restoring "Christian" (read: Roman Catholic) culture across the hinterland. He is exactly the kind of unassuming provocateur that we all have been concerned about.

The E.U. will expand.

Borders will be broken down.

Taxes will be instituted.

Culture will be Romanized.

True secularism will be--if it isn't already--quite dead.

Good luck my European friends. Beware of the man who appears to represent your conservative interests. He carries with him an entirely sinister agenda.

20 November 2009 at 00:42  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Your grace is a little ahead on the imagary ,but your words more than make up for it .
Let me be clear whilst Mr Van Rompuy name has the air of tradesman in an exciting liason in a car park , he is somthing of an intellect and devout nay even rabid federalist .Some are citing his election as a triumph of the need for chairman rather president , this not so for Mr Rumpoy is a master of the mystic grand politico .
"one ring to bind them all" is perhaps what he wishes to wear gifting with it a cloak of invisibility .
Another blogg has pointed out what powers over foreign and defence policy he will have come saturday .

The EU is about to metamorphasise into a grand liner with a ticket for all . Your graces thinking on green taxation being a lock in is one way , for surely we will all have to pay a tax to be part of it , gone is the contribution of association. It is now self sustaining and one can only think must be swirling in its imagination and terms of embellishment of its powers .

I had thought such experiments in empires had been proven to end in impoverishment of the subject populations , so goodness knows how it will work with developed nations .
for the global corps it offers them living space ,indeed it will be hard to criticise them as you wont be able to tell , what or who is the economy .

The christian faith ? is a rebellion all ready legislated for , evangelism a threat .

The lord said blessed are the peacemakers , I wonder if he understood the inherant oppressions of federalism when he spoke it .

20 November 2009 at 01:15  
Blogger Kenpachi said...

Silver lining about Turkey at least.

20 November 2009 at 01:51  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They should've picked someone with a different name; I keeping thinking 'Rumpelstiltskin'. And he looks like an elf... What the hey?

20 November 2009 at 04:29  
Blogger southwood said...


Totally agree, my friend. Tried to comment in your blog on this but comments seems to be disabled ?
Far sighted people predicted all this decades ago but people would not listen. UK politicians have a lot to answer for.
I recommend Robert's blog on this guy (and on many other Vatican related issues). Just click on his name.

20 November 2009 at 08:19  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

An eussr tax?so what is the twelve billion a year for that we already pay?another maggot crawls from the rotten log of brussels.

20 November 2009 at 09:21  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whether Turkey is admitted or not cannot alter the fact that, on current trends, moslems will be the majority in ‘Christian’ Europe in about another 20 years.

20 November 2009 at 09:39  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The EU is not going to last another 20 years.

20 November 2009 at 09:49  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You’re Grace, for once in the whole rotten area of EU politics I can, after reading the comments on your blog, breath a sigh of relief. The knee jerking “Little Britt’s” have given me the satisfaction of knowing that the right man has been found. We do need to re-Christianize Europe and if we don't we will have a disaster as large as you have in the UK. Turkey is out, fortunately so no back door entry by disaffected Islamists and we may even find that the mentally ill who run under the banner of the rainbow are called to heel. After the disgraceful vote against Lithuania on its Child Protection Bill I can only hope things get better from now on.

20 November 2009 at 09:51  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace,
I'm far from perfect myself, but is it not a little cruel to jest about his looks?
I am more concerned about his politics if the following is balanced:

Re the taxes, that scares me. You can only tax what (and/or whom) you have data on, and with the right to tax comes audit power including access to more data and punishments. Taxing City transactions or carbon taxes is by a supranational organisation is akin to spying on the nation, and leaves could open the door to a lot of further abuse and inrusion into the lives and livelihoods of the British.

20 November 2009 at 09:53  
Blogger F.G.S.A said...

The Lisbon Treaty is a fact. A phenomenon which could not be prevented for all the smartness and "nobility" of feelings of European Conservatives and Nationalists. Noble feelings, notwithstanding sublime rhetorics, have little or no influence on politics which is a matter of Power-brokering, -trading, and -sharing. It is useless to rail against the oppression of the EU governement and legislation on paper or web, without taking to arms. It appears to be a question of ideas and feelings- let the veil drop from your eyes and behold Power.

Debate and rhetoric, as embodied in the traditions of the House of Commons, was the veneer of politics of a finer, nobler age. Which is over.

Power struggle in Europe is now a matter of bureaucracy and courts, and lobby and bribery(as it always was)and tomfoolery. A game, no more. You will not win if you stay sullen and sour with your back turned to the chimney on your comfortable rug.

Arise...mollified folk...

20 November 2009 at 10:05  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The annual meeting of a certain famous group this/last(?) year, (the same one which met with Mr Van Rompuy this week over dinner before the decision was announced) was listed somewhere on the net as purportedly including several influential Turkish indiviuals, so maybe Turkey is or is not out of the running. I mention this not to start a chain of speculation but becaus I read somewhere they discussed cuts (to deal with the recession) and then, hey presto, the IMF and the PrimeMinister have been talking aboutt cuts to the UK spending/deficit. They obviously have influence of some kind.

20 November 2009 at 10:10  
Anonymous D.Singh's fanclub said...

What no D.Singh commentating? He is usually the first on the post !

20 November 2009 at 10:35  
Anonymous Knighthawk said...

A bad day for the UK Independence movement. If we had woken up to a President Sarky or President Murky it might have shaken the nation out of its complacency regarding the real intentions of the EU.
As it is we have an apparently inoffensive front man, yet a determined federalist and a mister fixit for this fractious supranational coalition. More power by stealth no doubt. Will the tide of Islamisation really be halted? Surely the Turkish hordes will only face a locked back door if the Franco-German Axis agree. Sadly, Cast Iron Dave seems to be happy to turn the key.

20 November 2009 at 10:41  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

D Singh has been exposed by Cranny as a nuclear physicist working on the ‘God particle’. See yesterday’s post.

20 November 2009 at 10:42  
Anonymous Cheese Sandwich said...

Makes me think his posts were tounge in cheek and a mick take. We were all duped .

20 November 2009 at 10:59  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Herman Van Rompuy. Get used to the name. He is the first President of the European Union, which with the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon by all the 27 EU member states in early November was transformed into a genuine United States of Europe.

The President of Europe has not been elected; he was appointed in a secret meeting of the heads of government of the 27 EU member states. They chose one of their own. Herman Van Rompuy was the Prime Minister of Belgium. I knew him when he was just setting out, reluctantly, on his political career.

To understand Herman, one must know something about Belgium, a tiny country in Western Europe, and the prototype of the EU. Belgians do not exist as a nation. Belgium is an artificial state, constructed by the international powers in 1830 as a political compromise and experiment. The country consists of 6 million Dutch, living in Flanders, the northern half of the country, and 4 million French, living in Wallonia, the southern half. The Belgian Dutch, called Flemings, would have preferred to stay part of the Netherlands, as they were until 1830, while the Belgian French, called Walloons, would have preferred to join France. Instead, they were forced to live together in one state.

Belgians do not like their state. They despise it. They say it represents nothing. There are no Belgian patriots, because no-one is willing to die for a flag which does not represent anything. Because Belgium represents nothing, multicultural ideologues love Belgium. They say that without patriotism, there would be no wars and the world would be a better place. As John Lennon sang “Imagine there’s no countries, it isn’t hard to do, nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too.”

In 1957, Belgian politicians stood at the cradle of the European Union. Their aim was to turn the whole of Europe into a Greater Belgium, so that wars between the nations of Europe would no longer be possible as there would no longer be nations, the latter all having been incorporated into an artificial superstate.

A closer look at Belgium, the laboratory of Europe, shows, however, that the country lacks more than patriotism. It also lacks democracy, respect for the rule of law, and political morality. In 1985, in his book De Afwezige Meerderheid (The Absent Majority) the late Flemish philosopher Lode Claes (1913-1997) argued that without identity and a sense of genuine nationhood, there can also be no democracy and no morality.

Now, Herman has moved on to lead Europe. Like Belgium, the European Union is an undemocratic institution, which needs shrewd leaders who are capable of renouncing everything they once believed in and who know how to impose decisions on the people against the will of the people. Never mind democracy, morality or the rule of law, our betters know what is good for us more than we do. And Herman is now one of our betters. He has come a long way since the days when he was disgusted with Belgian-style politics.

Herman is like Saruman, the wise wizard in Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, who went over to the other side. He used to care about the things we cared about. But no longer. He has built himself a high tower from where he rules over all of us.

Paul Belien

20 November 2009 at 11:10  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The master physicist is back! But what doth he rant on about now ?

20 November 2009 at 11:17  
Anonymous Kafir said...

Can't we just get out of the EU?

20 November 2009 at 11:23  
Blogger D. Singh said...

The European Court of Justice is packed with judges from former communist states.

They will never let Britain leave legally.

Under the United Nations Charter, all EU member states have agreed that: "In the event of a conflict between the obligation between Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail." (Article 103). This would mean that the EU cannot prevent a member from leaving, if the state could prove that its membership of the EU conflicts with part of the UN Charter; similarly states are only bound to follow EU law "so far as they are compatible with existing international arrangements" (Article 37.5, Treaty of Rome). If a state were to wish to leave, it would be up to the European Court of Justice to interpret current treaties as to the member's obligations and conditions of withdrawal.

We are locked in; that is why some of the socialist posters the other day mocked us when they indicated that it does not matter if the Conservatives win the next General Election.

20 November 2009 at 11:48  
Blogger Preacher said...

Your Grace.
I perceive that it really doesn't matter who is chosen as the EU 'president', what is important is that this post has been created & is now enshrined in EU 'law'.
Once again this juggernaut of evil has created an all powerful post that threatens us all & has got away with it without a voice raised in protest. The throne is made & awaits the devils chosen man to be crowned, wether it be this one or the the one waiting in the wings is irrelevant, it's only a question of time, truly Revelation says that the people say "Who can make war with him?" (or oppose him?). The answer? The Lord of Hosts, Jesus Christ will deliver His people & judge Satan & his minions. It's decision time folks! Maranatha.
(WV consult, no kidding)

20 November 2009 at 12:11  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Zach Johnstone

With reference to your question why her?

It's simple if you understand the dynamics underpinning this.

She is inexperienced, but she was placed into Mandlesons EU position when he came back to the UK to bolster Brown (and get his feet back under the table).

Forever grateful, she makes an ideal backdoor access for Mandelsons manipulation, whilst being a perfect patsi!

It also becomes clear why Milliband said no the position, it was already allocated...yes, no??

20 November 2009 at 13:27  
Anonymous oiznop said...

From Holy Smoke blog, Telegraph - You seem to agree in something!!

Does the devout Catholic Van Rompuy want to preside over a Holy Roman Empire?

The appointment of Herman Van Rompuy as “President of Europe” is a gift to conspiracy theorists who fear the re-emergence of a Europe dominated by Rome. The wellspring of the Belgian’s Eurofederalism, like that of the EU’s founders, is his Catholic faith. He makes monthly retreats to a Benedictine monastery; even his wife is overawed by “the force he can find in his faith”.

I can already see the words “Holy Roman Empire” forming on the lips of Eurosceptics whose mistrust of the EU draws on a dislike of Catholicism. And perhaps there is just a grain of truth in the jibe: for Van Rompuy is determined to preserve the Christian character of Europe. That’s why he opposes Turkish entry to the EU. As he put it in 2004:

“The universal values which are in force in Europe, and which are fundamental values of Christianity, will lose vigour with the entry of a large Islamic country such as Turkey.”

That precisely mirrors the thinking of Pope Benedict XVI; indeed, it’s hard to argue with. The sad thing is that Van Rompuy and his allies in the Vatican are deluded enough to think that federalism can help preserve Europe’s Christian identity. On the contrary, the federal project will be enforced by secular bureaucrats who, even if they come from nominally Catholic countries, are the intellectual heirs of anticlerical Leftists. The undemocratic appointment of an EU President will only strengthen them in their resolve to secularise Europe by, for example, banning crucifixes from classrooms. And how will Van Rompuy stop them? Write a haiku? Say a decade of the rosary?

20 November 2009 at 13:34  
Blogger D. Singh said...



20 November 2009 at 13:39  
Blogger D. Singh said...

This item is from:

The prophecies of the Irish saint Malachy, the 12th century bishop of Armagh who predicted all the popes, have thrilled and dismayed readers for centuries. He has stated there will be only one more pope after the current one, and during his reign comes the end of the world.

"In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church there will reign Peter the Roman, who will feed his flock amid many tribulations, after which the seven-hilled city will be destroyed and the dreadful Judge will judge the people. The End."

In 1139, then-Archbishop Malachy went to Rome from Ireland to give an account of his affairs. While there, he received a strange vision about the future that included the name of every pope, 112 in all from his time, who would rule until the end of time. We are now at the second last prophecy.

His predictions are taken very seriously. As one report states, "In 1958, before the Conclave that would elect Pope John XXIII, Cardinal Spellman of New York hired a boat, filled it with sheep and sailed up and down the Tiber River, to show that he was 'pastor et nautor,' the motto attributed to the next Pope in the prophecies."

As for the prophecy concerning the 111th pope, Pope Benedict, the prophecy says of him, "Gloria Olivae," which means "the glory of the olive."

The order of Saint Benedict is also known as the Olivetans, which many claim makes Malachy's prophecies correct. The next and final pope then should be "Peter Romanus"

St. Malachy gave an account of his visions to Pope Innocent II, but the document remained unknown in the Roman archives until its discovery in 1590.

Many of the prophecies are spot on. For example, the one about Urban VIII is Lilium et Rosa (the lily and the rose); he was a native of Florence and on the arms of Florence figured a fleur-de-lis.

Pope John Paul II is De labore Solis, meaning "of the eclipse of the sun." Karol Wojtyla, who would become Pope John Paul II, was born on May 18, 1920 during a solar eclipse.
Peregrinus apostolicus (pilgrim pope), which designates Pius VI, appears to be verified by his many journeys to new lands.

So is Benedict the second last pope? The Irish seer of the 12th century has said it will be so. Time will tell.


20 November 2009 at 13:54  
Anonymous Stuart said...

I'm certainly no fan of the EU, but we have it now and I was heartened by Rompuy's 2004 comments frankly:-

“Turkey is not a part of Europe and will never be part of Europe,”

“An expansion of the EU to include Turkey cannot be considered as just another expansion as in the past. The universal values which are in force in Europe, and which are also fundamental values of Christianity, will lose vigour with the entry of a large Islamic country such as Turkey,”

At least we don't have slimy, deceitful Blair. I would rather have Gollum than Sauron any day.

I'm not a political brain, so am I missing something?

20 November 2009 at 13:56  
Anonymous Peter the Roman said...

You pose some interesting issues, D. Singh. So should we really be Europhile, pro-europeans, if this will hasten the second coming of Christ?

20 November 2009 at 14:03  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Peter the Roman

There is nothing we can do to delay or hasten the Second Coming – except of course the world to repent: see The Book of Jonah.

God has his schedule; and

Mr Singh has his schedule.

20 November 2009 at 14:10  
Blogger ukipwebmaster said...

The guardian of the ring......of stars.
How apt!

20 November 2009 at 14:36  
Blogger Hank Petram said...

Mr. Singh,

If Ruth Gledhill’s prediction is correct, the next pope won’t be Peter the Roman but Vincent the Scouser. Here’s what she wrote a month ago:

A priest of remarkable charisma, Archbishop Nichols could easily end up in a senior position in Rome himself, if not the most senior.

20 November 2009 at 14:40  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Petram

Thank you for that information. However, I cannot get too involved in detail.

His Grace gave me a close shave yesterday.

20 November 2009 at 14:49  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

D. Singh, why did his grace give you a close shave yesterday? Anyway I want to hear some of the detail- ignore the other mockers !

20 November 2009 at 15:08  
Blogger D. Singh said...

The next Pope could be one of these. The key is to unlock what ‘Peter the Roman’ means. The solution is the one that is the most consistent with history and what Malachy predicted. (Their ages are bracketed).

1. Odilo Pedro Scherer (60), Brazil,
Archbishop of Sao Paulo
2. Ennio Antonelli (73), Italy,
President, Council for the Family (Roman Curia)
3. Marc Ouellet (65), Canada,
Archbishop of Québec
4. Wilfrid Fox Napier (68), South Africa,
Archbishop of Durban
5. Angelo Scola (68), Italy,
Patriarch of Venice
6. Philippe Xavier Barbarin (59), France,
Archbishop of Lyon << youngest >>
7. Óscar Rodríguez Maradiaga (67), Honduras,
Archbishop of Tegucigalpa
8. Christoph Schönborn (64), Austria,
Archbishop of Vienna
9. Agostino Vallini (69), Italy,
Vicar General of Rome
10. José da Cruz Policarpo (73), Portugal,
Patriarch of Lisbon

20 November 2009 at 15:15  
Blogger D. Singh said...

There is something missing.

Is there an Archbishop of Constantinople?

20 November 2009 at 15:20  
Blogger F.G.S.A said...

The Archbishop of Constantinople is the Ecumenical Patriarch of New Rome, the Second Seat of Christendom, now in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Rome was in the habit of appointing a nominal Patriarch of Constantinople, much like the Bishops in partibus infidelium, but i think the practice has been discontinued for a good time now. There was also an Armenian prelature with that title- product of the Turkish Millet system- which is still maybe in existence.

Also, while the Church of St.John Lateran is the cathedral church of the Roman Pontiff, that of Saint Peter is supposed to be St. Peter's...

20 November 2009 at 16:10  
Blogger F.G.S.A said...

Sorry i meant that St Peter's was meant to be the Patriarchal Basilica of the Patriarch of Constantinople in the city of Old Rome.

20 November 2009 at 16:14  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are many things I like about our new President of the EU Council. First and foremost, he is not Tony Blair. Secondly, he is a practicing Catholic. Lastly he is not in favour of admitting Turkey to the EU.
Now, frankly, I think a President elected by millions of mindless europeans would be a disaster, but this man starts from a good base.

20 November 2009 at 16:55  
Blogger Robert said...

Thanks for the plug southwood!

I will check on the comments for you. . .

20 November 2009 at 16:58  
Anonymous Religion of peace said...

The appointment of this man is terrible-how will Turkey join now?

20 November 2009 at 17:08  
Anonymous IanCad said...

In the "Papal Stakes" why is Cardinal Levada omitted? Surely an american pope would be a huge factor in reducing a nominally protestant USA to Roman vassal status. It should be noted that Levada is currently "Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith". Formerly known as "The Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition"
It is from this same office that Ratzinger emerged. It is the source of all papal policy.

20 November 2009 at 17:43  
Blogger D. Singh said...


Thank you. Thank you. Regarded as the second seat of Christendom. It was part of the old Roman Empire.

It has shed some light on the feet (two) of the statute in the Book of Daniel.

Turkey is not going to be admitted into the EU. But the EU is regarded as the revived Roman Empire.

But there are two EU blocs. The EU and the Union of the Mediterranean (Daniel’s nightmarish beast comes out of the Mediterranean).

Turkey will get back the ‘Seat of Satan’ (mentioned in Revelations) which is in Berlin at the moment. And it will install it at Pergamum - its ancient site.

Turkey has realigned itself with Russia (it will soon leave NATO), not trusted by Israel now, and friends with the Arab (Sunni and Shia) states.

Could it be that Istanbul is the city in Revelation that is destroyed? I think we Protestants have got it all wrong on Rome.

Does Istanbul have seven hills?

IanCad - my sincere and humble apologies.

20 November 2009 at 17:49  
Blogger ZZMike said...

Poor Mr Blair. Whatever will he do, now that Emperor of all the Europes has slipped from his grasp?

"Cranmer thought they were after a man of sufficient stature to hold the allegiance of all people, and to lift us out of the economic morass in which we are sinking."

I think this might explain: The era of the bright, bold, fearless leader (Napoleon, Bismarck, &c) is long past. Even the charismatic figurehead (not that Mr Rompuy approaches that image) is a thing of the past.

Today's leader is the Committee, the Group, the Ministry - in other words, the Invisible Men (the Invisible Black-Umbrella Men).

The Belgian paper De Standaard has a good article - in Enlgish:

An unlikely finale to an already brilliant political career

That "brilliant career" is somewhat mysterious. From the article:

"As Prime Minister, he made quite an impression in the international arena. By remaining silent, if you ask his detractors. But they are confusing silence with reserve.
. . . .
"His five-party coalition was a monstrosity; ...
. . ."

[And the piece de resistance:]

"... the Walloon ménage à trois between CDH, MR and PS looked more and more like a Nordic troll."

There's Gollum.

There's an interesting contradiction between this:

"Rompuy-Stiltskin has called for a massive extension of the presence of the EU in town halls, schools and sporting events."

And this (from the Standaard - "Excerpts from Van Rompuy’s booklet"):

‘In our regime, power is spread out, just like manure. It is so spread out that no one can enforce his will. As a consequence, the most powerful decision-makers are facts, and economic facts in particular.’

20 November 2009 at 18:13  
Anonymous jeremy hyatt said...

Well that was a mindless little sneer. Hope you feel better after it.

20 November 2009 at 18:17  
Anonymous Village Parson said...

Terrible with these 2 in charge.

20 November 2009 at 18:35  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Monarchist said...

I for one am saddened that Her Majesty has been scandalously reduced to a subsovereign of a massive unelected bureacracy and presidential-style super republic, and that Britain has become a federal province of Europe.

I said
Did not the Queen sign various european treaties herself? Has the Queen spoken out over the government sighning away England's sovereignty?

20 November 2009 at 19:38  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Forget irish saints and there prophecies, you will be quoting nostradamus next, the book of daniel and revelation is what youn need, inspired scripture nothing else.

20 November 2009 at 19:41  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

D. Singh @11.10
Thank you - and as it says in James, wars will exist, even if there were no countries (which God created for a pupose i.a. after the Babel attempt described in Genesis by man ie the first global government prototype to reach the heavens as not to find, know and worship God but to be like God) because we are all people with a sinful nature.
In James our Lord talks about some of the reasons for wars - the same as some personal disputes within countries - envy, wanting whaat we cannot have, selfish ambition, what we say and do. We are all guilty to some extent.
I think we need countries as boundaries, to protect us and for identity.More importantly, we are human and God created nations as long as we are sinful ie this side of the new heaven and earth which He alone will create. God - not people - knows best.
We are human, not God, and no person or set of persons has the morality or wisdom to rule the world. Power has a tendency to corrupt. And too much power results also in one-size-fit-sall solutions which destroy the ability of indiviual people, familis and communities to have the freedom from too much interference which God wishes us to have. Adam was able to live and work and love in Genesis, despite the toil after he sinned. He was also free to worship God as he pleased.

20 November 2009 at 20:12  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

He steps out of the shadows.....

20 November 2009 at 20:41  
Anonymous Knighthawk said...

D Singh 17:49 asked: Does Istanbul have seven hills?

Yes it does:

Istanbul is known as the city on the seven hills. Whether Constantine the Great was actually aware of the fact that the new city was founded on seven hills is unknown.

But the Eastern Roman Empire was eventually overun. The nephew of the last Emperor, Constantine XI, Andreas Palaeologos had inherited the defunct title of Byzantine Emperor. At his death, the role of the emperor as a patron of Eastern Orthodoxy was claimed by Ivan III, Grand Duke of Muscovy. He had married Andreas' sister, Sophia Paleologue, whose grandson, Ivan IV, would become the first Tsar of Russia (tsar, or czar, meaning caesar, is a term traditionally applied by Slavs to the Byzantine Emperors). Their successors supported the idea that Moscow was the proper heir to Rome and Constantinople. The Russians also use the Byzantine double headed eagle as an emblem.

And Moscow is also a city on seven hills:

The Seven hills of Moscow is a historic name of several elevated sections of terrain, on top of which Moscow was built. The legend of Seven Hills (as an analogy between Moscow and Rome) has been known since the 16th century, when they began to actively develop the hilly terrain dissected by numerous rivers and ravines.

All this causes difficulties for students of biblical prophecy in identifying the "seven hills" mentioned in Revelation 17.

20 November 2009 at 20:42  
Blogger Hank Petram said...

In the "Papal Stakes" why is Cardinal Levada omitted?

For two reasons, I believe: he is too old, and being American doesn't help.

I would add three names to your list:

Dominique Mamberti (French, grew up in Morocco, speaks Arabic)

Rino Fisichella (Italy)

Neither of these two is yet a cardinal.

And Cardinal Peter Turkson (Ghana)

20 November 2009 at 20:47  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Peter the Roman @14:03
Surely as Christians although we look forward to the return of our Lord, we should never, as sinful impoerfect creatures, wish for or do evil in order to spped His return ie the judgement as well as heaven meeting our Lord Jesus Christ. We speed His coming by praying.
Ends do not justify means (Romans 3:8). We are not to promote evil or something which we believe will bring evil, because it would dishonour God and harm people.

Similarly, while those in power are meant, among other things, to adminster justice, they cannot and should not attempt to play God, especially in the name of our Lord. It is not their job - as fallible human leaders - to knowingly take vengeance or rule the world as if they were God. Only God is merciful and wise enough to take vengeance. Only He has the right. He may use leaders or others to take vengeance, but so does evil. No human has the right or wisdom to do so.

Likewise we as believers are human. Those of us who have received God's forgiveness (through Jesus being punished on the cross in place of us for our sins) will not be without the bias of sin until in heaven - at that point, we will be perfect human beings (not God) and see clearly and be able to rejoice where judge (the benefit of the clarity of hindsight and also not having sinful biases or temptations to vengeance).

Ends do not justify means.
While we look forard to our Lord's return, we cannot as Christians look forward to the suffering which precedes it - the suffering of people made in God's image, however broken, whether or not they know Him or will know Him, of animals and wildlife who can suffer and feel pain or of the destruction of the earth which God made in all its wonder and beauty.

We cannot wish harm on our neighbours, or delight when suffering happens or at the thought of future suffering or destruction.
We can pray to God that when the bad events which God has foretold will happen and which he allows and will allow before the "End of the world" happens, that people for whom Christ died will turn to Him for forgivess (we are all sinners needing forgivenss), and that people will be helped during their suffering - that we will love our neighbours as ourself.
We can also warn people of the coming judgement and their need for forgiveness and reconciliation with God thourhg Jesus. And if a disaster happens, remember in humility that there but for the grace of god go we, and that the disaster is not necessarily a judgement on those who are afflicted by it. The world is affectd by mens' sins. Sin is the real global problem and the Jesus, our Lord, is the only solution, but cannot be enforced crusade-wise by government or globally, that is a false Christianity.

We can look forward to seeing God and to the lack of sin and suffering and tears in heaven , as well as to the beauty of it.WE can look forward to the defeat of evil.

Bad things remind us of our need for God and that we are all sinners, though when countries are judged By God, the vulnerable suffer more. There are also bad things which will happen which God permits - things which evil does, false signs and wonders etc. . Evil hates people and anything which reminds evil that the time is short before God puts an end to evil in the new heaven and earth. Evil hates people and the creation, which God created.
As Christians we are called to try to love people and not to delight in their suffering or to help anything we believe is evil and will promote eveil and suffering of our fellow human beings.

20 November 2009 at 21:29  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would also add Rowan Williams as a contender to be the next Pope.

20 November 2009 at 21:51  
Anonymous Gay Anglican said...

Paul Halsall at 22.56, which is his grace "a vile man"? You are being cruel with your next statement about him wanting to top himself. Not what you would expect from a man of your calibre.

20 November 2009 at 21:53  
Blogger Paul Halsall said...

@Gay Anglican

The thought about me being cruel myself did cross my mind.

So I apologise.

20 November 2009 at 21:55  
Anonymous Gay Anglican said...

Oh don't worry, I feel like writing things like that with the bigotry on display with some posters on this blog, but we must always argue our case rationally. Even if we do think people are being vile etc.

20 November 2009 at 22:01  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Well at least Dr Halsall is 'man', enough to apologise, if he thinks something he said troubled him.

I have to say I am worried about this thread. A lot of the opposition to the EU appears to come from an interpretation of the Bible and other sources, which implies the EU is basically Satan.

Now I am all for leaving the EU and I have stated why I think we should and the case for this. But I have never entered my Christian beliefs into this discussion, you might say that I have 'secular' reasons to my opposition.

Am I therefore wrong to do this? What is the 'chapter and verse' explanation for much of what has been said by Mr D.Singh and colleagues to justify a Biblical interpretation of wanting to leave the EU or being against it.

Finally from what Mr Singh says (perhaps it should be Dr if he is an Oxonian Physicist), we cannot 'legally' leave the EU? So how do we 'legally' leave? I thought we could simply put this to the vote and pass an Act of Parliament?

20 November 2009 at 22:14  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Anon @19.34, yes the Queen has agreed to the various EU treaties , but as you know full well she has to do so as she is a constitutional Monarch, not an absolute one. The days of divine rights of Kings were in the 17 century.

20 November 2009 at 22:23  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Lord Lavendon,

Please, do not try to rationalise. His Grace regrets that the capacity appears to have been abandoned. His once intelligent and erudite blog has descended into the morass into which everyone else has already sunk. He can scarecly believe he is being exhorted to join Twitter. It is all so very distressing.

20 November 2009 at 22:26  
Anonymous Bag Lady said...

Perhaps people are getting a tad silly about a city with seven hills. I have just googled this and there are at least 45 cities across the world that are built on 7 hills , including :

Los Angeles

So are you people who have droned on about 'the seven hills' and how this relates to Revelation and the EU, not in the least bit worried that you might be plucking things out of thin air and are basing your wacko theories on select facts ?

20 November 2009 at 22:31  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So the 7 hills could be Lisbon and what was the treaty which called the new Roman Empire into existence? Lisbon! So it is not Istanbul or Rome but Lisbon!

20 November 2009 at 22:53  
Blogger Robert said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

20 November 2009 at 22:53  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

20 November 2009 at 23:08  
Blogger Robert said...

Having difficulty here. . .Let me try this again.
With respect to the comments of Lord Lavendon, His Grace, and several others, I would like to demarcate between the two worldviews colliding on this blog: namely, the biblical worldview, in which the E.U. is seen as the reborn Roman Empire; and the non-biblical worldview, in which the E.U. is seen as just an annoying politicial structure that stands to interfere with Britain's independence.

The first group sees the E.U. as the embodiment of Satan's earthly dominion, and they resist integration based on profound spiritual warnings in Bible prophecy. There is no convincing this group that the E.U. may bring anything good.

The second group resist the E.U. based on sheer Anglo-Saxon pride. For these people, remaining separate is preferrable only because they want to conserve the status quo.

To the first, I say nothing because I am one of them. Not to mention the fact that convincing them that Bible prophecy is not relevant to today's world is a fool's errand.

To the second, I say why are you resisting? If your europhobia is based simply on your nationalism, look back upon history. Towns and villages are subsumed into fiefdoms, fiefdoms into kingdoms, kingdoms into bigger kingdoms, and ultimately emerge nations. Doesn't it stand to reason that nations will eventually be subsumed into conglomerations? Why fight it? The world is not going backward any time soon. This trend will only become more and more pronounced.

Basically, my question is this: If you don't resist the E.U. on theological grounds, why do you resist it at all? Sheer bull-headedness? Why rant on about van Rompuy, or about Brussels? If your philosophy is strictly material, then you must already know that tiny drops of water eventually pool into larger drops, ad infinitum. Simple physics, my friends.

My suggestion, catch up while you still can. Take on the euro, find a good seat in Brussels, and adapt with the times.

20 November 2009 at 23:13  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Your Grace,

I was going to debate with 'robert', but I conclude there is little benefit for either of us. I have therefore removed my comment forthwith.

20 November 2009 at 23:13  
Blogger Robert said...

Your lordship, my apologies. I thought to add something to my comment, but decided against it. Let it stand.

I did see your comment pursuant to my own. I shall look for you on my blog.

As a sidenote, I believe the comments are working now. If not, please let me know.

20 November 2009 at 23:15  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is not nationalistic to want to retain sovereignty or to not want to enable or help loss of soverignty or the building of a dictatorship -benign or otherwise - by internal or external forces.

Most of us grew up in a Britain with an imperfect democracy, not a dictatorship.

Paul advised slaves to get their freedom if they could, in the context of existing slavery - he was not thereby recommending or approving of it (he called the act of slave trading evil).

Similarly, some of the writings in the Bible are in times of oppressive dictatorships but that does not mean we should encourage or ignore any ominous changes or approve of oppression.

Re revelations, as Christians we are encouraged in the book to read it because we will be blessed by reading it, yet warned neither to add to it or take away from it.
There is plenty in the current world which seems relevant, including several supranational organisations and influencial groups and bodies.
But indiviual prophesies are usually obvious to Christians after they are fulfilled ie after events, and specifics are not always as clear in advance or during the events fulfilling them.
And some prophetic verses or parts of the Bible are fulfilled msultiple times in different ways.

Christians are Christians with religious beliefs and therefore an interest (small or otherwise) in prophetic passages, but we are also voters and observers living in the real world and influenced by politicians' and other influencial actors' decisions and influences, for good or otherwise.

There is a danger in over-emphasising prophesy butalso a danger in ignoring it. And we get things wrong and misinterpret, but sometimes do not, and non-Chrisitans are not going to look at things though the eyes of faith, and we that do will not agree on many details.
So we tread carefully and prayerfully.

20 November 2009 at 23:40  
Anonymous Playing devil's advocate said...

So, would robert be happy if NAFTA transformed itself into some kind of north american union with its own flag, national anthem, constitution and right to overrule USA law? And if someone suggested opposing this was petty nationalism and should just take the free ride(like most UK politicians do with the EU gravy train).

Also if another person suggests that this union is the work of the devil and is based upon a reading of the bible and suggests that this is the new north american roman empire, based upon the 7 hills of los angeles .

what would his reaction be?

20 November 2009 at 23:50  
Anonymous Zach Johnstone said...

Your Grace,

Sorry for the delay in response. I had not considered that take before; it does now seem logical that the Franco-German political class would seek a blank canvass upon which to impose their ambitions.

By the same token, I would hope that this would encourage the countries to support a UK secession bid in order to rid themselves of unwanted competition with regards to foreign policy ambitions. But I suppose France would stand to lose too much in terms of their cut of the CAP.

20 November 2009 at 23:51  
Blogger Christopher Evans said...

I still can't believe that nobody has woken up to the deception. They shout "Tony Blair for president", and instead of everyone replying "hang on a minute, shouldn't the post go to the polls", everyone is so horrified at the idea of Blair that they immediately put another name forward in panic.

Genius (Well, at the very least it demonstrates a masterful understanding of herd mentality). Personally, I think it's fantastic, I wish someone could write a novel, a trilogy even, yeah a trilogy!

Tony Blair for President of The World Federation of Climate Control Enforcment!

Oh no! let somebody else do it, Tony is the wrong man!

Hey Your Grace, Get twittering and stop dithering! - You know you want to!

Tony Blair for President of Twitter! Hah!

20 November 2009 at 23:56  
Anonymous Playing Devils Advocate said...

To Lord Lavendon, perhaps Robert has a point, we should milk the EU for all the Germans are worth? Why be a King Cnute and try and stop the tides of ever increasing integration ? Perhaps we should be realists and put all of our efforts into being 'good' europeans ? Embrace the change, earn a few bucks and be richer for it !

We are not a world power, we delude ourselves if we think we are. Perhaps our place is as one of the big european countries?

20 November 2009 at 23:56  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re the speculations - I also think that we should be careful about publically accusing any of being the anti-Christ or anything similar. As long as anyone is still on the earth i.e. still alive, then regardless of how great or little their sin is in their own eyes or the eyes of others, they can turn to Jesus for forgiveness of their sins, and be assured of a place in heaven in the post-Armageddon world, when prophesies have ceased as noted in 1 Corinthins 13.

20 November 2009 at 23:57  
Anonymous View of the holy see said...

I think Blair would have been an excellent President of Europe (and he's Catholic!).

20 November 2009 at 23:59  
Anonymous Knighthawk said...

Thats a perceptive analysis Robert @ 23:13 but a lot of us don't fit neatly into these world-views.

I hold a Biblical world-view but have yet to be convinced that the EU is the reborn Roman Empire where Satan will rule. Its certainly a strong candidate but not the only one and there are prophetic interpretations which do not envisage a new Roman Empire at all.

My opposition to the EU is based on the firm belief that our economy and quality of life would be better outside it. That concepts of democracy and freedom which we share with the USA and others are only to be preserved outside the European project which is undemocratic and likely to imprison us in totalitarianism.

Your idea that countries inevitably merge into larger units suggests that the final evolutionary step must be a World Government. Not a very inviting prospect. I wonder who would seize that leadership opportunity?

21 November 2009 at 00:02  
Anonymous Twelvetrees, Lord Lavendon's valet said...

Anon at 23.57, but is this view of the EU as the new Rome really biblically true ? No-one has answered this question or given a thorough explanation. I know his Lordship will be going on and on about this all weekend and us servants wants peace and quiet (or at least be asked about whether eggs should be fried or poached,anything for a quiet life!).

21 November 2009 at 00:06  
Blogger Robert said...

I just wrote a long-winded answer to Playing devil's advocate, and for some reason it did not show up after I submitted it. There is no way I am going to type it all again.

Suffice to say, stripped completely of my biblical worldview, I would not oppose a NAFTA bloc. It is globalization. It is flux. It is the way of the world. To respond to Knighthawk--yes, I believe that the only logical end of human development absent Old/Testament eschatology is the establishment of a world government. It seems absurd not to assume this.

There is a rock floating in an obscure corner of space. Upon this rock live billions of beings that, apart from minor differences, look and think remarkably the same. Their genetic makeup is virtually identical. There are no such beings anywhere within a hundred trillion light years. They are stuck on the rock, and have been for millenia. They have been killing each other for just as long. As more and more beings are born, their societal structures have grown larger and larger. Their technology has become incredibly complex. At the same time, they all have a desire to have peace.

Somebody tell me why these beings, isolated from the cosmos forever, would not eventually give the rock a single government? Why, in the interest of peace, would they not establish world courts of justice and overarching laws that would neuter the petty pride and prejudice of individual groups? Any detriments that would result from this arrangement would certainly be outweighed by the benefits of goodwill, cooperation, and sharing of resources.

All I'm saying is, without the biblical view of the earth prior to Christ's return (not to mention the Bible's Hobbes-ian view of human nature), there is no reason to resist globalization. It is happening. It will not stop. It is the future, whether Britain or anyone else wants it to be.

21 November 2009 at 00:36  
Anonymous the recusant said...

The Vatican was not built on 7 hills; Rome was built on 7 hills. The Vatican was built on only one hill, Vatican Hill, which was not part of the 7 hills of Rome and is not surrounded by the Seven Hills of Rome. The Vatican sits on its own hill on the other side of the Tiber River from the 7 hills of Rome. The original seven hills are: 1 Aventine Hill (Aventinus), 2 Caelian Hill (Caelius), 3 Capitoline Hill (Capitolinus), 4 Esquiline Hill (Esquilinus), 5 Palatine Hill (Palatinus), 6 Quirinal Hill (Quirinalis), 7 Viminal Hill (Viminalis)

Today Rome has spread and encroaches onto three more hills, making ten. - 8. Vatican Hill (Collis Vaticanus), 9. Pincian Hill (Mons Pincius), 10. Janiculum Hill (Ianiculum). But still why let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Jerusalem was built on seven hills during the time of Jesus and the Apostles. It’s seven hills are; 1.) Mount Gared; 2.) Mount Goath; 3.) Mount Acra; 4.) Mount Bezetha; 5.) Mount Moriah; 6.) Mount Ophel; 7.) Mount Zion. Perhaps Jerusalem is the one you’re looking for?

Oh dear Your Grace, not one of your better posts I’m afraid, Holy Roman Empire, please! Old Williams has been entertaining in Rome though don’t you think. I suspect he’s trying to put a bit of heart back into the Theophilus Anglicanus bless him, it’s been a bit of a tuff time eh! You have my sympathies but you did bring it on yourselves. He does make me laugh though; he always looks startled, like a rabbit caught in the headlights.

21 November 2009 at 00:41  
Blogger Robert said...

I think it is quite clear that John was speaking of Rome in the passage you refer to. Rome was the center of the world at that time--of government, of imperialism, of heathenism.

Rome is also still the seat of the pontifex maximus, the "supreme bridge builder"--not the Caesar who held that title during Christ's lifetime, but the Roman pope who took the title for himself. Rome is the seat of ardent globalism, ecumenism, and of an ancient authority that is the perfect mimic of biblical Christianity.

Daniel referred to the "people of the prince that shall come" who would destroy the Jewish Temple. It is clear that the "people" were the Romans (i.e. Titus), and hence it follows that the "prince" will emerge from the Roman sphere.

Having said all that, I concede that is quite impossible to "prove" to anyone that the E.U. is the foundation of something sinister. If one does not believe it, then he does not believe it and that is that. However, for those who are open to the possibility, there are many places in scripture where evidence can be found.

For anyone wishing to learn more about this (Twelvetrees, etc.), visit me on my own blog. I know His Grace grows weary of abstract debates on the end of the age.

21 November 2009 at 00:55  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Oh it's 'sinister' all right, Robert. It's as lefty as they come.

I dare say some feel confident and secure about being invaded and dominated by stealth, cheating, lying, misinformation, and deconstruction - but only those who admire such tactics, and want to emulate them!! So are we to believe that's just their nice, sweet, delightfully human way of 'wanting peace'? Or should we gloss 'peace' as 'power' and 'greed'?

Anyway - your globalization ain't bringin' too much peace (or prosperity) right now. The world's getting nastier and more dangerous by the second. And how can it get better, when none of these 'breakers' and 'shatterers' has a clue about putting humpty-dumpty together in any workable form? I mean, what public figure nowadays acts "in general honest thought of common good to all"?

And remember all those marxist theory classes? Remember the pride those teachers take in being 'anti-Christian'? They're only too delighted to play Anti-Christ!!

Now whether ole Rumpy's such - ---well he's RC, so ostensibly not. Though you presumably know of the tradition for considering other RCs - Popes - as figures of AntiChrist. And if what you say of Rome as mimic is true, then it seems that the views may consist. So it would be, then, an Unholy Roman Empire.

One difference from the first model is that Charley Boy never subjugated Britain and Ireland: not least because the Vikings (a common enemy) were sallying up every available river in euroland as well as here.
Another difference is that Alfred the Great would insist that the Vikings who came here became Christian. Ole Rumpy, instead, is just ?trying to close the gate to his own back yard - and way too late, at that. And as for the female with the German-sounding faux-title; well; Alcuin of York she's not.

And the WWIII that someone mentioned earlier? How so when the ones (US/UK) who've always fought for freedom and democracy have decided it's not worth fighting for?

I guess someone else'll have to nuke us all into something like a black hole, then....

So, I say: "Gather ye rosebuds.." And whatever happens, I'll die rather than let them put their mark on my hand or my head!!!!!

21 November 2009 at 05:39  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Twelvetrees, Lord Lavendon's valet @ 00:06 from one of the anonymice.

My thoughts about such a serious issue are incomplete, speculative and possibly incorrect. Further, they might disturb his Lordship's breakfasts, lunches and dinners, especially given the possibility that his Lordship (and his Grace) may already be suffering from indigestion after reading my and some others' recent tweets.
Therefore I shall say nothing except to wish you and his Lordship a splendid weekend!

21 November 2009 at 09:23  
Anonymous len said...

It would seem that Babylon is being re-built in Europe and its chosen religion will be one that has its roots in Babylon.Babylon is to be destroyed. Chapter 18 of Revelation describes the destruction in detail. We have seen that Babylon is essentially human religion. Why does it so deserve the wrath of God? The two reasons given in this chapter are sins and demons. In verse 5 we read that her sins have piled up as high as heaven. God hates sin. In old testament times, he taught this truth to his people by commanding them to make sacrifices and offerings for sin. Many prophets also warned them of his wrath against sin. Jesus was so named (Yeho-shua = YaHWeH saves) because he would save his people from their sins (Mat 1:21). This was so important that he gave his life to do it. He not only gave his life, but he also suffered the ultimate horror of separation from his Father as he hung upon the tree; and this was all because of human sin.

21 November 2009 at 10:28  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

In answer to Robert.

Being that I don't have a bible view on anything, since I lack any belief in all religion. I suppose I could attempt to have a stab at answering your query from my point of view.

In theory I see absolutely nothing wrong with a single world government, just like in theory communisim isn't that bad in idea. But in practice it would never work.

People have too many differences and they pick up on those differences like hawks, biting at them until they don't exist anymore.

If there were no religions (so taking away belief structures instructing groups how to think), there were no differences in appearance (the whole world has sex and procreates with other nationalities until everybody was just a nice sinkissed brown with slightly asian looking eyes), if we all spoke the same language (let's just decide on one and drop the rest to aid communication between everyone), everyone was given exactly the same standard of living (getting into the realms of communisim here but this is a hypothetical situation anyway).

If all that came to pass then why would there be any reason for disagreement, wars or even seperate countries. The world may be a bit of a bland place because of it mind.

But too many people think too many different things or look to many different ways that someone will always be able to find something to hate and attack.

Sad but that's how I see our petty planet. I just go on living my life through it all and trying to have the best one available to me and those close to me.

21 November 2009 at 11:38  
Blogger Red Squirrel said...

Let us hope that The Almighty (by whatever name bar 'Allah') does not judge us too harshly for allowing this many-headed monster to arise in our midst!
But we didn't elect Rumple-Stiltskin,or his ilk did we?
I do think that it is irrelevant in the long run as to whether or not Turkey joins the EU. Within 20 years the present Islamic population will have outnumbered us and Europe will be a battleground. Very scary stuff!

21 November 2009 at 15:17  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Lord Lavendon

It is not my usual practice to post at the weekend.

Howver, you deserve an answer.

My oppostion to the EU comes from studying post-graduate (EU) law many years ago.

I cannot give you chapter and verse. However, go to this site for issues on the 'End Times'(sign up to their news service):

For more detailed analyses go here:

What neither of those sites seem to be doing is looking at the 'other EU', the Union for the Med. On that 'other EU' our EU holds joint presidency. It is that 'other EU' that contains the ten nations mentioned in Psalm 83.

It is those ten nations which, in my view, are involved in the civil war in the Book of Daniel; they are led by the kings of the North and the South.

21 November 2009 at 16:37  
Blogger D. Singh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 November 2009 at 16:41  
Blogger Robert said...

D Singh, I am with you on the significance of the Union for the Mediterranean. It is a startling development. Comparing a map of the E.U./U.M. and a map of the old Roman Empire is telling indeed.

To TheGlovner, I still say that world government is the logical end of human development barring biblical revelation. In the days of the Middle Ages, who would have believed that nation-states could be formed, especially large ones? Going back even further to ancient history, who in some tiny village on the outskirts of nowhere would have believed that an empire like Persia or Rome could be possible?

Humans are inherently a bickering, warring bunch, it is true. But that has never stopped them from ambitiously overreaching before.

21 November 2009 at 18:04  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

D Singh and Robert, I have read what you have written and will pray on the issues raised. In fact I am considering a fast, to clear one's mind, so that I may come to a clear view on the matters contained in your posts. Thankyou gentlemen, I shall consider what you have to say.

21 November 2009 at 22:46  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 November 2009 at 22:47  
Blogger Robert said...

Lord Lavendon, I respect your desire for truth tremendously.

22 November 2009 at 06:36  
Blogger D. Singh said...

By the way men,

Although it is almost imposible to leave the EU by legal means (the Lisbon Treaty is an international treaty). Britain has set its own precedent for leaving a treaty in the past: the Treaty of Amiens (1803).

Therefore, lord Lavendon is correct - Parliament could pass a Act repealing the 1972 European Communities Act.

22 November 2009 at 16:33  
Blogger Paul Halsall said...


The Lisbon treaty has a specific exit clause, and it is the first European treaty to do so.


"There is at present (as of November 2009) no provision in the treaties or law of the European Union outlining the ability of a state to voluntary withdraw from EU. The European Constitution did propose such a provision and, after the failure to ratify the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, that provision was also included in the Treaty of Lisbon, which will come into force on December 1, 2009."

22 November 2009 at 16:40  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Halsall

The European Court of Justice is packed with judges from former communist states.

They will never let Britain leave legally.

Under the United Nations Charter, all EU member states have agreed that: "In the event of a conflict between the obligation between Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail." (Article 103). This would mean that the EU cannot prevent a member from leaving, if the state could prove that its membership of the EU conflicts with part of the UN Charter; similarly states are only bound to follow EU law "so far as they are compatible with existing international arrangements" (Article 37.5, Treaty of Rome). If a state were to wish to leave, it would be up to the European Court of Justice to interpret current treaties as to the member's obligations and conditions of withdrawal.

We are locked in; that is why some of the socialist posters the other day mocked us when they indicated that it does not matter if the Conservatives win the next General Election.

22 November 2009 at 16:45  
Blogger Paul Halsall said...

Nonsense. Territories have withdrawn before, and as I pointed out the new treaty, which goes into effect on DEC 1st has a specific exit provision.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your "interpretation".

22 November 2009 at 16:53  
Anonymous Village Parson said...

Paul Halsall , which countries have left the EU?

22 November 2009 at 20:52  
Anonymous Adrian Peirson said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

22 November 2009 at 21:04  
Blogger Paul Halsall said...


I said "territories." Greenland was part of the EU and left. Algeria was part of Metropolitan France until 1962, and it also left.

22 November 2009 at 21:16  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am reminded of Heinrich Himmler. A scheming beaurocrat with warped ideals and devoted to an earlier concept of Europa. A grey mouse indeed.Roehm would no doubt have testified accordingly.
Add a slim mustache, change the specs and haircut.
Delors was similarly underestimated.

22 November 2009 at 21:37  
Anonymous Bag lady said...

Oh your silly Halsall, Greenland and Algeria were Colonies of France and Denmark,who happened to be EU countries, threw off the colonial yoke, so it is no real suprise they didn't want to stay in the white man's club. Technically Rhodesia/Zimbabwe was a part of the EU then ? (as it had formal indepdence from the UK in 1980s?)>

22 November 2009 at 21:59  
Anonymous Bag Lady said...

D.Singh is right to point out that whatever the legal technicalities of Lisbon, politically the other EU countries would not let us leave.

After all the UK imports more than it exports from the EU, so why would they want to give up on an easy meal ticket?

Perhaps if we left the Frenchies and the Hun would have to try a bit harder to sell us their goods

(and at least that would wipe the smug smile off Sarkosy and make Merkel think twice before declaring that Deutschland will never give up her mercantilist economic policy, whilst at the same time trashing the City of London.)

22 November 2009 at 22:05  
Anonymous Rachel Franklin from Nevada said...

Paul Halsall,

Is wrong to support the EU, it is anti- democratic for a start. For a second it will never allow GB to leave.

PS- are you single. Your kinda nice, in a silly bumbing english way?

22 November 2009 at 22:29  
Anonymous len said...

He is a devout Catholic!The President had to be a Catholic!.

Tony Blair converted to Catholicism.

Which religion is going to be the 'official' religion of the E U ?.

Let me think???

22 November 2009 at 22:46  
Anonymous Billy, Evangelical Preacher said...

Len Said :

"Which religion is going to be the 'official' religion of the E U ?."

Answer (with heavy heart): ISLAM.

22 November 2009 at 22:50  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Len, please get off your anti-Roman Catholic bandwagon. Your are abusing the host's space with your silly Bible quotes. Can't you get a blog of your own with which to ramble on ??

22 November 2009 at 22:53  
Anonymous Gay Anglican said...

Rachel Franklin @22.29, I think Paul Halsall is a "backgammon player", if you understand my meaning- Paul no offence intended by that remark.

22 November 2009 at 22:58  
Anonymous Rachel Franklin from nevada said...

Gay Anglican,what's wrong with playing backgammon?

22 November 2009 at 23:02  
Blogger Paul Halsall said...

@Rachel. I think he means that I pitch and catch with the same team, a team that is friendly to Dorothy.

@Bag Lady, neither Algeria nor Greenland were constituted as "colonies." Algeria was part of metropolitan France. It left after independence. The same would apply to French Guyana, which is currently part of the EU. British dependences used to include "colonies" (E.g. Hong Kong and Rhodesia) but they were not a part of the UK, and not part of the EU. Greenland was part of the EU but decided to leave.

Large areas have been added to the EU by similar methods - e.g the addition of East Germany.

Finally, you do at least seem to have grasped that the Lisbon treaty does have an exit clause.

22 November 2009 at 23:14  
Anonymous Bag Lady said...

Paul Halsall

Managed to get my pound into the pay as you go internet connection in the hotel I'm staying at.

Let's put Rachel of her naviety and say your gay- not quite sure that our American friends understand English understatement.

Anyway, to the debate, I do agree that the EU has an exit clause, but I am quite cynical (it is a Jewish thing) about the UK being able to leave in a, oh what is the word? , 'clean' way.

I just think that the other EU nations will demand such a pound of flesh we couldn't do it - even if we buy a lot of BMW's or smelly French cheeses.If you get my drift.

Re Algeria, OK, I see your point. To one person they were a colony of France, to the French Algeria was an integral part of Franch (just as ,say Normandy is).

I also conceed your point re Greenland.

But the UK is a bit bigger in importance than either of these countries, so I think the other Europeans won't let us go so easily or cleanly (if that is even a word).

22 November 2009 at 23:29  
Blogger Petrus Romanus said...

Jesus Christ has raised me from the dead!

Peter the Roman is St. John the Baptist!

20 February 2010 at 02:23  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older