@ graecus

Whether there are "mafiosi" in Brussels is neither here nor there.  But, the notion that these purported "mafiosi" are - or would be - "under the papacy", that suggests a lack of ability to make factual empirical observations on your part.

 

@ Kapitein A

Whatever our interpretations of the Ten Commandments are, we should be able to agree that they are concerned with issues of personal morality, or virtues if you will.   They have nothing to do with "slavery", which was - and still is in myriad forms - a 'societal' institution.   One can be reasonably sure that your interpretations or understandings of the term "slavery" are very different from those of the 'authors' of Exodus and Deuteronomy.  And one would hope that an intelligent person like the 'Captain' would be able to recognise modern forms of "slavery" as much as 'olden' forms in history.

 

Just picking up on the issue of a democratic united front against the Brussels mafiosi, could I suggest that lunacies like bringing Protestant nations back under the Papacy best get jettisoned quickly. Catholic and Protestant patriots must not allow sectarian splits to undermine the resistance movements which are emerging in every land.

Spare us your interpretations of the Ten Commandments please, which are flawed, lest I draw attention to their acknowledgement of slavery found in both Exodus and Deuteronomy.

You shall have no other gods before Me: e.g. if you feel and act like an Arab or Muslim that’s fine, but go and be an Arab or Muslim in an Arab or Muslim country

Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy: enjoy work but don’t forget to work at your own development

Honor your parents: the family is the corner stone of the European society

You shall not murder: no violence, respect (“meaningful”) life;

You shall not commit adultery: respect your relationship with others + respect yourself

You shall not steal: if you want to have something, then work for it (don’t drop out of school and complain nobody wants to give you a job)

You shall not bear false witness: bye bye politics; when using the words ‘poor’ or ‘disadvantaged’ it will refer to the people on this earth who have no food or home, or to those on earth who are mentally and/or physically disadvantaged; anyone wrongfully saying he/she is poor or disadvantaged, will be punished because it distracts attention from those who really need it.

You shall not covet your neighbor's wife: keep your hands to yourself; support relationships, don’t test (tax) them

You shall not covet your neighbor's house: no war (in Europe)

If you do the above (your ‘duties’), only then will you get rights.

"The European Union is a project of the Elite, for the Elite and by the Elite. The people do not want it and they are not going to be asked for their opinion if autocrats like Jose have their way."

Barroso would rather not ask Europeans for their opinions, but the same could be said of the English government and media. They would rather not ask the English for their opinions about being replaced by third-world immigrants. The EU project has taken an undemocratic turn, but so has Britain and the rest of the Western world. Britain is not a democratic country. Its two party system doesn't work. The BBC has way too much influence. It is a far-left organization specialized in brainwashing. The criminal policy of mass immigration is carried out by London, not Brussels.

English dislike of the EU seems to perpetuate an old English dislike of all things foreign. Tony Blair has been accused of being a europhile, but I think he sees the entry of Turkey in the EU as a good way to make the EU into a mere trade organization. This is an anti-european position. I wish Britain would just pull out of the EU. Outside Britain, you will find much less defiance against European integration.

Here are a few reasons why I think EUROPEAN INTEGRATION should be a good thing:

- It makes a statement that Europe exists and has a right to exist. It makes it possible to allow population movements between European countries while preventing immigration from the third-world. I think it is natural that in London, a man from Brighton should be given preferential treatment over a man from Paris. But I think it is unnatural and anti-european to consider that a continental European living in London is as much of a foreigner as a man from Algiers, Beijing, Mumbai, Ankara or Nairobi. Unfortunately, the policy in many European countries like Britain and France is to organize mass immigration from the third world and refuse any sense of a common European identity.

- It could help democracy and justice work better. For example:
1\ In France, although the two main political parties receive the biggest amount of public money and media exposure, no law compels them to work democratically. The headquarters of the socialist and UMP parties in Paris decide who will run for them in the elections. Once they have been elected, members of Parliament tend to remain quiet. Most of them take no real part in deciding the laws and implementing a policy. For example, in their conscience, most members of Chirac's political party probably oppose immigration, but Chirac is nevertheless implementing a mass immigration policy. In a European political system, it would be harder for an undemocratic structure like the french socialist party or Chirac's party to manipulate democracy. We should expect more resistance to centralized manipulation in a system where members of European parliament come from several different countries.
2\ There is no separation in france between government and the justice system. But when you appear before a European court whose judges come from several different countries, there is no way Chirac can influence the judgment.

- It makes us stronger in trade negotiations with the USA, China and other countries. It makes free trade and technical cooperation easier within the EU. I think one of the most stupid and dishonest criticisms leveled at the EU (usually by the English) is that it has issued too many technical specifications. How are we supposed to work together if each country has its own technical standards ?

- It could give us a more efficient defense policy at a lower price.

--
I used to put great hopes in the European Union. I thought it would help bring democracy to france, and hopefully help dismantle the french state. I hoped Brittany would achieve independance, just like Slovenia and the Baltic states. Unfortunately, a leftist anti-european ideology has taken over the EU institutions, with the complicity of European governments. So, I have removed the EU flag sticker on my car. I voted NO in the 2005 EU referendum because of Turkey and the immigration ideology. To my consternation, the EU's proposed constitution doesn't say anything about protecting European minorized nationalities. It seems its main preoccupation is to welcome third-world refugees and to protect sexual minorities.

I am no longer a fan of the EU, but I do not think that the French and English governments defend the interests of their own people either.

It is difficult to understand why people in the National States are willing to cede sovereignty to those who attempt to impose a supreme and unalienable right to rule over them.  I am aware that national pride and identity has been trained out of the citizens of the formerly sovereign nations.  I'm aware, too, that fealty to a higher power in a religious or monarchial sense has been stripped from the people. 

 

What I don't understand is the willingness of the citizens of the National States in Europe to accept a new higher power in the stead of the religious ones, one which will demand more stringent (although in ways completely counter to the moral codes of the previous religion and it's citizen/practitioners)practice and fealties.

The new icons make no secret of their intentions to impose strict limitations on personal freedoms. Not only that but the new sovereigns will exercise complete authority to impose taxes, control individual behavior and collective actions and behaviors, and will have absolute rights to enforce payment or exact punishment if their decrees are not followed. 

 

A religion could never have asserted such complete authority over people, although in many instances I understand that they tried to do so.  Under the EU religious mandates, I'm not sure that the people will even understand who or whom their Gods are.  Barroso makes clear that he considers himself one, but who are the main Gods? 

In God we trust will have a brand new meaning.

"Diddums" is neither new or recently invented.

It is a highly colloquial term that British people have used for generations to express false pity towards an adult who is complaining about a trivial misfortune they have suffered of the kind only a baby or very young child would complain about.

The intonation of the word is always baby-like and condescending.

As Dughall said - "mildly sarcastic commiseration said to over-reacting hurt person, esp. children, syn. ‘aw shucks’. "

http://www.peak.org/~jeremy/dictionary/dictionary/dictionary.php?search=diddums

so you mean, Diddmus is a new invented word like "Hump of Islam"....

I am still unable to understand the meaning of Hump of Islam... and now another word is making its way to globalised English dictionaries.  

can you provide a bit more light about "Didimus" 

What the hell are diddums?
Good question - it's not a formally recognised word in English and I don't think it has a literal meaning but it's used to express mock sympathy, for example to a child who's expressing exaggerated distress.

What the hell are diddums?