I often think about the admirable citation borrowed by the Italian writer, Susanna Tamaro, from a certain Frère Roger's words, that "truth is not a colour, it is light". Naturally white light is the result of all the component colours of the rainbow. This principle of truth can be applied to everything.
It applies to day and night, life and death. It applies to historic facts obviously without exception, the history of civilisation, of our world and of the whole universe. It applies to the all the accomplishments and failures of mankind, and to all the natural creations of God, or whatever name one wishes to use to designate the Almighty Power.
But it doesn't only englobe positive aspects, it must englobe negative aspects as well, for the same principle applies. Nothing positive can exist without its negative counterpart. There can be no life without death.
One could advance that black is the result of all component opaque colours. They lack transparency. Black therefore doesn't reflect light. (This lack of capacity to reflect, also seems mentally appropriate for the regressive, evil, imbeciles who wave black flags).
Paradise and inferno are only spiritual concepts of the ultimate, imagined destinations of every individual, even though man has the capacity and choice of contributing to create earthly hell or earthly paradise.

Some of these thoughts are no doubt repeated elsewhere in Viewfinder, including the very first effort in 2008, but perhaps today they are more pertinent than ever. They introduce a question regarding the consequences of the inane efforts of over-rich sectarians who like to believe they are gods themselves. Consequences that are having a very negative effect on our lives at this particular time.

The question again regards verity. If Islamic ideology pretends to represent the truth, it would never need to be imposed on anyone in anyway. We always, ultimately accept the truth without it being forced upon us. Even those who try to live a lie rarely do so without finally acknowledging the truth and coming to terms with it. One cannot hide, or indefinitely deform the truth. It would be like denying the reality of life and death. As soon as one tries to impose what one persuades oneself to be the incontestable truth, either by way of reasoning, or by physical force, whatever one is trying to impose, automatically and irrevocably becomes false.

A true religion is a very personal conviction. Each person, often unconsciously, has his or her own particular belief. This faith is an individual right. Ironically many people who believe they are atheists, are in fact fundamentally religious. Being religious doesn't mean one has to attend Church services each Sunday. It certainly doesn't mean one should make a massive bottoms-up public show of numbers of one's so-called faith with false humility. It doesn't demand that men should get together to flagellate themselves, or to cruelly slaughter animals. And threatening violence, killing, beheading, torturing, raping, etc., pretexting to defend one's feigned faith in atrocious ways is pure evil. It negates even the validity of an ideology, and can never possibly be associated with any religion.

Treating women as slaves, jealously concealing their beauty instead of proudly and respectfully acknowledging natural femininity; according them less than the minimum of consideration, even stoning them for the misfortune of having been rape victims of depraved beings that have no right to consider themselves human, is also pure evil. Destroying the innocence and magic of childhood, and by extention the future, by conditioning children to hate and to kill, is equally demonic.

To be truly religious there is only one basic requirement. This covers everything by extension. The requirement is simply to believe that the universe, its incredible mechanism, and life itself in all its forms, did not come about by pure chance or accident. Yet we, relatively insignificant beings in relation to this immense and magnificent cosmos, and the marvel of life itself, are naturally an integral part of it all. This humility, realisation and wonder should induce us to regard everything with joy and profound respect, because everything is part of The Creation. The men amongst us particularly acclaim, admire and adore women because although our modest participation is naturally essential, their life giving force is extraordinary, miraculous, and awe-inspiring.

The miracle of life in all its forms, 'all creatures great and small',  from which we still have so much to learn, yet we still take too much for granted. This life, this verity, all that we see around us, is our earthly paradise. Although we could more easily destroy than conserve this very precious loan, naturally we have the responsibility to bequeath it intact, if not more embellished than ever, to our children for them to eventually assume the same responsibility.

Spiritual paradise is a beautiful image conserved within us. Only a disorientated fool would believe that somewhere celestial, there is an Edenic garden of apple trees, vineyards and virgins, cascades of pristine water, birds of paradise, etc. How can anything be living if paradise is immortal, therefore sterile? Who plants the fruit trees and prunes the vines? What eggs hatched the birds of paradise, or what birds laid the eggs? How could ghosts of servile women still garbed in their burkas be enjoyed by degenerates, without the vital life creating force and instinct? How can one possibly be led to believe such rubbish without being totally regressive and brainless?

Those who have such meagre respect for life, have no respect for truth, which essentially is God. They who contribute to make mortal hell on earth, can never possibly be rewarded with even a mere fabulation of immortal paradise.
If a real destination exists between the two spiritual concepts, then it would only be hell. If you willingly contribute to create mortal hell on earth, it is bound to be your final vision, your ultimate destination and personal legacy.

Text and image © Mirino. September, 2016


When H. Clinton campaigned for the Democratic nomination for President of the USA in 2008, one got the impression that she had more clout and conviction than Obama, which wouldn't be too difficult in any case. When I first heard Trump make a public speech, I must admit I wasn't too impressed.

Most people appreciate that first impressions are often false. It also takes time to get to know a person, according to factual information made available. When the choice is limited to two main presidential candidates, obviously one must refer to whatever reliable information one finds to be able to decide who best to vote for.
It's amusing to note that what Obama had to say to discredit Hillary Clinton in 2008 is the exact opposite to what he now says in her support.

Many people might be swayed by considerations that are essentially beside the point. One would not be choosing a first female President in the history of the USA, as opposed to yet another male President, for example, one would be choosing the best possible President under the actual, momentous, social, economical, national and international circumstances.

More than ever, the American Presidential elections are not just a national affair. They concern the whole world (which is also why Viewfinder is taking this liberty) and at this particular epoch the choice is absolutely crucial.
Maybe for the first time in American history the choice is not simply between Democrats and Republicans. It's not a question of swinging from one traditional political tendency to the other, or of choosing not to do so. This time there are much larger political and ideological issues at stake. There may be certain Republicans, for example, who could be quite sold on the ideology of eventually opting for a neo-Marxist global government system, to the detriment of 'dated democracy'. Even if this meant the gradual cultural destruction of nations as we know them. To the elite ideological theoreticians, such sacrifices would be justified by the 'subsequent results'...

These are the stakes that determine the choice, and the choice is simple. On one side there is a candidate who is financially committed to implement "Sorosian dystopia" (chaos). Therefore in keeping, H. Clinton will continue to allow mass, quasi uncontrolled immigration of mostly Muslim males into the USA.
On the other side there is a Republican candidate who is already aware of what is taking place, but is totally free institutionally, politically and financially to apply a policy of common sense that counters such chaos creating recipes. He has not been bought out by any sectarian multi-billionaire, or by any Arabian States.

More serious is the fact that as the Soros and Rothschild, etc., project seems to be treated as a priority, it could even lead to war with Russia, who understandably rejects the inane NWO idea.
Any sensible person would reason that to solve the problems caused by ISIS, including the persecution of Christians, Copts and Kurds in the Middle East, and the essential problem of Syria, cooperation with Russia is primordial, absolutely essential. Obviously there is no other way.
The fact that Obama has, at least up until now, with only two months left of his mandate, rejected any real cooperation with Russia, underlines the importance he seems to accord to an absurd ideology above the real and immediate interests of the world in terms of humanity, and this without even considering the economic and social interests of the USA.
H. Clinton is on the same political wave length as Obama, but the danger she represents could be even greater, because she is power hungry, vain, temperamental, and sometimes even foolhardy. She may also have a health problem that could complicate things even further.

Additionally there is proof of her being a security risk. By all accounts corroborated by the FBI, yet she seems to benefit already from legal immunity, however much that costs those who have generously invested in her. It may be a very bad investment however, and not only because of her health problem. But for the Sorosian project that must have cost so many millions to initiate, she is irreplaceable. Literally no one else would ever do what she is prepared to do to satisfy her patrons that would neither be in the interests of the USA, nor the world.

The choice is simple. If one chooses H. Clinton, mass, uncontrolled immigration will continue in the USA. This will also encourage the continuation of the same irresponsible open border senselessness in Europe and elsewhere (Canada and Australia) in keeping with the inane, destructive project. Worse, and incredibly, it could even lead to conflict with Russia.

If one chooses D. Trump, uncontrolled immigration will cease. There will be greater border control. For the Middle East problems that are being ignobly exploited by the multi-billionaire megalomaniacs, Trump will very likely cooperate with Putin to get things sorted out at last, not only by getting rid of ISIS, but by finding a common solution to end the noxious civil and ethnic wars in Syria.
Common sense must prevail, internally (reuniting all Americans and starting to get the economy back on track) as well as externally (effective cooperation with world leaders to solve the real international problems). Then who knows? Perhaps even the media will start doing their job with the integrity that was once the hall mark of real journalism.
Text © Mirino. (With many thanks for the use of the 11/9/  memorial anniversary image). September, 2016

Succo di pomodoro

A volte mi chiedo se non sono diventato più pazzo di quanto già non lo sia, poiché ciò che accade nel mondo d’oggi è così incredibile che, per riuscire a crederci, diventa quasi normale dubitare della sua salute mentale.

Alludo naturalmente al progetto delle élite, di quei megalomani troppo ricchi che, senza molta conoscenza della storia, e pensando forse di essere quasi divini, prendono iniziative inaudite, pericolose ed irresponsabili. Mi riferisco al cosiddetto “nuovo ordine mondiale” che, secondo questi illuminati e settari, sarà stabilito grazie all'afflusso di milioni di migranti musulmani (degenerati o no).

Nonostante gli avvertimenti dati alle mie sorelle altrove, i miei dubbi sono rinforzati dalla loro reazione. Esse non sono di fatto pronte ad accettare uno scenario così folle. È piuttosto comprensibile. Poi non se ne parla nei giornali che hanno l'abitudine di leggere, beninteso...

E qui, in Italia dove sono, è anche difficile crederlo. Questo luogo è un paradiso dove la gente è molto simpatica. Raramente ho conosciuto tale gentilezza così generosa e sincera. In più abbiamo un orto qui vicino, gratuito. I vicini mi hanno persino aiutato a lavorare la terra e preparare il terreno prima di piantare. Poi è proprio una comunione con la terra e la natura, ed è affascinante.

Prima le piccoli piante di pomodoro, ad esempio, sono così fragili, talvolta troppo. Ma col tempo le piante dei pomodori del tipo “cuore di bue” possono crescere alte due metri con grappoli che pesano fra due e quattro chili. Poi ci vogliono pazienza e sole perché diventino rossi. Nel mio caso, per essere alla mia prima esperienza, non è andata troppo male, ma ovviamente ho sempre molto da apprendere.
Qui il giardinaggio è un modo di vita, ma i miei vicini, che riescono a fare un po’ di tutto, compressi un buon vino e un olio d’oliva di qualità, non sono giovani. Per essi curare i loro giardini è una passione, ed è questa la ragione per cui questo luogo è un vero paradiso.

Purtroppo i loro figli sono meno entusiasti. Si tratta di una generazione che pensa che siccome frutta, verdura e pomodori di stagione costano poco, non c’è ragione di affaticarsi tanto a coltivarle. In termini economici questo è vero, ma in termini di valori reali, di cuore, di amore, ed anche in termini spirituali, si sbagliano.
Sembrerebbe quindi che anche certi paradisi sono destinati ad essere effimeri.

Questi considerazioni ci riportano ancora al progetto malsano di megalomani. Quelli che hanno consacrato le loro vite ad accumulare denaro, ma in realtà non hanno mai vissuto. Sono quindi essenzialmente poveri. Per questo motivo credono che cambiare il mondo, anche in peggio, sarà una specie di compensazione per le loro vite vuote. Ma evidentemente anche loro si sbagliano.

Su Facebook, perché è utile sapere ciò che accade nel mondo, anche se certe cose vengono censurate, ho visto la foto di ancora un altro Musulmano arrabbiato. Quest'uomo teneva un cartellone su cui era scritto "kill all the Juice". Evidentemente voleva dire "kill all the Jews", cioè "ammazza tutti gli ebrei" (juice in inglese vuol dire succo, mentre Jews sono gli ebrei).
Possiamo nondimeno consolarci sempre con il succo di pomodoro...

Text and photo © Mirino. (With thanks to Rob). August, 2016

The Plan

Dark clouds rumble in the distance, as though they are suffering from acute indigestion.
They look threatening, and without being countered by a fresh, lucid breeze, they could drift over to blacken the entire sky, spit hell fire, and vomit on all of us. The way things are going perhaps we deserve it.

When one reflects on the Ukrainian affair and how it was handled by the USA and the EU, the word 'fiasco' easily springs to mind. But maybe what seemed to be a lack of intelligence, foresight, and above all, diplomacy, might have been all part of the 'Plan'.
After all, it was essentially an internal affair.
The former elected President, Viktor Yanukovych, rejected the idea of the Ukraine joining NATO. In his view there was already enough mutual cooperation, and the Ukraine also had to consider its military coordination with Russia. Yanukovych also appreciated that joining NATO would understandably create friction between the Ukraine and its close neighbour, Russia.
Naturally this makes sense, but the West, encouraged by the multi-billionaire who had, in anticipation, already invested in the Ukraine, thought otherwise, and protests were encouraged to counter the Ukrainian President's wishes to turn more towards his Russian neighbour economically and socially.

The demonstrations, coined the 'Euromaidan', lasted some months, and eventually led to the overthrow of Yanukovych.
A new government was established, but not democratically. There was no time for that. A coalition government was set up in March, 2010, with considerable help from the West. It was therefore naturally in favour of Europe and NATO, and only too eager to turn its back on Russia.

The ex-premier Tymoshenko stated in 2010 that lawyers who contributed in forming the substituted coalition government received bribes of $5 million dollars each. In June of that year Yurly Lutsenko and again Yulia Tymoshenko maintained that opposition deputies had been offered $1.5 million with $25,000 per month if they joined the coalition.
This volt face caused protests from the pro-Russians in the Ukraine, and unsurprisingly provoked riots which eventually spurred the Russian annexation of Crimea. Since then Russia has been subject to economic sanctions. They are probably more harmful to European interests than to Russian interests.

That's the rough backdrop, and the American pretext to treat Russia as the 'enemy'. So while Obama and Soros fan the flames of such dated differences, and pretend that Putin is the evil foe, they also encourage Europe and certain democratic nations such as Australia, to virtually do away with their border control to generously welcome migrant 'friends'.
The initial pretext was to give assylum to war-torn refugees, which would have been noble, but since then the term 'refugees' has been subtly changed to 'migrants'. This change of name was necessary because it's painfully obvious that most of the migrants are not refugees. There are very few women, children and old people compared to the influx of mostly young male Muslims. Curiously there are no Christians, no Copts nor Kurds. They seem to have been forgotten, and in any case the Kurdish men and women are too busy fighting ISIS in the front line. Strangely the EU, the USA and NATO show no concern. Ironically it is mostly the Christian populations in Syria and elsewhere who continue to be persecuted by radicals armed by Turkey, which also means the USA.

This then is the incredible scenario. The inane, pretended project, to assure the future populations of Europe, the USA and Australia, etc., with the help of male Muslims, is in reality only a recipe to create conflict and chaos, as we are now seeing, and as I have already alluded to. How can it possibly be otherwise?

If the situation were not so serious, it might even be amusing, because nothing is going according to the make believe plan, which is in fact a time bomb. The EU has agreed to, or has been bribed into, wearing a very big bomb belt over which it seems to have no control regarding the detonation.
Obama's unbridled vanity has made him reveal his true loyalties and objectives. This, on top of her own serious errors of judgement, may also have contributed to diminish the chances of H. Clinton's being elected US President.
Obama's false friend Erdogan is irrevocably ruining his nation which risks to become a totalitarian Islamic menace.

The famous plan, or ticket to Dystopia, has become so obvious to most thinking people of the world, that those who are still contributing towards this objective look ridiculously sold-out. Angela Merkel is ruining her reputation as well as the nation she represents. Cameron saved himself in extremis. Hollande must cease to blindly follow Obama and think more about cooperating with Russia, if he wants to finish his mandate a shade more worthily, rather than even more myserably.
Needless to add, at this crucial period the UK should start getting its priorities right. It should no longer look for political guidance from the EU, or from the USA, certainly whilst Obama still presides.

The world must stop being persuaded that Russia is an expansionist enemy. As far as the Ukraine is concerned, if the tables were turned, if we were dealing with a fictive nation of which a considerable number of the population identified itself culturally with the USA, and wished to conserve its identity, Obama would have been under tremendous pressure to defend the interests of that community. In this respect Putin has shown considerable restraint.

Not to cooperate with Russia to fight a common enemy (ISIS) is dangerously absurd. On the contrary, it is the only rational solution to remedy all the problems, including the underlying problem of Syria. It is obvious the only possible strategic key. To obstinately continue this stupid scenario also for the sake of an inane plan which is so harmful, a plan that is only a megalomaniac's vain pretext to create a nightmare of chaos, is unpardonable.

Very recently Pope Francis was not afraid to say that we are at war. 'I'm not speaking of a war of religions, Religions don't want war. The others want war'. He wasn't even referring to the war with ISIS. He was referring to the war of financial interests, of resources. The real, underlying war, the rabid, evil pursuit of economic power.

Text and image © Mirino. July, 2016


When Vladimir Putin declares that democracy no longer exists in the West, he must be alluding to the the power of money. If multi-billionaires feel it's in their interests to invest in a democrat candidate like Obama, for example, such a large investment is bound to carry weight. It wouldn't be limited to the candidate's presidential campaign either. It would certainly have to include as much media support as can also be purchased. And when one makes such a generous investment and it pays off, the investee is then morally bound to the investor, similarly to whoever sells his soul to the devil.
Is this not why Obama is now endorsing the chaos that George Soros has initiated by pushing Angela Merkel and thus Europe into accepting masses of so called refugees? Is this not also why he too is inanely treating Russia as an enemy, to protect the Ukrainian investments of Soros? The multi-billionaire also established a foundation in the Ukraine that contributed towards toppling the nation's elected executive, to then replace it with a US State department chosen junta. This episode was apparently overseen by Hillary Clinton.

The Clintons have a privileged relationship with George Soros, but it's possible that G. W. Bush would never have likewise benefitted from any sorosian generosity.
Soros believed that the 'fight against terror' was counter-productive, but he never anticipated 11/9/2001. Had he been able to foresee this and the initial opening of Pandora's box in Pakistan, perhaps there would have been other huge fortunes to be made.

Ideally, in tandem with such incredible financial power, should come a developed sense of forethought and responsibility, but if the desire for power is too dominant, then all other considerations are bound to be secondary.
A megalomaniac tends to believe that he is always right, although sometimes he might admit that he is wrong. Nevertheless, if such a person decided that the value of the pound £ sterling was too strong in relation to the euro €, he would tend to want to try to do something about it. This Soros did in 1992 by buying ten billion US$ of pounds £ and selling them short. He made a billion $ in the process. For this he earned the title of 'The man who broke the Bank of England', and the consequential currency crisis in the UK is known as 'Black Wednesday'.

Chairman of the 'Open Society Foundations' that he launched in 1993, and firm supporter of the American progressive, and liberal ideologies, Soros endorses his open society, and has considerably invested in this as we are now painfully experiencing. The Merkel plan is part of this. That the term 'refugees' has since been changed to 'migrants' is significant in itself.
The negative global consequences of this are so apparent that nations' leaders who still persist in trying to justify the influx of mostly male Muslims, appear to have been shamefully and ridiculously bought out.

The reaction of Hungarian authorities are refreshingly realistic in comparison. (George Soros, by the way, was born in Budapest, Hungry. His original name was György Schwartz).
Replying to a comment made by Clinton regarding the migrant issue, the Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán said, 'The remarks made about Hungary and Poland have a political dimension. These are not accidental slips of the tongue. And these slips or remarks have been multiplying since we are living in the era of the migrant crisis. And we all know that behind the leaders of the Democratic Party, we have to see George Soros. Although the mouth belongs to Clinton, the voice belongs to Soros.'
In response Soros spelled it all out very clearly. Alluding to Orban's political stance, he said, 'His plan treats the protection of national borders as the objective and the refugees as an obstacle. Our plan treats the protection of refugees as the objective and national borders as the obstacle.'
To illustrate the extent in which the migrant influx has been orchestrated, 'Migrant Handbooks' have been produced especially. Examples were found on the Greek island, Lesbos. They are written in Arabic for the benefit of migrants before they attempt to cross the Mediterranean. The hand books had been supplied by a group known as 'Welcome to the EU'. Hardly surprisingly, 'Welcome to the EU' is financed by the Open Society Foundations.

Soros is also considered to be a philanthropist. But in view of his partisan, if not sectarian dealings, and his callous, financial speculations, (one of which also caused chaos in Asia) one doubts if his so called philanthropy is not governed/determined by cold, financial calculation, rather than by warm, spontaneous and sincere generosity.
In any case it's obviously a useful cover. One can help a struggling State, by generously investing in its industry. If this proves unsuccessful one could then create chaos. Either way a quick fortune can be made.
I recently learnt that Soros donated more than $33 million to the 'Black Lives Matter' organisation. If this isn't incitement to racism, violence, division and therefore more chaos, nothing is.

With regard to Europe, the USA and other democratic nations such as Australia, what else could be the ultimate objective from flooding these democracies with Moslem migrants? Social and economic chaos is the only possible answer. The NWO (New World Order or more exactly 'Disorder') scheme is so idiotic that one now suspects it to be only a poor pretext. George Soros is intelligent enough to know that apart for him, nothing of any positive value will result from such a moronic project. But an unscrupulous person perhaps vain or cynic enough to consider himself divine, even though he might have more in common with the devil, can make billions from chaos, providing he first purchases the servility of leaders cupid and stupid enough to allow it to happen, which certainly seems to be the case since the floodgates for migrants have been so heedlessly opened.

The above was written before the evil terror attack in Nice, France last night. But could one not say that there is a connection?
Sincere condolences to the victims and their families.

Ceci a été écrit avant l'attentat diabolique qui a eu lieu à Nice hier soir, mais ne pourrait-on pas dire qu'il y ait une connection?
Condoléances les plus sincères à toutes les victimes et leurs familles.


Text and image © Mirino. (with thanks to Tyler Durden for any additional information). July, 2016

Brexitus acta probat

Que l'on ait été pour ou contre, il faut être de mauvaise foi pour ne pas reconnaître que la démocratie règne plus forte que jamais en Angleterre. Et finalement n'est ce pas cela la liberté primordiale que l'Europe a toujours défendue stoïquement?

David Cameron a été aussi digne de sa fonction. D'abord digne d'avoir donné au peuple l'occasion de choisir entre rester membre ou non de l'UE, puis digne d'avoir pris acte des résultats en confirmant son intention de démissionner. Il a ouvertement affiché sa préférence, donc c'est normal qu'il assume les conséquences.

Beaucoup de français ont fait la comparaison entre ce comportement et celui de certains de leurs politiciens. Emmanuel Macron est un bon exemple. Comment un ministre du gouvernement socialiste qui affirme publiquement qu'il ne croit plus au socialisme, peut continuer néanmoins à assumer ses fonctions, et en plus en prenant le temps de faire sa propre campagne pour son avenir personnel? Mais à l'égard de tels principes F. Hollande bat tous les records. Comment est-ce possible que sachant que son taux de popularité/confiance est plutôt à moins de 10 %, il continue comme si de rien n'était? Est-il à ce point cynique, et dépourvu de la capacité de raisonner que quoi qu'il fasse il ne représente plus 90 % des français, donc sous de telles circonstances, ses décisions sont en principe démocratiquement non valides?

Mais retournons à la décision des britanniques. Je dois avouer que si je n'ai pas été influencé par les menaces apocalyptiques ridicules, (y compris celles d'Obama) j'ai été quand même surpris par le résultat. On a manifestement investi davantage dans la campagne pour rester dans l'UE. Elle a été plus sophistiquée. C'est probable que la campagne Brexit ait manqué de moyens financiers par rapport à la préférence affichée par Cameron.

Ironiquement les réactions de certains responsables comme Juncker, semblent donner raison à la décision britannique. Comment se fait-il qu'un tel responsable puisse étaler tant de mépris pour une décision obtenue démocratiquement? Ce monsieur représente quoi au juste?
Voilà comment il réagit: "Le Brexit n'est pas un divorce à l'amiable, mais après tout, ce n'était pas non plus une grande relation amoureuse" (télévision allemande ARD). Sans doute il parle pour lui même, mais ainsi il confirme sa mauvaise représentation en ce qui concerne les britanniques.
Quant à Martin Schulz, President du Parliament European, il juge scandaleux le choix de Mr. Cameron de ne quitter son poste qu'en octobre, estimant qu'il prend tout le continent européen ainsi en otage. Mais de quoi on se mêle là? Et si c'est ainsi, le continent européen doit être extrêmement fragile.
Puis Frank Walter Steinmeir, ministre allemand des Affaires Étrangères: Ils ne se laisseront pas "prendre leur Europe"...

En somme on dirait que l'Europe avec son "unité" (imaginaire) a été accaparée comme une possession exclusive bruxelloise, luxembourgeoise et allemande.
En tous cas il va sans dire que ce ne sont pas ceux qui font mine de représenter les européens à Bruxelles qui déterminent qui est européen ou non, c'est la géographie, l'histoire, la culture, le patrimoine, les valeurs et l'identité. La Grande Bretagne est une nation européenne, elle la sera toujours.
Prendre en considération et défendre la richesse de la diversité culturelle européenne semblent bien trop loin de la portée des technocrates bruxellois, mais sans prendre en considération justement l'essentiel de l'Europe, il n'y a aucune représentation possible sinon digne de ce nom.

Donc l'objectif du club UE qui ne représente finalement que lui même serait quoi au juste? Continuer à ouvrir les vannes pour accueillir les migrants sans frein afin de détruire l'essentiel de l'Europe? Car si on continue ainsi, une telle conséquence n'est pas seulement plausible, ce sera inévitable.
J'ai vu une vidéo d'un allemand d'un certain âge parlant de l'avenir de l'Europe. Il disait que les Nazis n'avaient pas été capables d'assurer le futur, mais les migrants musulmans ont sûrement cette capacité. S'agit-il de cynisme de sa part, ou ce monsieur serait-il un exemple vindicatif de ceux qui croient dans ce nouvel ordre mondial utopique, qui aboutira forcement à un résultat lamentablement dystopique?

Pendant que F. Hollande essaie de prendre avantage de la décision britannique avec sa plus grave expression affichée pour l'occasion, (en raisonnant qu'une de ses dernières cartouches serait de faire mine de jouer le rôle de leader européen) il n'en a pourtant strictement rien à dire de consequent. Lui au moins, il ne veut froisser personne de ce côté de la Manche.
Mais N. Sarkozy se gêne bien moins à cet égard. Et comme d'habitude il est tout seul à dire la vérité.
Avec raison il demande un nouveau traité européen, un rétablissement des contrôles aux frontières contournant l'Europe, et un arrêt du processus fou d'élargissement de l'UE. Puis il est catégoriquement contre l'adhésion de la Turquie au sein de l'UE.
"L'heure est à la lucidité, à l'énergie et au leadership.
Ce qu'a dit le peuple britannique, d'autres peuples en Europe peuvent le dire. Nous ne pouvons pas, nous ne devons pas l'ignorer".

Beaucoup plus de considération démocratique, de la solidarité, une aspiration européenne commune défendue résolument, et une représentation, un leadership digne que les européens ont tant besoin et méritent bien.

Si en France on avait réélu l'ancien Président au lieu de cette fabrication très mal inspirée de certains média, le piètre candidat par défaut, c'est fort possible que N. Sarkozy aurait été en mesure de veiller que l'UE ne déraille pas outre mesure, et par conséquence il aurait pu aussi influencer le choix britannique. Mais c'est encore une ironie de l'histoire.

 Text and lower image © Mirino. (With thanks for the use of the Unionjack celebrities). 
June, 2016