Wee rhyme




I shall love thee long my lass
Beyond the end of time,
Though burns run dry
Or break their banks
Forever you'll be mine

For e'er you'll me mine my love
Come fire, deluge or gale,
Though Heavens plunge
And Earth implodes
My love will never fail

For e'er you'll me mine my sweet
E'en though the world be mad,
For ever you'll be fair and gay
And never worn and sad

I shall love thee long my lass
                   Beyond the end of time,                
Through war, through strife,
Yon after life,
As pledged by this wee rhyme

 


for C

Rhyme and image © Mirino. June, 2017

Meteoroillogic



Living in a sort of Hobbit-shire paradise where there are many fruit trees, one notices that one year is good for figs, and another is good for cherries, or apples, for example.
This year, in this particular Italian location, it's a very good season for cherries, but less good for figs. But then if you grow vegetables, you're become automatically aware of such natural things. You're aware of the cycles of fruit trees. Every life form is subject to its own cycle. The incredible mechanism of the universe is obviously subject to its own cycles. Naturally this includes climatic cycles.

However, the global warming brigade are convinced that climate change is man-made. They are therefore determined to do what they persuade themselves is necessary to save the world. They will tax carbon and find more ways to reduce 'greenhouse gas emissions'. To succeed, (but how does one measure success in such a cloudy case?) massive investments between $3.3 trillion and $7.3 trillion will be made in new energy generating means and in accelerating the transition to electrically powered vehicles thus doing away with the commercial use of fossil fuels.
Experts have suggested that increasing nuclear power would be a far less expensive way to help meet the Parisian objectives.
This information was published in the Economist of August 31st, 2016.

What has been achieved in this respect since last year? What has been accomplished since the agreements that were established earlier in December, 2015, also adopted by many nations? What has changed? There doesn't seem to be a clear answer to this. It appears vague like hills shrouded in mist. In consideration of the costs, absolutely nothing should be vague. Everything should be crystal clear as a cloudless, windswept sky, or a pristine lake.
The climate would have changed. It has a habit of changing, according to its own laws and cycles. Our habits however, have certainly not changed.


The age of the planet Earth is estimated to be 4.543 billion years. Man has been registering annual climate temperatures in limited areas since 1836. That means records have been archived and assessments have been made regarding climate evolution, at least regarding these zones, over a span of only 181 years. A split second in relation to the age of our planet.
During its climatic history the planet Earth has gone through at least two ice ages as well as periods of extreme heat when far more CO2 was produced as a result, than is the case today. Life nevertheless obviously survived these extreme, climatic conditions.
In view of this, is it not pretentious nonsense to believe that man is responsible for climate change? It is not even more pretentious to believe he can solve such problems as if he were endowed with divine powers in addition to an annual, ungodly sum of money? 'Global warming' however, is not only extremely lucrative, it's a very useful political and social pretext, but it not only seems to be false, it also seems to be riddled with hypocrisy.

Assuming then that man-made climate change is a fallacy, pollution is certainly very real. Yet one tends to hide behind the argument of 'man made global warming' (or 'man-made global cooling', as the case may be) as a sort of excuse to avoid rushing into doing anything effective to counter atmospheric pollution.
It's business as usual with the oil rich Arabian monarchs and OPEC. If performant, electronically powered vehicles can now be manufactured, heads of State seem to be very slow, if not reluctant, in encouraging motorists to purchase them by doing the necessary to make this economically possible and practical. Our heads of State seem in no hurry to bring about any real transition of mobile energy, one reason being the enormous amount of tax they glean from the continual use of petrol. Yet each year according to the 'Paris Climate' agreements, trillions will continue be spent, on what? Isn't this arnaque, as the French would say?

If one dares to express a personal opinion on this heated subject, the global warming acolytes (who are most likely rabid globalists as well, inspite of the constantly recurring, tragic consequences) aways try to demean one's argument by pointing out that only a climatologue's opinion counts. For them it's by no means a question of common sense and personal observation. Yet there are thousands of climatologues who firmly disagree that climate change is man-made.

In any case perhaps climatology could be likened to economics. No economist has ever been able to accurately anticipate a financial depression or a crash, and no climatologue has ever been able to accurately anticipate a climatic abnormality or a natural catastrophe. Because of this such natural phenomena will continue to be inevitable. Nature has a powerful way of demonstrating that she always has the last word. Earth-quakes, floods, volcanic eruptions (which cause enormous emissions of CO2) are obvious examples, but determining life's end is the most common example. Unlike turgid ideologues who take themselves for divinities, we are mere mortals fortunate enough to be endowed with the loan of life for the relatively brief period that nature, which obviously, and often tragically, has to include human nature, allocates to us.

In conclusion, and to return to this particular region, last October, after two weeks of torrential rain, there was a serious landslide. A great deal of damage was caused. A man in the village immediately below lost everything, his house, and almost his life. Again, no one anticipated this natural catastrophe. It's doubtful that any organisation will help the man replace his little house. One is also reminded of other natural catastrophes such as the Haitian earthquake of 2010. Unlike Trump, his predecessor Obama, and H. Clinton will ostentatiously show their politically correct support for the Paris 'climate' agreements, but the Clinton Foundation's ripping off Haiti of more than two billion dollars of donated relief funds, would additionally underline l'arnaque internationale. What seems to be a fraudulent, hypocritical, paradoxical, Parisian pantomime.

 
Text and images © Mirino. June, 2017

Nature



Shouldn't one try to treat it all with a touch of humour? Or maybe it would be more positive to continue try to write poetry, parodies, tales, thoughts on English history, literature and art. Wouldn't this be much more interesting? Wouldn't be an effective way to combat the lunacy and evil that the world now seems subjected to ?
Although one could reason so, the horror that continues constantly, this unhinged pantomime of death, cruelty, and destruction, is too preoccupying to be casually cast from one's mind. To make things worse, those who pretend to represent us try to play everything down with cynical hypocrisy.

As a mild example in France, one of Macron's first errors of judgement, was to compensate Bayrou for his pre-election support. We now see that the old man has at last managed to become the minister of Justice. As such his first responsibility is to draw up a law on moralisation (la moralisation de la vie publique)...
Such a law would have to be extremely shallow and insular. But shallow moralisation has always been Bayrou's speciality, and obviously one must give him something to do. Given that Macron's victory could be likened to the return of the Messiah, Bayrou could have simply opted for the Ten Commandments, but that would have been extremely politically incorrect.

(Ce serait plus approprié de traiter de ce sujet du gouvernement Macron en français. Le nom de la loi Bayrou en fait a été changé. Depuis on l'appelle la loi de la confiance...
Un aspect de cette nouvelle loi est que si jamais un ministre est mis en examen, il doit démissionner immédiatement.
Il y a deux ministres du gouvernement Macron qui pourraient être mis en examin (Ferrand, le ministre de la Cohésion des territoires, et même Bayrou, le ministre de la Justice). Le premier a fait bien pire que Fillon, le gagnant des primaires des Républicains. Bayrou n'a pas fait mieux.
Bien que Fillon n'ait jamais été jugé coupable pour quoi que ce soit, il a été politiquement massacré autant par le système judiciaire que par les media, la gauche, et même par certains Républicains. Comme le système judiciaire est quasi monopolisé par la gauche, c'est certain que le nouveau ministre de la Justice ne sera jamais mis en examen. Si Ferrand le sera ce serait uniquement pour la forme et l'exemple après la publication de la loi. C'est déjà une bonne raison pour laquelle le nom de cette loi a été changé, car si on fait semblant que la confiance règne, manifestement en France il y a toujours un gros problème moral. C'est intéressant d'ailleurs que Macron semble être bien plus préoccupé par les formes, les considérations relativement superficielles, que par ce qu'il a l'intention de faire. C'est aussi révélateur que trop de français lui accorde une confiance quasi aveugle sans avoir une idée précise de ce qu'il propose comme programme).

So whilst hundreds of Christians are being beheaded, systematically murdered in the most atrocious ways in the Middle East, Bayrou has been very busy shouldering the burden of establishing a law on French moralisation and confidence.
We might also bare in mind that in principle all the ministers of Macron's government would be for the continuation of mass immigration, naturally excluding Christians and Copts, etc. In other words they would be anti-Trump, anti-Putin, pro-Merkel globalists, either convinced or bought-out.

I already posted what follows on FB. But maybe it would also be appropriate here:

Nationality isn't just a flag, It's identity, culture, patrimony and history. And even a flag essentially and ultimately symbolises and reflects this history. Each nation, and each town, village, castle, home and garden has its own history, forged by circumstances, including war, patriotism, successive families, love and life. Each nation has its own beauty, climate, attributes, specialities, art, architecture, customs, traditions. Each nation has its own people of an essential, particular character. This diversity and patriotism naturally determine the beauty of the world.

To dismiss or depreciate it, is to renounce it, or even negate it. By extension it obviously becomes a renunciation of one's own identity.
It's not patriotism that determines war, its ideology. The present ideology of globalism, for example, is a dangerous ideology, because essentially it's imposed. All ideologies are. Islam is radically an ideology of domination. It too is dangerous. To therefore exploit Islam and war to try to impose globalisation is doubly pernicious.

The present trend of dismissing nationality, pretending that it's dated, is incoherent and unrealistic. There is nothing wrong in considering oneself as being European, for example, but the wealth of Europe is the diversity of the nations that it constitutes. Without this wealth of diversity, 'Europe' would be empty and meaningless.
A federation of European nations can only come about by natural evolution and democratic choice. It can never be imposed ideologically.

The Ukrainian affair is a good example of dangerous imposition, when an elected government aspiring to improve ties with its closest neighbour, is brought down to be replaced with a bought out, pro-European, puppet government. European expansion cannot be gained in such a way without creating negative consequences. Had Putin lacked restraint and intelligence, this fiasco could have triggered off a full scale war.

Needless to add, as well as extremely dangerous, the ideology of globalism is also very naive. The negative consequences in Europe that have systematically been played down by the media and bought-out heads of State, are appalling. Each year the tragic deaths by drowning in the Mediterranean of thousands of would be migrants is a consequence for which the globalist fanatics should be ashamed of themselves. Yet they never seem inclined to assume the slightest responsibility for having incited such endless tragedy. On the contrary, it's shamefully exploited, and the image of the little drowned boy found on a Libyan beech is a tragic example.

The North African migrants who manage to get to Libya are fleeced of whatever money they still have by traffickers before being given unseaworthy means to get across the Mediterranean to Italy. However, what is less known is that hundreds die in trying to cross the Sahara.
The easy come, easy go, no-border imbeciles, Merkel included, used the noble pretext of offering asylum to war-torn refugees. Within weeks it became apparent that Europe was welcoming migrants from all over the world. The only condition was that they be Muslims, and mostly young males. For some curious reason, Christians, Copts and Kurds, etc., those most persecuted in the Middle East, are less welcome. This also seems to contradict the claimed 'multicultural' objective.
The initial pretence of offering asylum to refugees was then changed to integrating migrants for the purpose of obtaining cheaper manual labour, and assuring future European populations...
The former could be regarded as reintroducing a politically correct form of slavery. The latter shows a total lack of confidence in the laws of nature, and considerable disrespect regarding the aspirations and intelligence of Europeans. One might also point out that if less than the many millions of euros spent on immigration, were used to help and encourage Europeans to establish their own families, there would be no pretended problem regarding future European populations.

More important, it seems apparent that the European establishment have absolutely no idea regarding the essential Muslim ideology that forbids Muslims to be subject to democracy and thus to integrate in democratic societies. Only Muslims who have virtually renounced the decrees of the Quran can adopt European values.
Those who cannot are therefore duty bound by the Quran to impose their values, ideology and laws on Europeans, a practice which we are also seeing. If this globalist inanity is allowed to continue, and consequently Muslims become the European majority, eventually Europe will no longer be a multicultural continent, it will be monocultural, and this only if 7th century dogma can be regarded as a culture. 
__

Text and image © Mirino. (The photograph, slightly reworked, was taken years ago in Cumberland, UK. For me it evokes the constant serenity of nature, underlining the vanity, cupidity and pettiness of those amongst us who like to imagine they have divine powers regarding the laws of nature). 
June, 2017

Macronihilisme 



Loin de moi d'être un rabat joie, si joie il y a, car franchement on n'a pas l'impression qu'en France il y ait une ambiance effervescente d'extase béate, comme si enfin le Sauveur est revenu.

Les média essaient sans conviction de justifier leur choix, mais ce choix n'était il pas plutôt fondé sur le devoir absolu de ne pas laisser passer MLP? Evidemment. A cet égard l'établissement était uni et indivisé, et c'est exactement pour cela que Macron, petit protégé de Hollande, a été programmé de gagner.

D'ailleurs rien ne pouvait être plus simple. Une fois Fillon (qui avait le meilleur programme) écarté, politiquement massacré par la justice partisane, les socialistes, et même bien entendu les bien pensants Républicains qui ont vendu leur âme, on savait pertinemment bien que ceci déterminera les deux finalistes Macron/Le Pen. Le choix final des français après tant d'années de conditionnement contre le FN, ne l'était point. Ce résultat souligne aussi l'erreur importante de MLP de n'avoir pas changé le nom du parti, aussi pour justifier son désaccord avec son père, celui qui après tout avait fondé le FN. Un nouveau parti bien avant les élections aurait clarifié la situation, indiqué une direction politique propre à MLP, peut-être même établi une véritable opposition, et ôté davantage le prétexte facile de l'établissement de brandir le vieil épouvantail.

Sans doute le résultat aurait été plus favorable pour MLP, mais Macron aurait toujours gagné, car le programme est ainsi. Les socialistes n'avaient même pas besoin de déchirer des millions de MLP bulletins ou d'encourager d'autres irrégularités frauduleuses en faveur de Macron. Et même si MLP avait gagné, Hollande aurait trouvé un moyen pour rendre sa victoire nulle et non avenue. Il l'avait dit quasi publiquement pour rassurer Macron. Encore une démonstration de son respect sans faille pour la démocratie, et pour le peuple qu'il est censé représenter.

Ce qui se clarifie donc c'est la priorité que l'établissement donne à l'idéologie folle appliquée servilement par Merkel et l'EU. C'est une folie rendue saine dans l'esprit tordu des vendus, justement à cause du pouvoir de l'argent, argent de ceux qui regardent la scène de leur cachette dans les coulisses en se frottant les mains. C'est le club des grands banquiers, les Rothschild (banque pour laquelle Macron avait travaillé), et les multimillionnaires comme G. Soros et leurs acolytes. Ils possèdent bien de quoi pour faire en sorte que la mauvais pièce de théâtre continue sans relâche, et ceci malgré la désapprobation de l'audience dont la plupart semble avoir préférée s'endormir en pleine séance.

Ce qui se clarifie aussi est l'identité de ceux qui appartiennent à cet établissement. Evidemment tous ceux qui soutenaient Macron en font parti. Les partis politiques n'ont plus rien à y voir.
C'est donc pour cela que ce Monsieur ambiguë, pas net, sinon aussi carrément faux qu'Obama, arrive de manière sacro sainte sur l'esplanade du Louvre portant l'expression choisie pour l'occasion d'humilité divine, pendant qu'on joue l'hymne de l'EU, et point la Marseillaise, et sur la Tour Eiffel on ne voit point le drapeau de la France, on voit le symbole bien moins historique et donc moins signifiant de l'UE. Voilà alors où en est la France.

Si c'est vrai que le nouveau Président a dit que la France n'est pas une culture, si c'est vrai que selon lui les nations et donc leur identité et leur histoire appartiennent bel et bien à une époque périmée, et n'ont plus rien à voir avec l'avenir, qu'est ce que Macron représente au juste? Une idéologie monoculturelle, une illusion globaliste fondée sur l'imposition de l'Islam qui ne peut qu'aboutir à une conséquence néfaste? Une conséquence négative provoquée par un conflit inévitable entre les valeurs démocratiques et les valeurs régressives, totalitaires et idéologiques? Si c'est vrai qu'il ne représente que cela, les français vont rapidement se rendre compte de leur erreur monumentale.

Mais si, malgré ces réservations bien préoccupantes et justifiées, le nouveau President français a sincèrement l'intention d'utiliser son influence et sa position pour essayer de remettre l'UE institution sur la bonne voie, pour le bien des nations Européennes, et par extension le monde entier, on ne peut que lui souhaiter bon courage et bonne chance, et lui donnons tout notre soutien pour qu'il réussisse.   Si...


Text © Mirino (with thanks in advance for the use of the images). May, 2017

April snow



April snow alludes to a snow storm that surprised us one evening only a few days ago in the French Alpes Maritimes. The icy blizzard whipped the snow in such a way that it was hard to see to walk the dogs. It reminded me of scenes from the film 'Dans les forêts de Sibérie'. Early the following morning one could see the wind swept serrated pattern effects of the snow that still clung to the blades of grass. Naturally it's also a rare, unexpected occurrence here, even at this fairly high altitude at this time of year.
Similarly certain surprising reactions in response to expressed opinions might sometimes be felt as chilling. Such exchanges give one food for thought.
The following FB exchange, for example, is interesting in as much as it seems to illustrate the categorical, politically pigeon-holed, communitarian way in which society is evolving.
Naturally most people defend their convictions. Some might regard anyone who dares to go against the grain of those convictions as a threat.
 

One will never get FB 'likes' from anyone who believes that their objective, ideology, aspiration, faith, way of life, thus future is questioned, if not threatened by an intruder. Indeed one can even suffer the ultimate humiliation of being 'unfriended', God forbid, simply because of a phrase, or a misunderstanding, no doubt because the times in which we are living have become so critical.
 

One welcomes constructive criticism from those whom one respects on FB, and I would certainly never want to try to establish a club of think-alikes. Perfection is an illusion, and this is revealed by beauty, and life itself. None of us can pretend to weild aloft the glorious white light of truth. It's not even white light. It's everything, of which we are a infinitesimal yet intrinsical part.
The following FB exchange is between me and some European federalist enthusiasts who follow the page 'My Country? Europe'.
My introduction to incite the exchange was provocative, also because of the annoying way in which Brexit is being criticised with such disdain by the EU club. 


*
Me
GB is geographically, historically, politically and economically part of Europe. Without GB and the American allies, the EU diktat institution that seems to be engrossed in selling the European continent, its cultural diversity, its identity, history and patrimony to Islam, wouldn't exist today.
 

Shep
"GB is geographically, historically, politically et economically part of Europe.
"We agree, which is why we supported Remain.
"Without GB and the American allies,
"You do know NATO hasn't been disbanded, right, Mirino?
"the EU diktat institution"
Ever heard of European elections?
"engrossed in selling the European continent, its cultural diversity, its identity, history and patrimony to Islam"
[Citation Needed]

Also, yeah nice try but that won't fly here. Most Eurofederalists are deeply secular, and some are Christians. Someone's been selling you cheap Kremlin propaganda, Mirino.

Me (reply to Shep)
Thanks for your reply.
Going from point to point, I believe it to be very pretentious to claim that GB is no longer a geopolitical, economic and strategic European nation if it has decided democratically to quit the EU club.
During the WWII, GB was the only nation from where it was possible to launch D-Day. NATO didn't exist then, right Shep? The North Atlantic Treaty was signed in 1949, four years after the end of the war.
The 'EU diktat institution' is a reference not only to the fact that no European nation feels properly represented by the EU, it refers to the officious manner in which certain members behave. Junker, for example, seems to be believe he has the right to dictate European policies which are not in the interests of European nations.
Uncontrolled immigration of Muslims on a no border basis, for example, is a dangerous, culturally destructive inanity, which, if continued, can only lead to chaos, conflict and Dystopia.  


I maintain I am more European than average, but I certainly never elected Juncker, nor anyone else of the EU club for that matter.
The only words you have used re. mass, uncontrolled, Islamic immigration is- 'citation needed'. No citation is necessary. One only needs to open one's eyes to what's taking place, and all the negative consequences it's causing.
You must be aware how many thousands of migrants drown in the Mediterranean each year, for example, this after their being fleeced by traffickers. The EU is indirectly responsible for these deaths by encouraging illegal immigration in a vain bid to establish neo-Marxist, multicultural globalism. Any other objective doesn't hold water. We are not talking about refugees. If we were, the multiculturalism would include, amongst other ethnics, Copts, Kurds and Christians, and generally far more women, children and old folks.
If 'some members of the EU institution are Christians', as you maintain, why have they not used their position and influence to do what real responsible Christians should do, and help their fellow men? Why is the EU orchestrating this programme by only accepting in principle a majority of male Muslim migrants from all over the world?
Finally, no one has been selling me propaganda. Only a fool would be blind to what's taking place. You mention the Kremlin. Let's not forget that Russia was also an ally of WWII that European survival also depended on. A solution to end the war in Syria (a war that has been exploited by the West for ideological motives) can never be found without intelligent cooperation with Russia.
I thought the Ukrainian affair was a fiasco. It seems ironic that one wants to treat Russia as the 'expansionist enemy' when it was the EU and the USA under Obama who seemed to be pushing for expansion. You must know that the previous Ukrainian gouvernement was an elected one. The paid off puppet, pro European substituted effort was certainly not an elected alternative. Where was the respect for democracy and freedom from the EU, Obama, Clinton and Soros then?
 


K.B.
Today it is 2017. If Britain does not wish to take part in democratically agreeing to treaties designed to improve the quality of life in this part of the world, then clearly Britain will not be playing a strategic role in Europe. The major role for Britain outside the EU will be as a vassal state controlled by the US war machine, and this will not be helpful to the British or to the member states of the EU. Quote from the Financial Times: "Britain joined what was then the European Economic Community in 1973 as the sick man of Europe. By the late 1960s, France, West Germany and Italy — the three founder members closest in size to the UK — produced more per person than it did and the gap grew larger every year. Between 1958, when the EEC was set up, and Britain’s entry in 1973, gross domestic product per head rose 95 per cent in these three countries compared with only 50 per cent in Britain. After becoming an EEC member, Britain slowly began to catch up. Gross domestic product per person has grown faster than Italy, Germany and France in the more than 40 years since.
By 2013, Britain became more prosperous than the average of the three other large European economies for the first time since 1965." Leaving the EU will be a tragedy for this country, morally as well as economically and we will lose all our independence to the US.
 

T.B.
'Citation needed? You need only open your eyes!' - I see... so... what that means is 'there is no evidence for my assertions. But I really really believe them!'. Absolute arsewater. 'Diktat' was the first clue.
 

Me (reply to K.B.)
That is how one wishes to appreciate the situation. Do you seriously believe that GB will sink miserably into oblivion because of its decision to leave the club? The fact that you seem so sure of yourselves, without going into the history of GB which virtually became a democracy when the Magna Carta was signed, makes one all the more convinced that the people were right to vote out.
I also note that there is no argument to defend the inanity of no borders and continuing to allow uncontrolled immigration of Muslims from the world over. There is no explanation for this nor is there any offered justification in having encouraged North Africans to risk drowning themselves in the Mediterranean, literally in thousands, all for the sake of a hare-brained ideology that can only lead to Dystopia.


Me (reply to T.B.)
First of all, insults aren't arguments. Secondly pick up any honest news paper virtually any day, of any democracy that has been subject to the inane idea of imposed immigration thanks to its bought out heads of State, (eg. Turnbull of Australia, Trudeau of Canada, Juncker of the EU, Merkel, and the deplorable effects of Obama's reign, and you will read the latest negative, often atrocious and certainly tragic consequences of irresponsibly encouraging uncontrolled immigration of Muslims. The other alternative would be to continue to dismiss it all by playing at being the three monkeys.
 

A.R.
Mirino Cameron You are very loquacious for such an ignorant person. Your verbiage must be a comfort on those lonely nights.
 


Me (reply to A.R.)
Another comment totally void of content. If you have nothing to say to defend the noble EU institution, and all the negative consequences caused by its idiotic globalist aspirations, including the recent terrorist attack in Paris, (because we are all aware that ISIS terrorists are infiltrating the uncontrolled ranks of Muslim migrants) then please do me the pleasure of not bothering me for nothing. Thanks.
 

A.P.
And without the Battle of Hastings the UK as we know it wouldn't exist today. Yada yada yada.....
 

Me (general reply)
We all know that Europe isn't a country. It's a continent made up of nations, the culture and patrimony of which represent the true wealth of Europe. But one never gets the impression that the EU values this wealth of diversity. On the contrary it seems determined to make everything conform from cheeses, cauliflower to culture, with an obvious emphasise at the present time on Islam. 
To dismiss the negative effects of what is taking place is to adopt the stance of the three monkeys. But multiculturalists don't seem to have an argument to defend this naive, tacit globalist inanity. The replies I'm getting are either empty or idiotic.
 

M.P.
Given that almost all your comments include the phrase "uncontrolled Muslim migration", I think we can see where you're coming from.
 


A.P.
It's also factually wrong because Muslim immigration mainly comes from the former colonies of the UK and France, not the EU! Muslim migration from war zones is not uncontrolled either - in fact, none of it is.


Me (reply to A.P.)
The Obama administration was pushing for 'no borders', as is even still, and in spite of so many negative consequences: Juncker, Merkel and other 'multiculturists' (a more politically correct term for 'globalists'). To pretend that there is border control when God knows how many radicals from ISIS are already somewhere in the sticks of Europe, could be regarded as a cynical joke. This masquerade started on the noble pretext of generously giving asylum to war-torn refugees. Gradually even Merkel began to refer to them as migrants. And why are the majority male Muslims? Where are the children, the women and old folks? Where are the persecuted Christians, the Kurds and Copts?
 

(As an aside, because I know that I will never score any points through exchanges with people who tar the opinions of others with a political brush, I find your collective responses interesting enough to ask you all if you would have any objection to me publishing them on 'Viewfinder'. No doubt you are all convinced that I am a racist, fascist, Trumpist, Putinist, which could well be the case, if not worse, and that you all think alike and have the courage of your convictions. If so, in principle you might agree to this request).

(Continuation- 12th May, 2017)

Me, to My Country Europe.
One forgot to allude to the Treaty of Versailles which was largely responsible for isolating Germany, depreciating the value of the Deutsch Mark and fostering a monster, that could have never been defeated without the help of Russia and the USA.
One makes no allusion to the present hare-brained project of Islamising the European continent thanks to Merkel, Juncker and sectarian neo-Marxist multibillionaires. The sketch is obviously idealised and incomplete.

Reply:

billionaires,
Marxists,
pick one

-Tracer
 

Me, to My Country Europe.
G. Soros

Reply:
Of course. Every progressive is a Marxist. Including myself. Tell me something original.

- Soros

Me, to My Country Europe.
Well, you have spelled it out perfectly honestly, which is commendable, but hardly reassuring to Europeans who still believe in democracy and wish to preserve the history, culture and patrimony of their nation. It seems however that neo-Marxist ideologues imposing an inane idea doomed to fail, have no respect for PM's like Viktor Orbán who give priority to the interests of the nation and the people they were elected to represent.


Reply
Reads an ironic comment about how foolish it is to think every progressive is a Marxist.
Proceeds to claim it was "spelled out perfectly"

Wew lad

- Shep

Me, to My Country Europe.

Is that an argument or a personal remark? As yet no one has come up with a valid argument to justify the direction that the EU institution is still obstinately taking, in spite of the negative consequences. 'Progressive' is also an ironic choice of word when the establishment is bent on imposing a regressive, incompatible 7th century cult on Europeans.

M.D
Europe is more diverse than most continents, with an extremely rich and varied history stretching from the Palaeolithic, through to antiquity and the middle ages, and into the rise of distinct national cultures and the reinvigoration of old ones which were decimated by empire. Why any 'european' would want to, or thinks Europe should continue down a path of homogenisation and centralisation in politics, economics, and culture is both denying the lessons of history and allowing an ideology to destroy disparate entities which should be conserved, celebrated, and allowed to evolve as they naturally would. Not the way the EU wishes them to.

Me to M.D.
Exactly.

*

In conclusion, I believe in a Europe of nations. I think it would be a grave error to try to fabricate a federation based on imposed, sterile, 'norms'. Most cultivated people, including cultivated Muslims, value and appreciate the diverse cultures of Europe. They would never want Europe to become a conform, characterless entity. They would hate it if ever it were fated to become a pseudo Arabian compromise, and obviously more so if it were to become regressively Islamic. Each European nation has its own roots, identity, patrimony, and many precious specialities and customs based on its particular culture and history that the EU should highlight and defend, rather than dismiss, or try to render conform to laws that have absolutely nothing to do with culture, if it seriously aspired to represent Europe.
It's also foolish to mock History, because history is always a precious reference. If you are not bothered to know where you've been, how do you really know where you're going?
In occupied Paris towards the end of WWII, Hitler, then knowing that his war was lost, ordered that Paris be destroyed by fire. An infantile, vindictive command that fortunately was ignored by his officers in Paris. This also illustrates the value set on culture and patrimony, even then by the battle-worn, bitter Wehrmacht officers, and maybe even the Waffen SS officers. If they valued not only their own culture and patrimony, but also French culture and patrimony, surely the EU can do a lot better... 

(But this is only an opinion. One would be very welcome to continue to try to counter it with constructive arguments).


Intro, conclusion and images © Mirino. (With thanks for the use of the FB exchange).
April 2017 

Burning truth



Ce qui se passe sur la scène politique en France actuellement semble très malsain et n'augure rien de bien pour personne. Mais on dirait qu'il fait aussi partie du programme orchestré tacitement par l'UE, les socialistes et les libéraux selon les consignes des élites.

Lorsqu'au lieu de s'opposer politiquement avec des arguments dignes, on utilise une 'justice' partisane, sinon carrément marxiste, pour fouiller dans le passé d'un individu avec l'espoir de trouver de quoi pour l'entraver, (et on parle de celui qui a gagné les primaires des Républicains) on exerce les pratiques totalitaires.

Le dernier épisode d'investigation frôle l'absurde, car maintenant ce sont les costumes du candidat Fillon vers lesquels on pointe le doigt soupçonneux et accusateur.

Le procureur national financier responsable de l'enquête sur François Fillon s'appelle Éliane Houlette. Une juge d'extrême gauche dont sa place a été assurée par Christiane Taubira. En quelques mots tout s'explique..

Le candidat Macron, par contre, et malgré ses casseroles bien plus pesantes, semble intouchable. Contrairement à Fillon, bien évidemment, Macron est devenu le petit protégé de F. Hollande (et manifestement de la 'justice'). Macron joue assez fin sans trop s'engager, car il veut faire mine de rassembler tous les français. Peine perdue si les socialistes arrivent à faire couler l'unique candidat des Républicains.

Macron a travaillé pour la Banque Rothschild et Cie. Il a pu ainsi accumuler une petite fortune. Sans doute il aurait figuré parmi les riches que F. Hollande a prétendu ne pas aimer au début de son mandat. D'ailleurs le Président Français lui même, dans son élan de ne pas apparaître trop prospère, ou plutôt pour éviter de payer ISF, a fortement dévalué ses propriétés.

Mais il y a autre chose de troublant qui commence à se révéler, une vague silhouette comme un vieux navire fantôme dans la brume. Pourquoi la justice et les media laissent Macron tranquille et s'acharnent à détruire Fillon? C'est vrai que cette justice partisane attaque aussi MLP, mais avec moins de fougue, comme si on est assez confiant qu'elle va se faire couler toute seule.

Macron, comme Merkel, Juncker, Obama, Trudeau, Turnbull, Soros, etc., est pour 'open borders'. Malgré toutes les conséquences néfastes, malgré le danger évident, il n'a rien contre la continuation permettant aux migrants musulmans le libre access en Europe.

Valls est plutôt contre l'idée d'accueillir les migrants sans contrôles fiables. Est ce que c'est pour cela que l'on ne parle plus de Valls en tant que candidat? C'est pour cela qu'il est déjà éclipsé par le jeune Macron opportuniste sans expérience mais néanmoins porté aux nues par les media télévisés?

Considérons aussi que Fillon a eu l'intégrité de faire savoir qu'il est un Catholique pratiquant. Les socialistes français dont la mentalité ne semble pas avoir trop évoluée depuis la Révolution, ne seraient jamais enthousiastes d'apprendre un tel fait. On a aussi été témoin de l'attitude désobligeante d'Obama et H. Clinton à propos de la religion racine des colonialistes Americans. On dirait que selon eux le Christianisme ne représente que des vieilles toiles d'araignées poussiéreuses que l'on doit balayer de la maison. Il faut, après tout, faire place pour 'la religion de paix', n'est ce pas.

Fillon a aussi divulgué ce qu'il compte faire pour protéger les intérêts et améliorer la sécurité des français. Fillon donc représente une menace pour le projet neo-Marxiste dont personne n'en parle, le globalisme, le nouvel ordre mondial. Ce que l'on aurait preferé croire être une théorie du complot, ne peut qu'être finalement un trist objectif. Comment justifier la continuation de ce laisser aller non contrôlé absurde et irresponsable, d'immigration des musulmans, si finalement l'objectif éventuel du globalisme, n'existe pas?

Pourquoi Wilders a été si 'facilement' battu aux Pays Bas? Pourquoi un certain juge fédéral à Hawaii a voulu et a pu bloqué le projet de contrôle sur l'immigration de Trump quelques heures avant son application? Pour quelle raison Obama, toujours dans les coulisses, s'acharne à obstruer le nouveau Président des Etats Unis? Pourquoi prend il tant de libertés comme s'il en a tous les droits? Et pourquoi on traine tant à ne pas appliquer le processus qui doit forcément suivre le choix du peuple britannique de quitter l'UE?

On est donc confronté avec l'évidence que 'the show must go on' (le spectacle doit continuer). Et les élites, les multibillionaires, leurs acolytes achetés à court terme semblent être déterminés, voire obsédés, que ce sera bien cas.

Theoretically, according to the neo-Marxist globalists, 'globalism' will be established by the wealth of diverse cultures mixed up to create a conform, consistent, revolting mess that they label 'multiculturalism'. This 'multiculturalism' would seem to be the politically correct term for Islamic domination.

The power hungry sectarians delude themselves in shallowly thinking that it will create international stability, peace and Utopia.
Mais pour y arriver (note change of language once more. As this comes naturally I've decided to let it go, and hope it won't cause too much inconvenience) il faut ou l'imposer par la guerre, ou s'imposer simplement via la démocratie, le pouvoir de la majorité.

Hungary, Poland, Russia, China, Japan, Korea, India, etc., vehemently reject Islam. They would therefore qualify as the enemies of 'progress'. This would also include the USA if Trump continues to succeed in defending American interests.
Eventually every nation foolish enough to allow itself to be inundated with Muslims would, in principle, sadly sink, having nothing left to defend.

The eastern scenario, apocalyptique wars, ethnic cleansing and chaos would hardly seem to be an appropriate procedure to produce global Utopia, but for arguments sake, let's assume that the Islamic objective is finally reached, and the elite would rule the world under one governing system, at least for the brief spell the Islamic authorities would allow them to.

The shallowness of the ideology reveals itself as such from this hypothetical point onwards. For 1400 years Islam has imposed itself in various parts of the world. From 622 to 750 it succeeded in Levant, Mesopotamia, Persia, North Africa, Iberia, Gaul, Transoxania (Land beyond the Oxus), Sindh and Caucasus. The first wars (622) were waged by Muhammad himself. Significantly, they covered the countries now called Saudi Arabia (the birth place of Islam), Yemen and Oman.

The imposition of Islam is the essence of the Koran. A devout Muslim is therefore duty bound to convert or penalise 'infidels'. So once the world would be totally Islamised, where would Islam go from there? Assuming it mercilessly bludgeons its way to achieve world domination during the next century, thanks to the encouragement and financial aid of the billionaire ideologues most of whom by then would be dead or disposed of, Islam would be in a quandary. The regressive domination instinct would be feverishly twitching.

Naturally this would incite the various sects of Islam, each one maintaining it represents the celestial truth, to annihilate one another. The Utopian dream is thus fated to become the Dystopian nightmare. This would be inevitable. In fact it would be the revelation, the ultimate burning truth.

If Utopia can to some extent be realised, obviously it depends first and foremost on freedom. It depends on the conservation of individual and cultural identity. It depends on education, the appreciation and protection of life and all that is beautiful. It depends on peace.

Turkish ministers are now cynically predicting a religious war in Europe, but no wars are ever religious. Wars are waged by the belligerent to dominate, and by the defenders to avoid being dominated.

Tout ceci a été généré par des pensées à propos de la France. On est arrivé donc à faire une corrélation extraordinaire entre 'l'affaire' folle des costumes cadeaux de Fillon, et le projet fou du globalisme.
Le peuple, grâce à Dieu, a eu le dernier mot aux Etats Unis. Comme les premiers colonists du Nouveau Monde incluent les pèlerins de Plymouth qui arrivèrent sur le navire, 'The Mayflower' en 1620, il est raisonnable de conclure que le peuple, une fois réveillé, aura le dernier mot en Europe et ailleurs où sa liberté est menacée.


Text © Mirino. (Top image burning church in Mexico. 
Lower image, the Mayflower, painted by W. Formsby Halsall in 1882 (Oils).
March, 2017