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 certain 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 financial 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?
My 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?
Mes 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


If religions are essentially tolerant, in as much as they all reverently regard the miracle of life, the fabulous diversity of nature and the universe with wonder, humility, love and respect, then can the so called religion of Islam be a religion? Should it not be defined more as an ideology, an autocratic doctrine, that refuses to tolerate other faiths, creeds, cultures and ways of life? Is Islam not essentially a tyrannical system that blasphemously uses the name of God to instill fear and impose itself with the objective of eventually gaining world power?

If this is so, then the theory of when an ideology is established, the ideologue ceases to think, would certainly seem to be the case regarding Islamic dogma which, because of its allegedly sacred roots, cannot possibly be modified or rendered compatible with democratic laws and values.

If Islamic laws allow the followers of Islam the right to kill, rape, enslave and plunder those they consider as being "infidel," regardless of the fact that many who are so treated, believe in the same One Almighty God, then Islam is inciting criminality instead of virtue.

If Christians, Jews and all others who believe in the One Almighty Creator, are considered as being "infidel" by Islamists, how can this be so if they believe in the same God? A plausible answer to such a question, would be that those considered as being "infidel" by the Islamists, have less confidence in a mortal prophet who claimed to be God's unique and chosen spokesman, than in the Almighty Creator himself. Is it not highly reasonable to accord more importance to Almighty God, than to a self-proclaimed or even divinely chosen Prophet?

Or, according to Islamists, is God less important than their Prophet? If they think so, then they would be granting him the same level of importance as that assumed by Lucifer, whose vanity and ambition caused him and his acolytes to rebel against God before being defeated and cast from Heaven for eternity.

All constructive opinions would be welcome, especially from those who are able to convincingly counter such thoughts in a peaceful and tolerant way.

Text and images © Mirino. June, 2016 


Sunlight and a relatively clear sky greet us this morning after what seems to be an endless period of storms, low cloud and humidity. It's ironic because this is the first year we try our hand at planting tomatoes, (pomodori- cuore di bue, zucchini, melanzane, ecc.) but we are still hopeful.
Compared to the victims obliged to wade through water in the lower lands of Europe, we have no right to complain.

The ideological establishment would blame it all on global warming. It's a useful political and economical pretext. Those that like to believe that history started with them, are vain enough to convince themselves that man is also responsible for weather abnormalities. They therefore pretend that man has the responsibility and capacity to remedy it all. This is where it becomes useful, by instilling fear and guilt complexes in the hearts and minds of the gullible, and making costly commitments and inventing new taxes as pretexts to oppose the unopposable. Such irrationality reminds one of King Canute being submerged in seawater despite his royal command to subjugate the tide.

The most learned historians are aware of their lack of knowledge. Similarly the most learned scientists become aware of the limitations of science, when the incredible point of learning, as in cosmic exploration, eventually reaches the inexplicable, unfathomable and undefinable. The gradual realisation that there has to be something else.

Without respect for the past, which naturally must include the history of the Earth prior to mankind, and without humility regarding the miracle of life and the universe, can one really pretend anything? Doesn't one become a self-incarcerated victim of one's own dogma? The ideologue who having established the ideology, ceases to think?

Today our world is suffering, not from climate change, 'global warming', or natural catastrophes. It is suffering from the malady of political correctness, the convenient posture of indifference conveyed by the three monkeys.
An 'extreme' example of political correctness would be to consider (but only when obliged to) the beheadings of Christians by jihadists, or the forcing of nine year old girls into marriage, or pedophilia, etc., as being part of quaint Islamic culture, customs and traditions. Another more factual example seems to be the ambiguous stance of UNO regarding certain terrorist organisations, as though there were politically correct exceptions to the rule, and as if this illustrious institution considered it (but only when obliged to) perfectly normal for a democratic State to tolerate a terrorist organisation as a neighbour, even when this neighbour's objective (established in its charter) is to eliminate that State.

Our world is also afflicted by the turmoil, the tragic exodus and the horrendous consequences of conflicts between political, social and so-called religious ideologies. What they all seem to have in common is that they are false, power pursuing pretexts.
However, there should be some comfort in the thought that all ideologies, (especially those that rabidly foster hate, division, and pretend to be religious) are transient. They are similar to regenerated flu germs. As such they are ephemeral. It can't be otherwise because they are auto-destructive. They feverishly consume themselves.

Text and images © Mirino. June, 2016


The essence of faith, or a religion, is truth, which has to englobe love and tolerance. It is the white light consisting of all the colours of the rainbow. This is also why a primary colour, which might be thought appropriate for a political party, for example, can never reflect the truth. Secondary colours or colour derivations such as pink, even less so..

If nature herself did not advocate love, respect, diversity and tolerance, all animal forms would be constantly at war with each other in order that their species be the unique and globally dominant survivor. Earthly paradise would thus become earthly hell. Universal nature is obviously an inexhaustible source of instruction. Similarly the history of humanity is a rich source of study and reference.
But as recorded facts of history often render ideologies incoherent, the ideologue either tries to negate history, or is very selective about historical facts.
Most philosophers would agree that once an ideology is firmly established, it is no longer necessary for the ideologue to even think. For the ideologue, intellectual evolution is pointless, if not impossible.

To believe in an almighty creator of the universe is one thing, but to persuade oneself that one has the right to wield an unforgiving, hateful sword in His name, is diabolical. It has nothing to do with religion. To pretend that one has God's blessing to perpetrate evil, or that one will be rewarded with immortal paradise for contributing to create mortal hell, is the worst possible of all profanities.

The educated, those who are fully aware of the immutable, obsolete laws and values of such a so called religion, or rather a sectarian cult that they adhere to, have no excuse. They cannot sincerely pretend to respect the essential principles of laic democracy without being dangerously deceitful. Either one defends the relative freedom, reciprocal respect and tolerance advocated by democracy, or the constraints dictated by an intolerant cult. The impossibility of sincerely defending one, whilst unremittingly adhering to the other, would underline Machiavellian treachery in blood red.

By always having to bow in principle to the majority, democracy seems destined to become its own enemy. But the world is gradually waking up to the dangerous consequences of tolerating the intolerant. Intolerance naturally negates tolerance, therefore it negates everything. In the unlikely case of intolerance ever becoming the global victor, it would ultimately end up by negating itself.
The history of humanity has often proved this to be so. Most veritable religions would prophesy this ultimate auto-destruction of intolerance, but nature constantly underlines this universal truth herself. Intolerance is colourless death.

Text and images © Mirino, May, 2016

Pensées printanières

Chaque année on est pris de court à nouveau, on ressent la même chose, la confiance et le bonheur mélangés avec une nostalgie d'accueillir le printemps. On se répète donc, on radote un peu sans doute. Mais aussi du chant clair et doux des oiseaux matinaux, et de ces fragrances, émanent tant de souvenirs, et peut-être que c'est pareil pour la plupart de nous en Europe qui ont la chance de pouvoir se rappeler avec tendresse des printemps de notre jeunesse.

L'odeur de l'herbe fraîchement coupé, de la fumée des feux consumant des nouvelles pousses taillées, des aromatiques que l'on ajoute de nouveau à la salade. Et comme si par magie, car il parait être trop soudain que les arbres fruitiers nous régalent encore avec leur spectacle éblouissant de floraison, et ici les frênes de montagnes en ajoutent portant leurs élégants manteaux blancs.

La saponaria et l'aubrieta gracient les rives rocheuses de nouveau. C'est surtout cette dernière dont la couleur à une luminosité quasi électrique aux crépuscules qui me fait songer au jardin de ma jeunesse.

On pense encore au paradis, à la beauté forcément éphémère, et au cycle de la vie. C'est aussi le paradis des souvenirs que l'on conserve précieusement dans un coin velouté et douillet de nos esprits.

Par rapport à cette force splendide et universelle, et aux tels souvenirs si tendres, toutes les prétentions vaniteuses, et surtout celles malveillantes, sont carrément l'inverse, mais on radote encore..

Text and images © Mirino, April, 2016