Useless Nonentity

What is the reason of being of the ‘UN’ today, if it no longer represents, or seems to respect, its fundamental calling, that of united nations?
Originally the UN defended an apolitical ideal: the interests of the world in terms of peace and stability. It would have been its duty to help persecuted minorities, ancient cultures that appear to have become expendable, virtually programmed by the establishment to disappear. An ideological, sectarian establishment that the UN seems to have become subservient to.

At one period in history the UN was administered by people of clearly defined principles, of solid integrity. Representatives capable of reasoning lucidly, in order to arrive in establishing correct, impartial, decisions.
The UN's 1947 proposals regarding Jerusalem, the Palestinian question, and the timeless aspiration of the Jews were exemplary. Reasonable enough for the Jewish authorities to fully accept them. The Arab League however, categorically rejected them.
Why was it that the UN accepted that the Arab League decide for a people who are obviously the first concerned? Even as late in history as 1947, had the Palestinians no one of any authority to represent their own interests and make decisions directly regarding their own future? So by this rejection of a plan that ideally should have satisfied everyone for posterity, the UN allowed the Arab League to open Pandora’s Box for posterity. And since then the UN seems to think it’s appropriate not to condemn those who rejected its proposals, but those who accepted them...
By adopting this incoherent attitude, the UN persistently fuel a conflict, and condone terrorism. It allows licence to listed terrorist organisations (Hamas and Hezbollah) to perpetuate a futile war, or a cynical, lucrative, pantomime of war. The UN would thereby also condone the conditioning of children to hate and kill, to insure that future generations will continue this pointless conflict, instead of striving for a better life.

Compare what Israel has achieved in 70 years to what the Palestinians have accomplished not only since 1948, but ever since the Bar Kokhba rebellion of the Jews against the Roman occupation of Judea leading to their massacre and expulsion (132-136 CE).
Palestrina is an ancient city east of Rome. The Romans renamed their colonised, Mideast provinces 'Palestrina Syria'. Naturally this didn’t erase the clear historic, patrimonial evidence supporting the legitimate claim of the Israelis. But had the 'Palestinians' ever taken the trouble of establishing something during cette nuit des temps, not necessarily a State, but something tangibly important enough for them to identify with, the UN would never have been able to make the 1947 proposals in first place.

This issue is a nucleus issue. It has helped determine international terrorism and the rebirth of regressive radicalism. A sort of ridiculous rehash of the Crusades. The responsibility of the UN in this development is enormous, and virtually complicit. Everything negative regarding the incoherent, ‘monotheist religious differences’ that has taken place since 1948, essentially stems from the Arab Leagues rejection of the 1947 proposals. This includes all the Arab-Israeli wars, the Beirut bombings, the political and social deterioration of Lebanon, the radicalisation of Iran, the rise of the Taliban, the assassination of Massoud, and the world trade centre attack, etc., etc. The list is never ending. A constant false pretext for dissension and war.

Lebanon was once the multicultural jewel of the Middle East. Exemplary of how multiculture succeeds when it comes about naturally, and when a nation is well governed and faithful to its root identity and culture. A root identity that is also generally respected and democratically defended by its multicultural population.
The Arab-Israeli wars changed all that. Since then the influx of Palestinian refugees, largely represented, or exploited, by the Hezbollah, has bought hate and frustration to Lebanon, and the jewel faded. It lost its magic glow. There remains only nostalgia for the few people left, old enough to remember how it once was.

ISIS is another negative consequence that the UN helped to foster by its partisan politics. What has the UN done to counter ISIS? What has the UN ever done to try to find a solution to end the Syrian war? What has the UN done to help the Syrian, Iraqi and Iranian Kurds? What has the UN done to help the Yazidis, obliged to camp in difficult conditions for almost four years now after their villages were destroyed by ISIS, their women taken as sex slaves, and many of their men folk massacred? What is the UN funding essentially used for? Would it not be commendable and constructive, for example, to use some of it to help rebuild the destroyed villages of the Yazidis so they can at last return to their homes? What has the UN done to counter the persecution and atrocious massacre of Christians in the Middle East? How come one can even view videos of such horrors, but shamefully the UN is conspicuous by its absence? Where is the UN when Churches are being burnt down and six little girls were used by Boko-Haram to blow themselves up killing forty people the night of the 16th June, 2018? Where is the UN when mafiosi traffickers are ripping off migrants before they risk their lives trying to cross the Mediterranean in flimsy, floatable means before 'hopefully' being picked up by NGO ships handsomely paid for perpetuating an ignoble, lucrative business that comes down to aiding and abetting modern day slavery, if not an inane ideology pushed by EU neo-Marxists? Can one hear the angry voices of UN members, the noble defenders of human rights, expressing their outrage for the irresponsible encouraging of this business, to the detriment of hundreds of thousands of would-be migrants from North Africa who end up drowned in the Mediterranean for nothing more than a cynical Sorosian, Merkelian and Junckerian ideological whim?
Where is the UN regarding the blatant, bellicose, expansionist objectives of Turkey under Erdogan? How come Turkey seems to be accorded the right to make incursions into Syria and Iraq on its incredible Kurd hunting sprees, especially when the latter are the ones who have been facing up to ISIS for everyone's benefit?

No doubt the UN has its own 'priorities’. After all there are other 'human rights' issues, including those of subjugated women. Who better could contribute more towards their emancipation than Saudi Arabia, for an example of an incongruous UN choice?

Such limited criticism that only concentrates on the most blatant issues, when the UN must otherwise be so preoccupied with many other important ‘priorities', might be thought totally unjust, naive, and ill-informed.
If this is so, then naturally the UN would be able to point this out in the most convincing way.

In the meantime, until one is appropriately corrected, and perhaps even reassured, it would seem to be another sad sign of our times that the UN no longer has any credibility. If such is the case, 'Useless Nonentity' might be considered a more appropriate term than 'United Nations'.

Text and image © Mirino. June, 2018

Winter on Fire

'Winter on Fire, Ukraine's fight for Freedom', is the title of a documentary directed by Evgeny Afineevsky, an award winning film director, interestingly of Russian descent.
I watched this film a few days ago. It alludes to the 'Euromaidan', the 93 day uprising of the Ukrainians against the elected government's decision not to sign the agreement to join the EU.

Although it's only one side of the coin, it's a precious, detailed reference to that side.
It seems to me that there are two main observations that one can make, without going further into the subsequent conflict between pro Russian separatists, and pro EU Ukrainians, about which the film doesn't go into.

The first observation is that had the police not been authorised to use such extreme brutality, perhaps the demonstrations could have led to constructive negotiations, and consequently Yanukovych could still be the President of Ukraine. The consequences of the 'Euromaidan' are tragic. All more so because they are not particularly constructive.
The second observation is that throughout the demonstrations, immense patriotism was expressed. The national anthem was constantly sung, there was a great deal of waving the national flag. The clergy of divers religions joined together in support of the movement, and there was an enormous surge of national pride.

With regard to the first observation of police brutality, only a reckless fool would have authorised such a shameful, disproportionate and unjustified reaction. One therefore wonders if Yanukovych was betrayed by his own forces of security, or if he was really that desperate and irresponsible to authorise such a ruthless, and often murderous show of force.

Regarding the second observation, it seems to me to be cruelly ironic that whilst the young protestors long for 'European freedom' and reveal their patriotic zeal, the EU appears to be surreptitiously pushing for a nationless federation, using mass immigration of Muslims as an eventual catalyser to bring about what the club seems to believe will be a utopic, cultureless, conformity. And whilst this is being pushed, the freedom that the Ukrainians were ready to die for, is being trampled on by the summary arrest and imprisonment of an individual who dares to criticise what is indeed highly criticisable, and the media is summoned to be silent about it.

In short, whatever tyranny, real or imagined, that the Ukrainians wished to escape from, is apparently being fostered in the very Europe that they long to be a part of.


Text © Mirino. Image and title, with thanks to the author. June, 2018


Today, in a world where one aggressively tries to change natural laws to comply with ephemeral, incoherent ideology, a 'royal wedding' seems so refreshingly sane, and reassuringly comforting. Another moving, monumental, fairy tale in what often appears to be a mundane, unimaginative, over officious, sectarian world.
The French avidly follow such royal celebrations, maybe even more so than the Brits. Could it be a degree of secret compensation for having done away with their own monarchy and aristocracy? Yet ironically, but justifiably, the French are proud of the rich patrimony that the rejected, decapitated, politically incorrect monarchs and aristocrats left to posterity. If certain, partisan, 'history teachers' had their own way however, NapolĂ©on, for another politically incorrect example, would no longer figure in history books either. But Paris wouldn't be Paris without les Invalides, a master piece of French Baroque commissioned by Louis XIV (1643-1715) with its Church decorated with captured flags from the Napoleonic wars, and its military museum. Then there’s the VendĂ´me column of VendĂ´me square commemorating the victory of Austeritz. The bronze covering the column was the bronze of melted down, captured cannons from the same battle. Then of course the Arc
de Triomphe was a fine initiative of Napoléon. Its petit frère is the Arc du Carrousel, also built by Napoléon in 1806. For a period before Napoléon's defeat in 1815, this arch was embellished with the pillaged, Venetian quadriga.
In the early thirteenth century the Venitians claimed the quadriga, probably saving the fine antique Roman sculpture of four horses from being destroyed just for its bronze (or rather copper) during the sack of Constantinople in 1204. The quadriga was returned to la Piazza San Marco soon after Napoléon's defeat, and no doubt it's just as well.
L’Arc du Carrousel was originally the entrance of le Palais des Tuileries which was unfortunately destroyed during la Commune in 1871. La Place de la Concorde, with its colonnade de la Madeleine was also originally commissioned by NapolĂ©on. Another Napoleonic site is le Château de la Malmaison located towards the west of Paris. It was the home of Empress JosĂ©phine, the first wife of NapolĂ©on.
There are, of course, many fine châteaux in la Vallée de la Loire.
Perhaps the most famous, prestigious, and symbolique French Château is that of Versailles of Louis XIV. It was expanded in 1661 and finally completed in 1715.

Naturally most nations pride their monuments and great architecture that reflect so well their history. Compared to the 'old continent', American recorded history seems limited, although there is evidence of Norse or Viking incursions to North America, without considering the vast, elusive, spiritual history of tribal Indians.
European awareness of America began towards the end of the 15th century (1492), but it wasn't until the early seventeenth century that successful colonialism was established. From then on the history of North America is epic, with world wide influence.

All this to underline how regressive and ignorant it is to try to erase history by destroying edifices and monuments for ephemeral, ideological motives. This obviously includes the American commemorative monuments of the civil war.
The Taliban had nothing better to do than try to destroy the Buddhas of Bamiyan, 4th and 5th century monumental statues of Gautam Buddha carved into the side of a massive rock face in the Bamyan valley in central Afghanistan. Similarly ISIS destroyed, amongst other historic gems, priceless Etruscan base reliefs, as if history had no value, or as if it had to start over again, as decreed by regressive idiots.

Despite the wealth of historic evidence that supports the Israeli claim of authentic heritage, never have the Israelis dismissed the rights of the Palestinians. This was proved by the Jewish authorities acceptance of the UN proposals of 1947. Proposals that were categorically rejected, not by the Palestinians, but by the Arab League.
An intelligent Palestinian would know that one can contribute in forging history, and in commemorating historic events, simply by planting orchards of fruit trees, or by lovingly caring for one's garden. No one can forge history by trying to erase it, or by blundering about burning used tyres.

Text © Mirino. (Photo of the Quadriga by Irving GFM with thanks). May, 2018


J'ai fait allusion à cela avant, (Colour) et voilà qu'à nouveau il y a quelques jours ce mois ci on a eu une coupure assez importante d'électricité. Un peu plus de deux jours. Assez de temps lorsqu'il fait zéro degré dehors à 1200 m d'altitude dans les Alpes Maritimes, pour nous plonger rudement dans l'obscurité froide, et aussi on dirait, dans le Moyen-Age. On va à la cave chercher du bois et des pommes de pins avec la lampe de l'IPhone en espérant qu'il reste assez de charge de batterie. Et on patiente. On n'a pas de choix.

Mais encore une fois on se rend compte à quel point la vie d'aujourd'hui dépend totalement sur la fourniture d'électricité. On est quasi perdu sans courant. Je ne pouvais pas écrire ceci sur mon IPad. Il n'y a plus de communications avec le monde, plus d'informations vraies ou fausses, plus d'ordinateur, de WIFI, de Netflix, de FB, de TV, de radio, de frigo, de congélateur, de chaudière.

Si on a le gaz, on retrouve les vieux moyens pour faire le café matinal. Les toasts se font grâce au feu de la cheminée, et petit à petit, on arrive quand même à se débrouiller, à condition stricte qu'une telle situation pénible, ne dure pas trop longtemps.
Regardant dehors pendant la nuit, c'est bizarre de ne plus voir aucune lumière nulle part. On pense aux Yazidis, obligés de vivre ainsi dans des tentes depuis des lustres, malgré le dévouement humanitaire exemplaire de l'ONU, n'est ce pas.

Les habitudes chères sont brutalement interrompues, et on est confrontés avec soi même. Ce n'est pas une expérience négative, même si c'est facile d'être 'philosophe' si de tels inconvénients ne durent pas trop longtemps. On peut toujours se persuader que bien volontairement on met tout dans une perspective réelle ou essentiellement naturelle, comme les bien pensants écologistes, pourvu que la pénurie d'eau chaude, de la machine à laver, et du WIFI box, etc., etc., ne dépasse pas trois jours au maximum..

Text and images © Mirino. April, 2018


Equity, apart from its financial sense, means 'justice according to natural law or right, free from bias or favouritism'. As such it might have less politically negative connotations than ‘equality’ which, rejected by the laws of nature, belongs more to revolutionary dreams of Utopia.
'Wealth inequality' can therefore only be a socialist term. If everyone in the world were 'equally' poor, would there then be no problem? If everyone were equally rich, wealth would be as meaningless as it in fact is, without a constructive cause that furthers the general interests of mankind.

As Thatcher said, there is no freedom without economic freedom.
Today, economic reality is that those who from their own efforts create a prosperous enterprise, naturally create employment and wealth not only for a nation, but eventually for the whole world. Those who are encouraged to covet and destroy the results of other people's efforts, for example the South African anarchists who destroy the farms of 'whites' and evict them with impunity, only create a desert of misery and more poverty. Thus everyone would end up being equally poor. Marxism proved to be a failed ideology, because irrevocably it leads to economic stagnation and poverty, equal, conform, poverty.

Most of the above was a FB comment. I add it here, because it's pertinent to the point I hope to  elaborate on. Since no proof has come to light of Russian meddling in the last US Presidential elections (unlike the blatant, public meddling of Obama in the USA, the UK, and France) Soros and his lackeys are now trying to blame the social media. It would be like blaming the elements, or material things for destroying human life. Abortion destroys human life. What is the difference between killing a perfectly healthy, unborn child, and doing away with someone older by pointing a gun at him or her and pulling the trigger?

Maybe March madness should therefore include the 'March for Our Lives'. The young protesters are convinced that if worthy and responsible Americans hand in their guns, the USA will be a safer place to live in. Without considering the 2nd amendment of the US constitution, logic, reality, and recorded examples would prove them to be naively wrong.
The hypocrisy of blaming things instead of criminals, is highlighted when the 'March for Our Lives' doesn't include the murder of unborn human life.
According to the politically correct agenda, that young people today seem to be conditioned to fully adhere to, even late term abortion is a woman's 'right'. But this radically cancels out the notion of 'equality', and obviously life itself.
If the majority of these young protesters had been equally subject to late term abortion, for example, had they been dissected with surgical instruments, and their organs sold, wouldn't protesting against private gun ownership be a far more pointless consideration?

In view of this, (for part of the 'agenda' is the absurd belief that unborn babies don't qualify to benefit from 'equal rights'. According to some they have no rights whatsoever) the 'March for Our Lives' is more a politically motivated demonstration, than a thoughtful solution to save lives and reduce or deter homicidal crime in the USA.
If it were judged that firearms had no effect in reducing or deterring crime, then the police themselves should also be disarmed. Then why not disarm the military on the false assumption that it would generally prevent war? This would give absolute free rein to criminals and international terrorists to do as they please, and in whatever way, wherever and whenever. In fact we have seen how often Islamic radicals have used lorries and smaller vehicles to crush innocent people to death. The death toll (85) in Nice, France, for example, could have been greatly reduced had someone been armed and able to shoot the rabid, truck driving maniac. It also goes without saying that death and destruction caused by suicide bombing can be far greater and certainly immediate, than that caused by automatic firearms. And finally why insist on disarming innocent, responsible civilians, when criminals can always procure whatever arm they consider suitable for whatever crime they wish to carry out, in any case?

The agenda, however is a growing, poisonous mushroom. The confiscation of firearms, and late term abortion are only two aspects of what certain sectarians are trying to impose in the USA and elsewhere. Denaturing gender is another aspect. The younger generations already seem to be brainwashed into believing that gender is just as much, if not more, a choice than it is a natural condition. Words such as 'transsexual', would never be used fifty years ago. But today the program insists on the idea that there is no longer any exceptions to the rule. Everything and anything goes. One can be what one wants. It’s ‘normal'. Surgery takes care of the rest, if deemed necessary.
The argument that babies adopted by two loving fathers is just as acceptable as babies adopted by a normal loving couple, has been validated, even though logic would decree that if parents establish the norm, then history is likely to repeat itself in the former case.

The agenda is such that homosexuals who, having benefitted from normal, parental love and acceptance, are against the adoption of children by homosexual couples, are never given the opportunity to express their valuable opinions by the msm. They would be crossing the agenda's red line of political correctness.

Russophobia is also politically correct. Any nation that rejects the agenda can only be an enemy of ‘progress,’ including the long term program of which ‘cultureless identity' also seems to be the objective. In contrast, Islamophobia is a heinously criminal, offensive, totally unjustifiable attitude, because mass Muslim immigration is believed to be the essential catalyser that will eventually bring about ‘cultureless identity’ in Terra nullius.

The banker divinities' fatal miscalculation that Utopia, a peaceful, harmoniously conform, international society can only be the result of such long, concerted, extravagant efforts, when natural reality overrules the irresponsible whims of burnt out multibillionaires. Progress is obviously cancelled out by bellicose regression. In Dystopia one can never reach the stars.

Text © Mirino. (Image by Todd Heisler/The New York Times, with thanks).
March, 2018  

Sunshine and snow

Yesterday morning walking Cayden, there were indeed flakes of snow lit by sunlight as they danced about in the gusts of cold wind. This made me ponder yet again, on the pretentiousness, hypocrisy and charlatanism of those trying to exploit 'climate change'. The term 'climate change' has sneakily substituted that of 'global warming', because 'climate change' is naturally indisputable, whereas 'global warming' is far less evident, certainly at this present time, even in the south of Europe. A parallel could be the changing of the term- 'refugees' to 'migrants'. The waves of young invaders to Europe are indisputably migrants, whereas it's far less evident that they are refugees.

In its epic, climatic history of 4,543 billion years, the Earth has been subject to five major ice ages (the Huronian, Cryogenian, Andean-Saharan, and the actual Quaternary glaciation). Apart from these ages of which we are in an 'interglacial period', (the Holocene, of the ice-age which began 2.6 million years ago) studies reveal that the Earth had been free of ice, even at high altitudes.

In contrast, one of the warmest of the geologic periods is known as the Neoproterozoic. This occurred between 600,000,000 and 800,000,000 years ago. Another 'hot age' is one geologists call the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, which came about approximately 56 million years ago.

However, such 'heatwave ages' were nothing compared to the early 'Hadean' (like Hades, or Hell) periods when the solar system was unsettled. Intense heat was caused by the Earth colliding with other huge meteorites and even small planets as large as Mars. Such a phenomenon is thought to have caused the creation of the Moon. It is estimated that the Earth's temperature following the birth of the moon was as high as 2,300 Kelvin or 2,027 Centigrade.

Man came on the terrestrial scene approximately 200,000 years ago, at a more accommodating period. In relation to the age of planet Earth, this period represents the following fraction :  1/22,715,000.

Although there is no feasible explanation regarding the origin of mankind, it took him (and certainly her) some time, but only an instant in terms of universal time, to evolve to the point of being able to reason, sometimes quite positively. This drive to enlightenment pushed him (or her) to begin to record annual temperatures in limited locations, let's say, for example, in Rotherham or Sutton Coldfield, UK. This began as long ago as 1836. This means that such annual temperature and climate records pertaining to such limited locations have been kept for a staggering duration of 182 years.

If man (or woman) assumes that this is enough time to reach an unequivocable conclusion that man is responsible for whatever climate change, or climate 'abnormalities', or 'global warming', etc., then one can only surmise that man (or woman) still needs a fair amount of time to continue his and her evolution, also in order to develop more positively his/her/its faculties of reasoning.

 If one were less pretentious, or less eager to exploit the gullible, the polluters, (those who can't afford an electric car, or who don't live in area where such a car can be easily recharged) one might limit one's affirmations regarding climate change simply to their existence, and not to any ridiculous assertion that man, women and transgender nondescript minorities are responsible, taxable, ignoble, polluting, climate criminals.

Indeed, climates change constantly. Tomorrow will not be exactly like today in any region or square mile. Every day is unique, another pattern of the eternal, cosmic kaleidoscope.

Climates change, and it's just as well. Universal law sees to that. We could try to revive faith in Almighty Power. We might try to appreciate our insignificance in relation to the magnificent universal order of things. People who exercise such sincere faith and humility are more often rewarded for their efforts. They are far more conscious of reality, simply because they are nearer to the Earth, unlike others who take themselves for Gods, with their sanctimonious heads in the clouds.

Those endowed with modesty and common sense also know that nature, or Almighty Power, always has the last word. And there's absolutely nothing humanity, including the multibillionaire, self-proclaimed divinities, can do about it.

Text and images © Mirino. (Information from various sources, with thanks). February, 2018