Another poem



I love this season, and when, literally out of the blue, you are blest with a surprisingly warm day with a cloudless sky in mid November. It's naturally Heaven sent.
Here particulary, in this hidden, Italian haven, a tiny paradise in a mad world.
Autumn always brings on nostalgia. Contemplating the long shadows, the thoughts flash through one's mind like the sunlit, golden leaves.


Europe is a beautiful continent. So rich and divers in culture and geography. So steeped in history. Old and mellow like a fine, rare wine found in a cellar full of history and cobwebs. But can one say that those who pretend to represent Europe have the stature to assume the responsibility?

Without wishing to harp on about the famous 'agenda' that most people still shrug off as yet another conspiracy theory, despite the total lack of coherent explanation as to what is being imposed, how can the EU seriously pretend to represent and defend the interests of Europe when it seems to be going out of its way to do exactly the opposite?

The reactions are evident, and not limited to Europe, because the 'agenda' is naturally 'global'. But instead of attempting to reverse the process in order to regain the confidence of the people the establishment claims to represent, it derides those who understandably have serious doubts about it. The EU demonstrates its disdain. The Visegrád Group who oppose the irresponsible imposition of migrants and care for the safeguard of their culture and the security of their people, are virtually treated as fascists. In fact the EU trend seems to be, that anyone who dares show any hint of patriotism, is more or less labelled a Nazi. The Brexit decision is cursed, and ridiculous assertions are made as if the UK will become a worm eaten, old carp dying a horrible death after the oxygenised, pristine waters of the EU will be cut off.

In contrast to the ever welcome, brave new world, Muslim migrants who can do no wrong, Trump and Putin are considered the 'elite', arch-enemies of EU progress.
One can, however, seriously question the objectives of the EU. Even without trying to pin the club down in doing so.
Without considering the constant negative consequences in Europe, how can the EU and all those engaged in the incoherent process of imposing immigration where it is not wanted or needed, blindly continue the experiment knowing full well that it is causing the deaths of many thousands of would-be migrants from North Africa? All ending up at the bottom of the Mediterranean for the sake of a merkelian illusion.
Isn't that alone, enough to make one want to disassociate oneself from such cretinous, cynical ideologues?

Simple people who grow their own vegetables and make their own wine and olive oil each year, have far more confidence in nature than in the pompous, political pantomimes that go on in Brussel and elswhere.
There's young Macron proudly strutting about the world eager to be acclaimed as the divine saviour of the planet. He will cure climatic abnormalities and pave the way to glorious globalism. He seems to think it's all an easy banker's trick.


Of course, the old men in their gardens have seen it all before. They sadly smile as they store the last, still green tomatoes in their cellars, knowing that they will redden. They never talk about things of no importance. They are wiser than that. They have confidence in nature and Providence. For them each year tells its own story, like another beautiful poem.


Text and images © Mirino. November, 2017

Les copains



Max est entré dans sa dix-septième année. C'est un bichon maltais. Cayden lui, doit peser environ 30 kilos. Il n'a que trois ans. C'est un croisé entre un border-colley et un berger-allemand. Gatsby, le chat, est leur copain. Lorsqu'on doit partir pour quelques jours on laisse toujours Gatsby car il déteste la voiture et préfère rester à la maison aux soins d'un gentil voisin. Il sait toujours qu'on va revenir.

Quand Max, déjà vieux, a perdu sa copine Lune, une petite cotton, (qui ne vivait que pour manger) il ne voulait plus vivre lui non plus. C'est pour cela que l'on a pris Cayden. D'abord tout petit il prenait Max pour son papa. Ils dormaient dans le même panier. Cayden a donné à Max le goût de vivre à nouveau. D'ailleurs même après quelques jours, son état général s'était extraordinairement amélioré.
Bien que Cayden grandissait, il prenait toujours Max pour son papa, et Max se vantait d'être le chef. Plus tard il y a eu des moments où ils se disputaient, mais Cayden, qui aurait pu facilement tuer Max s'il le voulait, ne lui faisait jamais mal. C'était du cinéma, comme les premières disputes entre un jeune homme et son père, qui au fond s'aiment profondément. Donc c'est certain que Max, a été ressuscité par Cayden.


Dernièrement cependant Max a pris un coup de vieux. Il avait déjà de graves problèmes concernant sa colonne vertébrale. En plus il est aussi devenu très sourd et presque aveugle. Mais malgré tout cela, il a un courage extraordinaire, et il ne se plaint jamais.
Un jour, Max est libre. C'est donc un bon jour pour lui de point de vue vision et santé générale. Mais il a du manger quelque chose qui lui a flanqué une indigestion assez sérieuse. On pensait qu'il allait mourir. Le lendemain soir, Cayden l'a grommelé d'une manière impressionnante, mais sans lui faire mal, comme toujours. C'est après que l'on a réalisé que Cayden voulait le secouer, car par la suite Max s'est débarrassé de ce qui le gêner.

Aujourd'hui Max ne peut plus facilement descendre les escaliers, sauf s'il tombe, ce qu'il fait si on ne bloque pas l'accès pour l'empêcher. Monter maintenant c'est hors de question. On doit le porter, doucement, pour qu'il fasse ses besoins dehors. Mais Cayden refuse de descendre les escaliers sans que Max soit là aussi. On descend donc tous ensemble.
Puis Max doit manger d'abord. Cayden attend avant de manger. C'est une attente assez longue car Max n'a plus assez de dents pour manger comme avant.


C'est une émouvante histoire de vie, de fidélité, et d'amour. Et c'est aussi une leçon pour nous.
Les chiens vivent trop longtemps et pas assez longtemps. Trop longtemps car ils deviennent partie intégrante de nos vies de famille. Pas assez longtemps car ils nous manquent durement après la fin de leur modeste trajet.

Le début de son trajet Max l'a passé avec sa maîtresse. Elle l'amenait avec lui à son travail car elle ne pouvait pas le laisser tout seul à la maison aussi longtemps. Il avait donc l'habitude d'être patient et discret. Lors de ses déplacements Il l'attendait souvent dans la voiture, dans les parkings, sachant qu'elle va revenir. La voiture d'ailleurs était pour lui alors comme un deuxième chez lui.


Dans la fleur de l'âge Max pouvait faire tant de choses. 'Bi-langue' il pouvait faire des 'roll-overs' et des 'turn arounds' sur ses pattes arrières. Je lui ai même appris à fermer la porte lorsqu'il revenait de ses promenades matinales libre, là où il avait plein de copains et de copines canin(e)s.
Lorsqu'il sautait si facilement sur le lit, on aurait dit qu'il volait, il planait. Il avait un équilibre étonnant, comme un chamois. Il n'avait peur de rien, aucunement pour les hauteurs. Il se mettait sur des precipices pointus donnant sur 800 mètres de vide, sans problèmes. Max était toujours le chef. Toujours.


C'est aussi pour cela qu'on ne peut que l'admirer encore pour son courage exemplaire. Nous ne sommes pas les seuls car c'est évident que Cayden et Gatsby l'admirent eux aussi. Ils l'aident chacun à leur manière.

Une petite histoire, une petite leçon d'amour et de loyauté. La vie en somme, mais un peu trop accélérée. Très belle, plus profonde que l'on imagine, et émouvante.
Plus tard il y aura sans doute une belle histoire à raconter à propos de Cayden.


Text and images © Mirino, October, 2017

Sensum communem



The Fountain Head, written by Ayn Rand in 1943, is an excellent novel underlining the total counter-productivity of socialism and overinflated State control, as opposed to allowing individual enterprise, encouraging exceptional talent consolidated with integrity, and devoted artistic expression.
The fact that the film version produced by Warner Brothers in 1949, starring Garry Cooper (as the architect Howard Roark) was demeaned by negative criticism from the establishment media even
then, underlines the quasi constant, latent power of socialism. Nevertheless the book has sold more than 6.5 millions of copies and has been translated in twenty languages.

What Adam Smith, Scottish Economist and philosopher of the 18th century, advocates in his 'Wealth of Nations' is still considered a chef d'œuvre of economic common-sense. This common-sense has always been dismissed by socialism.
His work is based on the logic that everyone benefits from individual ambition and success. That people buy good bread from their favourite baker, not because their wish is to please the baker, but because their wish is to please themselves.

Had Steve Jobs not had the freedom and opportunity to produce and perfect his Macintosh computer, the whole world would have been deprived of the best personal computer and communications systems.
One could argue that multinationals are killing off small businesses, but there are international laws regarding competition and monopolies. The fact that other communications systems have more or less ripped off the Apple system in a round about way, shows what Apple also has to contend with.

Competition obviously has a positive effect. Without it humanity will never be able to reach the stars, which eventually will become an absolute necessity.
Personally, I could spend weeks trying to protect my own copyright, which through Internet is being pirated constantly. So it works both ways.
If I took the time and was accorded the freedom to produced something considered worthwhile, then obviously I am not the only one who benefits.

The nations who promote and officialise same sex marriages, and impose incoherent, gender theories on children in schools, constitute neo-Marxist or socialist attempts to condition children and depreciate family values. In this respect Russia is well qualified to give the West valuable advice based on its own experience of failed Marxist ideology.

Throughout their schooling all children without exception should be given the same chance of obtaining the best possible education. But socialism decrees that this equality should reflect in the results. In order to determine this fabricated equality, one would have to discourage those who wish to advance in order that the mediocre pupils have some sort of chance in catching up. Naturally this would lead to a general mediocre level of education. In fact socialism systematically engenders mediocrity.

This mediocrity could also be applied to the present moronic merkelian madness of pretending that mixing up incompatible cultures will eventually produce a positive, multicultural society. At best it would subsequently produce culturally destructive mediocrity, but it would be not unreasonable to suggest that one could eventually end up with Dystopia. 
__ 

Text © Mirino. Image- book cover of the first edition of Ayn Rand's The Fountain Head. 
September, 2017


                   

Liberty

















History is always written by the conquerors, sometimes accurately, sometimes falsely.
For latter examples one only has to look towards Turkey who confuses war with genocide. Equally one could look towards France and their inglorious, (tending towards genocidal) revolution. For the latter example the justification would be the cause of the Republic. The apparently less durable cause of Soviet communism killed many more millions. Yet if one looks closely enough into the history of nations, there are often such discords, less clamourous perhaps, but still questionable. The Battle of the Boyne in 1690, and the subsequent annual Orange Day march in Ireland (to keep the wound open and festering) is good example.

For the US Confederates, their engagement would probably be less in support of slavery, than in support of a way of life. However just and reasonable the decree of abolishing slavery might have generally been appreciated, in the minds of those prepared to sacrifice themselves to conserve a way of life, were they not fighting for what they also consider to be their freedom?
Ironically many Afro-Americans fought with them. They too, often accepted as part of southern families, having seen the children grow and having cared for them, might have been fighting for what they believed was their choice, their particular freedom, and Afro-American identity.
Many of them subsequently 'freed', had no place to go and no offer of employment. For them would this be 'freedom'? Often they were also treated as scapegoats, the 'unworthy cause' of the tragic conflict between American brothers.

Naturally this is not an apology for slavery.
Oscar Wilde was quite right when he pointed out that the slave owners who did most harm, were those who were kind to their slaves, in as much as they contributed in perpetuating the abomination of slavery. Yet whilst imbeciles pull down statues of men who fought for what they believed in, the former brainless beings allowing themselves to be so used, are oblivious to the fact that slavery continues even today.
The African migrants (many thousands of whom have drowned in the Mediterranean) being enticed to risk their lives and those of their families, to come to Europe to work, are hardly likely to get executive jobs. They won't even be accorded a minimum wage.
Merkel pointed out the need for cheap labour in Germany. Isn't that slavery? Or are we to believe that being paid something, negates the argument?

What cannot be negated is history. Only fools or regressive ideologues try to negate history. When people who, rightly or wrongly, fought fairly and nobly for what they believed in, and were respected for this, they deserve being remembered and commemorated. Desecrating such memorials is an act of hateful ignorance. Beings who demean themselves in this way trample on history and the essence of freedom. They trample on the notion of: "I don't agree with your opinion, but I would fight for your right to express it". They trample on the USA.
In pulling down a statue of even a modest Confederate soldier, they are virtually pulling down the Statue of Liberty.

*

The sculpture of Robert E Lee was first carried out by Henry Shrady (1871-1922).
Due to chronic illness which led to Shrady's death, the work was completed by Leo Lentelli in 1924. It was dedicated in May of that same year. Apparently Lentelli's version is less animated than that originally planned by Shrady.


Composite © Mirino (using a cropped image of the equestrian statue of Robert E. Lee, and an image of woods in Virginia, USA, with thanks for their use). August, 2017.

Improvisation



Anecdote accompanied by a cool beer and guitar improvisation. A pause in a favourite Italian bar. A precious moment. The sublime illusion of escaping from a mad world.

Yet for at least five years the guitar stayed in its case. It's owner could no longer hear well enough to tune it. Even with a digital tuner there were tones he could no longer hear. To him even the best music sounded depressing, cacaphonic.

But miracles sometimes happen, his hearing in the only 'valid' ear still in 50% function mode improved enough for him to hear quite clearly with a good aid. (Beforehand a hearing-aid only amplified the distorted sound conveyed by the faulty inner ear, making it even worse).

So he tuned his guitar and started playing again. It sounded alright, so much so that he bought another guitar, two in fact. In spite of old playing habits that die hard, he started to learn finger picking, to improvise blues with thumb base rhythm, and it sounds like he's doing alright.
He let his right hand finger nails grow, and shortened his left hand finger nails. The corns came back on his left hand finger tips. He practices every day. It's a real victory.

There is no time limit for victories. They are not subject to age, as long as one is in reasonably good health. It's also true that each time one shares life with a woman one loves, it's another life, another wonderful gift.
Perhaps I mentioned this before. Going back fifteen years now. A magic evening in a restaurant above Menton. He played the guitar then too. for some reason he was full of confidence. It was then when he met her. They danced together. It all clicked.

Maybe he wasn't immediately aware, but after having had to rely on a hearing-aid most of his life, he no longer needed it with her. This miracle lasted two years before the inevitable audio chute. Nevertheless there is no doubt that it was a miracle, like playing the guitar again. It makes one smile, and feel good.

*
Text Mirino. Image Curto. August, 2017

Federalism



After having posted on FB what follows, I've been thinking more about the subject, hence this long preamble, which is also a reason why I'm adding it to Viewfinder. Another reason is that as I am spending perhaps more time than I should, making a nuisance of myself on FB, certainly with regards to this particular subject, Viewfinder is being even more neglected.

I've been thinking about how historic events effect the relationships between European nations as well as communities within European nations. It brings to mind the time when I was in a Dutch hospital after a road accident. An old man walked up to my bed and called me a 'rot moffer'. I probably smiled stupidly not then knowing what 'rot moffer' meant, but it's probable that he thought I was German, and was then already old enough to have suffered from the war, so no doubt it was his way of wishing me not to get well very soon.

The French Revolution left similar open wounds. The Vendéens, being particularly faithful to their Catholic religion, suffered terribly for it. Events in Scotland such as the despicable massacre of Glen Coe will never be forgotten, nor forgiven. In any case the cultural gap between the Scottish and the English is legendary. Needless to say the Battle of the Boyne left its sanguineous mark in Ireland, but heedlessly the Protestants continue their Orange day March to keep the embers glowing. (It would be as though the allies marched through Berlin every year to celebrate victory against Nazi Germany. But the Battle of the Boyne took place in 1690!).

During the Franco-Spanish War (1635-1659) there was the Catalonian Revolution (1640-1659) against the cumbersome presence of the Royal Spanish army, consequently Catalonia then became a republic under the French protectorate, at least for a while. The Basques in France as well as the Basques in Spain have always aspired to conserve their identity and have fought for their independence. The Corsicans have too, of course. The Bavarians of southern Germany would never associate themselves with the Prussians of northern Germany. And regarding Belgium, there is an enormous cultural difference between the Flemish and the Walloons, even though the nation is a relatively small. The Flemish of northern Belgium speak Dutch and are more rural than the French speaking Walloons of Wallonia who identify themselves more with the French.

Naturally every nation of Europe has its own internal history which is also a precious reference. Had one referred the history of Ukraine, instead of clumsily imposing one's will with little or no regard to democracy and diplomacy, the outcome could have been more positive for all concerned.

All this to say that in view of the scars of history, and the continued conflicts of interest within nations, the idea of federalising Europe and pretending that we are one big happy family, is a utopian pipe dream.
However, it is understandable and even commendable that the younger generation likes this idea, but it has to evolve naturally, gradually and democratically. Obviously it can never be imposed. If it were, the consequences would be disastrous.

In any case the present situation created by the EU executive and the German Chancellor, is such that there is already a serious confidence crisis. Brexit should have been enough to sound the alarm bell, but the establishment continues obliviously. Understandably, more and more Europeans are losing all faith.

*

It seems that the problem with Europe now, is that a minority have too much power. In the case of Merkel, still Chancellor of Germany, she appears to believe she is also the Chancellor of Europe. This to such an extent that she doesn't hesitate in dictating what she believes should be implemented. If, for example, she believes that Russia is a dangerous enemy, she seems to assume that all Europeans should consider Russia as a dangerous enemy. If she says that terrorism has got nothing to do with Islam, then she considers that Europeans should also accept this absurdity.
Similarly, Juncker is for open borders. He therefore takes it for granted that all Europeans are, or should be, for open borders.

Most nations have a constitution that morally obliges them to accept refugees for as long as they need asylum. No nation has a constitution that obliges them to accept unassimilable Muslim migrants on an permanent basis, yet Merkel and Juncker insist that each European nation accept a given quota of such migrants in spite of all the negative consequences.

This already being the case when European nations still have a fair amount of national sovereignty, what would be the situation in a federalised Europe? Logically it would be even worse, far worse.

Compared to Europe, the history of the USA only begins with the founding fathers, the pilgrim colonists of the 17th century (1607). For good reason many Americans therefore still identify with their national, European roots.
Naturally the USA was born from the War of Independence, under Washington, but it also took the civil war, and Lincoln, and the consequent constitution to establish the necessary foundations.
In Europe there is no Washington or Lincoln. There are no inspired ideals or pledges of allegiance. Root religion that Europe developed from, is largely despised and dismissed by the Eurocrats. The latter are engrossed in pricing Brussel sprouts, etc., but above them, the ideologues, who are intolerant to nationality, root religion and root identity, are ironically welcoming many thousands, if not millions of migrants who wish to impose their own 7th century ideology and laws, and who reject democracy and refuse to integrate, being more prone to adhere to the decrees of their Quran.

Yet in spite of this sad lack of European soul and solidarity, in spite of this immigration inanity, the greatest idiocy of our epoch, one still stoically believes that we can federalise Europe.
__
 
Text and image © Mirino. July, 2017

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 

Dark side



Would it be over simplifying to suggest that today, there are two essential schools of thought? On one side we have the die-hard sectarian ideologues obsessed with the idea of globalism, or literally sold on it. The ideologues have convinced themselves that world peace, social and economic stability can only be obtained by doing away with nations altogether, and establishing a multi-ethnic world population under a unique sort of neo-Marxist system of government. This 'peaceful Utopia' will eventually be established thanks to the active participation of the most warmongering, barbarian and regressive cult, fanatically adhering to perhaps the worst 7th century dogma ever concocted by man in his entire history.

(Naturally there are other basic schools of thought, but they are still less consequent. The most important of these don't think at all, or rather their thinking process is confided to the media they unreservedly trust. Indeed today this media believe it is their inherent responsibility to determine how such people should think.
Unfortunately in democracies this 'school' is destined to eventually become the majority, which is no doubt also what the media, as well as the elite, are counting on).

To return to two essential schools, on the other side we have the conservatives who believe that world peace, social and economic stability, and above all freedom, can only be maintained by conserving national sovereignty, and by respecting and continuing to defend the divers cultures of the world determined also by national sovereignty. It reposes on the timeless logic that if one cares for, and cultivates one's own garden, (also in the spiritual sense) the world will always be serenely peaceful and beautiful. Or as the Italians say, 'il mondo è bello perché è vario'. Of course it's another Utopian dream, but a far more rational and realisable one.

The enormous difference between the two arguments is such that the party political games of individual nations seem trivial, ridiculously out of touch with what's really at stake, and with what is still stubbornly being pursued.
Obviously this was illustrated very well by the American presidential elections. In spite of the enormous pressure of the establishment, the media, the Arabian investors, the millions spent by multibillionaires like G. Soros, in order that the programmed project be continued by H. Clinton, (who clearly affirmed that this would be the case) the American majority recognised the danger and made the best choice possible under the given circumstances.

Anxiously the whole world looked on, because what was at stake was naturally of considerable international concern.
I refer to this so often that one might conclude it's an obsession, but when the choice between two individuals is so crucial and determining that it even encroaches on family relationships, it's already painfully obvious that something is very wrong.

In spite of Donald Trumps's victory, the European establishment represented by individuals such as Jean-Claude Juncker (earning a modest €306,655 per year as President of the European Commission) and Guy Verhofstadt, (one of the 'progressive' candidates for the EU presidency) seem to be intent on continuing the immigration program and no borders. Verhofstadt clearly indicates this by claiming that the real dangers for Europe are not the migrants, they are people like Putin and Trump...

I came across an article on the Dutch referendum regarding one of the consequences of the Ukrainian affair. It seems particularly ironic that since this virtual grab the Obama administration and the EU has been labelling Russia as the expansionist enemy when the inverse seems to be the case. The EU, with the help of the USA, financed no doubt by Soros, (even his name reminds one of Sauron, Dark Lord of Mordor, in The Lord of the Rings) appears to have been the only entity engrossed in expansionist activities.

Going back to a consequence of this, is a EU agreement that 40 million Ukrainians will have visa-free access to European nations. The Dutch have voted against this decision. Dutch ministers also maintain that the majority of European member nations would also categorically reject this latest imposition. No doubt the EU will nevertheless continue to push it through, underlining once more that it couldn't care less about democracy.

Because of this lofty, diktat attitude, and the lucrative business consequences available, certainly regarding uncontrolled immigration, the Eurocrats shouldn't be surprised by the rise in popularity of individuals like Marine Le Pen, Geert Wilders and Nigel Farage who wish to defend their nations' freedom and sovereignty.

The latest terrorist attack in Germany and the shameful, ridiculous way it was reported, suggests that the German police are hobbled. They and the media are clearly under strict orders to play down such attacks in the hope of not fuelling the fiery arguments against Merkel's uncontrolled immigration policy. This implies that the project or the ideology, is considered more important than national and European security, the interests and even the lives of Europeans.

To conclude, it is not a period that is conducive to writing spring time sonnets.
I would certainly not be alone in affirming that I have never known such a precarious, malign epoch. Those responsible, the over rich cynics, the bought out puppet politicians, the treacherous, double dealers and fakes, should be held accountable for what they have tried to do, and for what they are still trying to do.


Text and images © Mirino. February, 2017