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

Icicles and fire



Almost the end of January. White pages, blank mind.
I could string some of my many comments together including those censored by ideological moderators. It might even make a novel poem.
State of mind, sign of the times.
But this month has been loaded, to say the least, and even if a major battle is won, the war certainly isn't over.

However, today one feels slightly more encouraged due to François Fillon who, in spite of an orchestrated effort to politically assassinate him, made a very good speech yesterday. He said what should be said, and what the people need to hear. He has, surprisingly, the makings of a fine, perhaps even great, President for France.
What he says is good, how best to express it, only comes with practice. But timely pauses between well thought out phrases are also golden.

In my modest opinion, if he's elected there will be hope not only for France, but also for Europe. No doubt the EU will back the socialists, who blindly and obediently follow the politically correct cortège proudly marching to Dystopia.
Socialists, especially French ones, don't make waves. Their boat never leaves port. They go nowhere whilst continually discussing vague possibilities regarding how to contend with tedious tides. In actual fact much of their time is consumed in trying to find means of doing away with their political opponents. We saw the same thing in the USA, with fake news, and certain Hollywood celebrities and European know-alls making absolute fools of themselves. Similar to lemmings, they swim against the strong tide of democracy risking professional suicide.

Whatever one thinks about the newly elected US President, anyone who can come through the mainstream media barrage and flak, (including European and Arabian) the establishment, the staunch socialist and liberal defenders of political correctness, the paid off turncoat Republicans, leading bank supporters of the Clintons, the rife voting fraud, generously paid false accusations of alleged improper conduct, millions of dollars invested in Clinton by Soros and the Gulf States, the extravagant, unpresidential promotion of H. Clinton by Obama and his wife, etc., anyone who can victoriously break through all that still smiling, can only be a winner.

A wish to end the first month of the New Year, and conclude this modest effort, is that we can also come up with winners here in Europe to get it back on the right track. François Fillon, for one example, might be a good start.


Top image and text (with thanks for the use of local forest fire image) © Mirino, January, 2017