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


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


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