Ultimate Notice

Any competent lawyer would stress that signing the UN pact (Marrakech), no matter the claim that such an endorsement is not legally binding, is nevertheless an engagement that certainly has legal implications. Why otherwise require that such a ‘pact’ be signed, and later be ratified?

One is signing an agreement to treat all migrants virtually as refugees, and never to obstruct their freedom of migration to wherever they choose to go, (providing the authorities of the choice of destination have agreed to this pact).
The wording of the agreement seems to have little regard for national sovereignty.

What makes it worse is that most signatory heads of State would never have even bothered to check whether the people, whom they claim to represent, approve or not of the idea. The people, after all, would be directly effected by the consequences, plausibly more so than the signatory heads of State.

Is this not an incredible initiative taken by the UN? It seems to contradict the institution's fundamental reason of being.
If the idiotic ideologues, including those of the UN, had their own way, nations would no longer exist, let alone pretend to be happily united. They would be absorbed and destroyed leaving a massive, Orwellian inspired Dystopia. A cultureless, conform, disciplined, egalitarian populus, of a ‘global’ Terra nullius ruled by megalomaniacs.

(This is the third, consecutive allusion to what seems an incredibly incongruous initiative taken by the UN. Apologies for repetition, but the issue is perhaps more important than most people seem to realise. For what it's worth, the 'Ultimate Notice' will be the last post of 2018. Hopefully the signatories of this 'pact' will take some time to dwell on the implications of what they have signed, and finally decide against ratifying their agreement to it).
Whatever the future holds, let it be a happy New Year for us all!


Text and image modifications (with apologies to the UN) © Mirino. December, 2018


Europeans, and perhaps especially the Brits, should pay particular attention to what agreeing to the UN immigration compact really means.
According exactly the same rights to migrants as one accords to refugees, and being bound in principle by signature not to oppose this liberty of movement of migrants in general, without question, and whatsoever, might only make sense to people who naively believe in the incoherent ideology of globalism, of which no one seems to have made any intelligent effort in anticipating the consequences.

The ideology of globalism seems to be based on the illusive aspiration of elite minorities to accumulate total world wide financial, social, and by extension military power. Such power could only be wielded by a totalitarian, neo-Marxist regime. This would supposedly be made up of elite minorities which could include the Bilderburg Group, the Rothschilds, sectarian multibillionaires such as George Soros, (or more likely one of, or all of, his four sons) certain high ranking members of the EU commission, certain 'elite' German ministers, (who secretly foster definite, historic revenge) obviously members of the UN who also seem to go out of their way in representing the interests of Saudi Arabia. The latter would not be adverse to protecting its future, as well as having the enormous and glorious responsibility of Islamic expansionism under the flag of Wahhabism, the official form of Sunni Islam.

Assuming this incredible scenario reflects to some extent the desired objective, can one imagine the consequences? Let's assume for argument's sake that most of Europe agrees to this pact, (which could also determine European federalism). The first possible consequence could be conflict with Russia. We already see the negative results of the Ukrainian coup encouraged by Obama, by the financier of anarchy, Soros, and by the expansionist EU. Such a conflict would put the USA under Trump in a very difficult position, and make US social division even worse.

But let's go further into the future and assume that the UN succeeds in getting most countries to sign away their sovereignty. What would the consequences be? Migrants, and we note that the majority are Muslims, would have the full freedom to go wherever they please, and gradually impose their ideology, their values, if not their archaic laws.
Wouldn't this imposed, doctrine gradually erode away natural cultural identity, natural cultural diversity, and therefore culture in general? Would it not create a regressive, virtually cultureless conformity?

Needless to add, this naively imagined path leading to peaceful, sublime, egalitarian, Utopia would be full of potholes and obstacles. For if there are beings who would renounce their cultural identity, their history, patrimony, root religion, their sovereignty, their very being, for an idiot's illusion, the devil's Dystopia, it's certain than the various sects of Islam will never renounce theirs. If the sheep and lemmings are submissive and peaceful enough in their blissful ignorance to follow blind fools or slaughterers, the divers sects of Islam, certainly the Sunni and the Shiite will be at loggerheads with each other regarding who should best represent and command the ever massively expanding, global community of Muslims.
The idea therefore that globalism determines world peace would be a dangerous fallacy. It's not difficult to foresee that the inverse would be the case.

Civilisation, ever animated by its essential, immutable soul: human nature, has gone through many centuries of trials and tribulations, but by the end of the day, common sense has always prevailed. If this wasn't the case, we wouldn't be here today to express our opinions, dearly hoping that common sense will prevail once more in this incredible case.

Text and image © Mirino. December, 2018

Unreasonable Notions

This UN booklet generally treating immigration as a positive development for the world, seems totally detached from the realities of humanity and civilisation, oblivious of cultural differences. It's all statistics and percentages, as though human beings were emotionless, numbered robots that can fit in anywhere with the help of a little preplanned integration squeeze, programmed to snap nondescript migrants easily into place like lego bricks.

Are there any UN administrators who have an inkling about the history of civilisation, for example?
Whilst reading all this meaningless data, one thinks of Israel under serious attack, one ponders on the continual persecution of Christians in the Middle East. One thinks of courageous Asia Bibi. Then in one's drifting mind's eye one sees the thousands of beings marching from South American towards the USA. Ironically, some are waving their own national flags as would an invading army.

If national, cultural identity, which is an essential facet of individuality, is deemed by certain illuminati to be 'a thing of the past'; in their imagined 'brave new world', their unnaturally imposed concoction of humanity, what takes its place? What substitutes patriotism in Terra nullius?
A world without nations would be like a town without houses. It would be a world devoid of stimulus, of competition, of the strive for excellence, the incentive to surpass oneself, to reach the stars, which is fundamentally the strive of survival. It would be a mournful desert of rigid conformity. It would be a futureless Dystopia.

When each house is restored, repainted, fondly maintained, swept clean, and lived in; and each garden is cultivated with love and care, to be cherished by a family, it all naturally contributes in making the entire world more beautiful and meaningful. Obviously this has always been the case, and naturally an integral part of the history of civilisation.
It has nothing to do with possession, it has to do with freedom, love, identity, trust, respect, and good will.

Adam Smith's 'The Wealth of Nations,' first published in 1776, is certainly very old, but in principle it can never be considered dated, because it's common sense philosophy. The common sense, for one important example, that everyone benefits from individual success.

Millions of people can continue to be positively moved, exalted, in contemplating a unique masterpiece. Art, common sense, and human nature itself, is not effected by time. But an establishment that transgresses such basic principles of common sense, of civilised freedom, of individuality, cultural identity, which naturally include root religion; call it the United Nations, or the Useless Nonentity, whatever springs to mind, such an establishment that has become transgressive, will never survive the rigours of time.

 Text and images © Mirino. November, 2018


One would think that the above spectrum is a pastel rendering, but it's a natural spectrum, the rainbow colours consisting of the three primary colours merging to secondary colours. The components of white light.
It appeared yesterday afternoon, cast by the sun rays at a given angle through the edge of a glass table top, which for about a minute, obviously acted as a prism.
I took the photograph at close range, from about twelve to fourteen cms distance, with an IPhone.

It looks like a pastel or opaque colour rendering because it was cast on the large dark grey blue tiles of the terrace. This makes it rather special, because although the projected rays of colour are naturally transparent, they completely dominate the dark surface as though the colours were opaque. If the surface were white, the colour values would be exactly the same, although they would appear less vivid.

This, for a water-colourist, seems magical. Because obviously it's impossible to obtain such total strength of primary and secondary colour using any transparent colour media on a dark surface.

This 'magic' may seem trivial to many people. Making such an allusion could be regarded as wasting time on banalities. No doubt there are experts who can, in so many words, explain how this surprising, complete, depth of projected, coloured rays that are nevertheless transparent, occurs vividly on dark surfaces.
One is also reminded of when Leonardo Da Vinci referred to the phenomenon of cast spectrums in his famous note books, ascertaining that their existence doesn't depend on human visual acknowledgment. Even the greatest of geniuses can be endearingly simple.

Yet seeing this little, momentary magic also came as another reminder of how beautiful our environment is. Is it not refreshing to gaze and ponder on such minute magic, just for a moment, and put aside the mind numbing madness of the epoch in which we live?

Text and images © Mirino. September, 2018


A reference, also to recommend the moving, documentary film, The Vietnam War, by Ken Burns and Lynn Novick. It brings it all back, the terribly cruel, long drawn-out war, the demonstrations, Woodstock, the Pentagon Papers, Watergate, etc. A monumental period in all respects. Again a divided world, a divided America. There are similarities. The tragedy of human nature is that often certain lessons never seem to be learnt.

Yet despite what was frequently thought to be a grave error of judgement, an exaggerated phobia regarding communist expansionism, the evil which had to be contained at all costs, an impossible war of which neither side could ever really claim victory, a war where one nameless hill of no strategic value whatsoever could nevertheless cost the lives of many hundreds of US marines and Vietnamese. Despite the frustration, the vindictiveness, the atrocities, (MŠĽĻ Lai) the endless anti-war demonstrations, that finally even Vietnam veterans took part in, throwing their hard earned medals over the specially built, protection barrier in front of the White House; the long sequence of so many lies rendering the war meaningless and immoral; and finally the incurable, consequent trauma, known as PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder).

In spite of all that, the USA came through the hell of the Vietnam war more mature and resolute than ever. The same would apply to Vietnam, of course, and their war would last thirty years.
Notwithstanding the blind hate, even after a day of heavy fighting, some US soldiers even praised the Vietcong fighters for their courage and skill. 'They were great soldiers'.

Ho Chi Minh was originally driven towards communism to gain the necessary support from the Soviet Union and China to be able to rid Vietnam from oppressive French colonialism. This led to what the French call La Guerre d’Indochine, which effectively ended the French colonialism, in spite of their efforts of 'pacification'. Ho Chi Minh's priority, however, was never ideological. It was primarily for the nation, for its reunification, independence and freedom. In the documentary a veteran Vietnamese supports this by stressing that they were not Marxists. According to him the priority was the defence and unity of their country. They were therefore fighting for Vietnam, not for communism.

Sometimes the US marines even had the impression they were fighting on the wrong side. The South Vietnamese government was at that time riddled with corruption. The people knew it. They hated their government almost as much as they disliked the Americans for having to collaborate with the corrupt leaders. The Vietcong were aware of this and were persuaded that the people of South Vietnam would eventually rise up and join them. This was a fallacy. The South Vietnamese army (ARVN) stoically remained loyal, right to the end. However, although most of them were reliable and brave, they never had the same incentive as the North Vietnamese fighters.

After Lyndon Johnson announced that he wouldn’t run for re-election, Nixon won the 1968 Presidential elections against Hubert Humphrey. Ever increasing pressure was on the new US President to end the American engagement in Vietnam. He connived with Kissinger regarding the best way to go about it, resorting to secret bombing over the border in Cambodia to try to prevent supplies reaching the Vietcong. Massive B52 bombing continued over Hanoi to force the North Vietnamese government to negotiate. These negotiations included the freeing of POWs. This succeeded, but the media got hold of, and published the Pentagon papers which revealed the many lies and coverups. Then there was the Watergate scandal which led to the impeachment of Nixon.

The antiwar demonstrations were now so intense that they helped to encourage badly inspired, treasonous mistakes like that of the then young, and obviously naive, Jane Fonda.
In spite of the promises, the Vietnam war was too unpopular, and unwinnable in any case. America had to withdraw. The South Vietnamese were finally obliged to fend for themselves. They did so with courage, but they were terribly out numbered. Inevitably Saigon also fell.
Most of the remaining Americans were evacuated, but for the Saigon Vietnamese, especially the army, evacuation was very limited.

The Vietcong destroyed the graves of the ARVN soldiers. For the former, 'winners could not accommodate losers', observed an intelligent, South Vietnamese woman who had lived through the whole nightmare. The page had to be turned to begin the new chapter of reunification.
After abolishing capitalism and nationalising industries under a socialist system, inflation rose to 700% in only one year. People began to starve. It was a total economic failure, worsened by the US trade embargo.
Hanoi wanted ‘normalisation’. Vietnam longed to be an accepted ‘part of the world'. After agreeing to the US demands, America lifted its trade embargo. Gradually communism gave way to a more workable, economic system. The Cold War had ended. The Soviet Union had become The Russian Federation.

An old North Vietnamese veteran referred to the war as  'A heroic song, but also a great tragedy’. Perhaps this would also make it an epic poem, that old enemies can read, and shed tears over together.

A beautiful, monument on which is inscribed all the names of Americans who fell, was erected in Washington. 58,220 names. The monument, consisting of two walls, just over 75 m long, of highly polished, black granite, was completed in 1982.
Heroes who should never be forgotten.
At first some veterans were reluctant to go to see it, but when they finally stood before the monument reading and touching some of the names of friends and those they had known, they were immensely moved.

They are all there, the fallen heroes, serenely together, for posterity. And the brilliant black walls also reflect the surroundings, the sunlight, the trees and the sky. Reflections of life, which naturally include life's end.
       A bronze known as The Three Soldiers was also created to complement the wall. 

A platoon lieutenant instinctively runs up one of those nameless hills under heavy machine gun fire. His small platoon below was given no order. He sees a shadow of someone coming up on his right, and turns to fire his M-16. He then sees that all the remaining survivors of his platoon are running up behind to give him support. Nineteen year old kids. Recalling this, the courage of those boys, moves the war-hardened veteran to tears. 

 Text © Mirino. Images used with thanks. September, 2018


Many people are led to believe that most Western Europeans and Americans have lost faith. They are no longer conscious of their root religion, and they are persuaded that it's true, although it's not necessarily they who affirm this.
It reminds me of when, after giving a particular, watercolour portrait to a French Diacre for whom I had great respect, I apologetically mumbled that 'I'm not particularly religious'. He immediately replied, 'That's not for you to say'.

It was a good reply. And since then I realise that, in my own way, I am religious. I have faith. Perhaps many of us are 'religious', and do have faith without even realising it, simply because it's so firmly enrooted. Isn't this another good reason why one should reject the false argument that Islam fills the vacuum of our alleged 'faithlessness' and 'infidelity'?

Is it not rooted in us to obey the ten commandments? We don't have to keep referring to them to be reminded that it's wrong to kill, to steal, to bear false witness, to covert, to dishonour our parents. We know that adultery is wrong. We are aware of the evils of cult and graven image worship. And we still hold Sundays as special.
For most of us, Easter and Christmas are not only for the children's pleasure in receiving chocolate eggs and gaily wrapped presents. We are still very conscious of how particularly important these dates are, amongst others. They will always be.

But what of Islam? Does it really qualify as a 'religion' to fill the vacuum of professed 'faithlessness' and 'infidelity'? How does Islam compare to Christianity regarding the Ten Commandments, for example? There are already seven of them that Islam seems to dismiss, or openly defy.

Criticism of Islam, especially its Medina decrees, is not the purpose of this simple, little homily. Our root religion has ingrained in us the understanding of what is right and wrong. A reasonable amount of intelligence and humility takes our perception and understanding further. The respect for life, the profound appreciation of what is, in fact, a precious loan. The extraordinary, intricate, geometrical but fathomless beauty of nature and the cosmos from which we still have so much to learn. The love, trust and faithfulness expressed by our animal friends, that could certainly put to shame certain 'inhuman beings'.

The beauty of the world, and the knowledge that paradise can be here, on Earth, for those who can see, feel, sense, and love. But hell can be here, on Earth, too, and eternally, for those who are devoid of sense, and devoured by hate.

Text and image (Shrine in the Alpes Maritimes) © Mirino, August, 2018


Certain US Democrats and Western European socialists seem to feel duty bound to treat Putin as a 'murderous tyrant'. To add murky, bloody colour to this, it's even suggested that he systematically bumps off his political opponents. It has been the politically correct, agenda requirement to treat Russia under Putin as the most dangerous enemy of the West. The agenda pushers and their main financier, who thankfully can only have a few more years of existence, need no encouragement in making sure that this status quo continues, and that the flames of concocted contention be constantly fanned. This is also why they are furious that Trump dared to give Vladimir Putin the opportunity to reveal that he's capable of smiling.

Regarding Putin's election as President (March, 2018). None of his competitors were eliminated by nerve agents cunningly disguised as expensive French perfumes. The other candidates were Vladimir Zhirinovsky (Liberal Democrat Party)  Pavel Grudinin (Communist Party), Sergei Baburin (Russian All-People's Union), Ksenia Sobchak (Civic Initiative, or Party of Changes), Maxim Suraykin (Communists of Russia), Boris Titov (Party of Growth), Grigory Yavlinsky (Yabloko). Ironically there was also an anti-corruption activist candidate, Alexei Navainy. His candidature was turned down due to a prior criminal conviction...

Interestingly the candidate Ksenia Sobchak (–ö—Ā–Ķ́–Ĺ–ł—Ź –ź–Ĺ–į—ā–ĺ́–Ľ—Ć–Ķ–≤–Ĺ–į –°–ĺ–Ī—á–į́–ļ) is a popular TV news reporter, journalist, socialite (which doesn't mean socialist) and actress. She is also the daughter of the first democratically elected mayor of St Petersburg, Anatoly Sobchak, (who died in February, 2000) and Lyudmila Narusova, her mother, who is an important member of the Federation Council of Russia.

If Russia really wanted a change, and felt that enough were known about Ksenia Sobchac for her to be able to successfully bring this about, would she not have stood a good chance of being elected?
Yet no, Putin was again elected as expected, if not as predetermined. Following his election however, there were no huge, public demonstrations expressing outrage because of hopeless feelings of being cheated, or robbed. There were no public accusations of massive voting fraud or insidious foreign meddling (especially from the USA). In fact it would even seem that the result caused general satisfaction, although such an abominable idea would be unprintable in any main stream western newspaper, and totally unreportable for Western European and American TV.

Russian friends confirm that the majority of Russians admire Putin, certainly with regard to the way he represents Russia internationally. This is understandable, because there are many Europeans who have similar admiration for him in this respect. For them he seems to be a stabilising factor of common sense, whilst the 'leaders' of Western Europe, Canada, Australia and certain US State authorities, still appear to be derailing themselves on their mad, culturally destructive, suicidal course.

This admirable international representation was brilliantly apparent by the way in which Russia hosted the World Cup. Acknowledging praise of this seemed to have been meanly limited by western media. Would it be because such brilliant, international hosting clashes terribly with the requirements of the 'agenda'? Sadly it would seem to be the case.

No doubt Karl Marx had good intentions. There is some truth in his theories and ideology, and even his pamphlet, The Communist Manifesto, (1848). Certainly this could be judged so during the industrial revolution of the nineteenth century, when the working class (proletariat) was cruelly exploited by capitalist tyrants (ruling classes then labelled as the bourgeoisie).
Soviet Communism however, became a monster that ended up by destroying itself, and although in the West the ideology should logically be considered as being dead and buried, unfortunately the regurgitation of ever failing socialism still periodically occurs.

It seems ironical that the economic philosophy, and moral common sense of Adam Smith regarding capitalism and relational politics, remain just as fresh and valid today as they were when he wrote, for one example, The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776.
Ironic too that in spite of this economical logic, endorsed by history, socialism has a habit of forcing itself upon us time and time again, like a ghastly parasite impossible to entirely eliminate for good.

The irony is even greater when the EU, supported by the establishment, and certain, seemingly bought-out Western European politicians and Prime ministers, appear to be feverishly engrossed in implementing a neo-Marxist agenda completely contrary to the interests of the populations they claim to represent.

But to return to Putin. He is an admirer of Benjamin Netanyahu, which also means he understandably admires Israel. Considering how much clout he has over two of Russia's allies, Iran and Syria, this is obviously an enormously important stabilising factor. Again ironically, it contrasts starkly with the attitude of ex US President Obama, who was virtually hostile towards Israel, and over generously appeasing towards Iran, to a dangerous extent, according to Israel, obviously the first democratic State concerned.
In view of all this, would it not appear that the east/west ideological tables have incredibly and  ironically turned?

Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin admits that he was a 'trouble maker' as a young boy, but one of his teachers believed in his potential, and noticed how he quickly mastered languages, for example. He had an excellent memory.
An interesting biography can be found here.

Putin was in fact offered the appointment of Prime Minister of the Russian Government by President Boris Yeltsin, in August 1999. Here is a short extract from his biography:
'Putin described his time in the prime minister’s office as an honour and an interesting experience. “I thought then, if I can get through a year that will already be a good start. If I can do something to help save Russia from falling apart then this would be something to be proud of.”

Indeed when one reads his biography and some of his speeches, it's very difficult to associate Vladimir Putin with the 'murderous, tyrannical dictator' that certain people whom one formerly considered as well informed and intelligent, label him as. But then I, in turn, would be labelled as extremely naive by daring to make such a politically incorrect allusion.


Text and treatment of b/w image (with thanks for this use) © Mirino, August, 2018

Useless Nonentity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Text and image © Mirino. June, 2018

Winter on Fire

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Si on a le gaz, on retrouve les vieux moyens pour faire le caf√© matinal. Les toasts se font gr√Ęce au feu de la chemin√©e, et petit √† petit, on arrive quand m√™me √† se d√©brouiller, √† condition stricte qu'une telle situation p√©nible, ne dure pas trop longtemps.
Regardant dehors pendant la nuit, c'est bizarre de ne plus voir aucune lumière nulle part. On pense aux Yazidis, obligés de vivre ainsi dans des tentes depuis des lustres, malgré le dévouement humanitaire exemplaire de l'ONU, n'est ce pas.

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

Text and images © Mirino. April, 2018


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunshine and snow

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Angela Dorothea Kasner was born in Hamburg in July, 1954.
She was the eldest of Horst and Herlind Kasner's three children. Their father was a Lutheran Pastor who, having received his Pastorate in Perleberg, moved the family there in East Germany, long before the reunification of 1990.
After qualifying in quantum chemistry in 1986, and working as a research scientist until 1989, Angela Merkel ('Merkel' from her first marriage) became increasingly taken by politics following the 1989 revolutions. Evidently she succeeded brilliantly in this field.
The religious and geopolitical background could explain reasonably enough her concern for the plight of 'refugees'. Nevertheless one is always free to query her motives.

Since the July, 2016 article of the Independent, levels of contention regarding immigration in Germany have gradually risen. In political.eu updated 11/9/2017, deportations of migrants, opposed by the 'greens', are, at least to some extent, reported to have begun.
The Bild, however, reported that the German authorities ‘lost track’ of 30,000 rejected, asylum seekers. In November, 2017 the newspaper stressed that it had received more than 20,000 responses demanding immediate deportation of all rejected, asylum seekers.

Quora puts the question to Germans. Those who think it’s a redeemingly noble cause, seem totally oblivious of certain realities.
No one refers to the plight of the neglected and persecuted Yazidis, Kurds, Christians and Copts. No one raises the question of why preference is given to Muslims, the majority of which are young, healthy males, many with smart phones, who look as though they are coming on an all expenses paid, European vacation. Too many of them can never qualify as refugees in any case.
The majority of the German population seem to be unaware of the fact that the Koranic decrees of Medina literally grant licence to ‘devout’ Muslims to intimidate 'infidels' and perpetrate evil, for the sake of the Islamic cause. The objective would be to gradually, generally impose Islam.

In December, 2016, Merkel admitted that ‘multiculturalism’ is a sham. Yet she wants to believe that communities can live happily, side by side. The large Turkish community in Germany (allegedly more than four million) might prove that this is indeed possible. But then why are the Turkish authorities, if not the majority of the nation's Muslim population, unwilling to accept the presence of other cultures in Turkey? Why do the Turks seem obsessed with waging war on them wherever they can find them?

What would appear to be a German illusion that being generous and kind to the crocodile will eventually change its nature for the better, is a fallacy that only naive fools would believe. To continue to allow naive fools to govern a nation, if not lead Europe, would be far too irresponsible and risky. But as Angela Merkel is an intelligent person, and certainly not a naive fool, surely there must be other reasons that will eventually, no doubt, come to light.


Text and image © Mirino. February, 2018


N'est ce pas une soci√©t√© triste et mesquine qui tol√®re l'intol√©rance mais autorise ses forces de l'ordre de pi√©ger les motoristes modestes qui osent d√©passer la limite de vitesse un brin le jour m√™me de No√ęl pour le partager avec leurs familles?

Et quelle manière digne des trois singes, de commencer une nouvelle année en évitant d'encourager le peuple Iranian qui risque sa vie pour la liberté!
Même en cet an nouveau va-t-on continuer la pantomime pathétique? Pour combien de temps encore?

Aujourd'hui les Chefs d'Etats dignes de leur fonction sont peu nombreux. Mais ce sont surtout eux les cibles de la haine des idéologues, les neo-Marxistes épaulés par les media myopes et vendus.

L'idéologie camouflée par le soi-disant 'humanitarisme'. Puis la nouvelle religion du réchauffement planétaire' pour faire peur afin d'exploiter financièrement et politiquement, ou de taxer les pollueurs sans toute fois les empêcher de continuer à polluer.
En somme le règne de l'hypocrisie continue, autant que ceux qui font mine de nous représenter la pratiquent.

Mais jamais on ne devrait √™tre pessimiste au d√©but d'une nouvelle ann√©e. Il y a quand m√™me la consolation qu'eventuellement la v√©rit√© l'emporte toujours. La v√©rit√© est la lumi√®re qui d√©finit ce que l'on voit. M√™me les formes camoufl√©es, dissimul√©es, sournoises et sinistres finissent par appara√ģtre clairement devant nous, parfaitement visibles enfin, et parfois de mani√®re flagrante et ridicule. D'ailleurs le soleil se l√®ve d√©j√†, et malgr√© le brouillard, la pluie et le mauvais temps, le roi est nu!
Alors levons nos verres, et trinquons à la Bonne Année!

Text and images © Mirino. January, 2018