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
Posts
