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, (Mỹ 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