Religion



If religions are essentially tolerant, in as much as they all reverently regard the miracle of life, the fabulous diversity of nature and the universe with wonder, humility, love and respect, then can the so called religion of Islam be a religion? Should it not be defined more as an ideology, an autocratic doctrine, that refuses to tolerate other faiths, creeds, cultures and ways of life?

If this is so, then the theory of when an ideology is established, the ideologue ceases to think, would certainly seem to be the case regarding the Islamic ideology which, because of its allegedly sacred roots, cannot possibly be modified and rendered compatible with democratic laws and values.

If Islamic laws allow the followers of Islam the right to kill, rape, enslave and plunder those they consider as being "infidel," regardless of the fact that many who are so treated, believe in the same One Almighty God, then wouldn't Islam be encouraging criminality instead of virtue?

If Christians, Jews and all others who believe in the One Almighty Creator, are considered as being "infidel" by Islamists, how can this be so if they believe in the same God? A plausible answer to such a question, would be that those considered as being "infidel" by the Islamists, have less confidence in a mortal prophet who claimed to be God's unique and chosen spokesman, than in the Almighty Creator himself. Is it not highly reasonable to accord more importance to Almighty God, than to a self-proclaimed or even divinely chosen Prophet?

Or, according to Islamists, is God less important than their Prophet? If they think so, then they would be granting him the same level of importance than that assumed by Lucifer, whose vanity caused him and his acolytes to rebel against God before being defeated and cast from Heaven.


All constructive opinions would be welcome, especially from those who are able to convincingly counter such thoughts in a peaceful and tolerant way.

Text and images © Mirino. June, 2016 

Storm



Sunlight and a relatively clear sky greet us this morning after what seems to be an endless period of storms, low cloud and humidity. It's ironic because this is the first year we try our hand at planting tomatoes, (pomodori- cuore di bue, zucchini, melanzane, ecc.) but we are still hopeful.
Compared to the weather victims obliged to wade through water in the lower lands of Europe, we have no right to complain.

The ideological establishment would blame it all on global warming. It's a useful political and economical pretext. Those that like to believe that history started with them, are vain enough to convince themselves that man is also responsible for weather abnormalities. They therefore pretend that man has the responsibility and capacity to remedy it all. This is where it becomes useful, by instilling fear and guilt complexes in the hearts and minds of the gullible, and making costly commitments and inventing new taxes as pretexts to oppose the unopposable. Such irrationality reminds one of King Canute being submerged in seawater despite his royal command to subjugate the tide.

The most learned historians are aware of their lack of knowledge. Similarly the most learned scientists become aware of the limitations of science, when the incredible point of learning, as in cosmic exploration, eventually reaches the inexplicable, unfathomable and undefinable. The gradual realisation that there has to be something else.

Without respect for the past, which naturally must include the history of the Earth prior to mankind, and without humility regarding the miracle of life and the universe, can one really pretend anything? Doesn't one become a self-incarcerated victim of one's own dogma? The ideologue who having established the ideology, ceases to think?

Today our world is suffering, not from climate change, "global warming", or natural catastrophes. It is suffering from the malady of political correctness, the convenient posture of indifference conveyed by the three monkeys.
An "extreme" example of political correctness would be to consider (but only when obliged to) the beheadings of Christians by jihadists, or the forcing of nine year old girls into marriage, or pedophilia, etc., as being part of quaint Islamic culture, customs and traditions. Another more factual example seems to be the ambiguous stance of UNO regarding certain terrorist organisations, as though there were politically correct exceptions to the rule, and as if this illustrious institution considered it (but only when obliged to) perfectly normal for a democratic State to tolerate a terrorist organisation as a neighbour, even when this neighbour's objective (established in its charter) is to eliminate that State.

Our world is also afflicted by the turmoil, the tragic exodus and the horrendous consequences of conflicts between political, social and so-called religious ideologies. What they all seem to have in common is that they are false, power pursuing pretexts.
However, there should be some comfort in the thought that all ideologies, (especially those that rabidly foster hate, division, and pretend to be religious) are transient. They are similar to regenerated flu germs. As such they are ephemeral. It can't be otherwise because they are auto-destructive. They feverishly consume themselves.


Text and images © Mirino. June, 2016

Intolerance



The essence of faith, or a religion, is truth, which has to englobe love and tolerance. It is the white light consisting of all the colours of the rainbow. This is also why a primary colour, which might be thought appropriate for a political party, for example, can never reflect the truth. Secondary colours or colour derivations such as pink, even less so..

If nature herself did not advocate love, respect, diversity and tolerance, all animal forms would be constantly at war with each other in order that their species be the unique and globally dominant survivor. Earthly paradise would thus become earthly hell. Universal nature is obviously an inexhaustible source of instruction. Similarly the history of humanity is a rich source of study and reference.
But as recorded facts of history often render ideologies incoherent, the ideologue either tries to negate history, or is very selective about historical facts.
Most philosophers would agree that once an ideology is firmly established, it is no longer necessary for the ideologue to even think. For the ideologue, intellectual evolution is pointless, if not impossible.

To believe in an almighty creator of the universe is one thing, but to persuade oneself that one has the right to wield an unforgiving, hateful sword in His name, is diabolical. It has nothing to do with religion. To pretend that one has God's blessing to perpetrate evil, or that one will be rewarded with immortal paradise for contributing to create mortal hell, is the worst possible of all profanities.

The educated, those who are fully aware of the immutable, obsolete laws and values of such a so called religion, or rather a sectarian cult that they adhere to, have no excuse. They cannot sincerely pretend to respect the essential principles of laic democracy without being dangerously deceitful. Either one defends the relative freedom, reciprocal respect and tolerance advocated by democracy, or the constraints dictated by an intolerant cult. The impossibility of sincerely defending one, whilst unremittingly adhering to the other, would underline Machiavellian treachery in blood red.

By always having to bow in principle to the majority, democracy seems destined to become its own enemy. But the world is gradually waking up to the dangerous consequences of tolerating the intolerant. Intolerance naturally negates tolerance, therefore it negates everything. In the unlikely case of intolerance ever becoming the global victor, it would ultimately end up by negating itself.
The history of humanity has often proved this to be so. Most veritable religions would prophesy this ultimate auto-destruction of intolerance, but nature constantly underlines this universal truth herself. Intolerance is colourless death.


Text and images © Mirino, May, 2016

Pensées printanières



Chaque année on est pris de court à nouveau, on ressent la même chose, la confiance et le bonheur mélangés avec une nostalgie d'accueillir le printemps. On se répète donc, on radote un peu sans doute. Mais aussi du chant clair et doux des oiseaux matinaux, et de ces fragrances, émanent tant de souvenirs, et peut-être que c'est pareil pour la plupart de nous en Europe qui ont la chance de pouvoir se rappeler avec tendresse des printemps de notre jeunesse.


L'odeur de l'herbe fraîchement coupé, de la fumée des feux consumant des nouvelles pousses taillées, des aromatiques que l'on ajoute de nouveau à la salade. Et comme si par magie, car il parait être trop soudain que les arbres fruitiers nous régalent encore avec leur spectacle éblouissant de floraison, et ici les frênes de montagnes en ajoutent portant leurs élégants manteaux blancs.


La saponaria et l'aubrieta gracient les rives rocheuses de nouveau. C'est surtout cette dernière dont la couleur à une luminosité quasi électrique aux crépuscules qui me fait songer au jardin de ma jeunesse.


On pense encore au paradis, à la beauté forcément éphémère, et au cycle de la vie. C'est aussi le paradis des souvenirs que l'on conserve précieusement dans un coin velouté et douillet de nos esprits.


Par rapport à cette force splendide et universelle, et aux tels souvenirs si tendres, toutes les prétentions vaniteuses, et surtout celles malveillantes, sont carrément l'inverse, mais on radote encore..


Text and images © Mirino, April, 2016

March mulling



Early in the morning, walking the dog in the mountains one sees young roe deer below in the misty valley gliding gracefully back to the forests after their dawn grazing. It's still quite cold up here at 1200 metres, but it's beautiful.
The mind wanders as it often does when contemplating this scenery. Edenic gardens, the almond and wild cherry trees already in blossom, the plots of terraced land prepared with love and care for the spring planting, are they not modest epitomes of Paradise?

Then we think of the lost souls who allow themselves to be conditioned into thinking that they will be rewarded with paradise for contributing in trying to destroy it.

How can one begin to understand such hopeless mental regression? And this since two world wars from which humanity should have learnt enough to appreciate positive values more than ever, certainly that of life itself.

Is civilisation subject to cycles of barbaric tyranny, when the depressed and deluded amongst younger generations seem to close their minds to all knowledge of value? Those who have no hope for the future, no experience of the past, and are easily manipulated into believing that only by trying to destroy the freedom of others, democratic civilisation that took centuries to establish, will they find a reason of being, and even be rewarded for their evil actions with immortal pleasure?

One would have to be just as brainless as desperately hopeless, to be so persuaded. The paradox is so evident that it is horribly grotesque. Any individual who promises immortal pleasure can only be a henchman of the devil, certainly if immortal pleasure is the promised reward for perpetrating evil.
Pleasure cannot be immortal. A Garden of Eden is cultivated with love and care. Fruit trees are planted, they grow leaves, blossom and then bear fruit. Eventually they die. Life and death is essential to truth and everything that is beautiful. Immortality is a spiritual notion, but naturally it cannot exist, not even as a sterile desert, or dust of forgotten memories. Nothing is eternal, apart from love, which also determines art, and is conserved by art in all its forms for as long as it is allowed to exist. 

Therefore if Paradise depends on the joys of life itself, we live our paradise. It is a sacred loan. It is what we make it whilst we benefit from the ephemeral gift of life.
This gift that is so depreciated and disdained by the poor lost souls who have rejected every vestige of love and hope from their hearts only to substitute it with hate and intolerance. There is no almighty creator for those who preach hate and intolerance, and advocate indiscriminate murder and destruction. Only death, ruins, dust and forgotten memories.

If, from lack of experience or memory, we allow history to constantly repeat itself, or we never learn from it, or we delude ourselves into thinking that humanity got it wrong the first time and we need to rub everything out in order to start all over again to finally get it right, we negate history and all of man's greatest achievements. We negate ourselves. We dismiss the essential roots of humanity and religion. We destroy that beautiful old tree of civilisation, the many branches of which try to reach the heavens their own separate ways. This negation is atrociously emphasised by the suicide and blind mass murders that these rabid, lost souls commit. And ironically those who form and foster such monsters, are eventually bound to fall victim to them as well.

Despondent thoughts as we stroll in the mountains. The dog glances up at me with sad eyes as though he's commiserating. I pull my coat lapels up to ward off the chill breeze, then gaze up at 
the sky. The skies are always magnificent here. They make one smile, feel more confident, and small. 


Text and images © Mirino. March, 2016

Kaleidoscope



Cloud formations are often fascinating. A grey, rainy day might seem like any other, but even so, each day is naturally unique. A few seconds are all that the elements require to modify their celestial compositions in ways that no one has ever seen before, and will ever see again.
This constant transformation, fleeting moments of metamorphosing clouds of vapour ⚀ defined by sunlight and shadow, and gloriously set off in colour by the braise of dawn and the embers of dusk, isn't it a modest, momentary reflection of the mechanism of the universe, and of life itself?

From such high altitudes, we far below, wending our ways in our little coloured vehicles, patiently waiting in traffic jams, appear to be like so many busy, frustrated ants full of their own importance. Yet we also seem to have reached such lofty heights of vanity that we believe we have the divine power of causing radical climatic change.

If one considers the age of the planet Earth (an estimated 4,543 billion years) and the fact that man started recording annual climatic temperatures as from the year 1880, the duration of 136 years in relation to the venerable age of our planet, is hardly enough time to enable us to affirm anything, certainly including our responsibilty for causing climatic change. Under such circumstances it would be absurd to jump to such conclusions. One might just as well assert that man was responsible for the Ice age.

There are also unofficial recordings of climatic abnormalities written by journalists and writers throughout man's relatively short history. Samuel Pepys records examples of abnormally hot Londonian summers in his diaries of the 17th century, for example. Uncommonly cold winters are vividly recorded by Shakespeare, as another example.

The universe has its own elliptical and maybe even spiralic cycles which not only determine our seasons, but also seasonal changes, and variations of climatic cycles.
It might not be overly pretentious to believe that human beings are more important than ants, but man reveals his hypocrisy when he affirms that his activities are causing what appears to be increasing climatic abnormalities, and must therefore assume the responsibility for them, but does nothing really decisive or consequent to resolve what he is asserting.

Let us assume, for argument's sake, that fossil fuel is partly responsible for 'global warming'. The fact is that we already have the technology to avoid having to rely on fossil fuel, but the world's economy and its geopolitical balance continue to depend on the production and commerce of fossil energy. So our governments make futile compromises, similarly to inordinately taxing cigarettes rather than banning their production. They try to make us feel guilty for driving cars that run on petrol that they can also heavily tax, and they pretend to encourage us to buy 'clean vehicles' without making them economically accessible or globally practical.

The vanity of believing, and then persuading the masses, that we are responsible for climatic change (and why not by extension, for creating new planets, black holes, and all cosmological phenomena?) is an extremely lucrative pretext. Dependency has always been a lucrative source. Our so called ecologists who know nothing about nature, the Marxists camouflaged in Lincoln green, would sooner rob the poor to finance their hare-brained schemes. Trying to reintroduce Eurasian wolves and bears in Central Europe to make things even more difficult for sheep farmers is an example of their ecological ignorance. They would rather make a simple individual who runs his little car on diesel fuel feel guilty and thus tax him as much as possible, than try to help him buy an allegedly non polluting electrically powered vehicle, and generalise the access of electronic recharge points in a far more practical way. They would sooner increase penalising taxes on fossil fuels than invest in so called 'clean energy'. They have no qualms about ruining the scenery of the countrysides with costly and relatively inefficient wind turbine generators, but they permanently maintain serious reservations about investing money in modernising nuclear plants and in resolving the security problems engendered by the plants' more economical, efficient and far more important power output capacity.

The claim that man has endangered his planet and must assume the responsibility of resolving the problem for future generations, is a precious political and economical pretext. A politically correct cause that is being milked unscrupulously and hypocritically. For as long as the world's economy is based on, and determined by fossil fuel, the farce performed by impostors and charlatans will continue.

Inevitably however, man is occasionally subjected to dramatic moments of truth, when the laws of nature, far more imposing, impressive, decisive and inexorable than any man-made laws, remind us who is really in charge and who has the final word.


(Scientific studies maintain that the Earth's temperature has constantly changed throughout the planet's history.
During the Phanerozoic it was warmer than it is in our day and age, but life has always managed to adapt to either excessive heat or cold. One cannot therefore maintain categorically that there is a correct terrestrial climate temperature.
Other evidence proves that carbon dioxide has always existed in the Earth's atmosphere, and that CO2 levels have risen and fallen naturally, obviously without the influence of mankind.
In fact for the greater part of the Phanerozoic, the levels of CO2 were much higher than they are today, and there were then no polar ice caps.
During the vast history of our planet there have been several ice ages through which important life forms naturally survived).


Cumulous, Stratus, Stratocumulus, Cumulonimbus, Cirrocumulus, Nimbostratus and Cirrus. 
For more such information, please go here.


Text and top image © Mirino. Lower image with thanks to National Geographic. Additional information with thanks to The Resilient Earth. February, 2016.