I often think about the admirable citation borrowed by the Italian writer, Susanna Tamaro, from a certain Frère Roger's words, that "truth is not a colour, it is light". Naturally white light is the result of all the component colours of the rainbow. This principle of truth can be applied to everything.
It applies to day and night, life and death. It applies to historic facts obviously without exception, the history of civilisation, of our world and of the whole universe. It applies to the all the accomplishments and failures of mankind, and to all the natural creations of God, or whatever name one wishes to use to designate the Almighty Power.
But it doesn't only englobe positive aspects, it must englobe negative aspects as well, for the same principle applies. Nothing positive can exist without its negative counterpart. There can be no life without death.
One could advance that black is the result of all component opaque colours. They lack transparency. Black therefore doesn't reflect light. (This lack of capacity to reflect, also seems appropriate for the regressive, evil, imbeciles who wave black flags).
Paradise and inferno are only spiritual concepts of the ultimate, imagined destinations of every individual, even though man has the capacity and choice of contributing to create earthly hell or earthly paradise.

Some of these thoughts are no doubt repeated elsewhere in Viewfinder, including the very first effort in 2008, but perhaps today they are more pertinent than ever. They introduce a question regarding the consequences of the inane efforts of over-rich sectarians who like to believe they are gods themselves. Consequences that are having a very negative effect on our lives at this particular time.

The question again regards verity. If Islamic ideology pretends to represent the truth, it would never need to be imposed on anyone in anyway. We always, ultimately accept the truth without it being forced upon us. Even those who try to live a lie rarely do so without finally acknowledging the truth and coming to terms with it. One cannot hide, or indefinitely deform the truth. It would be like denying the reality of life and death. As soon as one tries to impose what one persuades oneself to be the incontestable truth, either by way of reasoning, or by physical force, whatever one is trying to impose, automatically and irrevocably becomes false.

A true religion is a very personal conviction. Each person, often unconsciously, has his or her own particular belief. This faith is an individual right. Ironically many people who believe they are atheists, are in fact fundamentally religious. Being religious doesn't mean one has to attend Church services each Sunday. It certainly doesn't mean one should make a massive bottoms-up public show of numbers of one's so-called faith with false humility. It doesn't demand that men should get together to flagellate themselves, or to cruelly slaughter animals. And threatening violence, killing, beheading, torturing, raping, etc., pretexting to defend one's feigned faith in atrocious ways is pure evil. It negates even the validity of an ideology, and can never possibly be associated with any religion.

Treating women as slaves, jealously concealing their beauty instead of proudly and respectfully acknowledging natural femininity; according them less than the minimum of consideration, even stoning them for the misfortune of having been rape victims of depraved beings that have no right to consider themselves human, is also pure evil. Destroying the innocence and magic of childhood, and by extention the future, by conditioning children to hate and to kill, is equally demonic.

To be truly religious there is only one basic requirement. This covers everything by extension. The requirement is simply to believe that the universe, its incredible mechanism, and life itself in all its forms, did not come about by pure chance or accident. Yet we, relatively insignificant beings in relation to this immense and magnificent cosmos, and the marvel of life itself, are naturally an integral part of it all. This humility, realisation and wonder should induce us to regard everything with joy and profound respect, because everything is part of The Creation. The men amongst us particularly acclaim, admire and adore women because although our modest participation is naturally essential, their life giving force is extraordinary, miraculous, and awe-inspiring.

The miracle of life in all its forms, 'all creatures great and small',  from which we still have so much to learn, yet we still take too much for granted. This life, this verity, all that we see around us, is our earthly paradise. Although we could more easily destroy than conserve this very precious loan, naturally we have the responsibility to bequeath it intact, if not more embellished than ever, to our children for them to eventually assume the same responsibility.

Spiritual paradise is a beautiful image conserved within us. Only a disorientated fool would believe that somewhere celestial, there is an Edenic garden of apple trees, vineyards and virgins, cascades of pristine water, birds of paradise, etc. How can anything be living if paradise is immortal, therefore sterile? Who plants the fruit trees and prunes the vines? What eggs hatched the birds of paradise, or what birds laid the eggs? How could ghosts of servile women still garbed in their burkas be enjoyed by degenerates, without the vital life creating force and instinct? How can one possibly be led to believe such rubbish without being totally regressive and brainless?

Those who have such meagre respect for life, have no respect for truth, which essentially is God. They who contribute to make mortal hell on earth, can never possibly be rewarded with even a mere fabulation of immortal paradise.
If a real destination exists between the two spiritual concepts, then it would only be hell. If you willingly contribute to create mortal hell on earth, it is bound to be your final vision, your ultimate destination and personal legacy.

Text and image © Mirino. September, 2016


When H. Clinton campaigned for the Democratic nomination for President of the USA in 2008, one got the impression that she had more clout and conviction than Obama, which wouldn't be too difficult in any case. When I first heard Trump make a public speech, I must admit I wasn't too impressed.

Most people appreciate that first impressions are often false. It also takes time to get to know a person, according to factual information made available. When the choice is limited to two main presidential candidates, obviously one must refer to whatever reliable information one finds to be able to decide who best to vote for.
It's amusing to note that what Obama had to say to discredit Hillary Clinton in 2008 is the exact opposite to what he now says in her support.

Many people might be swayed by considerations that are essentially beside the point. One would not be choosing a first female President in the history of the USA, as opposed to yet another male President, for example, one would be choosing the best possible President under the actual, momentous, social, economical, national and international circumstances.

More than ever, the American Presidential elections are not just a national affair. They concern the whole world (which is also why Viewfinder is taking this liberty) and at this particular epoch the choice is absolutely crucial.
Maybe for the first time in American history the choice is not simply between Democrats and Republicans. It's not a question of swinging from one traditional political tendency to the other, or of choosing not to do so. This time there are much larger political and ideological issues at stake. There may be certain Republicans, for example, who could be quite sold on the ideology of eventually opting for a neo-Marxist global government system, to the detriment of 'dated democracy'. Even if this meant the gradual cultural destruction of nations as we know them. To the elite ideological theoreticians, such sacrifices would be justified by the 'subsequent results'...

These are the stakes that determine the choice, and the choice is simple. On one side there is a candidate who is financially committed to implement "Sorosian dystopia" (chaos). Therefore in keeping, H. Clinton will continue to allow mass, quasi uncontrolled immigration of mostly Muslim males into the USA.
On the other side there is a Republican candidate who is already aware of what is taking place, but is totally free institutionally, politically and financially to apply a policy of common sense that counters such chaos creating recipes. He has not been bought out by any sectarian multi-billionaire, or by any Arabian States.

More serious is the fact that as the Soros and Rothschild, etc., project seems to be treated as a priority, it could even lead to war with Russia, who understandably rejects the inane NWO idea.
Any sensible person would reason that to solve the problems caused by ISIS, including the persecution of Christians, Copts and Kurds in the Middle East, and the essential problem of Syria, cooperation with Russia is primordial, absolutely essential. Obviously there is no other way.
The fact that Obama has, at least up until now, with only two months left of his mandate, rejected any real cooperation with Russia, underlines the importance he seems to accord to an absurd ideology above the real and immediate interests of the world in terms of humanity, and this without even considering the economic and social interests of the USA.
H. Clinton is on the same political wave length as Obama, but the danger she represents could be even greater, because she is power hungry, vain, temperamental, and sometimes even foolhardy. She may also have a health problem that could complicate things even further.

Additionally there is proof of her being a security risk. By all accounts corroborated by the FBI, yet she seems to benefit already from legal immunity, however much that costs those who have generously invested in her. It may be a very bad investment however, and not only because of her health problem. But for the Sorosian project that must have cost so many millions to initiate, she is irreplaceable. Literally no one else would ever do what she is prepared to do to satisfy her patrons that would neither be in the interests of the USA, nor the world.

The choice is simple. If one chooses H. Clinton, mass, uncontrolled immigration will continue in the USA. This will also encourage the continuation of the same irresponsible open border senselessness in Europe and elsewhere (Canada and Australia) in keeping with the inane, destructive project. Worse, and incredibly, it could even lead to conflict with Russia.

If one chooses D. Trump, uncontrolled immigration will cease. There will be greater border control. For the Middle East problems that are being ignobly exploited by the multi-billionaire megalomaniacs, Trump will very likely cooperate with Putin to get things sorted out at last, not only by getting rid of ISIS, but by finding a common solution to end the noxious civil and ethnic wars in Syria.
Common sense must prevail, internally (reuniting all Americans and starting to get the economy back on track) as well as externally (effective cooperation with world leaders to solve the real international problems). Then who knows? Perhaps even the media will start doing their job with the integrity that was once the hall mark of real journalism.
Text © Mirino. (With many thanks for the use of the 11/9/  memorial anniversary image). September, 2016