Fidem

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
 

Putin

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 (Ксе́ния Анато́льевна Собча́к) 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

Monuments

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, Napoléon, 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 Vendôme column of Vendôme 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 Napoléon. Another Napoleonic site is le Château de la Malmaison located towards the west of Paris. It was the home of Empress Joséphine, the first wife of Napoléon.
There are, of course, many fine châteaux in la Vallée de la Loire.
Perhaps the most famous, prestigious, and symbolique French Château 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

Blackout

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 café matinal. Les toasts se font grâce au feu de la cheminée, et petit à petit, on arrive quand même à se débrouiller, à condition stricte qu'une telle situation pénible, 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