Saturday, April 8, 2017

How we know the #SyriaHoax is #FakeNews

On Tuesday, April 4, it is said that the Syrian Air Force launched an airstrike using sarin gas against the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun (Source). Despite this alleged attack taking place at dawn, survivors have claimed to have witnessed military aircraft dropping "chemical bombs." Turkish doctors have also claimed that victims clearly suffered from the symptoms of sarin gas (Source). It has also been said that rescue workers have collected samples to be sent to "western intelligence officials" to confirm it was a sarin attack (Source).

As it happens, it is the specific claim as to the sarin gas used in the alleged attack that raises the most questions. This is due to the nature of the gas and the symptoms it causes. For example, according to the Centers for Disease Control, those "exposed to a low or moderate dose of sarin by breathing contaminated air, eating contaminated food, drinking contaminated water, or touching contaminated surfaces" may experience runny nose, watery eyes, pinpoint pupils, eye pain, blurred vision, drooling and excessive sweating, coughing, chest tightness, rapid breathing, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, increased urination, confusion, drowsiness, weakness, headache, slow or fast heart rate, and low or high blood pressure (Source). Larger doses may result in loss of consciousness, convulsions, paralysis, and respiratory failure. Importantly, one's clothing can absorb sarin gas and then continue releasing it, and even touching contaminated clothing can be harmful so that safety measures must be taken with clothing being sealed in a plastic bag within another plastic bag.

Bearing these facts in mind,  look at the picture above of first responders from the Syria Civil Defence ("White Helmets") handling victims of the alleged attack. Notice that the men are wearing gas masks yet have not covered their hands. Let's assume that the gas had already dispersed enough so that they would not be exposed through their skin and clothing. They are still touching victims, however, and, as we have learned from the CDC, the "White Helmets" could still be exposed through such contact. This necessarily raises serious questions as there have not been reports of the "first responders" becoming ill or dying, which would surely have been global news. After all, the "Syria Civil Defence" is a rebel organization that only operates within rebel-held territories, and the global media readily treats them as heroes, promoting them as a charity. If these heroes were readily giving their lives in the hopes of saving others, would it not be front-page news?

Similarly, look at the man above supposedly collecting samples from a "bomb crater." He is wearing simple latex gloves and a cloth mask, but, again, his arms and feet are exposed. At such temperatures, sarin is in its liquid form with an evaporation rate similar to water, which means that any soil containing it would still be quite dangerous. Now, compare him with a UN weapons inspector who was also collecting samples to test for sarin in 2013 as seen below. One can immediately see that he is wearing a full gas mask, HAZMAT gloves extending over the forearm, and chemical boots with no exposed skin whatsoever. If all of that equipment was warranted for safely taking soil samples in 2013, why is it that none of it is necessary in 2017?

Now, look again at the picture of the Syrian man, or, more specifically, the "bomb crater." As noted by CNN, witnesses claim to have seen "chemical bombs" falling on Khan Sheikhoun at dawn, which precludes any notion of rockets or missiles having been used. Compare that "crater" with those seen below known to have been caused by an aerial bomb and a mortar, respectively.

We can see that the "bomb crater" is smaller than both the bomb and mortar craters seen above, which we must again question. Are we to believe that the Syrian Air Force dropped bombs of such low yield that they were weaker than even a mortar that is loaded by hand? Since the witnesses claim to have seen "chemical bombs" dropping on the town, should we just assume that the Syrian Air Force peppered the city with low-yield bombs? No, we can see from the picture below that the small crater is isolated and alone without much damage visible around it. If there were many bombs being dropped, we should expect to see many such "craters" in a line following the path of the jet. What we instead see is a shallow hole without any siblings.

What are we to make of this? If there was one or two trivial inconsistencies, we could perhaps overlook them. But is it trivial that the rebel-controlled "White Helmets" produced their own images and videos showing them seemingly exposing themselves to sarin without consequences? How were they able to rush into the area without being exposed themselves, or being exposed later through the clothing of victims that they handled without any precautions taken? How were rebels able to collect soil samples without safety equipment yet again without consequences? Why are the pictures of "bomb craters" so unimpressive relative to verifiable examples seen elsewhere? How were rebel witnesses able to clearly see "chemical bombs" dropping on the city at dawn? The more one honestly looks at this situation the more questions are raised, and we have to acknowledge that virtually every piece of "evidence" has come from the jihadis opposing the Syrian government—coincidentally, the ones who benefit the most from US involvement after the "attack."

The Assad regime was already winning the war against the jihadis with Russia's help. In the days prior to the attack, the Trump administration had made it clear that it had no intention of becoming involved to unseat Assad. Why then would the Syrian government do something so blatant so as to provoke US involvement? If they were going to bomb the rebel-held city, why not just bomb it? Why specifically use chemical weapons knowing that it would provoke a reaction? Why do so knowing that the "White Helmets" regularly make propaganda videos in the area and would do so again? Nothing about the official narrative makes any sense on the part of the Syrian or Russian governments. It is, however, the perfect scenario for the jihadis and American warhawks, both of whom want the US to become involved in the war. As the saying goes, if it seems too good to be true, it probably is. Well, this was all too perfect, and we now face World War III.

Saturday, April 1, 2017

The myth of the "peaceful pagan"

Traditionalist Christians naturally see their faith as having been a unifying force in Europe, but heathens are rather fond of claiming the opposite: namely, Christianity was a subversive force that destroyed indigenous European cultures by encouraging incessant warfare on paganism. The implication here is that Europe would have been more peaceful and united under paganism than Christianity. Otherwise, there would be no reason to criticize Christianity as "subversive" or "violent." After all, if paganism would prove to be just as divisive and prone to warfare, why complain about the same Europeans doing what they would have done anyway in the complete and total absence of Christianity and its influences?

Consider the example of Charlemagne and his efforts to subdue Saxony. The so-called Saxon Wars started in 772 and did not end until 804, but the event upon which modern heathens almost entirely focus occurred in October 782 in Verdun, Germany. After a pagan Saxon, Widukind, had provoked yet another in a series of rebellions against Frankish rule (before fleeing to Denmark), Charlemagne marched into Saxony with a demand that the rebellious faction be brought forward. The majority of the Saxons submitted to the king as they had before, and they offered up 4,500 men who were said to be the guilty parties. Those men were subsequently executed, and the Saxons would go on to be Christianized. Heathens see this as a grand crime. Ignored in their estimation are the times pagans burned churches, broke their oaths of loyalty, and so on.

Other events to which modern heathens like to point are the Inquisition and the Northern Crusades, both of which indeed targeted pagans. Again, the thinking is that Christians were willing to kill or convert infidels, and that meant that their very presence was divisive and resulted in unnecessary European deaths. The fact that pagan populations eventually all converted to Christianity is used as evidence of the faith's wickedness and divisiveness rather than its ability to unite disparate tribes that otherwise had little in common.

As history shows us, however, there was no such thing as a "peaceful pagan" that was inclined to happily coexist with his neighbor. For example, consider the Roman invasion of Gaul, which saw pagans on both sides of wars that lasted several years. After the Romans had succeeded in their cause, they set about suppressing the Gauls' Druid priests, constructing their own temples over Celtic sites, and turning "holy springs" into thermal spas (Source). The Romans had subdued their neighbors through conquest, and they had no qualms about destroying the native paganism in favor of their own. Similarly, worship of Roman gods was found in Germania (Source). It has been said that the Romans were "tolerant" of other religions, but that really was only true insofar as native beliefs did not conflict with the worship of the Roman gods (Source). In other words, worship of native gods might be allowed, but that was largely only the case if such practices did not preclude the conquered from observing the practices of the Roman cult.

The Romans were not unique in this either. Indeed, before the rise of the Latins, the Greeks took their religion and culture wherever they went so that "Hellenic" societies existed from Europe to Asia to North Africa. Later, following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, the Germanic Saxons, Angles, and Jutes invaded Celtic Britain, and they brought with them their own pagan beliefs, which they would eventually abandon for Christianity. Subsequently, other Germanic peoples would invade and bring pagan beliefs back to then-Christian Britain. In each of these cases, preexisting beliefs may have been tolerated to a certain extent, but the conquering peoples' religious beliefs virtually always came to replace those of the conquered.

Despite this dynamic, Europe was united, either politically or religiously, precisely zero times in the days of paganism. There simply never was an overarching concern that could unite peoples from the British Isles to Eastern Europe. For example, Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) built an empire that stretched from Greece to South Asia and into Northeast Africa, which was certainly impressive, but his empire did not span into the body of Europe. The Romans were able to subdue all of Southern Europe and most of Western Europe in addition to much of West Asia and North Africa, but they failed to subdue Northern and Eastern Europe. Extreme tribalism served to ensure that Europeans remained divided, but Catholicism provided something that could unite peoples of different tribes and nations without them giving up the rest of their identity. A French Catholic naturally had something in common with a Polish Catholic without erasing differences.

Consider the heathens' collective focus on the Norse vikings. What exactly are the vikings famous for having done? Raiding, killing, and raping their way through other European populations. They and their culture are held up by heathens as something to be respected and even imitated today. But those same heathens then accuse Catholics of being vile and wicked for killing fellow Europeans. Why exactly is it fine for pagans to kill, rape, or sacrifice other Europeans yet Christians killing in a time of war, even in self-defense, is held up as proof that Christianity is a violent source of subversion and division aimed at destroying Europe? The answer should be obvious—hypocrisy. Modern heathens like to view their preferred historical figures through rose-colored glasses while they instead see devilry in everything the Church has ever done. Their preferred Europeans having raped and killed other Europeans is seen as fine because they were pagans.

This same hypocrisy is demonstrated by heathens who attack any and all Christians, even medievalists, based on the actions and beliefs of the most liberal Christians. This is hypocritical because they deny responsibility for the majority of heathens who are also exceedingly liberal. Indeed, there are heathen groups who promote multiculturalism, embrace homosexuality, &c. (as seen below), and they are by no means rare. The largest (and official) heathen organization in Iceland has openly taken stances against racism and in favor of gay marriages. Obviously, such liberals are not representative of far-right heathens, which should be acknowledged, but many heathens fail to extend the same courtesy to Christian traditionalists who are most certainly not liberal. Some go so far as to declare that traditionalists are just "bad Christians" because "true Christianity" is Marxism rather than what appears in the Bible or Church tradition, or that is at least the convenient viewpoint of heathens seeking to cast Christianity in the worst possible light at all times.

The truth is that there was no such thing as a "peaceful pagan" in the distant past, and heathenry today is not some sort of magical bastion of traditional values. Whether or not modern heathens truly believe their talking points is open to debate, but the fact remains that pagans, both past and present, are just as guilty of the supposed crimes of which they accuse Christians. If paganism is not held up as being "anti-white" because pagans of the past raped and killed other Europeans, then there is no reason to say that Christianity is "anti-white" because European Christians of the past waged war and conquered lands. If far-right heathens are not responsible for those of the far-left, then the same must be said of Christian traditionalists and their modernist counterparts. This is especially true because, while pagans lack a religious text that condemns feminism, homosexuality, cross-dressing, &c., traditionalist Christians can point directly to both the Bible and tradition to support their beliefs, and quote mining is not needed as is often the case with "liberal Christians."


If you support this ministry, please consider donating using the Patreon and PayPal buttons at the top.