Islamists

The greatest fantasy in the Western rogue states' latest attack on Syria

On the 7th of April, I wrote about how Russia, having grown tired of the numerous false flag events that have been deployed in the Syrian war, had tired and decided to pre-empt false flags by warning beforehand of what they believed to be plans to conduct some. I wrote:

Having tired of false flag attacks by the Americans, the Russians decided to pre-emptively warn that the U.S. was planning one with the help of Islamists in Syria. This seems to have worked as we have not had any major false flag propaganda recently, as one would have expected what with the Islamists seemingly being cornered. If everybody knows that you are going to launch a false flag, then all credibility is lost when the false flag attack is carried out. The Russians and the Syrians have played this one very well.

With impeccable timing, the very next day, on the 8th of April, reports came out of an event bearing all the hallmarks of a false flag event; not even that, a hoax. The event supposedly took place on the very same day I released that article. Videos were circulated purporting to show how the Syrian government had attacked its people. Donald Trump went on his customary twitter rant, Hillbilly Haley did her thing at the U.N, and the lap-dogs in Europe of Theresa May and Le Creep Macron chimed in.

As few will have missed, the gang of rogue agents bannered under NATO launched airstrikes against Syria on Saturday the 14th. Only 3 countries did it in the end, but let not that fool you into thinking that the rest of the members are peace-lovers and warmonger-haters. The only other country which could reasonably had joined in was Turkey, and it has its own agenda which would not have been served by going along with this illegal action - although let us recall that Turkey has illegal actions of its own inside Syria.

There will be plenty more to write about this as more details become known, but I'll just mention one thing before getting to my main point: Unlike the events in Syria last year, which may indeed have been a genuine false flag (if the event ever took place, that is) this one appears to be a genuine hoax. In other words, the details which have come to light seem convincing on the matter that there was never any attack involving chemical attacks to begin with.

The term "false flag" is used quite a lot nowadays but it's worth making proper distinctions, given that it's often used wrongly.

A "false flag" proper is an event which takes place, carried out by someone other than the one who gets blamed, with the specific goal of using the blame apportioned to achieve other ends.

A "hoax" is a non-event which is prevented as an event.

Nothing takes place, but it is claimed that something took place, and blame is pinned as though an event had taken place. Before last week I would have argued that hoaxes were much more difficult to carry out effectively than false flags, but given the compliance of the media and the ignorance of the general population, I think the powers-that-be have decided that they do not need to go to the trouble of carrying out false flag events when hoaxes, cheaper and safer as they are, will do the job just as well.

It would seem as though what we had on the 8th of April was a complete hoax, which Donald Trump, the American establishment, the British establishment, the Western European establishment, the media, all of these sorry excuses for adults, fell for like a bitch in heat.

All we know for sure is that the White Helmets were involved. How many others of the aforementioned agents were involved is impossible to know at this point in time. The Russian government has pointed the finger at British intelligence in any case, although they have not yet presented any proof for this.

Back to the main point of this article, which has to deal with fantasies, and more specifically the fantasies which have enabled this tragic situation.

There are many flying around at the moment, far too many to list. One could be the idea that dropping bombs is humanitarian. Another is that the "rebels" are fighting to save Syria from a brutal dictator. Yet another is that the U.S. is an independent actor in all of this, only intervening to make sure that the sides are fighting fairly. Another is that the Western media can be relied upon to report on anything truthfully.

By far the biggest fantasy in all this let's-bomb-Syria-for-the-Syrians campaign is the absolutely ridiculous notion that the United States, that Donald Trump, that Theresa May, that Le Creep Macron, that Angela Merkel , that the media, that any of these narcissists care one bit about the well-being of the Syrian people.

They don't even care about the people in their own countries.

These people have been arming the band of militant head-Chopping Islamists who have terrorised all of Syria over the past 7 years. These people have mercilessly bombed the Syrian Arab Army in order to help the cause of the Islamists. These people have introduced sanctions on Syria to prevent it form being able to re-build after the war is over. These people have done everything in their power to prevent the war from being over. These people have occupied the riches parts of Syria to prevent Syria from having the funds to rebuild.

We are then supposed to believe that Donald Trump, Le Creep Macron, and medicore May care about Syrian lives, Arab lives, any lives. All the while they are claiming this, they are not only doing nothing to stop a genocide in Yemen on account of a naval blockade initiated by Saudi Arabia, but they are actively involved in helping Saudi Arabia enforce this blockade which is starving millions as...

The grinch who stole Holy Week, or more honestly put, the attention whore who tried to upstage it - Sunday 25th to Saturday 31st of March - Holy Week

As we all should be aware, but most are not, the Holy Week reforms of the 1950s were quite sweeping. Berfore Holy Week, Rorate Caeli once again re-posted an article on " The Reform of Holy Week in the Years 1951-1956". It is well-worth reading, especially in connection with the news recently that some traditional orders had been allowed to celebrate the pre-1950s Holy Week on a 3-year experimental basis starting this year.

Traditionalists are nothing if not resourceful and it didn't take long before there was a resource for the pre-1950 Holy Week with English translations, aptly called Pre-1955 Holy Week (although I grant that it may well have been present before the announcement). Rorate Caeli also provided us with a clarification on who exactly may chant the Passion. These two interventions by Rorate Caeli were quite helpful to me personally, as I finally came to realise taht the Passion is not actually the Gospel reading for Good Friday, but that we actually have a Passion reading followed by a Gospel reading, at least in the traditinal liturgy, pre-1950s edition in any case. Rorate Caeli was also kind enough to provide us with pictures of Palm Sunday from the pre-1955 Holy Week celebration.

Anybody who knows anything about Christianity knows that Easter is the biggest event of the Church year (yet it seems that professional journalists writing for major state-sponsored publications don't have a clue about what Easter is all about, to nobody's surprise, and they are probably even proud about it). We shall also know that Holy Week is the most august week of the year. It is for this reason that the secular anti-Catholic world generally steps up its attacks on the Catholic faith and the Catholic Church. It is also the week that the world's most popular attention-whore gets up to his usual attention-seeking antics in order to seemingly steal attention away from the Church's commemorations and celebrations.

This year was no exception, but having noticed that his Maundy Thursday foot fetish doesn't get the attention it used to , Bergoglio decided to get a little help from his now 93-year old atheist friend Euginio Scalfari. Every time he speaks to that an he can be guaranteed a few scandalous headlines and this time was no different. Just in time for the Holy Week Celebrations, in which Christ instituted the Holy Eucharist and died to save us from the fires of hell and allow us too spend eternity with God, Bergoglio told his friend that there is no hell, and that those who die in sin simply vanish, while those who repent before end up spending eternity in the presence of God. This interview was timed to coincide with Maundy Thursday, and naturally overshadowed his feet-washing ceremony, which was once more carried out in prison and against the rubrics of the Novus Ordo, rubrics which he himself amended, it has to be mentioned.

The reactions were not long in coming, and predictably, much of the Catholic press tied itself up in knots, blaming the poor atheist fool Scalfari, instead of pointing to Bergoglio as the culprit. The Vatican issued a non-denial denial, informing us, as we all know, that Scalfari does not record his interviews so it cannot be ascertained whether what was reported was the exact phrasing that Bergoglio used. In other words, they were saying loudly and clearly that Bergoglio is a heretic, as we all know, but we can use the he-doesn't-record-interviews card to get us out of a very serious doctrinal situation. They could really have done little else, for had they said that Bergoglio had actually admitted that he doesn't believe in hell, then they would efffectively have been confirming what we all know, that the man is not Catholic. Had they come out and denied that Bergoglio said that, then they would have had to explain how it is that a man who, as far as I know, hasn't faced many accusations of total misrepresenation in his work before - save for when he speaks to Bergoglio - could get such a fundamental thing so wrong.

Bergoglio himself did not come out and deny it, so we can rest safely in the knowledge that Bergoglio told his atheist friend that. It must be noted that this is not the first time that Bergoglio has denied that souls end up in hell, as Scalfari has reported on this before, and even in Church documents Bergoglio has written something to the tune of everything been on its way to Heaven. His defenders have pointed out that Bergoglio mentions the devil quite a lot, and so he must be misquoted if he has said that the devil does not exist. That is a logical fallacy if ever there was one, as it is entirely possible to believe that the devil exists and yet believe that nobody ends up in hell; that the devil would spend eternity in hell with his demons. In any case it was dishonest of them as they could easily have found multiple instances of Bergoglio telling us that those who die in mortal sin never end up in hell, assuming that anybody can even die in mortal sin, which Bergoglio does not seem to believe - save for traditional Catholics who use doctrine as stones to throw at people while sitting in the judgment seat of Moses. That's his phrasing, not mine, of course.

On the topic of attacking the Church's doctrines, Bergoglio could not resist taking a barb at the notion of truth, insisting that priests ought not to make "idols of certain abstract truths". This was in a separate speech, mind you, proving beyond doubt, if anyone is still not convinced, that the man is in constant heresy mode, and not just when speaking to his atheist anti-Catholic friends who, if you are to believe his enablers, have nothing better to do than...

Denial seems to be the religion of the 'enlightened' - Sunday 28th of May to Saturday 3rd of June

There was another terrorist attack in London, and the chief Jesuit denied yet another tenet of the Catholic faith. It was another regular week in the Novus Ordo world, in other words.

I shall not waste your time or mine on the vehicular jihad and knife attack which took place on London Bridge. It is hardly worth talking about and the media hype is a bigger story than the attack. The most decent analysis has been done by Peter Hitchens, and he takes aim at the media hype regarding terrorism as well.

Truth be told, there are going to be more and more of these attacks and it serves the interests of both the Jihadis and the treacherous Western governments to have ISIS or similar organisations taking the blame. Why ISIS should take credit is obvious - it enhances their status. They have no problem breaking the 5th commandment, so surely breaking the 7th will cause them no great consternation? They get to seem bigger than they are to their adherents and admirers which helps in their recruitment and ego-stroking.

As for Western governments...The lie they sell is that there is an all-powerful organisation, which helps to mitigate their incompetence whenever a bomb goes off. Furthermore, powerful enemies demand powerful militaries, which helps them line the pockets of their friends. On top of that, in the face of an all-powerful enemy, people will be willing to give up a lot of their freedoms to be kept safe from the threat - real or imagined - so the political rulers take advantage of these fears to impose draconian and totalitarian laws.

This was all too evident with Theresa May's actions. "Enough is enough", she exclaimed, while it turns out that what she really means is that she wants to control the Internet more. This should surprise nobody, as Britain has had it for Internet freedoms, encryption and privacy for a long time. As David Wood argues, Theresa May's version of extremism includes people who warn against Islamisation and the violence within Islam, so only a madman would give her more power to control the Internet, or almost anything for that matter.

Enough about that. The take-away from this is that the U.K. is on a death-spiral against liberty, largely self-inflicted and we cannot expect the people who have got them into the mess to get them out - assuming they even want to get them out, which is an assumption which seems unwarranted.

That the top Jesuit has gone from denying the Bible to denying Christ should really suprise nobody either, so I shall not waste much time on it.

Let us simply be happy that they are now denying the truths of the faith outright and openly, so that we can easily identify them as the wolves that they are, instead of facing charges of being uncharitable when we point out that we are dealing with sodomitical heretics.

One final note on terrorism in the U.K. is worth making. There seems to be incredulence at how the U.K. government can permit known Jihadis, known ISIS and al-Qaeda affiliates, known head-choppers, to come back to their country having left to fight in Syria and Libya and elsewhere. They simply cannot see how these people can be allowed back in; "sworn trators", they have been called. This position has been pushed by many known so-called conservatives, including not least Mark Steyn adn Nigel Farage, who seem to be quite upset at it. They blame it on political correctness.

Something far more straightforward is at issue here though: The reason is simply that the Islamists fighting in Syria and Libya are seen as allies by the British and Western political classes.

Let us be honest:   the Germans, the Swedes, the British and French, none of these people are particularly concerned about the plight of Christians or other human beings in the Middle East. They are not even concerned about the safety of their citizens for crying out loud! What they seek is chaos in the Middle East, as it furthers their agenda of de-Christianising Europe, as well as hollowing out Christianity from  its ancestral home. Their primary enemy is Christianity, and in Jihadis they have able allies who can do against Christians in the Middle East what they dare not yet do against them in Europe.

On top of that, we have the issue that the largely bankrupt West - both morally and financially - needs to keep its paymasters happy, and the paymasters of its political elites are at this point in time are largely oil-rich Gulf states, opposed to the anti-Islamist power structures of the countries in question. Where Israel comes into this is unclear, but what is not unclear is the fact that the U.S. policies largely mirror the interests of Israel and Saudi Arabia, and Europe's interests parrot American interests. It is no co-incidence that the countries which have fallen in the Middle East over the past 15 or so years have been the least Islamic in these regions.

So when the jihadists are done with their killing sprees in the Middle East, carried out not only with the blessings but also with the support of Western governments, the Western countries are in the main largely happy to allow them, allies as they are, back into their countries. Whether the rulers want these jihadists to come back and wreak similar havoc at home, or whether they let them in under the mistaken belief that they will leave their blood-spilling ideologies at the border, is really anybody's guess.

If you do not understand that, then I agree that the carnage we see in Europe will make little sense. If you recognise that Jihadists in the Middle East have been fighting with Western support, however, then it is much easier to make sense of the general chaos, and tyranny, that has been unleashed upon Europe of late, or at the very least to recognise that it is not the fault...

Pages

Subscribe to Islamists