Category Archives: History

Notre Dame, Al-Aqsa fire and Fire Investigation

The fire of Notre Dame has stopped. Fortunately the whole building hasn’t come down. Yesterday the media was repeating all over how  it was probably an accident relating to the renovation, and then the sheeple were repeating that as fact. Before I get to accident story, I’ll share something else first.

Yesterday, at the same time Notre Dame was burning, the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem had a fire too. Fortunately the firemen over there were able to put out the fire wihout any major damages, or so I understand. What a coincidence that this very important religious building for Muslims, was burning at the same time as the Christian Notre Dame. I don’t buy it as coincidence as a second, but whether the act was done by God, the devil, or a wordly organization with the power to do such an operation is up for debate. Certain Jews want to tear down the mosque so they can build their prophesized Third Temple.  Maybe God was pinging both locations at the same time trying to tell Christians and Muslims who their real enemy is. Yet a lot of people will just brush the two fires as curious coincidences.

This is where two kinds of worldviews conflict, the somewhat religiously inclined (although I’m not a believer of any certain religion) conspiracy nut view I have where most things happen for a reason, there is a deliberate cause and an effect, and the worldview of most first world people nowadays where mechanistic accidental “rational” causes make things happen. In both of these world views, the idea of things having a purpose in the former, and not having a purpose in the latter, the principles they follow are applied to most aspects of life ranging from the origin to life to politics and incidents like these fires.

Since the media is toting the Notre Dame fire as an accident, most people buy it at face value. Today at work some people were discussing it. One guy said it was an accident relating to the renovation, and I pointed out that they don’t really know the cause yet, it could also be arson. He looked at me sort of funny. Almost as if “normal” people like him are unable to differentiate between a claim made in the media and a fact they have witnessed themselves. He’s not the only person, I’ve seen take the accident narrative as gospel, apparently not even considering there are other possibilities, as if the media was the voice of God. Same kind of behaviour applies to many other cases than the Notre Dame fire.

It’s like these people are watching a movie without thinking it too deeply, and as long as there is a explanation, they believe it. Just as when they watch a movie only to be entertained and do not notice the plotholes, because they don’t care about the details. This phenomenon can obviously be seen also in fanboys of movie franchises, such as Star Wars. There are people making videos pointing out the plotholes in those movies, yet the fanboys get angry at the messenger awhile holding onto the narrative they like. These people are like fanboys of main stream media.

The Paris public prosecutor had said, according to the BBC, they were “‘favouring the theory of an accident’, ‘but had assigned 50 people to investigate the origin of the fire.” This at least sounds more reasonable than the narrative the media was pushing yesterday, explicitly disregarding the possibility of foul play and promoting the accident narrative. At best this is irresponsible. When a shocking event happens, people feel unconfortable. They seek an explanation why, and they tend to stick with the first one they hear. This is why false flags have to start early on promoting the official line. Whether the fire was a false flag or not, I cannot say for sure. But when the authorities are pushing this clearly fictitious narrative, and it is fictitious since they cannot know the cause so early on if it was an accident, I naturally suspect a false flag. There are still other possibilities.

One reason to push this narrative is to prevent rampant theorizing on the causes, however in my case it caused just the opposite reaction. Some people are sure to suspect Muslim terrorists, saying it was an accident would alleviate some of those suspicions in the general public. If this is the case, it’s dishonest disrespectful as it is treating adults like children. If they don’t know the reason, they should say it they don’t know it and urge people to remain calm while they investigate. Another reason might be that the authorities don’t know the exact cause, but they suspect it was Muslims, Antifa or a similar group. They are giving the accident narrative to prevent a backlash against the Muslim community in France, a bit like the authorities have done in the UK with Pakistani rape gangs. If this is true, they are aiding and abetting criminals.

Why I am harping on about the accident narrative is that it is impossible to know the cause of the fire right now, unless it was a false flag or a terrorist attack the French government is covering for, since when a fire happens, the fire department conducts a fire investigation. These things take time. The West Yorkshire Fire & Rescue Service has an article detailing the life of a fire investigator. According to it, “Dependant on the size of the incident an investigation can vary from a few hours to a number of months.” Carroll County Times also has an article on fire investigations. Fire marshal Kenny Pool said some investigations can “go for days, months, years”. The Notre Dame fire was pretty big. I’d say it should take at least a month, probably much longer. Certainly over 24 hours. And they should certainly have waited until the fire was put down and were able to send investigators in, before they claiming it was probably an accident. The French authorities were priming people with the accident narrative when the cathedral was still aflame.

We’ll have to wait and see when the fire investigation is done what they say, and of course wonder if their account can be trusted either.

I mentioned in the previous article how people were saying Notre Dame will be replaced with a mosque. Now that it is still mostly intact (a masterpiece of architecture btw. Our “advanced” society couldn’t build anything to last for over 800 years), maybe they will renovate it as a sanctum for all people of all beliefs, instead of just for Christians or Catholics. The usual New World Order claptrap.



Firefighters put out blaze at revered Al-Aqsa Mosque at same time as Notre Dame fire:

Notre-Dame fire: Cathedral saved within crucial half hour:

A Day In The Life Of A Fire Investigator:

Major fire investigations can take time to get answers:


Notre Dame is Burning

The famous Notre Dame cathedral in Paris burning. The official cause has not been announced yet, although the media is hinting toward it having been an accident. It had been under renovation and there are rumours the accident got its start from there. As can be seen in the picture, there are scaffolding on the church.



I have my doubts, but let’s explore the possibility of an accident. First of all if it was an accident due to the renovation crew’s mistake, they’re the worst crew in the world and the whole company should get bankrupt. Renovations are supposed to do the opposite of burning down the building. I found a New York Times article from 2017 saying how the cathedral badly needs renovation. According to the article the architect in charge is Philippe Villeneuve. I found a French website La Compagnie des Architectes en Chef des Monuments Historiques that employes a man of the same name. I presume it’s the same man.

EDIT: Apparently the company behind the renovation is called Socra. Villeneuve is the architect only.

Notre Dame is one of the most iconic, historical and famous buildings in the world, so you’d think they would take the necessary precautions to ensure they don’t accidentally burn it down or cause other irreparable damage. Shouldn’t there be smoke detectors there, if a spark set something on fire? How did the fire get so large before it was noticed? The company behind the renovation seems professional enough, even their name is a mouthful. Certainly looking at the state of the current president of France, it is somewhat plausible that they don’t really care about the historical achievements of France, and thus would allow incompetence to lead to something like this. Yet I doubt it.


My usual Conspiracy Schtick

I believe the fire has been deliberate. It certainly is a symbolical blow to French and Christian history.  Some people are even predicting or joking that if the whole building burns down, they will erect a mosque there. Sounds plausible.

It’s also exactly one month since the Christchurch attack in New Zealand on a mosque. It happened March 15. Too coincidental for my taste. For an attack on a Muslim religious building, although not a very historical one, and now Notre Dame is burning.

According to some comments I’ve seen it took around 40 minutes for the fire department to arrive and start hosing down the fire. If that’s true, sounds like it’s way beyond incompetence. It’s in the center of Paris, and a well-known building is burning down. You’d think they’d get to it pretty fast.

My guess is that the renovation was a cover for setting up this fire. That is was deliberate. Whether or not Philippe Villeneuve’s company was involved in this operation, I cannot say. French president Jupiter, I mean Macron, had been in trouble for months due to the Yellow Vests protesters. In fact he was going address them and possibly announce new policies today, or might be doing it as I type this. Now that the cathedral is burning down, it can be used to demoralize French nationalist sentiment, to direct attention towards people virtue signalling over this tragedy, and to paint the Yellow Vests as insensitive if they continue to protest after this fire, because all French should come together to overcome the tragedy. In fact, the Yellow Vests will probably be blamed for the fire directly or indirectly. Either they claim that a Yellow Vest started the fire, or the cathedral burned down because the govenment had to allocate too many forces to combat them instead of focusing on protecting historical sites like this.

In recent times many other French churches have been purposefully desecrated as well. What a coincidental time that this fire happened now.


Interesting Comments

Some interesting comments have emerged on social media regarding Notre Dame’s fire. The Jewish Worker has sought to remind us of our anti-semitic White privilege, as any good Jew always will do.


There’s also a video showing the Notre Dame burning in the background and loads of people with Arabic names showing a smiley face. I cannot upload the video here, so here’s a screencap.


These Semitic people surely are our brothers and share our pain, am I right?



Notre Dame is still burning as I type this, so it’s difficult to say anything for sure. Yet I find the level of incompetence required for the fire so immense I find it hard to believe it was merely an accident. If it had been a bunch of rogue Muslims or other arsonists sounds also far-fetched. Shouldn’t there be some sort of security to prevent this, unless the security was conveniently lacking today. If this was some sort of false flag, the purpose would be symbolical demoralization and a distraction from other events.

EDIT: AP reports that the cause of the fire is not known, yet “The Paris prosecutors’ office ruled out arson and possible terror-related motives, and said it was treating it as an accident.” How does that work? How can they exclude the possibility of arson, if they haven’t investigated the cause? Shouldn’t they wait for the fire to settle down and see if there is evidence of foul play? I thought that’s how things usually work if a building burns down.




In Paris, Worn-Out Notre-Dame Needs a Makeover, and Hopes You Can Help:

La Compagnie des Architectes en Chef des Monuments Historiques:

Macron set to reveal new measures to allay Yellow Vest anger:

Incendie à Paris : Patrick Palem, responsable de la SOCRA, invité ce mardi de France Bleu Périgord:

1816: A Year without Summer

The year 1816 was a year without summer in Europe and North America. Crops failed, people froze and starved. This was supposedly caused by a volcano eruption in Indonesia the year before. The volcano Tambora erupted April 10th, 1815. I say this was supposedly caused by the volcano, because I don’t buy it.

I came across this subject matter a couple of years ago when doing research on something else. So better late than never, right?


Dubious Claims

First of all, if the volcano erupted in Indonesia, in Asia, why it only affected Europe and North America? Well, according to Wikipedia:

“In China, the cold weather killed trees, rice crops, and even water buffalo, especially in the north. Floods destroyed many remaining crops. The monsoon season was disrupted, resulting in overwhelming floods in the Yangtze Valley. In India, the delayed summer monsoon caused late torrential rains that aggravated the spread of cholera from a region near the Ganges in Bengal to as far as Moscow.”

However, the source for that only links to Discovery Channel UK’s website. No mention of these disasters. Wikipedia continues:

“In Japan . . . the cold damaged crops, but no crop failures were reported, and there were adverse effects on population.”

The source for this is a dubious looking Japanese language article, but at least it’s something, and it does mention Tambora, but if I understand correctly (my Japanese is quite rusty), it says in Japan crop failures were not confirmed, and they were not adversely affected. In case I misunderstood something in the Japanese, let’s look at the Wikipedia quote:”the cold damaged crops, but no crop failures were reported, and there were adverse effects on population.” Does that make any sense? If crop failures were not reported, how can people today know that they happened? How did it adversely affect the population?

There’s a decent article on this event on ThoughtCo. website. It makes no mention of China or Japan, only Europe and North America:

“The weather in 1816 was unprecedented. Spring arrived as usual. But then the seasons seemed to turn backward, as cold temperatures returned. In some places, the sky appeared permanently overcast. The lack of sunlight became so severe that farmers lost their crops and food shortages were reported in Ireland, France, England, and the United States.”

Supposedly dust from Mount Tambora’s eruption over a year before “had shrouded the globe. And with sunlight blocked, 1816 did not have a normal summer.” They also quote a couple of excerpts from newspapers from the time. From the Boston Independent Chronicle, June 17, 1816:

“On the night of 6th instant, after a cold day, Jack Frost paid another visit to this region of the country, and nipped the beans, cucumbers, and other tender plants. This surely is cold weather for summer.

On the 5th we had quite warm weather, and in the afternoon copious showers attended with lightning and thunder — then followed high cold winds from the northwest, and back back again the above mentioned unwelcome visitor. On the 6th, 7th, and 8th June, fires were quite agreeable company in our habitations.”

From The Albany Advertiser, October 6:

“The weather during the past summer has been generally considered as very uncommon, not only in this country, but, as it would seem from newspaper accounts, in Europe also. Here it has been dry, and cold. We do not recollect the time when the drought has been so extensive, and general, not when there has been so cold a summer. There have been hard frosts in every summer month, a fact that we have never known before. It has also been cold and dry in some parts of Europe, and very wet in other places in that quarter of the world.”

There’s another excerpt from the same article mentioning a possible relation between sunspots and the cold summer:

“Many persons suppose that the seasons have not thoroughly recovered from the shock they experienced at the time of the total eclipse of the sun. Others seem disposed to charge the peculiarities of the season, the present year, upon the spots on the sun. If the dryness of the season has in any measure depended on the latter cause, it has not operated uniformly in different places — the spots have been visible in Europe, as well as here, and yet in some parts of Europe, as we have already remarked, they have been drenched with rain.

Without undertaking to discuss, much less to decide, such a learned subject as this, we should be glad if proper pains were taken to ascertain, by regular journals of the weather from year to year, the state of the seaons in this country and Europe, as well as the general state of health in both quarters of the globe. We think the facts might be collected, and the comparison made, without much difficulty; and when once made, that it would be of great advantage to medical men, and medical science.”

Notice anything lacking? There is no mention of the sun being obscured by dust, as the ThoughtCo. article claimed. Had volcanic dust “shrouded” the Earth, surely people would have commented on that too. The last newspaper quote does mention “the total eclipse of the sun”, so you might say that means the dust was obscuring the sun. The closest total eclipse of the sun prior to writing of the Albany Advertiser article published in October 1816 was July 6, 1815, which is probably referred to here. There were eclipses also in December 1815 and May 1816, but they weren’t total.

This wouldn’t be the only time that volcano dust is accused of causing mayhem, but I don’t buy it. In 2010 the volcano in Iceland, Eyjafjallajökull, erupted. Because of it air traffic was disrupted in many places. The volcanic ash was supposedly harmful to airplanes, so they couldn’t fly at certain times in certain places. I don’t know why, but even back then I thought the volcano was an excuse to prevent planes from flying. Maybe there was heavy clandestine military traffic in the air, and they didn’t want civilians to see it. Maybe it was something else.

It’s interesting that the old newspaper article mentions sunspots as the possible cause for the coldness, since there have been some modern day theories that sunspot activity causes the earth to warm instead the usual Greenhouse Effect/Global Warming/Climate Change CO2 claptrap. The ThoughtCo. article also mentions the notion that a volcano eruption caused the summerless year in 1816, originated a hundred years after it took place in the 20th century.


Do Volcano Eruptions cause Global Cooling?

I don’t see causation between eruption of Mount Tambora and the summerless year. There is correlation, but we all know the old cliché. So let’s see if there are other cases of volcanoes causing the climate to cool down.

According to Wikipedia, i.e. the establishment, there is. The page on Volcanic Winter has some examples, three most recent ones are:

1991: Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines cooled temperatures for 2-3 years

1883: Krakatoa caused four years of cold.

1815: Mount Tambora.

Now let’s look at some temperature charts I found with Google.

This starts with the year 1850, so Tambora’s effects cannot be seen. However we see sharp spike of warming around 1878 or so, then a year later the temperature goes back to normal. Around 1883 or so, when the Krakatoa erupted the temperature does indeed go down for a couple of years. Then it goes back up again. Around 1890, it goes down. Soon up. Temperature goes down in 1900. Were there volcano eruptions also in 1890 and 1900 as well that caused those cold periods?

Around 1990, the time of Mount Pinatubo eruption, there is hardly any change to be seen. The temperature just keeps zigzagging up and down, although overall its obviously climbing. Let’s look at another chart.

Krakatoa erupted 1883, and the four following years were cold, i.e. until 1887, according to Wikipedia. Sure, I don’t disagree with any of that, but according to this chart 1890 and 1905-1912 are much colder than the cool period following the eruption of Krakatoa. What volcanoes erupted then, Mount Obama and Mount Pikachu?

There’s also a brief cold period around the eruption of Pinatubo in 1991, but the same pattern happens also in the 80s before that and in the late 90s. More charts.

This is from the oh so trustworthy NASA. Do I even need to say anything about this chart? Same as the others in the sense that warm and cold periods come and go without giving a fuck about volcanoes.

According to this chart, during this 30 year period the years following the eruption of Pinatubo are indeed the coldest (although 1985 looks to be around the same point). It’s just that the time span is short, and its contradicted by the other charts. You can choose which one to believe. I believe none of them.

It might be that the Earth is getting warmer. That is a possibility, but I am certain it’s not due to CO2 gases. That is a political issue pushed for political reasons, not for scientific ones, which is why I don’t fully trust “scientists” and their temperature charts. Still if I was to do so, these charts would not support the argument that volcano eruptions cause cooling, except the last one, which is hardly objective since it has been made with the explicit reason of claiming that the eruption of Pinatubo caused global cooling. If there is some sort of causation between climate cooling and volcano eruptions, I would guess it’s more like the other way around; the climate starts getting cooler, which somehow causes a chemical reaction in the volcano. Not because volcano ash or dust blocks sunlight, which in turn causes cooling.


Eruption of Mount Tambora

Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles, the founder of Singapore, wrote about the eruption of Mount Tambora (here Tomboro) on the island of Sumbawa in the book The History of Java published 1830. In April 1815 there were “tremulous motions”, report of explosions, showers of ash, clouds of ash overcast the sun and ash covered streets and houses. No such clouds were reported in Europe or America. On Java “explosions were heard at intervals, like the report of artillery or the noise of distant thunder”. Officers thought they were cannon fire, possibly from pirates: “The first explosions were heard on this island (Java) in the evening of the 5th of April: they were noticed in every quarter, and continued at intervals until the following day. The noise was, in the first instance, universally attributed to distant cannon: so much so, that a detachment of troops was marched from Djocjocarta, under the apprehension that a neighbouring post had been attacked”. After they saw ash, they realized it wasn’t pirates.

The book mentions Lieutenant Owen Phillips’ report of the incident. There were three pillars of fire on top of the volcano, and a powerful whirlwind that tore aparts houses, trees, people and cattle. There was a big tsunami as well. The eruption destroyed whole villages, but there were survivors: “In Pekáté no vestige of a house is left: twenty-six of the people, who were at Sumbawa at the time, are the whole of the population who have escaped. From the most particular inquiries I have been able to make, there were certainly not fewer than twelve thousand individuals in Tomboro and Pekáté at the time of the eruption, of whom only five or six survive.” I presume the “five or six” means five or six thousand, not five or six individuals.

The first time I read the account from Raffles’ book, I wondered whether really was a volcano eruption due to the cannon fire sounds and the whirlwind. However, apparently whirlwinds can accord due to eruptions. It happened last year as Mount Kilauea in Hawaii erupted last year. Although the intensity of the whirlwind at Tamboro was much stronger. Explosions don’t seem that unusual when it comes to volcanoes either.

There is one interesting addition to this story though. In 2006 volcanologist (and Tolkien character) Haraldur Sigurdsson found the remains of a “lost kingdom” in Tambora. He found bones, ceramics and remains of houses. NPR website says the following: “Few written records of the lost civilization exist. Colonial British officials visited Tambora shortly before it was buried. About 10,000 people lived there. The officials recorded 48 words of their language. It wasn’t Malay, like other Indonesian dialects, but more like the Khmer language of Cambodia.”

So there was a unique culture there with a unique language, and now it has apparently been wiped out by the volcano. Yet according to the British officer in the book, almost half of the people managed to escape. Something doesn’t add up.

Maybe since the people lost their homes, they were absorbed into other tribes, and lost their unique culture, since they had little choice but to adapt. Or maybe it was a very significant culture that someone wanted to wipe out. The volcano eruption might have been used as a cover for genociding them, or maybe the eruption was artificially induced to wipe them out. The explosions might have been actual explosives used as a catalyst for the volcano. Just throwing out ideas since something feels off.



I do not think that the eruption of Mount Tambora caused the summerless year in 1816. What caused it then? It was probably natural, though of course one might always speculate about ancient geo-engineering technologies, but I think it was a natural yet unusual occurrence. The theory that Tambora caused the cooling in the summer is probably just a result of the smugness of academics, who think they have all the answers, and no-one can conclusively disprove their accepted orthodoxy of a 200-year old event.

The eruption of Tambora was probably natural as well. Probably. I do wonder about the kingdom that was wiped out though.



Year Without Summer: or

Supposedly evidence of China’s summerless year:

Evidence of Japanese summerless year: or

The Year Without a Summer Was a Bizarre Weather Disaster in 1816:

List of solar eclipses in the 19th century:

Air travel disruption after the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption:

Volcanic winter:

The History of Java:

Lava whirlwind caught on two-month mark of Kilauea eruption:

Culture Destroyed by 1815 Volcano Rediscovered:

Circumcision and the Bible

In May (although it became hot topic on the internet a couple of weeks ago) a Jewish man, Eric Clopper, held a presentation at Harvard titled Sex and Circumcision: An American Love Story. In his presentation he decries circumcision as a barbaric and evil blood sacrifice, and wants to abolish this Jewish covenant. Clopper describes how the foreskin is an integral part in generating pleasure in the sexual act, and cutting it off replaces pleasure with rage. I recommend watching the two hour presentation. It did inspire me to write this.

In recent years I’ve grown interested in Christianity, but circumcision is one of the details that makes is very difficult to accept the possibility that the biblical God is the true and righteous one. Although the New Testament seems to reject the notion of circumcision, whereas the Old affirms it. Does it mean God updated his Terms of Service with the coming of Jesus Christ and rendered circumcision obsolete, or is circumcision a heretical practice that creeped into the Old Testament? However, if the former is true, it would contradict the biblical claim that God is unchanging, such as James 1:17: “Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow”, or Malachi 3:6 “For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed”. Of course you could argue that God doesn’t change, but his rules do, but that still makes God sound fickle. If the latter is true, it detracts from the reliability of the Bible.



What is circumcision? As has been practiced by Jewish rabbis for centuries, it entails cutting off the foreskin of a baby on their 8th day, sometimes with sharpened claws, and then the rabbi sucks the blood from the penis with his mouth. Sounds like an evil pedophillic blood sacrifice to me. This is called the metzitzah b’peh. Nowadays this practice is not always used, but I still don’t find modern or “medical” forms of circumcision much better. Circumcision is likely to instill some sort of trauma in the baby. In fact Eric Clopper points out in his presentation that certain rabbis commit circumcision for this very purpose, to associate sex with pain.

As far as I know, the Bible does not describe the exact circumcision procedure, such as the metzitzah b’peh, so I suppose it’s possible circumcision worked differently in the time of Abraham. Genesis 17: 9-14 states:

“And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.
He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.”

It appears that cutting the foreskin is still clearly mentioned in Genesis, even if they did do it in some more humane manner. Another interesting detail is that slaves bought with money by Jews should be circumcised. This not only suggests that God condoned slavery, but that in modern days the goyim, such as in America, who are circumcised are slaves of the Jews.

Why would God require the faithful to cut of the foreskin of their children and slaves as his covenant? One explanation that I’ve heard is that it represents dedication to spirit instead of the corrupted flesh. If circumcision hinders one’s ability to enjoy sex, and sex is the foremost method of engaging in pleasures of the flesh, cutting off the foreskin would signify dedication to spirit instead of flesh. I can understand as an abstract concept, but I cannot accept in practice. Moreover it sounds like a member of organized crime cutting off a finger to show loyalty to the Don. Also as Michael Glass wrote in his article Answers from the Bible to Questions about Circumcision that the foreskin wasn’t a mistake of nature as “The Bible says that God pronounced creation ‘very good’ (Genesis 1:31) and that humans were made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). The Apostle Paul also said that God made every part of the body as he wanted it. (1 Corinthians 12:18).”


Circumcision in the Bible

Let’s have a look at some passages from the New Testament on circumcision. Certain passages are vehemently anti-circumcision such as Galatians 5: 1-3:

“Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.”

Paul calls circumcision a “yoke of bondage”, and apparently if you are unable to “profit” from Christ if you are circumcised. Galatians 5: 5-6 sort of contradicts it though:

“For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.”

According to it circumcision seems irrelevant, whereas faith in Jesus and love are necessary. First Paul had described circumcision as harmful, but then he goes to say it’s irrelevant. While I agree with his motives, it does not sound like he preaching the word of God, but spouting his own political views.

Philippians 3: 2-3 (also featuring Paul, or Timotheus) states:

“Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision [mutilation or cutting]. For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

It describes circumcision as act of “evil workers” and encourages Christians to worship God in the spirit. For the Christian circumcision seems to be more of a symbolical act, cutting oneself off from earthly concerns, rather than mutilating one’s genetalia literally. In fact, Romans 2: 25-29 (also from Paul) mentions the circumcision of the heart:

“For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.”

This seems to be basically the letter of the law vs spirit of the law argument. If you are circumcized, you have to adhere to the letter of the law, but if you are not, you have to follow the spirit of the law. However, this does suggest that originally God cared only about the letter of the law, he wanted total obedience from his followers, but he softened up later and loosened his demands with Jesus.

What I see with Paul, is a liberal political pundit who is rebelling against the old, strict traditions of circumcision, and not as much a holy prophet spreading the word of God. However, the same could be said about the promoters of circumcision in the Old Testament, not them being liberal rebels, but political pundits. Let’s take a look at what Jesus has to say about circumcision in John 7: 22-24:

“Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.”

Michael Glass writes on this passage the following: “the Greek expression for making a man completely well could also be translated as making him completely whole.” It could even be interpreted to say that Jesus cure and uncircumcized the man, i.e. grew back his foreskin. Whatever the case, it appears Jesus was not overly concerned about circumcision, or the Sabbath for that matter.

Also in John 7:22 as can be seen above, Jesus said “Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers)”. It would suggest that Jesus claims Moses did not teach circumcision, as is often believed, but it’s an older tradition. As Michael Glass writes:

“the Children of Israel abandoned circumcision during Moses’ leadership (Joshua 5: 4-7). Exodus 4: 24-26 tells us that Moses had not circumcised his own son.

This suggests several scribal traditions. In the first, Moses did not practise circumcision, and the custom was abandoned under his leadership (Joshua 5: 4-7).”

Joshua was Moses’ assistant who took over after Moses died. When he was in charge, he started circumcizing children again. So there is some anti-circumcision sentiment even in the Old Testament, and not merely from a random dude, but from Moses himself.

While Paul’s anti-circumcision rhetoric seems personally or politically motivated, it also does seem to follow Jesus’ approach as well, where a person’s health is more important than ancient religious customs. However Jesus did state in Matthew 5: 17-19 the following:

““Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

Shouldn’t that contradict Jesus and his followers’ assertions against circumcision? It is part of the law, after all? Perhaps he is referring the Ten Commandments only, or perhaps the law employed by people, including passages in the Old Testament had been corrupted doctrines conjured up by men? Michael Glass makes similar suggestions:

“Jesus himself criticized the scribes and their traditions. (e.g., Matthew 15: 1-9, also Isaiah 29 :13). Jeremiah’s assessment of the Law must also be pondered.

How can you say, “We are wise,
and the law of the LORD is with us,”
when in fact, the false pen of the scribes
has made it into a lie?
(Jeremiah 8: 8, New RSV)”



I am still asking Christians, or anyone else, how do reconcile the disconnect between the contradictory positions on circumcision in the Old and New Testaments? Genesis 17 claims God told Abraham to circumcize his offspring, but in the New Testament Paul especially is vehemently against it. Did the omniscient and unchanging God change his mind on the content of his decrees, even his covenant, with men? Are there errors in the Old Testament where the word of God has been replaced with the word of men? Or was Paul merely a heretic speaking selfishly against circumcision?

Personally I would not have a problem had God changed his mind, although it would sort of suggest he is not all-knowing. Let’s take a hypothetical description of God. He is the Creator of all life and the world, and compared to human beings he might as well be described as all-powerful, yet even he has his limitations. He wants humans to have free will, but also to direct them to live their lives properly. First he makes a certain kind of policy or a decree in hopes of directing humanity in a certain way, but over the course of years he notices it’s not working. Then like a king, he makes a new policy which he hopes will be more succesful. I have no problem with such a concept of God, but it would probably go against Christian dogma as it implies God is flawed in some manner.

Another possible interpretation of this circumcision hassle is that, as is according to Christian belief, the Bible describes historical events from Eden up to the time of Christ from various different authors. While the events underneath the words of men have been true, but many of the smaller or even bigger details are up for revision. This would explain how when the Book of Genesis was written, circumcision was seen as a decree from God, but in the time of Jesus it was seen as a yoke. Both are merely views held by men. This view also makes sense to me, but it goes against the dogmatic view that the Bible is the infallible word of God.

I should note that my purpose is not to attack Christianity or the Bible, but to questionsthem. After all, if Christians wish to convert me, or others with similar views, they should have an answer to these questions. Christians who believe in Jesus and all that, should have asked themselves these questions as well. Why did God demand circumcision as the holy covenant with his followers back in the old days, but now you just need faith in Jesus? If your answer is: ‘it doesn’t matter. You just have to believe in Jesus.’ Then what’s the point in having the Bible in the first place? You know the book that describes what Jesus did and said. Ignore what the book says, just believe. Believe in what?



Sex & Circumcision: An American Love Story by Eric Clopper:

Answers from the Bible to Questions about Circumcision:

Was Genghis Khan the first Communist?

Fine, I must concede the title is bit click-baity, however I do find many accounts of the alleged accomplishments of Genghis Khan and the Mongol empire somewhat questionable. On top of that there seems to be sort of modern attempt to paint Genghis Khan as some sort of progressive good guy. Let’s dig in.

First I should explain some of the background of where I’m coming from. I’ve written in the past how I don’t think that Marco Polo went to China, but to Cathay which was another kingdom. I’ve also expressed criticism of the official history of the Great Wall of China, which may or may not be relevant to this article. I’ve also discussed the theory put forward by others that the name Mongol did not used to refer to the people we we think of as Mongols today, but to another race of people. I’ll add links below.

I should also point out that we cannot know much of what truly happened in ancient history. What we think of history is always based on interpretation, which may be liable to corruption due to lack of evidence as well as political and ideological bias. How do we know, for example, that Julius Ceasar existed, or the very least, the did the things attributed to him such as being a proficient military commander in conquering barbarian tribes in Europe and then falling victim to the conspiring senate? There are some old coins that supposedly depict Julius Caesar, a caesar of that name probably did exist, but can we know the stories we associate with him actually took place? How do we know that the character wasn’t invented by Shakespeare, for instance? As Napolean infamously said “History is a set of lies agreed upon.


Primary Sources

There are loads accounts in books and on the internet depicting the achievements the Mongol Empire, but most of them are simply people repeating what the experts have said. To glean any actual clues to the veracity of the claims you have to go to the primary sources, which would be texts written around the time of the historical events or artifacts from that period.

As an example of shoddy evidence for the historicity of Genghis Khan we need look no further than Wikipedia. The article on the Khan states how he conquered China, Korea and Central Asia. After that the article states: “Many of these invasions repeated the earlier large-scale slaughters of local populations. As a result, Genghis Khan and his empire have a fearsome reputation in local histories.” After this sentence there is a link to a book titled Mongolia: a guide to economic and political developments by Ian Jeffries. The title does did not fill me with confidence as it sounds like the book discussed Mongolia in a more modern context. I did, however, manage to find it on the internet and checked out pages 5-7 that supposedly explain Wikipedia’s claims.

On page 5 it says “Mongolia built the world’s largest contiguous empire in the thirteenth century under Genghis Khan”. So apparently it was bigger than Alexander the Great’s, the Roman Empire or the British Empire. Quite an achivement for a bunch of horseriding nomads. What sort of technology or bureaucratic system did they have to manage that? Apparently by landmass the British Empire was larger, but Mongols supposedly had the largest continous empire. It also said the Mongols managed to kill “30 to 60 million people across Asia and Europe”.

Page 6 states that Korean and Mongolian elites engaged in considerable intermarriage in the thirteenth century and Koreans believe their ancestors come from Mongolia. That is the only evidence of “large-scale slaughters of local populations” and “fearsome reputation in local histories” that were on pages 5-7 of Jeffries’ book. However, ultimately this only proves that Wikipedia is an untrustworthy source for information, which is not news.

There is a book known nowadays best by the name The Secret History of the Mongols. It was supposedly written back in the 13th or 14th century, and the introduction describes it as follows:

“This book, known to Mongols as the Tobchi’an [Tobcha’an]
or ‘History’, has appeared under a variety of names,
including The Secret History of the Mongols, The Life of
Chinggis Qahan, The True Record of Chinggis Qahan, and
The Secret History of the Yuan Dynasty. It has been
translated into many languages, including English,
Japanese, French, German, Chinese, Russian, Hungarian,
and Polish. Like Chinggis himself, the book is highly
controversial. We cannot be sure when it was written or
who wrote it. I myself argue below that it was written in
1228, but other scholars date it to 1240 or 1323. Whatever
the case, the book is unique, as the only available account
of the life of Chinggis Qahan [Genghis Khan].”

It is not known who wrote it and when, and it is the only account of the life of Genghis Khan. Sounds dubious to me. It might as well been written as a fiction, or a deliberate deception.

The Secret History of the Mongols mentions two other so-called primary cources. The first one is this:

“The War Record of the Holy Hero (Chinggis Qahan), by
Qoriqosun, 1266–1273.48 This book was published by the
Institute of National History established by Qubilai Qahan
at Daidü in 1264. For details, see The War Record of the
Holy Hero, p. 4. Qoriqosun was a chairman of the Institute
of National History after 1264. He was not only a Mongol
scholar but a court painter who painted the portrait of
Chinggis Qahan and other Qahans in 1278–1279.”

I could find no record of this book existing on the internet at least. Maybe it exists only in another language such as Mongolian or Chinese. However, I do not find this a credible source either, since if it provided important evidence on the Mongols, you’d think it had been translated.

The third one is even less credible:

“The Real History of the Mongol Qahans, published by
the Institute of National History in 1303–1304 in Mongol
and Chinese by an anonymous author. Unfortunately, this
work has not been found.”

The work has not been found? What does this mean? How can they claim this book is a source of any kind? Maybe the book never existed to begin with.

How about the physical evidence then? If the Mongols had this vast militaristic empire shouldn’t there be Mongol forts or other structures littered about in their former territory like central Asia or Russia? I couldn’t find any. There should plenty of Mongol artifacts such as weapons and armour littered about in their former territory. I managed to find a few pictures of these on the internet, but very few, and most pictures seem to be of later Mongol equipment, or simply replicas. I’ll take a look at the Mongol armour in more detail later on.

I must point out that I am an amateur when it comes to history, and specifically Mongol history, so the lack of primary evidence may speak more of my own lack of ability and access to resources than the existence of those resources, so I am not going to make any definitive statement to the existence or non-existence of Genghis Khan or the Mongol Empire. Yet were all of the claims of this vast empire self-evident fact, I would expect the evidence to be abundant, which it does not seem to be. If someone can point me to some sort of primary evidence that I can verify for myself, I’d appreciate it.


The Progressive Khan

Jeffries’ Mongolia: A Guide to Economic and Political Developments has a quote from The Times on page 5 stating that “The Mongol empire was the first to know religious tolerance. In the capital, Karakorum, churches, mosques and temples stood side by side. In his empire women had equal rights with men, even among subject peoples.”

First of all, The Times is not a credible source when it comes to history. And the two statements made by them are ridiculous. What does it mean that the Mongols were “the first to know religious tolerance”? It’s a nonsensical blanket statement. Do they mean that no society in history had any sense of religious tolerance before the Mongols? How about the Religion of Peace, Islam? At least according to liberals, it used to be so tolerant. If they had said “compared to earlier empires in history, the Mongol Empire showed a much greater deal of tolerance of religion” I could take it with some degree of seriousness.

Women having “equal rights with men” sounds like utter nonsense. Surely they did not have equal rights with men in any sense that the modern West conceives of the idea? Did the women fight alongside men in battle? Did they play an equal part in slaughtering 30-60 million people? Perhaps the position of women was good among Mongols when compared to Christian, Muslims or the Chinese, but once again the article did not say that. Nor is there any evidence to qualify the statement.

The Times is not the only outlet to make Genghis Khan sound like a progressive warlord. Dr. Timothy May of North Georgia College and State University wrote in his article that there was religious tolerance “throughout the empire”. If I think about what it means, I suppose the Mongols might have been fairly callous when it came to religion. If they conquered Christians, Muslims or Buddhists, they only wanted obedience and did not care what gods their subjects adhere to. However, I would call it disinterest rather than tolerance, if that was the case. At least the writers should qualify this alleged tolerance with some details.

An article in The Spectator says: “the same man who is said to be responsible for the deaths of a world record 40 million is also noted — admittedly less widely — for his religious tolerance, enlightened diplomacy and championing of women’s rights.” Same propaganda of Genghis Khan having been a progressive conqueror.

Another blog on WordPress, Course Correction: An Insider’s Look at Mormon Culture, at least tries to clarify these progressive tendensies of Genghis Khan in some way:

“Although they adopted literacy, arts, and sciences from other countries and tolerated Taoism, Islam, Buddhism, and Christianity, Mongols kept their own culture—including an active role of women in their social and political life. Mongol society lacked the belief that female sexual purity was a value to be defended at all costs—including defense of and seclusion of women. When one tribe was ambushed by another, the men fled on horses so they could live to fight another day. Captured women were taken as wives by the conquering warriors. If the men escaped, they attacked and recaptured the women. A recaptured wife might be pregnant with her captor’s child, but the child was raised by her husband as his own.

While the warriors were off sacking and looting—sometimes for more than a year at a stretch— Mongol women ran the country. Mongolian girls as well as boys were educated when schools were established. Both Genghis Khan’s wife and mother influenced his governing decisions.

True, Mongolian women did not have total equality, and prosperous Mongols could take more than one wife. Yet, compared to women in 13th century Europe, China, Persia, and the Arab world, Mongolian women had a good deal.”

I do not know how accurate these statements are, but at least they are sensible.

I do however get the impression that there is some sort of liberal agenda at play in promoting, this idea of the progressive Khan. In fact, I have two different scenarios: Genghis Khan was the first Communist leader of powerful nation, or this is just another Marxist ploy in attempting to downplay the achievements of Europe by praising non-Europeans.

Perhaps, there had been a proto-Communist cabal that put Genghis Khan into power. After all, if main stream history is accurate, Genghis Khan did what Communists tend to do; wage war and kill a lot of people. Mao supposedly killed 45 million in four years during the great leap forward. Stalin had 60 million killed according to some estimates. So according to history, the Mongols caused more deaths than Mao, and equally the death’s of Stalin. Of course the 20th century Communists achieved their deaths in a shorter time-span, as the Mongols took a century or two (and several Khans) to do it, but they did not have access to modern technology so I think it evens out. At least according to the presumed liberals who are praising Genghis Khan, he was similar to modern Communist leaders; the was a violent conqueror who caused millions of deaths, but later on he is being hailed as a progressive hero. Of course there is the difference that Genghis Khan probably didn’t spend as much effort on killing his own people as Commies tend to do.

I think the second scenario is more likely that liberals who hate Europe and everything related to it, find any excuse ignore the achievements of Europe, and praise the achievements of non-Europeans peoples, be their achievements factual or fictional. I am not of the camp that thinks that Europeans excell in everything and should be praised for everything, I simply think credit should be given when it is due, and not given when it is not due.


Feats of the Empire

Let’s get back to the Mongols and their alleged feats. The Secret History of the Mongols states that “just two million Mongols, with 129,000 cavalrymen, could establish the largest land empire in world history.” Two million people with a bit more than 100,000 cavalrymen were able to conquer the largest land empire in history, and butcher up to 60 million people? I don’t find it credible, although possibly this two million refers only to the Mongols who were alive during the time of Genghis Khan, and during his day they hadn’t killed all of those millions yet. They had no access to modern weaponry or transport, they did have even the telegraph, nothing like that. I might believe this if the people they conquered had been weak pacifists who were unwilling or unable to fight back, but they weren’t.

I think something doesn’t add up, yet I don’t claim to know what the truth is. Perhaps it lies somewhere in the middle. Maybe the Mongols did manage to conquer some places like China and Korea, but it doesn’t sounds credible they’d be able to do all that they supposedly did. Or maybe the Mongol Empire is a fabrication to begin with, possibly to cover-up the existence of another race of people or empire, or a coalition of races.

I don’t know the truth, but I still have more to speculate about the Mongols and the possible Mongol deception, but I’ll do that at a later date.




Marco Polo did not go to China:

By whom, when and why was Great Wall of China built?:

Genghis Khan:

Mongolia: A Guide to economic and political developments:

Genghis Khan (1165-1127):

Genghis Khan was tolerant, kind to women – and a record-breaking mass-murderer:

Genghis Khan was tolerant, kind to women – and a record-breaking mass-murderer:

Genghis Khan and Women’s Rights :

Warm underground caves found in Antarctica?

It was reported in the media a bit over a week ago that researchers found a “secret, warm oasis beneath Antarctica’s ice” and that there could be undiscovered animal species there. Apparently these warm caves are 20-25 degrees Celsius, and you can wear a T-shirt there, despite being surrounded by snow and ice. The heat, and possibly light, supposedly originate from an active volcano.

Assuming that this is all true, it is likely to fuel speculation about Hollow Earth, or perhaps an underground sun that heats the place up. Or maybe the Nazis found these caves back in the 30s or 40s when they founded their alleged Neuschwabenland base there with flying saucers and all. It is quite extraordinary if this discovery is true. Warm, habitable caves in the coldest place on earth (since Antarctica is supposedly too cold for planes to fly over), and you just have to wonder how far the caves stretch.

Yet I won’t buy this news at face value. It might very well be a distraction or deception of some sort. Let’s say that flat earth researchers are onto something with their claims of a round ice wall surrounding the round disc of the earth. Maybe this discovery is supposed to draw attention away from the possible fact that the very shape of Antarctica is different than we’ve been told. Maybe they want us to be imagining what is underneath Antarctica instead of what is beyond it, such as the Firmament.

Or maybe this cave discovery is laying the groundwork for a Project Bluebeam-type of deception. Some time ago an alleged fake tweet by Buzz Aldrin emerged showing a pyramid-like mountain in the antarctic with the text: “We are all in danger. It is evil itself.”


Maybe the powers that be want us to believe at some point that scientists discover a frozen alien civilization under the ice, and when they are defrosted, they turn against us, and we need another, benign alien race to save us. It’s just one example of a possible silly psy-op they might be pulling on us.

There have been some important visitors to Antarctica as of late. US Secretary of State, John Kerry, visited it last year. So did the russian patriarch Kirill a week after meeting with pope Francis. There are also rumours that Obama visited the alleged continent last year during his trip to Argentina.

Could there have been some sort of discovery in Antarctica yet to be announced to the public? Did they manage to make a dent in the Firmament? Is it all a psy-op of some sort? Why this focus on Antarctica as of late? Is the discovery of the “oasis caves” related to these political visits?

I don’t have any of the answers, except that I don’t buy the story of underground caves heated by an active volcano. Maybe the caves exist, maybe they’re warm, but the claim that they are heated by a volcano sounds dubious. Then again maybe the whole story is fiction. The caves are supposedly located “around and beneath” mount Erebus. Interesting name. Erebus is a primordial deity from Greek mythology associated with darkness and born of chaos. The description reminds me of the Egyptian chaotic frog god, Kek, who is revered by many in the far-right nowadays. I cannot say what the ultimate significance of Mt Erebus here is, except this cave business along with Erebus sounds like a manufactured narrative to me, instead of a spontaneous discovery.


P. S.

I thought I should add this “confession” I found on a discussion forum a while ago, about supposed discoveries in the antarctic and how Masons are involved. It’s probably fiction, but at least it’s interesting fiction.



Researchers find secret, warm oasis beneath Antarctica’s ice that could be home to undiscovered species:

Antarctica’s ice caves could be hiding undiscovered species of plants and animals:

Kerry to become highest-ranking US official to visit Antarctica:

Patriarch Kirill meets penguins at Russian base as he becomes first Orthodox leader to visit Antarctica:

Antarctica – Which Conspiracy Theory Explains all the Celebrity Visits in 2016?:


Curious Death of the Son of Finnish Prime Minister Sipilä

Back in 2015 around the time of the parliamental election in Finland, the son of Juha Sipilä, Tuomo Sipilä, died due to supposed complications of a routine surgery operation. After the election Juha Sipilä and his political Center party won, and he became prime minister.

I didn’t know about the death of Tuomo Sipilä back when it happened in 2015. I heard about it a few months ago and found it suspicious. Based what I’ve read from the media he was a healthy 22-year old man, living a full life. He had a girlfriend. Tuomo had went through a no-risk operation in a hospital in the city of Oulu, although I’m not sure what sort of operation it actually was. He woke up a few hours after the operation and was going to the bathroom while being escorted by a nurse. He slumped on the floor on the way. They started trying to resuscitate him immediately, but 45 minutes later the doctors said there was nothing they could do.

The cause of death was “a complete mystery” even to the doctors, an Iltalehti newspaper article from March 2015 stated. Tuomo Sipilä died February 17, 2015. I couldn’t find any source even now in September 2017 stating what the cause of death was. Maybe it’s out there somewhere, but the media does not seem to have been concerned with it, at least.

When I heard about this, I immediately found the whole affair fishy. A young, healthy man dies after a simple operation. The doctors don’t know the cause of death either. Now, over two years after the fact the cause of death is still not told to us. There was a sob-story article written about Tuomo’s death as recently as May 2017, yet it does not mention the cause of death, and the surgical operation is described as being low-risk, i.e. no actual description of what sort of operation it was. The article does describe something I find a bit creepy though: prime minister Juha Sipilä and his surviving sons made a casket shaped like a boat for Tuomo, and then Tuomo’s mother made the final resting place for him with lace sheets she got as a wedding present. A boat shaped casket, are they vikings or something?

What I think happened, and this is just my crazy conspiracy theorist opinion, is that Juha Sipilä sacrificed his son to be allowed to become the prime minister. It was probably required as proof that he is willing to bend-over backwards for whoever is the actual power behind the throne in Finland. Whenever some sort of celebrity dies, there’s someone always saying it was an Illuminati sacrifice. I don’t know if the Illuminati was involved, or if it actually exists or not, but I do suspect the death of Tuomo Sipilä was a sacrifice. Possibly he was poisoned.

I do not know whether Juha Sipilä is a Freemason or a member of any other secret society like that. On the forum someone did claim that he is a Freemason, but that is hardly a reliable source. Sipilä is a member of the Rauhan Sana (Word of Peace) movement which is part of the Laestadianism Christian revival movement. I don’t know anything about this Rauhan Sana sect, but Laestadianists I have had dealings with. In my experience they’re mostly harmless but annoying. However I don’t know about the inner workings of their cult.




Uutuuskirja kertoo Juha Sipilän Tuomo-pojan traagisesta kuolemasta: ”Sipilä purskahti itkuun, kun hän näki kaiken tämän”:

Juha Sipilä Tuomo-poikansa kuolemasta: ”Olisiko leikkaus pitänyt jättää väliin?”:

Juha Sipilä avautuu poikansa traagisesta kuolemasta: “Tuomon kuolema herättää kysymyksiä”:

Juha Sipilän vaimo Minna-Maaria Kotiliedessä poikansa kuolemasta: ”En tiennyt, että se olisi viimeinen kerta, kun halaamme”:

Juha Sipilän Arvomaailma: