By Timothy Fitzpatrick
May 14, 2015 Anno Domini
The Jewish-controlled mainstream media has managed the climate debate in its typical over-simplified fashion, resulting in a population that has been tricked into working against its best interest.
The protagonist—climate alarmism—is financed and controlled by wealthy Jews like George Soros. Climate alarmists advocate an apocalyptic global warming scenario that is set to destroy the planet unless something is done, as if something could be done. They claim that man is responsible for global warming and climate change (they use these two terms interchangeably even though they are completely different) and that the solution is the de-industrialization of society through a complex series of greening schemes involving carbon trading and globalization—all carried out under the watch of the United Nations and their Agenda for the 21st century (Agenda 21). The more extreme elements of the this radical leftist encampment, especially elite proponents like Bill Gates, go further and claim that overpopulation is the major problem and that action should be initiated to reduce the population. Furthermore, to fulfill these greening orders, technological development must be ramped up in order to save the planet…and man, if possible. So, the climate debate is really about advancing the kabbalist-masonic goal of transforming (alchemy) society through technocracy, collectivism, eugenics (GMO, chemtrails, sterilization, vaccination), and absolute surveillance (smart grid) so that man may realize his Satanic potential of becoming a god. Agenda 21’s smart grid is a cheap imitation of God’s omniscience.
Wealthy Jews also finance the antagonists—so called climate deniers. The Koch Brothers provide the non-Jewish veneer for the capitalist side of this kabbalist Hegelian dialectic. The capitalists claim that global warming is exaggerated, if not, outright fabricated, without showing too much of the actual science. The right could easily win the debate by widely publicizing the science, but they don’t do this. It doesn’t fit the dialectic. Doubt must remain on both sides; there cannot be a clear winner. They claim that the left is conspiring to collectivize the world and push and profit from alternative technology in its place, resulting in excessive taxation and regulation. This is actually true, but again, they don’t elaborate too much on the details of this. They just want to plant infertile seeds of doubt, enough to confuse the public and maintain cognitive dissonance. Just like the left, the right doesn’t really seem to care about the truth, which is actually in its favour, because their motive is political and financial.
Big Oil and Eco-Fascists both ignore truth
The truth lies somewhere between the two extremes. Warming may not be taking place, but the climate is changing. However, that change can in no way be due to man-made activities. God is the ultimate mover, with the sun being the most obvious and likely driver of climate change. Man is ignorant and arrogant to think he has the ability to effect such change. Consequently, nothing man does can alter climate change; therefore, green schemes and carbon taxes are ineffective and can only serve as a wealth transfer pretext and further eradication of the middle class through excessive taxation—the Jewish money lenders’ goal, as outlined in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. However, industry is polluting the planet with chemicals and the devastation of the beautiful ecosystem that God created for His and man’s enjoyment. Regulating or even eliminating industrial polluters isn’t really talked about in the mainstream press. Only taxation and carbon trading is talked about. Clean, alternative energy exists, but it doesn’t benefit the cryptocracy. Instead, it benefits man, who is the target. Agenda 21, which is one of the most sinister forms of government even devised, is all that we are offered as the answer.
As you can see, we are being force fed only two predetermined solutions—determined by the very ones who created the problem in the first place. If the Luddites had succeeded in smashing to death the kabbalist Newtonian industrial revolution, the climate debate would not exist in its current form and the planet would be healthy. But we are long past that. Technocracy and Agenda 21 (both of which are closely allied with the Sodomite agenda) will eventually win the dialectic battle, as part of the final Satanic transformation of society before the final Judgement. The overthrow of capitalism in its current form will be touted as great human progress and the next step towards godhood.
Reblogged this on Johnsono ne'Blog'as.
There is a very nice expose of global warming nonsense here…
Global Warming Unmasked
“Technocracy and Agenda 21 (both of which are closely allied with the Sodomite agenda) will eventually win the battle, as part of the final Satanic transformation of society before the final Judgement.”
Yes, this is true but followers of Christ are to put on the whole armor of God and walk in righteousness and Truth and having done all to stand.
We, each of us right now, are to speak truth to power in whatever seemingly little personal stands we can take in our everyday lives. We are to be wise as serpents and gentle as doves. We are to be aware of their psychological tricks and call upon God’s ever loving mercy, grace, and protection to not fall in to these mine fields, traps, all around us.
Reblogged this on Jana Murray.
Very good piece. On EWTN’s The World Over last night, there was another manufactured “debate” between a climate change advocate and a “climate change denier”. This is a network where criticism of Israel and Zionism is verboten – especially since Mother Angelica was forced to surrender control – and yet climate change deniers are given their say there regularly. Likewise in the rest of MSM. “Climate change denial” is supposed to be modern “heresy”, but alleged sceptics on the issue are given plenty of air-time in a way that those who doubt official narratives about false flag terrorism or the integrity of western elections certainly are not. Contrary to their posturing as courageous un-PC outsiders, many “deniers” are very well ensconced in the establishment: e.g. Lord Lawson, former British Chancellor of the Exchequer, and an ardent advocate of nuclear power and fracking. His son Dominic (widely reputed to be an Mi6 agent) described himself recently as coming from a long line of Jewish atheists, and is married to the Catholic friend of Princess Diana, Rosa Monckton – whose brother Lord Christopher Monckton is also a leading climate change sceptic. Incidentally, like almost all of Diana’s “friends”, Rosa has never expressed the slightest doubts about the official version of the Princess’s death. Her brother Lord Christopher has championed many Neocon causes, including the Iraq War. On that point: the climate change deniers frequently have very strong Neocon connections – and get plenty of space in Neocon publications such as the Spectator and the Telegraph. As for the climate change advocates: their links to the New World Order are too obvious to need demonstrating, yet they succeed in reeling in plenty of naïve opponents of modern western consumerism, who seem to have a forlorn hope that the supposed scientific evidence for climate change will vindicate their anti-consumerist stance. In fact, as the piece above makes clear, the opposite is the case – climate change hysteria is being used to further technologise and de-humanise society. As you say, it’s one of those clearly contrived conflicts that the Kabbalists specialise in confecting – rather like the phony debate over radical Islam, with the phony “Islamophobes” of organisations such as the English Defence League and Pegida ranged against the phony multiculturalist left – both being controlled by the same puppeteers.
Thank you for good comment.
“Contrary to their posturing as courageous un-PC outsiders, many “deniers” are very well ensconced in the establishment: ”
THIS is very much a feature of false arguments and false debates and false thesis / antithesis / synthesis scenarious we are experiencing, even experiencing within ostensible traditional Catholic venues.
It is very difficult for people to see that sometimes the people who seem to be speaking out so strongly and clearly against the neocons and the Judaics and against NWO goals of schemes to promote death and slavery for all are the very people who are working FOR those ideas they are ostensibly fighting against.
The Voris video I posted referred to a case where the Vatican paid some environmental company a few hundred thousand dollars to plant trees or something and the company never performed the service or in some way totally ripped off the Vatican. Recently, and I cannot locate the specific reference right now, “Pope” Francis spoke out and acted in favor of global warming and United Nations agenda in a big way. Of course, none of the traditional Catholic Internet sites ever say anything at all about actions coming out of the Vatican and the “Pope”.
Dachsielady: In fairness to the climate change sceptic I reffed – who appeared on this week’s The World Over – he did make the same point you make about Francis’s embrace of the Climate Change Scam. As he pointed, out some of the folk on the Francis commission are rabid population controllers, and some of them even want to make denying climate change a criminal offence.
Hi, Northsider. I know it’s off topic as far as this thread is concerned, but I’ve been reading your exchange with Michael Hoffman. Really, I don’t know why the man continues to call himself Catholic and doesn’t just convert to Calvinism.
E Michael Jones got Israel Shamir to revue Hoffman’s book, “Judaism Discovered” in his “Culture Wars” magazine. From what I can gather, Shamir was less than complimentary. Hoffman then accused him of being a Kabbalist! The occult must also have infected the Orthodox as well as the “Church of Rome” (Protestant terminology, notice).
It has crossed my mind that Hoffman is a saboteur of some sorts, but I now tend to think he is just more deceived than anything as it pertains to his whitewashing of Protestantism, specifically Puritanism. I have read nearly half of Judaism Discovered. It is invaluable with respect to knowledge about Talmudic subterfuge. Personally, I don’t like the jumbled way it is written. I have not read his latest works, but I agree with Hoffman’s recent general thesis that anti-Catholic teaching crept into the Church during the Renaissance. However, I fear he will use this as a doorway to discredit Catholic history beyond the Renaissance. I am suspicious of Hoffman’s total silence about the Orthodox Church, not to mention the traditional Catholic community’s silence. The Orthodox Church has been the most consistent in its teaching and direction. The best traditional Catholics can do is dismiss any such talk as schismatic.
Mary Louise: Thanks. Totally agree re Hoffman – anti-Catholic “Catholics” are a very common breed these days, but he’s a rather unusual twist on the species. The guy has quite a bit of influence among anti-Zionists and anti-usurers (for want of a better term), so I’d guess his very determined whitewashing of Protestantism has led some such folk astray – especially in regard to the Church. I notice on Maurice Pinay’s blog he recently accused Traditional Catholics of believing that the Latin Mass was a magical rite. I have my reservations about some of the stances of “the Traditionalist Movement”, but in over 20 years of reading and listening to Traditionalist Catholic media, I’ve never once seen or heard a Traditionalist express anything remotely resembling such a view. Hoffman bandies around terms like “occult” in relation to the Church without ever properly defining them. Re Shamir, I’d have very strong reservations about some of his views – especially in relation to communism – but Hoffman recently posted a comment on the Pinay blog hysterically attacking him for, amongst other things, saying in a review of Hoffman’s book, that it was badly bound!! Shamir’s criticism of the book’s binding may or may not have been valid, but Hoffman’s fury over such a trivial comment was completely off the charts. Round three coming up later, when I have the time – assuming “the Hoff” has replied to my latest response to him.
I would like a link where I can read the discussions you are having, Northsider, with Mr. Hoffman.
I have learned much from Hoffman’s YouTube videos but less from reading his material as my vision is failing.
There are so few, less than five, Catholics who write about the Jews and the Church at all, so I have tried to just “eat the meat and spit out the bones” to quote Kent Hovind who is going to be released from prison soon.
Here is a recent Hoffman “appearance” with a Protestant patriot public access TV person…
Conspiracy Network TV Special Guest Michael Hoffman ll
Conspiracy Network TV Special Guest Michael Hoffman ll
View on http://www.youtube.com
What he said is that
it is the Orthodox branch of Judaism that is steeped in the Talmud. The Reformed branches of Judaism really do not know anything at all about the Talmud or what it says.
All however are deeply against the Messiah and appear to hate Jesus, but really they just will not have “a bit of it” to use British expression. The whole subject of Jesus or the mention of His name is banned in Jewish households throughout the world.
I thought that was very interesting.
I appreciated it when Robert Sungenis debated Protestant pastors, though he only speaks on one subject now – geocentrism. Hate to see Robert Sungenis’ wasting his excellent apologetical skills on geocentrism, a subject that makes no difference to my soul and salvation. It looks like Robert got an offer he could not refuse. The man has eleven children.
I appreciated with Michael Jones has discussions with Rabbis and with Protestant radio show hosts.
I also think it fine when Mr. Hoffman speaks with Protestants.
I do not appreciate it when Michael Voris and other well known traditional Catholics skip all around discussion of the covenants and what is the true position the Catholics should take in their heart and soul toward Jews and Judaism.
I agree with your reservations about Shamir. He claims to be an Orthodox Christian, yet posits some link between Christianity and Communism, whereas its patently obvious that Communism has Jewish fingerprints all over it.
Where is this exchange between you and Hoffman, Northsider?
To put it vwry planly to you, climate change is being engineered for decades, exactly to create this world delusion that we face a climate disaster. Climate change is done by harp and chemtrails and I do not really believe your thesis on some Hegelian dialects on this issue…not on this issue.Cabalists want to reshape the world and through a process of getting rid of all those who will not accept ‘the seven laws of noah for gentiles’ !!!!Let’s try to keep this issue simple, ok? Luis Rodrigues Coelho
“climate change is being engineered for decades, exactly to create this world delusion that we face a climate disaster”
True, but I have studied this issue for years and watched the UN’s lies and deceptions all with the help of lying “scientists.”
Nobody, no matter how much geo-engineering they have done, has created anything they want to call “global warming.”
“They”, these engineers of Satan’s lies, usually set up more than one reasons to make something look real. It is rarely and either / or proposition though that is the corner they like to back us in to.
There is a climate scientist, Dr. Ball, in Canada who finally won a lawsuit against these warmist evildoers. He knew how to knock down their phony facts and data and he did so after their giving him much grief.
Yes, it is true that this climate nonsense is part of the Brotherhood of Darkness one world death and slavery system for all. Yes, they plan to kill most of us off.
I am seeing, particularly clearly lately, how all of these outrageous evils being perpetrated on us from all sides fit together perfectly to construct this evil system.
All trust in all establishment authority, government, medicine, etc., is totally gone.
We see where all this is going.
Maranatha! Even so, come Lord Jesus.
Fitzinfo – sorry for delay in replying – the exchange is on Hoffman’s On The Contrary Site – under the post relating to it being the 500th anniversary since the Church granted limited license to issue interest free loans. I wouldn’t want to make too much of it – I just found the post rather irritating when I first read it a couple of weeks ago, and since he’s given it pride of place on his site for an unusually long time, I thought I’d challenge what I think is his attempt to whitewash Luther and the Calvinists. I admire Hoffman’s courage and tenacity, but I don’t think the historical facts remotely support his thesis that the Puritans and the Lutherans were mighty foes of “Usura”.
Fitzinfo: It’s not so much his criticism of the Renaissance Church I find troublesome – as his obsessive attempts to whitewash the Reformation – as long, of course, as it’s not the Tudor Reformation – which was carried out by the enemies of his beloved Plantagenets. To me this is all an open and shut case – Protestantism incontestably went hand in hand with the rise of usurious capitalism and freemasonry to boot. Yet apart from some vague waffle about the New England Puritans favouring a just price (even modern bankers say that!) he has never to the best of my knowledge provided one hard fact to refute the huge incontrovertible historical evidence, e.g. the massive role of the Protestant British Empire and the Protestant US in constructing the usurious world order. My other objection is that just like the Catholic Trads he excoriates he’s often quite happy to accept official narratives – in spite of compelling evidence of their fraudulence, e.g. the Boston bombing, Hebdo etc. Clearly this is the result of facile intellectual snobbery rather than cowardice.
Dachsielady: I’ve no objection to Hoffman or anyone else talking to Protestants – there seem to be a lot of very sincere Protestants in the States who are well clued up on the NWO. What I object to is his ever more obsessive vendetta against the Catholic Church. My mother once told me that she went into a shop where several women were angrily denouncing the Church. The shopkeeper said to them: “do you not think there’s enough people attacking the Church without you joining in?” This is sort of my view of the matter. One must ask in relation to Hoffman’s anti-Catholic diatribes: Cui bono? Even if everything Hoffman says about the Church and Protestantism were true (and to mind much of it is demonstrably false) it would still, in my view, be of highly dubious merit. The destruction of the reputation of the Church has enormously benefitted the LGBT agenda, the abortion movement, and the NWO anti-Christian tyranny generally. Doubtless Hoffman would say the truth must be told, regardless of the consequences. Well leaving aside the fact that what he says is often clearly NOT the truth, I don’t accept the premise. As the Catholic writer Christopher Lasch once observed: in modern times telling the truth has become a primary method of lying to the public. What he meant was that the misleading use of accurate information can be a potent deception technique. For instance, while much of the stuff alleged about the crimes of Saddam was doubtless exaggerated or downright false, some of it may have been true. Yet by focussing on Saddam’s crimes, real or imagined – rather than the much greater crimes of the Zionist controlled forces that deposed him – the mass media told a huge lie. By the same token Hoffman’s constant kicking of the Church is pure self-indulgence on his part, and only aids and abets the agenda he claims to oppose tooth and nail. Sometimes context is everything. If a gang of hoodlums is burning down your house, you don’t go running after a poor old woman you saw stealing a bottle of milk.
I appreciate your comments. I would love to hear you and Mr. Hoffman in a debate. You both seem to have a deep knowledge of church history. I guess if I had read or heard more of Hoffman’s work I would pick up on what you call his “constant kicking of the Church.”
For those of us out here who are thankful we are Catholics and believe it is the one true Church that Christ established on this earth who see this utter chaos all around us and see that it has something to do with “Judaics” and Judaism and Protestantism and traitors within, we are really hungry to hear knowledgeable Catholics give us the truth and give it to us in a balanced unbiased way.
Yet, personally I want to get back to the basic message of love and mercy and salvation through his redemption and I want more simple bible verses in context rightly dividing the word of truth.
I hate to say it but I am just tired of all this back and forth about “the Church.” I see so much of it does not lift up Christ and help people to find Christ. I just tuned in to CatholicAnswers radio show and listened to a bit of Brant Pitri who was speaking on the topic of the Holy Spirit. I turned it off in frustration and slight disgust after listening a few minutes. If that kind of dialog is what Jesus wants from us, I guess I still have along way to go in knowing, loving and honoring Christ.
We get very tempted to listen to non-Catholic Christians who claim to be speaking the forbidden actual truth about Judaism and Jews and as those subjects relate to the true message of Christ. For example, Texe Marrs is really speaking out lately about homosexual politicians and Jews lately and he has republished a book by Martin Luther. On the Jews and Their Lies, and we tend to feel thankful that someone is speaking up without fear. But at the same time, he has it all wrong about his ideas about Catholicism and he strongly pushes books by ex-Catholic Edward Hendrie. People just love it when a “Chrstian pastor” really speaks out against the Jews AND the Catholics. It really sells. And sadly even we Catholics find a bit of something we want so much to know the truth about, but we know Texe Marrs is really preaching a different gospel.
I think what I might do is post a review contrasting E. Michael Jones’ Capitalism book with Hoffman’s usury book.
Dachsielady: I see what you mean about getting tired of the back and forth re the Church, but as I see it there are two options in relation to Hoffman on this issue. Either he doesn’t know what he’s talking about or he’s lying. I have to say my encounter with him on his site has left me strongly believing that the man is a charlatan, rather than a conscious disinformation agent. His only recourse in our “debate” has been to endlessly repeat unfalsifiable guff about the “Hermetic-occultist” takeover of the Church in the Renaissance era. No hard facts to back any of this stuff up – just endless repetition, and of course vitriolic insults. When I put to him the issue of the huge well documented role of the Huguenots in the rise of English usury he completely ignored the point. Ditto my point about Luther’s praise for alchemy (his own son was an alchemist), Calvin’s usury, Protestant usurious rule of America, Protestant control of all the major usurious finance houses even in de Valera’s Ireland, and so on. Quite simply he just ignores points he can’t answer, and goes back to his unfalsifiable subjective waffle about the popes’ condemnations of Freemasonry clever ploys to disguise their true agenda. Plus he truncated my replies to him the night before last. He was never a hero of mine but before I engaged with him I thought he was an honourable man who on balance made a worthwhile contribution to the “alternative movement”. Not any more.
As I said, I know far little than you and even Hoffman regarding the historical origins of usury.
All I recall is that he makes a big point of how the Church used to hold a strong teaching against usury and it was considered a mortal sin and had to be confessed by anyone who cooperating with it in any way, including clerics. Then at some point, it was no longer a mortal sin and was gradually not talked about at all though officially it was still “condemned” by “the Church.”
Non-Catholics I have communicated with, when I feebly used to try to make an informed defense of “the Church”, have told me that the Vatican started “doing business with” the big Rothschild banking institutions and placed the Vatican money in those banks and engaged in other forms of monetary transactions with the Rothschild banks, who are generally thought to be the main usury practitioners around.
Again, even up to about fifteen years ago I have heard Catholics speak out and say “the Church” has always strongly been against usury. But all of this has not much meaning to me if it is formally or officially the position or “the teaching” of the Church. If the Church did not DO and OBEY God’s law in this matter of usury, It does not help the faithful at all in any way to see our leaders are saying God’s will but not actually doing God’s will inthis matter.
Again, many of us became attracted to Hoffman because he seemed knowledgeable about Talmudic Judaism as well as the historical and traditional Catholic faith. I am open to the idea that he may be lacking in the latter, but still there are so few people who know and teach the whole truth on these matters, that we tend to appreciate his work.
What E. Michael Jones says in The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit about Calvin, Luther, Puritans, and Protestants in general is quite different from what Michael Hoffman says about the same in his books. I don’t know who Hoffman thinks he is kidding, unless his target audience is Protestants.
In my comment above “condemnations of Freemasonry clever ploys” should read “condemnations of Freemasonry being clever ploys”.
Dachsielady: The bottom line as I see it is this: Do you believe the Magisterium of the Church is infallible or not. If you don’t go and become a Calvinist or a Marxist or a Neocon – whatever you want (needless to say I’m not talking here about YOU personally, lol). You can’t have it both ways – as Hoffman attempts to do. The Church, as Chesterton amongst many others noted, is always trying to steer a course between various extremes. To point to some of these historical tendencies finding shelter in the Church for a time, as evidence that the Church has been taken over is not scholarship – it’s student-debating drivel. And to point to toleration of usury by the Church as proof that Usurers have controlled the Church for 500 years is even worse drivel. We all tolerate evil every day – we have to. In a previous exchange with Hoffman a few months ago I asked him if he believed it was ok to accept donations given through the credit cards of usurious financial institutions. Strangely he didn’t answer that one either. Both St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas advocated tolerating prostitution as an alternative to even worse immorality that might ensue if it were to be forcibly abolished. Does that mean these two Doctors of the Church favoured prostitution? To ask the question is to answer it. Were the non-Catholics you communicated with Protestants? If so, I think they were, like Hoffman, engaging in pretty vile hypocrisy. Protestantism has been steeped in usury and the most ruthless forms of capitalist exploitation from its very beginnings. These folk remind me of the many Irish and British Protestants (and the Masonic media in both countries) who endlessly dwell on the crimes of the IRA, but who consign to the memory hole the equal in number and far more indiscriminate crimes of Protestant British Masonic murder squads in Ireland. There are plenty of legitimate charges to be laid at the door of the institutional Church (including undue friendliness towards usurers and usurious regimes), but when you start implying or stating that Protestantism bravely fought usury you are, wittingly or unwittingly, promoting outrageous falsehood.
Hoffman I notice didn’t publish my response to his most recent hysterically vituperative contribution to our exchange. If you’re going to complain (correctly) about corrupt Zionist censorship, you tend to have somewhat more credibility if you don’t corruptly censor yourself. Like the proverbial one-armed waiter he can dish it out but he can’t take it.
I see Michael Hoffman is back claiming that anyone who dares object to his whitewashing of Luther (that promoter of fornication, adultery, mass murder and alchemy) is simply a simplistic Belloc groupie. This is always his tac when folk refute his Prod nonsense – never address their arguments, just impute irrational prejudice to them – and block their comments when they expose the falsehoods. Given his raging vanity I doubt if it ever even occurs to him that many folk of goodwill might object to this unedifying mixture of spite and pusillanimity. And it also never seems to occur to him that many folk who don’t particularly admire Belloc find his own unsupported assertions about the Reformation completely laughable. I like some of Belloc’s writings but I think his anti-Muslim hysteria was a form of displacement activity that is bearing very poisoned fruit today. However on the issue of Protestantism he’s clearly far more historically accurate than Hoffman, who is just completely winging it.
today or one or two more days can free download interesting commentary about Martin Luther. isoc.ws
Also I’m reading a 99 cent Kindle book about Luther that Nelson mentions frequently –The Facts About Luther Father Patrick F. O’Hare
The O’Hare book is quite interesting because all the quoted material is from Protestant theologians who did not like Luther either.
Thomas A. Nelson
June 15, 2015
Listen to the interview using the player below, or download it*!
Northsider, perhaps you would be willing to write a critique of Hoffman, which I could then post here as an article.
Thanks for that Dachsielady – must check it out.
Timothy – would love to do that if you’d be interested. Would about a thousand words suffice?
Sure, as many words as it takes.
Ok – I’ll try and get it done asap
Look forward to it!
I second that.
Check out this Twitter exchange I had with Hoffman and another fellow. @MarkNdrejaj says Hoffman blocked him following this exchange and some more questions not captured in this screenshot.
And then this apparent hypocritical statement:
Sorry for my brain fog but I have lost the theme of this part of the thread, that is, what each “side” is contending. Please give a brief explanation of point of contention and what Hoff is being hypocritical about. It cannot be simply that one minute he claims “polls” (which necessarily includes voting) are rigged and next minute he claims vote outcome accurately reflected the votes of the Irish people. Is it that Hoff seems to be totally dissing the entire Catholic Church and the popes for probably more than the last half century while at the same time seems to present himself as still a practicing Catholic? I ask in all honesty because I would like to know the nature of the contention.
It started with Hoffman’s initial Tweet: “What good is the Church of Rome? In Ireland it molested so many kids that Irish went made & while pope was silent voted for gay marriage.” After Hoffman blocked Mark, he suggested that Hoffman feigned conversion to Catholicism merely to gain credibility. I am beginning to think that Hoffman is a Protestant of some kind (mixture of Puritanism and Calvinism?), albeit a very anti-Judaic Protestant. Northsider’s exchange with Hoffman at his blog shows, at least, Hoffman can be intellectually dishonest.
Thanks. Still a bit foggy but helps mostly.
Spiking posts / comments / tweets etc. seems to be going on everywhere big time. It is beginning to look to me like even all that “anti-free speech” activity of “site owners”, blogs etc., even the “patriot” and “free speech” sites is ACTUALLY PART OF THE PLAN.
I am beginning to wonder if a follower of Christ might, in these days, do better to withdraw from online activity altogether.
What is “spiking posts”?
It means erasing postings or comments in an online text conversation as by the blog or forum moderator who suppresses certain postings.
Does Hoffman do this? Perhaps his apparent lapse in judgement would be forgivable had he not been so pompous. There is just something very unlikable about him.
I do not follow any of Hoffman’s blogs or online entities. I did order CDs from him one or two times and did have one exchange by email with him regarding his bad treatment by Alex Jones when he was a guest a few years back and have watched several of his videos on YouTube.
I was just commenting in general that it seems that all of the forums and blog comments sections and other places where we can comment and participate are more and more having our comments go in to moderation or delayed from posting or not posted at all even when no forum rules have been broken. People are getting turned off more and more with the Internet forums for this problem and for other reasons as well, not the least of which is that there are obvious paid trolls or shills muddying many conversations about important issues related to finding and exposing the facts and the truth.
Of course I am not referring to FitzInfo. But these days I just wonder if my comments online serve any Christ-honoring Truth function. We search for truthful facts about Sandy Hook and 9-11 and other false events but we no longer have the rule of law or honest legal trials, honest judges and honest lawyers so no matter how many good questions we ask and pursue facts about, it never leads to anything other than more people “waking up.” I know I am not supposed to despair and not quit but I also know that none of that effort is as important as knowing, loving, honoring and serving Jesus Christ.
This is off topic a bit but wanted to make people aware of Part II of an interesting interview of Hugh Akins, who wrote Synagogue Rising, at icoc.ws It is free to listen and download for the next few days. I already downloaded Part I of this interview but now it must be purchased in the store at isoc.ws. Akins is quite articulate Catholic speaker and writer. Here is memorable quote for Part II interview.
“Communism as we know is nothing but a Jewish Masonic Trojan horse and nothing less.”
Alex Jones, John Birch Society, InstituteofCatholicCulture, ChurchMilitant.tv, and even EWTN and so many other “Catholic” organizations will never get below outer superficial exposure of communism. They talk and teach all around it and convey some truths but they never get to the Judeo-Masonic origins of communism.
Looking forward to Northsider’s critique of Hoffman, though in my heart I do not want to be unmerciful or unkind to him. The man has a large family and I think is trying to live off sales of his materials. I believe you may be right in putting down his ostensible attack on Catholicism or excessive favorableness toward Protestantism, admitting that I have no personal encounter with any of his rhetoric of this kind. I only know that he seemed very knowledgeable about the Talmud and I learned much from him in that regard. But it is always right and good to defend the Church and speak truth, and I am thankful to both Timothy and Northsider for helping understand this important infomration.
I just read all the comment in this thread and saw several important topics that I would love to discuss but will comment only about the “climate debate” matter.
I ran across a nice article by Canadian Dr. Tim Ball a few days ago. I donated to him years ago and heard him speak several times on Darren Weeks’ radio show on RBN radio. He did a brilliant job of fighting the climate change thing and finally won his big court case.
Anyway, the article was quite lengthy and I only read about half of it because of my vision problems. I became quite vexed when Dr. Ball, whom I have always admired and supported, seemed to be attacking the Catholic Church, and in my kneejerk way, I threw in a comment or two, as “dachsielady”, to the article to try to defend the Church. I should not try to do that because I am not at all as knowledgeable and skilled as Northsider and Fitzpatrick are in addressing these matters, Anyway, I was pounced on by several people who were extreme Leftists or rabid Protestants or atheists or I don’t know what. Anyway, they were all definitely “rabid” something and I quickly unsubscribed from that website which I had never been on before.
The Pope’s Encyclical Exposes Real Agenda Behind Global Warming
Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
Anyway, I feel that this article by Dr. Ball is quite relevant to the main topic of this Fitzinfo article.
Just in case you’re wondering Fitz – that article I promised you on Hoffman, is in progress, I hope to have it finished shortly. I was on holidays for a few weeks in July. To be honest, writing on this whole subject – it’s difficult to know where to stop! Totally agree with you re his very silly comments on the Irish “referendum” – it’s baffling how self-styled revisionists place such blind faith in the integrity of the western voting process. Surely the very first thing any “cryptocracy” worth its salt would rig is elections and referendums? Otherwise the rest of their infiltration and corruption would be akin making highly elaborate plans to raid Fort Knox, and then turning up on the day of the heist armed only with water pistols. And if they (the cryptocracy) promote baby killing and vile perversion of all kinds, not to mention genocidal wars, why on earth would they draw the line at the objectively much less heinous offence of nobbling the voting process?
By the way Dachsielady, whatever about Tim, you’d certainly buy and sell ME for knowledge and wisdom, any day.
Great! I know it’s going to be good. I think the best would be for you to just post your article in the comment section here, then I can grab the copy and post it as an article. Another thing I just thought of is that Hoffman doesn’t seem to address Americanism—something a supposed traditional Catholic ought to do, especially one who writes as an historian. I can’t think of one instance. If he is a crypto-Protestant, much of his behaviour makes sense. Hard to say for sure though. Perhaps he is legitimately torn between the two camps. His pomp and arrogance seem to suggest otherwise though. Bottom line, his intellectual dishonesty is his biggest problem.