A refutation of Michael Hoffman II
By Jude Duffy
June 29, 2017 Anno Domini
Michael Hoffman II says my comments about him posted on an article published on Henry Makow’s site are calculated to harm his “reputation as a historian”. This is provably false. Far from being “calculated”, my comments were originally a private reply to a woman who wrote to Henry taking issue with my passing reference, in another Makow piece, to Mr. Hoffman as anti-Catholic. This woman challenged me to substantiate my description of Mr. Hoffman and I did so. Henry asked me if he could publish this private reply on his site, and I agreed. So, no calculation.
However, since Mr Hoffman raises the subject, if he wishes to rebut slurs, real or imagined, on his historiographical credibility, no one is stopping him presenting all his formal academic qualifications in this discipline.
Incidentally, my original passing comment about Hoffman (and other alternative media types such as David Icke) alluded to their penchant for uncritically recycling any and all negative narratives the corporate media serve up about the Catholic Church—even though they urge their followers to treat the same media’s narratives about most other issues with contempt. Hoffman in his counter-attack has made no effort to refute this criticism.
Nor has he addressed my point about why he condones the media’s unrelenting efforts to portray clerical sexual abuse of minors as a uniquely Catholic crime. This co-ordinated hate campaign is one of the great media scandals of our time (as some Protestants and even some atheists have acknowledged), yet Hoffman promotes it very enthusiastically in his writings.
Only a few days ago, an item appeared on British Sky News relating to Peter Ball—former Anglican bishop and close friend of the heir to the British throne, Prince Charles—who has been convicted of multiple counts of sexual abuse of minors. The report stated that the former head of the Church of England, Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey, had been ordered by the current Archbishop of Canterbuy, Justin Welby, to cut all formal ties with the Church of England, because of his role in covering up the crimes of Bishop Ball.
In addition to being the former head of the worldwide Anglican Communion, Carey sits in the British House of Lords and is still a prominent figure in British public life, so this was by any standards a huge story. If it had related to a former Catholic bishop found guilty of sexual abuse, and a former head of the Catholic Church in England found to have covered up his crimes, it would have made front-page news, not just in the U.K. but also around the world. The ultra-Zionist New York Times would have devoted endless column inches to it, and the usual oligarch-funded and directed cultural Marxist groups would have staged noisy protests outside Westminster Catholic Cathedral.
Even the self-styled traditionalist Catholic movement would have jumped on the bandwagon, showering the corporate media with sycophantic garlands for “exposing the sickening corruption at the heart of the post-conciliar Church”.
Yet not only was this story not the main headline on Sky News, it didn’t even merit its own report from a religious affairs or legal affairs correspondent.
Furthermore, Sky News chose to downplay Peter Ball’s crimes by referring to them as the ‘abuse of young men’, when the victims were in fact teenage boys. Over 80 per cent of the victims of Catholic clerics convicted of sexual abuse were in the same age range as Ball’s victims (or the ones he has been convicted of – he has also been accused of abusing younger children). Yet the media invariably refer to Catholic clerical abuse of teenagers as ‘paedophilia’, ‘child abuse’, or the ‘rape of children’.
Needless to say, and regardless of the culprit, there can be no question of minimising the horror of the crime of homosexual abuse of teenagers, but the anti-Catholic vendetta of the media is discernible even in the different language corporate presstitutes use to describe equivalent crimes—depending on the religious denomination of the perpetrator.
Underscoring this vendetta, the Daily Mail, a vile pornographic propaganda organ of the British-Masonic establishment, in its report on the Ball scandal, repeatedly referred to Bishop Ball as a ‘priest’, a term that in Britain usually denotes members of the Catholic clergy.
Mr. Hoffman of course never has anything to say about this whitewashing of the crimes of Protestant clergy, because, quite demonstrably, he shares the Zionist media’s hatred of the Catholic Church.
He repeatedly insists it is only the post-Renaissance Church he objects to, but unless he is exceedingly dense, he must know that the Catholic Church has never held that her divinely guaranteed indefectibility would run out after a given period of history—quite the reverse. If the Church is not indefectible now, she has never been indefectible.
And if she had never been indefectible, she would have been as much a fraud in the Middle Ages as she is now—according to Mr. Hoffman’s logic. He really must choose.
Moreover, Mr. Hoffman once again refuses to answer the crucial question as to what religious authority he deems worthy of obedience in the here and now. Does he believe that in today’s world every Christian must decide for himself on the great moral issues of our time? That is the definition of Protestantism—and liberalism
Hoffman challenges me to substantiate my claim that he admires Cromwell. This is extraordinary. In his writings he has repeatedly sought to downplay the Judaizing tendencies of Cromwell and the Puritans. Indeed, to read much of what he writes on this subject, one could be forgiven for assuming that the Jacobites had triumphed in the religious and political conflicts of 17th century Britain (see for example one of his most recent pieces on this subject ‘The Great Divide’ – May 2. 2017).
One doesn’t have to be a fan of the Stuarts (I’m not) to recognise the utter absurdity of placing the blame for Britain’s emergence as a usurious capitalist superpower on that dynasty—akin to blaming the Romanovs for the ills of the Soviet Union. Quite simply, Catholics were a defeated and persecuted minority in the days when usurious capitalism became the dominant economic system throughout the U.K. and its colonies.
If British Protestants had the aversion to usury that Hoffman attributes to them, they had ample opportunity to combat this vice from a position of enormous strength, as they held uncontested power in Britain and its possessions throughout the late 17th century, the 18th century, and the 19th century. As it was, usurious capitalism went from strength to strength in the era of Protestant hegemony.
The United Kingdom has never had a Catholic Prime Minister and hasn’t had a Catholic monarch since the days of the Stuarts. The United States only got its first Catholic President in 1960, and he was only deemed a worthy candidate when he promised not to let his faith govern his political decisions.
And he got shot.
The incontestable fact is that Protestants were ‘early adopters’ of usurious capitalism. Many of the founders of the Bank of England were Huguenots—as was its first governor Sir John Houblon. Even in the predominantly Catholic countries of France and Italy, Protestants dominated usurious banking—something their religious descendants still acknowledge today.
The same applies, incidentally, to Freemasonry. Hoffman dismisses the many papal condemnations of Freemasonry as a smokescreen to hide the real agenda of the “Romanists”, just as he dismisses papal condemnations of usury. On the other hand, he ignores the indisputable and very concrete links between the Protestant churches and Masonry, e.g., Anglican and Lutheran archbishops’ and bishops’ membership of the Freemasons.
So, in Hoffman’s bizarre counter-intuitive form of historiography, binding papal encyclicals can be dismissed as charades, whereas irrefutable evidence of Masonic domination of Protestant churches is deemed irrelevant in assessing the merits of these denominations.
Hoffman doesn’t appear to worry unduly either about Calvin’s openly stated support for usury, Luther’s admiration for occult alchemy, his proto-modernist attempts to edit the Bible to his own taste, and his exhortation to his followers to “sin boldly”.
Nor does Hoffman get around to explaining why, if the radical Protestants of past centuries were such upstanding folk, most mainline Protestant churches now support abortion, homosexuality, and why even most of the more conservative Protestant denominations endorse birth prevention and promote Israel First ultra-Zionism.
He largely ignores, too, the Protestant Anglo-Israelist origins of corrupt occult societies such as the Orange Order, Purple Arch, the Black Preceptory, Skull and Bones, and Scroll and Key—most of which flourished in the radical Protestant heartlands of northern Ireland, Scotland, New England, and the British colonies. Instead, he focuses all his moral outrage about the degeneracy of modern institutional Christianity on the Catholic Church.
For someone who takes such offence at criticism of his own stated views, Hoffman falsely attributes statements to his critics with reckless abandon. He says I claimed that usury “began” with Protestants. I would never say anything so absurd. Usury didn’t begin with Protestants or “Romanists”; it has always existed. I did say that Hoffman has attempted to whitewash Protestantism’s role in the rise of usury, and he has made no attempt to refute this charge.
Hoffman calls my speculation about the reasons for his admiration for Luther, Calvin, et al., “Freudian drivel”.
Actually if I had to write the piece again, I’d leave out the last bit about Hoffman’s possible motives for lionising Protestant leaders and Puritans—not because it’s in any way far-fetched to speculate that he may have fallen prey to romantic hero-worship—a much more plausible hypothesis than his own outlandish claim that the popes were secretly promoting Freemasonry while pretending to condemn it. No, the reason I’d omit this final paragraph is because, with hindsight, I think it gives Hoffman too much credit, and may falsely imply a nuanced outlook on his part about religious matters, where no such nuance or balance exists. Regardless of his motives, of which I obviously have no certain knowledge, Hoffman’s writings about the Church are quite simply the work of a crude anti-Catholic propagandist.
Incidentally, the only reason I even added the last bit is because Henry Makow, being a magnanimous sort of chap, asked me if I’d care to balance my criticisms of Hoffman with something positive. That was the context in which I wrote what I did about Hoffman’s piece on Bing Crosby and Irving Berlin. However his views on the Old Crooner notwithstanding, Hoffman’s anti-Catholic bigotry is beyond reasonable dispute in my view.
where the fuck is Fitzinfo? Did he get fucking killed I haven’t seen a tweet or new post from him in awhile and I’m starting to get worried. Fucking Jews, they have no shame.
Not to worry, friend, I am still here. I’ve been locked out of my Twitter account and don’t know if I will get it back. I’ll wait a little while longer before I open up a new account.
Exactly! Hoffman is an antichrist Protestant HACK!
Whack, whack and whack!!!
Hoffman has a propensity to radiate extreme arrogance and hubris. The fact that Hoffman adopts a PC stance on referring to jews as ‘judaics’ is laughable – especially for someone who has written about jews anf the Talmud (more so a historian who advertises himself as independent).
His views on Hitler, Nationalism and race reality also have a very ‘judaic’ flavor. The Catholic church had fought the jewish question for centuries, until it yielded to Masonic and ‘Judaic’ infiltration.
It reminds me of Daisy Duke’s anti-Catholic stance.
In fact, I could picture Hoffman and Duke, if they were around then, singing the praises of the architects of Vatican II.
I tried to read all of that including links to the original article and replies on makow’s site and it is dizzying.
I didn’t see a way to add a comment.
bottom line I think this Hoffman critic is correct. especially the part where Hoffman won’t admit what he actually practices , if anything.
I cannot figure out who Hoffman’s target audience is . mainstream Catholics have never acknwedged him and even traditional awake Catholics seem to view him, as I do now, (not in yeats past) as a rabidly anti Catholic person full of hatred and malice for the church. I asked him years ago if he was a sedevacantist or what, and he couldnt give me a straight answer. he told me to buy his book. No thanks.
Hoffman seems to be an arrogant and proud person. if he really thought about it he would take the sincere criticism and ponder on it humbly. it is scary that he attacks tbe church constantly with what appears to be hatred and malice. If he is a Catholic it scares me to see the response of God to all this malice on judgment day. The church is undergoing a great apostasy and a passion, beaten and bloodied like Christ on Calvary. But it’s okay, it’s prophesized, God has already won.
bottom line for me it is not even worth reading Hoffman’s pro protestant screeds or the very lengthy treatise against him. it is all division and contention. All of these people in my humble opinion need to say their rorsary daily, stay in the state of grace, .make Holy hours in front of The Blessed Sacrament whenever possible, go to daily Mass if possible , detach from the world, Read lives of the Saints or books by the Saints, instead of truly ridiculous and time-wasting conspiracy website infighting .
I will pray for all of these people.
They should go to http://www.reginaprophetarum.org and http://audiosancto.com for the antidote to all their problems . 🙂
The “synagogue of Satan” “mother of harlots” lords over her domain while atop the scarlet colored Catholic church beast in Revelations 17
An American citizen, not US subject.
FITZINFO I NEED YOU TO GET THE FUCK IN HERE RIGHT NOW AND READ THIS SHIT
And now with his supposed “blockbuster”, “The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome,” Hoffman “proves” that the Catholic Church has fallen from grace, being a “reputable” historian. But of course, this post shows how really a historian he is! I made the unfortunate mistake of getting his book “Usury in Christendom,” seeing that his earlier book Judaism Discovered” was more or less pretty good. No more!
I heard that Hoffman attended a traditionalist Catholic Mass at least a few times, but that is no more than rumor. As this article demonstrates, Hoffman won’t say what he believes is the true Church, only going on tangents or avoiding the question. Funny thing, too, that a SSPX priest believes him as well (I don’t know if he changed, but I do know he wrote a glowing review of Hoffman’s book on usury, the book which accuses St. Alphonsus Liguori of allowing mortal sin to be done)!
Paul, what did you think of Usury in Christendom? Is it as garbled as Judaism Discovered? I thought Judaism Discovered revealed a lot about the Talmud, but it was a hard read because it was written in such a disorganized fashion.
Not as garbled: Hoffman did try to be a bit more organized. Still, this effort was filled with little evidence, other than obscure Puritans, as Judy and others noted. He’s way too indulgent with the Protestants and harsh on Catholics. He hardly says anything about Calvin, and he’s too sympathetic with Luther.
Don’t tell me, he’s using Puritans as his primary sources? What a joke.
No, not quite. But he uses Catholic sources against other Catholic sources (medieval vs. Renaissance/post-Renaissance) to “prove” his point. Still, as even he notes, the Church still didn’t exactly define usury, only what was definite was examples. But he uses this to show the post-Renaissance Church had departed from Christ’s teachings. And he quotes St. Alphonsus Liguori to prove he “mandated mortal sin”!!
I have compelling evidence that Conchita Sarnoff the woman who “broke” the Epstein story is actually controlled opposition information gatekeeper. She’s involved with “anti-human trafficking” organizations similar to NCMEC/ICMEC. She was Married to a Jew named David Sarnoff. I have more info if you are interested
Short list of authors MIchael Hoffman needs to read:
Paquita de Shishmareff
Philip Hughes (Catholic historian)
James J Walsh
Paul & Philip Collins
Saint Robert Bellarmine
Saint Catherine of Siena
Valérie Pirie (Catholic historian)
etc etc etc
Fitzinfo you need to look into Conchita Sarnoff
Why is Conchita controlled opposition? What’s she hiding?
She’s connected to Debra Sigmund who was involved in the pizzagate thing (i know you think the whole thing was a psyop) but it was just wikileaks throwing lesser pedos under the bus. Roger Stone is mossad insider so he was probably involved like you said but they are still pedophiles.
Btw CNN is planning a falseflag for tmrw
BTW, I fear Mr. Makow may be too generous. The nonsense of an article that chap Hendries wrote would tend to make Mr. Makow’s website less reputable, since it repeats all the normal anti-Catholic nonsense and makes outright false accusations and judging all Catholic priests in one stroke!
It gained headwind after henry the 8th and bloody brits started the started of england and the germans started luthern
I don’t particularly care if he wants to criticize the CC or not, but I do think he may be “authorised” to criticize the Talmud. I found him on the US address sites in Idaho and everyone he lives with is Iranian lol. No other Hoffman’s at all. It seemed a couple of them were then done up for some kind of fraud in Oregon. Aside from pasting a link to my favourite article at Forward explaining to the diaspora that the Iranian Jews are the creme de la shite, I’ll leave it at that. https://forward.com/articles/208173/how-iranian-jews-shaped-modern-los-angeles/
Hi again. The comment above refers. it looks like it’s all been changed on the main address/personal detail websites (since I did the research about 2 years ago and since I know he’s very credible & open with his background …) but I managed to trace the alleged disinfo and Iranian connection, I say alleged because I can’t know for sure, but here in this link below, there’s a Michael A Hoffman in Coeur D Alene ID who previously resided in Geneva New York, and the revisionist historian is from Geneva NY. https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:KP1mX1Dz8j8J:https://www.mylife.com/michael-hoffman/cn/31+&cd=38&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=za
In that link, you’ll see a Deva E Hoffman listed as a relative. I recalled the name Deva from my previous research so dug around some more and sure enough, here she is below from a 2010 entry, also called by her other name, Deva H Mukhamediyev and listed with all the other Hoffmans from the mylife entry above. She also has different ages. As I said in the comment above, I previously found this particular Michael A Hoffman from Geneva and Coeur D Alene listed with many Mukhamediyevs (Surname. 5,390,187th. Most Common. Surname in the World. Approximately 12 people bear this surname. Most prevalent in: Kazakhstan https://forebears.io/surnames/mukhamediyev.)
If anyone is interested, they can dig around some more about these handful of people in the USA. For example there’s another relative in TX with the same Betty Gerald Hoffman listed with Michael A Hoffman called … Lydia Vasilevna Faust!
Again, I don’t know for sure if this is the same Michael A Hoffman … but if you paid for the records it should do the trick.
Have a great day!
Sorry you don’t need to post these openly … but this really is undeniable. The whole Khazak crew with Michael A Hoffman II
In google results the link https://www.whitepages.com/name/Mikemoody/WA shows the prreview:
Mikemoody in Washington (WA) | 7 records found | Whitepages
7 records – Arkem H Mujhameviyev • Arken Mukhamegiyev • Deva Hoffman Mukhamediyev • Lydia Vasilevna Faust • Michael A Hoffman II • Arken Mukhamediyz.
They don’t seem all that smart … but there it is. The revisionist historian is related to/associated intimately with a bunch of Khazahs, the incontestable curators of the Babylonian Talmud.
However, I would like to point out that the Talmud is only the continuation of the Torah, the sickening distortion of Mosaic Law wrought by the black high priest of the fake levites Ezekiel. I certainly agree with the priest in, I think it was Angela’s Ashes who told the boys “if you have sex without love you’ll go to hell” … at the same time, please review the following and for heaven’s sake WAKE UP. The evil of the OT has no place next to the Word of Our Lord and Christ has lost billions of souls because of it because (neat trick) He takes the blame. ENOUGH ALREADY.
“And the Lord spake unto me, saying. . . This day will I begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the nations that are under the whole heaven, who shall hear report of thee, and shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee . . . And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it . . . And because he loved thy fathers, therefore he chose their seed after them. . . to drive out nations from before thee greater and mightier than thou art, to bring thee in, to give thee their land for an inheritance . . . And when the Lord thy God shall
deliver them before thee, thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them; neither shalt thou make marriages with them. . . ye shall destroy their altars and break down their images. . . For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God; the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth . . . And thou shalt consume all the people which the Lord thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them. . . But the Lord thy God shall deliver them unto thee, and shall destroy them with a mighty destruction until they be destroyed . . . He shall deliver their kings into thine hand, and thou shalt destroy their name from under heaven, there shall no man be able to stand before thee, until thou have destroyed them . . . Every place whereon the soles of your feet shall tread shall be yours. . . even unto the uttermost sea shall your coast be . . . Of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shall save nothing alive that breatheth . . . thou shalt lend unto many nations and thou shalt
not borrow . . . Ye shall utterly destroy all the places wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods. . .” Deuteronomy.
“Blessed are the peacemakers; for they shall be called the children of God. . . I am not come to destroy” (the law or the prophets) “but to fulfil . . . Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies. . . He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes . . . Lay not up for yourselves treasure on earth . . . what is a man profited if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Thou shalt love the Lord thy God. . . this is the first and great commandment; and the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. . . One is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren. . . Let brotherly love continue . . . Whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased . . . Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees . . . ye are the children of them which killed the prophets . . . This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations . . . Forgive them, for they know not what they do . . . God that made the world and all things herein . . . and hath made of one blood all nations of men . . . be it known therefore unto you that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it . . . What then? Is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also . . . for the promise, that he should be of the world, was not to Abraham, and to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith . . . One God and father of all who is above, all . . . let brotherly love continue . . . For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ; whose end is destruction . . .” The Gospels, Acts and Epistles.
Hello again. Now that I have read the criticisms of Hoffman with relation to Catholicism, I would like to comment briefly on that topic because I may have something interesting to add. I knew about his book on Leo and usury but I never read it. I only read his work on the Talmud. My point here may offer an explanation for Hoffman’s behaviour and it’s ultimately Talmudic. and I don’t know much about medieval Catholicism. In my view, Catholicism is closest to the divine feminine, even though they have the gay trinity (in fact, the force is electromagnetic…) yet the love and adoration for the Holy Mother shines through and the honour for Magdalene is unparalleled in the “abrahamic” faiths. Also, Christianity as we have it keeps getting worse and worse, obviously as the evil ramps up over the centuries.
I spend a lot of time in an Afrikaans farming community in the remote west of South Africa. These people are very traditional and very Calvinist. Indeed, 150km away (just down the road) there is a town called Calvinia, the only one of its kind, I believe. These people are VERY usurious. The poverty here is appalling, alcoholism from the wine industry going way back and the there is a lot of old khoisan blood. They get their welfare cheques from the state and spend it on wine and there’s no food for the kids. Yet all the local shop owners see no problem taking their welfare cards and charging INSANE interest. These are just normal people who you would think would never do anything like this, but it turns out it’s not frowned on at all by anyone. So that’s one thing. I know in America the Amish and Pennsylvania Dutch were very traditional and walked the talk, but here in SA the Dutch Calvinist stock became very materialist. I always thought it was because the British led the charge, but the Dutch themselves were always divided. The Boers, who kept trekking away, were traditional farmers, and the “Afrikaners” in the Cape were often cryptojews and their friends. Even Sherlock Holmes says the Huguenots were cryptos. Anyway, it’s a vile country in terms of materialism and debt lending. “Christians” here generally behave many factors worse than any other Christians of European heritage anywhere, and the fascinating thing is that they go to church every Sunday. So what’s going on here? For a while, I’ve been pondering that It’s Talmudic magick and it’s embedded in the Old Testament. You see, the Dutch Reformers around here have internalised that THEY are the Chosen People. Everyone else is going to be exterminated as per the OT writings. You are free to meditate on this phenomenon yourself. It is prob ably inevitable since the OT and NEW are right there together … In addition, it may have been premeditated reason within protestantism from the get go. To make it happen! Sure looks like it.
As an interesting aside, I have a friend here, an elderly woman who is a “half breed”, half English and half Afrikaans, who is therefore shunned by the “chosen people” here in rural farming South Africa. I know she stopped going to the Dutch Reformed church a while back and I asked her why. I know she fights with the church people when they pocket the nice donations … but there’s more. It’s because, she said, the church is going all Catholic and pagan! There’s incense and they walk up the aisle with the cross draped in white and then draped in mauve. Too terrible, she says. And, if you can believe it, they have started taking communion! This elderly protestant lady was almost swooning, and I myself am confounded. It makes no sense, but these people are interesting because they believe themselves to have popped out of the top of Table Mountain. I have always wondered whether there is repression of the memories of persecution in Europe and perhaps now it is making itself felt? Or perhaps they’re just tired of sitting on the hard cold bench and looking glum and they have decided to add a bit of life to their services.