“…’traditional Catholics’ are far more devoted to the incense, bells, sacred music, and ceremonies of the Tridentine Latin Mass of old than they are to the substance of the true Church’s dogma of rabbinic Judaism’s perfidy. The exterior of the Mass has been retained but the interior of its Biblical, Patristic, and medieval theology has been hollowed out and replaced by apathy toward accommodations with Talmudic Judaism and the betrayal of Jesus that they symbolize.”—Michael Hoffman

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
April 9, 2022 Anno Domini
Book Review

Revisionist Michael Hoffman’s 2017 polemic outing the modern Catholic Church as a “neo-platonic-Hermetic-Kabbalist” counterfeit is a difficult read both actually and in its revelations.

Hoffman begins The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome by condemning the “Church of Rome” as a deviation from the true Catholic Church he estimates began in the early sixteenth century, but in contrast offers a few examples of Catholic clerics, who, by miracle, actually did God’s work, including Fr. Pierre De Smet and Fr. Joseph Cataldo “in their work defending the American Indian….” So, the first two examples Hoffman upholds as renegades against the wayward neoplatonic syncretist Renaissance Pontiffs are two priests, miraculous in their efforts, because they defended a minority group. Is this a Christian apologetic or an argument from the Communist Manifesto? It sounds more like class (race) struggle than a Christian miracle. Fortunately, this subtle neo-Marxism of Hoffman’s doesn’t set the tone for the rest of the book.

Occult Renaissance is written in the usual Hoffman style: verbose, reactionary, bitter, repetitive, contrarian, scornful, and lacking charity at times (see my other review of his about Usury in Christendom). Thus, the 723-page book is quite a strain to read (thought not quite as straining as Hoffman’s Judaism Discovered, which is more a large reference manual than a book for casual Sunday night reading). It seems that his inspiration for the book came about as a reaction to today’s traditional Catholics, whom he sets up repeatedly as the mindless public relations agents of the papacy. So disgusted with their supposed ignorance he must’ve been, he felt compelled to set them all straight—first by writing Usury in Christendom and recently Occult Renaissance.

The implications of the author’s thesis, if true, requires a whole new revision going far beyond what sedevacantists have done with the Second Vatican Council and the associated “anti-popes”. Hoffman’s thesis is that, in contrast to the contemporary traditional Catholic view that the Church was corrupted and left without a valid pope starting at the Second Vatican Council (1958-1965), today’s counterfeit Catholic Church actually was first corrupted under the Medici popes, who opened the Vatican doors to centuries of occult subversion (mainly via saboteurs Marsilio Ficino, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, and Johannes Reuchlin), the justification of usury (Leo X), papal-approved lying (via Alphonsus Liguori’s Talmudic-inspired equivocation, 30 different ways of swearing falsely without guilt, and permission of birth control), and institutionalized pederasty (enabled by papal elitism).

“There is no other science that provides us with greater certainty of Christ’s divinity than magic and Kabbalah,” claims Pico.

Hoffman provides much evidence of Pico’s kabbalistic subversion of the Vatican. He concludes:

Giovanni Pico della Mirandola is the true father of the Second Vatican Council and the “post-Conciliar Church.”

Hoffman’s findings of rabbinic situations ethics peppered throughout modern Catholic teaching is significant; however, it’s ironic considering Hoffman’s own apparent situation ethics when he, as a Christian, associates with and defends the Nation of Islam. It seems their Marxist brand of anti-Zionism is convincing enough for Hoffman to ally with them against “Judaics”.

Also ironic is Hoffman’s fixation with the Tetragrammaton: the supposed secret, ineffable name of God consisting of four Hebrew consonants YHVH, from which we get Yahweh, Jehovah, etc. This supposed name for God is believed by some to be a Kabbalist invention that was inserted into the Masoretic text of the Old Testament (the authoritative Greek Septuagint of the Old Testament translates references to God as only “LORD”). Hoffman admits that the Tetragrammaton is used in magic (invoking demons, etc.) but dismisses the implications of this as merely pagan mockery or abuse of God’s holy name. The New Testament, however, clears up any confusion regarding God’s sacred name.

Phillipians 2:9-10 –  Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name. That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth.

“Jesus” is the name above all names; therefore, Hoffman’s advocacy for the Tetragrammaton is irrelevant to the Christian faith. We are saved by only one name, and that is Jesus Christ. (I am that I am; Aramaic: ehyeh asher ehyeh, is also used for God’s name in the Old Testament)

I was rather disappointed that Jacob Frank’s influence on the Catholic Church was forgotten or ignored by Hoffman. Frankism seems to have aided the Kabbalist syncretism of the “Church of Rome” and may have played a part in shaping the Vatican’s later Mariology (Hoffman takes a more restrained position on the Blessed Virgin Mary—for which I commend him).

Hoffman seems to reject the First Vatican Council (in addition to the Second), at least as it pertains to the dogma of Papal infallibility. His constant cynical use of “papists”, “papalolaters”, “priestcraft”, his many other expressions of disgust with papal power, and his casting of blame for the Church of Rome’s waywardness on the papacy tell us this. What also suggests this is his dating of the divergence from true Roman Catholicism to the Kabbalist “Church of Rome”, which occurred long before the First Vatican Council, at some point in the 15th century (at or just before Pope Leo X). If most or all popes after Leo X have been crypto-occultists (Hoffman claims occult progression following Leo X was “seamless”), then that can only mean the First (and Second) Vatican Council was invalid. Furthermore, Hoffman doesn’t use the common sedevacantist descriptor of “anti-pope” to describe the bad or heretical popes. They are all just popes. With this, Hoffman’s chosen Catholic position or whether he is Catholic at all continues to be a mystery. He could be accused of being a Protestant (esp. a puritan), Eastern Orthodox sympathizer, or other, but since he does not seem to recognize the primacy or infallibility of the pope, technically speaking he can’t be called a new kind of sedevacantist. He equates the power of the Holy See with Pharaohism.

Under Hoffman’s view of seamless occult progression among the papacy, he inevitably indicts Pope Leo XIII but provides little support for this in Occult Renaissance (see my challenge to this claim in Pope Leo XIII’s pontificate did indict the Kabbalah). In general, though, Hoffman’s seamless progression thesis seems plausible when you consider Pope Innocent III’s declaration that “not to oppose erroneous doctrine is to approve of it.” Where was the reversal of this progression? It’s difficult to argue that there ever was a post-Renaissance pope who reversed centuries of papist treason against Christ and His holy Church. According to Hoffman, those popes who seemed to provide a counter to papal syncretism did so as mere concessions to pacify the laity while the subversion continued, part of the two-steps-forward, one-step-back tactic.

As for Hoffman’s least supported claim, of institutionalized pederasty, there is truth to what he is saying, but his biases on this matter were revealed years ago by a contributor of this blog, Jude Duffy, and, therefore, he does not seem to have a good command of this subject.

…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.

As Bill Donohue of the Catholic League says, the Sexual Abuse Lobby is Agenda Ridden.

As much as I don’t care for Hoffman’s writing style—his questionable historiography; his contextual inconsistency; his arrogant and condescending dialogue with his critics and others; his scandalous and inappropriate association with the Nation of Islam; his Marxist views on race and colonialism—many of his arguments in The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome seem well supported.

“Whoever followed Christ when He walked on earth had to be an independent thinker free of the religious authority that controlled the Temple and had condemned Him. But “traditional Catholics” don’t question the pieties, legends, and lies that came before Vatican Council II on the part of saints and popes labeled conservative.”

While I would not recommend this book to recent converts to Roman Catholicism or nominal Catholics who might completely abandon what little there is of their faith after reading Occult Renaissance, I would recommend it to established and “traditional” Catholics. It could bring Catholics to a greater understanding of the usurpation of the one, true Church.

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
March 19, 2022 Anno Domini

Many may remember when U.S. presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton publicly named Judaeo-Soviet shill Alex Jones on television during the lead up to the 2016 federal election.

To the “profane”, it appeared a routine standard of naming so called enemies of the progressive social democrat agenda, but in truth, Clinton and her powerful Jewish-Bolshevik organized crime syndicate backers were giving the Austin, Texas-based disinfo artist the push he needed to expand his control and containment over American and Western dissidents to the world Jewish-Communist offensive. The manoeuvre also served to recruit would-be Infowarriors using the Streisand effect.

This contrasts the usual method of handling legitimate dissidents, by way of “dynamic silence“. Allegedly invented by ADL-B’nai Brith member “rabbi” Abraham Feinberg of the American Jewish Committee in 1947, dynamic silence involves ignoring the dissidents as if they didn’t exist and preventing them from reaching any significant audience exposure, thus, they and their potentially damaging message(s) are contained.

“In the first part, unfavoured individuals are denied unmediated exposure to the public. In the second part, only negative aspects of the unfavoured individuals are reported. This starts a downward spiral of de-legitimization in the public eye in which the harder unfavoured individuals try to get public exposure, the more negative and unflattering that expose becomes until, finally, nobody wants to be associated with the ideas or beliefs of the unfavoured individuals.”

If dynamic silence loses its effectiveness over the target dissident, other methods of containment are employed, including: blackmail (often sexual), coercion (often financial), intimidation (threats), and assassination (last resort). Obviously, though, dynamic silence is preferred, as it is quieter and cleaner.

The Clinton push wasn’t the first time that the Judeo-Bolsheviks explicitly and overtly gave a push to Alex Jones through this controlled (or false) opposition sleight of hand. In 2009, the Jewish organized crime syndicate’s American branch the Anti-Defamation League “exposed” (promoted, in actuality) Alex Jones, effectively naming him “the conspiracy king”. This was a message to those in the know that Jones and his Infowars empire were the premier false dissidents leading the narrative for total containment of the authentic dissident movement. Furthermore, the message to the conspirators seems to have been, “hey, he is one of us, so leave him alone no matter how far he takes things”. The idea is to corral as many dissidents as possible into one or few more manageable stables of controlled opposition.

Late journalist/author Michael Collins Piper writes in his 2006 book Judas Goats—The Enemy Within,

“Careful study of recent ADL and SPLC bulletins will frequently (but not always) reveal precisely which “dissident” groups and leaders are being utilized (and promoted) to collect names and assemble dossiers on perceived or potential threats. The ADL and SPLC give a big “build- up” to their own controlled agents so as to give them “credibility.” In other words, the average person will assume that because the ADL and SPLC happen to be attacking an individual or organization, that is some- how “proof” that the individual or organization is legitimate, as evidenced by the ADL or SPLC attacks. Those who affiliate themselves with such “trust” operations do so at their own risk.” (For more on the Soviet Operation Trust)

Last week, the legitimate dissident movement in America perhaps was gifted another clue as to double agents within its ranks when the ADL gave a push to a group of so-called “key anti-Semites”: Eugene Michael Jones, “Brother” Nathanael Kapner, Adam Green, and TruNews. Those familiar with this blog will known that Jones, Kapner, and TruNews are suspected Kremlin assets using anti-Judaism to bait their audience for the eventual switch to Western-Soviet convergence (under the guise of multipolarism, Eurasianism, or National Bolshevism). Adam Green, who has been publicly named by the ADL two times now, is also a very suspect character, whose exact allegiance is unclear but whose agenda seems to be to shift blame to specifically Zionism, America, and the West, which happens to align with the neo-Soviet agenda, particularly as it pertains to Operation SIG; although Green does at times criticize Russia and/or Putin. Most of the time, though, Green has been spreading lies that Christianity is just another Jewish form of control via his seeming handler, the Jewish Christopher Jon Bjerknes, a semi-cucked anti-Zionist.

How amusing is this comment by the ADL:

 “Green calls out both heads of state for visiting Israel’s Western Wall and for allegedly meetings with leaders of the Orthodox Jewish Chabad movement, whom he refers to as ‘the supremacists, lunatic chabad lubavitchers.'”

Green, himself, went to and travelled about Israel with his Orthodox Jewish-friendly, pro-Kremlin sidekick Jake Morphonios with little difficulty, if any. Even though this happened years ago, it’s hard to imagine that the “key anti-Semite” Green would have travelled around Israel with such ease. Was Israeli intelligence/security forces asleep at the time, or was Green perhaps given the green light by a higher up so that he could build his credibility among the dissident movement? Green now has a steadily increasing audience as a direct result. It’s interesting that Piper mentioned data mining (collecting names) as one of the jobs of the ADL’s controlled opposition puppets. Many suspect Adam Green of this very thing (see: If Adam Green is data mining for the ‘gogue…).

After giving a critical description of each ADL-described “key anti-Semite”, the crime syndicate concluded with the usual rhetoric of turning everything back to white supremacism and neo-Nazism. Ironically, Brother Nathanael Kapner still has posted on his site the aforementioned ADL piece promoting Jones form 2009 under the the headline Why Is The ADL Promoting Alex Jones? Now, it is Russian Orthodox parishioner Kapner who is suspected of the very same. The Kapner piece suspecting Jones of controlled opposition actually points to a 2008 ADL propaganda piece that means Kapner. But the more Kapner ramps up his rhetoric that Jewish-controlled Russia is our saviour, the more it appears he is the controlled opposition pretending to expose other controlled opposition. See my infographic showing how controlled opposition systems are flexible enough to allow for crossover between controlled opposition operations..

While the ADL pieces “exposing” anti-Semites does not automatically mean that the subjects are controlled opposition, it appears that in this most recent example of ADL propaganda, the four characters: E. Michael Jones, Nathanael Kapner, Adam Green, and Tru News—all advance Jewish communist goals to varying degrees  for eventual Western-Soviet convergence (see three-part series: The ADL in the world Communist offensive). If these characters posed a legitimate threat to Jewish world power, why didn’t the ADL employ the rabbinic tactic of dynamic silence as espoused by its member ?

*E. Michael Jones, Rick Wiles of TruNews, Michael Hoffman II, and RedIceTV, among others, were singled out by the ADL in 2019 as well (Despite YouTube Policy Update, Anti-Semitic, White Supremacist Channels Remain). Adam Green, along with his “former” handler Alex Jones, were named by the ADL in 2020 (“The Great Reset” Conspiracy Flourishes Amid Continued Pandemic).

By Timothy Fitzpatrick

In Michael Hoffman’s latest book, he implicates Pope Leo XIII in a centuries-long conspiracy by the papacy to hermeticize the Church through infusion with the Jewish Kabbalah.

Leo XIII, a favourite of traditional Catholics, is guilty because he did not include the Kabbalah in his exposure of Freemasonry in Papal Encyclical Humanum Genus, according to Hoffman in his 2017 book The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome.

“Both the New Age occultist, the Protestant Fundamentalist, and the ‘conservative’ Catholic believe that the Church of Rome in the Renaissance period under study, was the nemesis of all that Judaism represented, when in truth it was the vessel into which Judaism poured its Talmudic and Kabbalistic sorceries and iniquities,” writes Hoffman. 

“After these had been fully absorbed into the corpus of the Church at the highest levels, only then did  the Renaissance and post-Renaissance pontiffs mount their theatre of ostentious ‘persecution’ of Judaics, which was still so much of a charade that when Pope Leo XIII issued his encyclical contra Freemasonry (Humanum Genus, 1884), he scrupulously omitted all mention of the Brotherhood’s most virulent source of inspiration and direction, the rabbinic Kabbalah.”

Hoffman essentially accuses Pope Leo XIII of gatekeeping for the Synagogue of Satan and their gnostic infiltration of the Vatican, which Hoffman pins as beginning sometime in the 15th century, or even before (I will do a full review of Occult Renaissance in the near future).

Speaking further on Humanum Genus, Hoffman writes,

“…the encyclical constitutes a colossal act of misdirection…millions of Catholics have been misdirected away from knowledge of the true root of the masonic order.”

But Hoffman is incorrect that Pope Leo’s pontificate gatekept for the Synagogue’s foundational occult book, the Kabbalah (also, Cabala). Sure, Leo XIII may have omitted the Kabbalah by name from Humanum Genus, but he attacked central themes of Kabbalah via Freemasonry. Furthermore, under Leo XIII, the papal-approved Jesuit periodical La Civilta Cattolica specifically named the Kabbalah six years after Leo XIII issued Humanum Genus.

“Thus, the bonds that unite modern Judaism to Freemasonry are now evident, and ought to put to rest any doubts. The study of the so-called Semitic question, in France, in Germany, in Italy, and elsewhere, once only able to be seen in the light of shadows, inscrutable, has now come out of the shadows. It is now known how the Talmudic Cabala was introduced into the rites, the mysteries, symbols, and allegories of Masonic degrees…everything in Freemasonry is ordained by a Jewish Sanhedrin….” —The Jewish Question in Europe: The Causes, The Effects, The Remedies, La Civila Cattolica, Vol. VII, no. XIV, 1890 (English translation)

Quite emphatic. It seems that any of Humanum Genus’ alleged shortcomings were certainly fulfilled in The Jewish Question.

Now, one may argue that the Jesuit periodical, then edited by Matteo Liberatore, was speaking out of line with the Papacy; however, at the time of this periodical it was generally perceived as being a voice of the Papacy. Speaking of La Civilta Cattolica, Pope Pius XI wrote, “…from the journal’s very beginning, the authors set for themselves that sacred and immutable duty of defending the rights of the Apostolic See and the Catholic faith….”, while historian Richard Webster described the journal as reflecting the views of the Pontiff.

Lastly, Leo XIII had requested an outline of his Rerum Novarum (the Rights and Duties of Capital and Labour) from Liberatore, so clearly there was at least a professional relationship between the Pope and La Civilta Cattolica’s editor.

What seems more plausible than Hoffman’s thesis of gatekeeping is that Humanum Genus was placed as a stepping stone to the full truth revealed not only in La Civilta Cattolica’s The Jewish Question in Europe but also in Monsignor George F. Dillon’s The War of AntiChrist with the Church and Christian Civilization, delivered in Edinburg October, 1884, six months following Humanum Genus. It was later translated and renamed Grand Orient Freemasonry Unmasked As the Secret Power Behind Communism. The work, which was dedicated to Pope Leo XIII, devotes considerable time to exposing the Kabbalah (for example, in chapter VIII. Cabalistic Masonry or Masonic Spiritism).

Was Leo XIII gatekeeping when he had Dillon’s work published in Italian and in Rome at the Pope’s own expense? Hardly not. Pope Leo XIII signed a letter of endorsement for Dillon’s work, granted him the title of Monsignor, and made the him an official member of the Famiglia Pontificia (Pontifical Family).

If that weren’t enough to convince Leo XIII sceptics, consider that this Pope expanded on the Vatican’s book prohibitions (Index Expurgatorius) by going above and beyond Pope Pius IV’s previous prohibition on the Talmud and including with it “Cabalistic and other nefarious books of the Jews….”. Leo XIII’s revised index (Index Leonianus) was issued in 1897.

Hoffman may be correct that some post-Renaissance popes were double agents and/or gatekeepers, but it seems that, if true, Leo XIII was not one of them and was, instead, countering that infiltration of the Papacy, at least regarding Freemasonry, Jewry, and Kabbalah (Hoffman claims Leo XIII also gatekept for the usurers by not sealing up alleged loopholes for usury left by proceeding popes. Click here for my review of Hoffman’s book Usury in Christendom.).

Once again, we see with Michael Hoffman a tendency towards reductionism (see author Jude Duffy’s series on Hoffman) and apparent ongoing attempts to undermine the authority and holiness of the Roman Catholic Church. This is not to dismiss Hoffman’s overall analysis in the book of what he calls Hermetic, neo-platonic infiltration of the Papacy, but we will deal with that in my general review.

Read more Jude Duffy articles here:
Judeo-masonry allied with British Imperialists, Anglo-Saxon culture
Media anti-Catholic narratives with an endless shelf life
Michael Hoffman’s infatuation with Protestantism
Philo-Protestant lies about usury; paedophilic hypocrisy
Ireland’s white dispossession began decades ago by Judeo-Masonic forces
Brexit another Jewish dialectic?
The Judeao-Masonic roots of Ulster British Loyalism
Evidence of vote fraud in Irish gay marriage referendum

Ireland has a worse immigration problem than Germany, Sweden, the UK or France. That statement will astonish many people, but they can confirm its truth by spending a weekend in Dublin or any other city in the Republic of Ireland. On O’Connell Steet, Dublin city centre’s main thoroughfare, foreigners often outnumber native Irish at a rate of well over 100 to one. The official figures say migrants account for around 15 per cent of the Irish population—much higher than in most European countries, but still a huge underestimate.

These days you can drive from the centre of Dublin to its northern inner suburbs without seeing one white Irish pedestrian en route. Schools in many parts of Dublin have almost no white Irish pupils, and convenience stores, restaurants and supermarkets are staffed overwhelmingly by south Asians, Africans, Chinese and Eastern Europeans. Last year Merkel and her fellow Rotchshild shills opened the gates of continental Europe to millions of “refugees”, but successive Irish governments had beaten them to it by about 20 years. From the mid-1990s onwards, Ireland welcomed hundreds of thousands of migrants from all over the globe. This process accelerated rapidly from the mid 2000s onwards—to the point where foreigners now form a majority in many localities.

Take for example the formerly sleepy seaside village of Balbriggan, just 15 miles north of Dublin city: The 2011 census says that out of a population of almost 20,000, 31 per cent are ethnically non-Irish and 12 per cent are black. Even five years ago, a walk down its streets indicated that this figure vastly understated the number of foreigners residing there. Indeed Africans predominate at street level to such an extent that popular parlance has renamed the town “Blackbriggan”.

Many rural towns—e.g., Longford in the midlands, and Gort and Ennis in the west – have been similarly overwhelmed. And the invasion shows no sign of slowing down, much less ending. Indeed, far from seeking to put a lid on the problem, the Irish state class go looking for new migrants – for all the world like a poultry farmer beckoning foxes on to his land. Recently, an Irish naval vessel “rescued” almost 800 “refugees” off the coast of Tripoli and shipped them to Ireland. Britain says it will take twenty thousands of refugees over a five-year period; Ireland, a much smaller economy, says there is no upper limit on the number it will accept.

The visual evidence of the streets confirms that this is no idle boast. Even in the last few months, the number of burqa-wearing women on Irish streets has risen dramatically.

Unlike the German, Swedish, or British immigration crises, there has been no discussion, much less outcry, about this co-ordinated invasion of Ireland from all corners of the globe. In fact, any debate on the issue dwells exclusively on whether the Irish state and the Irish people are doing enough for the new arrivals. British newspapers like the Sun, and the Daily Mail wax indignant about the immigration problems of the UK, but their sister versions in Ireland denounce any similar concern on the part of Irish people as vicious racism.

By the same token, Irish media commentaries on the Brexit referendum last Summer invariably acknowledged the “legitimate concerns of the British people about immigration”. No argument there, of course, but these Anglo-Zio-Masonic outlets deem any similar concern on the part of Irish people about a proportionally much larger influx completely out of bounds.

Unsurprisingly Jewish tribal supremacists feature prominently among those who promote the immigration cause in Ireland, chief among them the veteran politician Alan Shatter. Shatter, a doyen for decades of cultural Marxist and anti-nationalist causes, engineered the rise to prominence of the current Taoiseach  (Irish Prime Minister) Enda Kenny—up to that point an obscure journey man rural TD (Irish member of parliament), and rumoured transvestite.

In 2008, the then Taoiseach, Brian Cowen, was caught on a live mic in Dail Eireann calling Kenny, Shatter, and the rest of the Fine Gael opposition front bench “Freemason Fuckers”. Within a few weeks of this outburst, Cowen’s government was hit by a huge financial and economic crisis instigated by Goldman Sachs—a crisis that shredded the last vestiges of Ireland’s political and economic independence. Cowen staggered on in office for another two years, at which point a Masonic cabal in his own party ousted him and installed one of their brethren, Michael Martin, as leader. After the ensuing general election in early 2011, Kenny and his fellow “Freemason Fuckers” took power.

Shatter lost no time in showing who called the shots in the new regime, by grabbing for himself no less than four senior ministries: Justice, Defence, Equality, and Law Reform. As Minister for almost everything, he avidly promoted mass migration and regularly hosted elaborate mass citizenship ceremonies for the “new Irish”.

Like his fellow Zionist advocates of open borders for Ireland, his enthusiasm for immigration to Ireland is only matched by his support for an Israeli state that imprisons and deports African asylum seekers and is openly racist by its very nature.

Jewish tribalists like Shatter, Ronit Lentin, and the multipurpose cultural Marxist activist Ivan Bacik abound in the Irish “anti-racist” and pro-migration movements, but it would be a cop-out to imply that Jews alone drive this movement. The vast majority of the presstittutes and political whores who promote mass immigration in Ireland, are, alas, self-hating cucks of Irish Catholic stock. And where the presstitutes lead, the sheeple follow. Lament the huge demographic transformation of Ireland and many Irish men will respond by simpering in true girly “pathological altruist” fashion: “Sure, we emigrated everywhere”—as if the Irish are duty-bound to succumb to collective suicide, merely because, they, like every other European nation, have a history of emigration.

For many Irish men, the ultimate statement of their masculinity is not pride in their country, but a nerdishly obsessive devotion to English soccer teams like Manchester United or Chelsea. They exemplify the cultural phenomenon I call the “macho mangina”: those men who have no stomach for defying the Feminist-thought cops and national suicide engineers, and who, instead, overcompensate by adopting a lifestyle the corporate crass media, with clear diversionary intent, sets before them as “manly” – e.g., obsessive interest in sport, cars, alcohol, heavy metal, porn, etc.

The Makow site often refers to the illuminati’s penchant for projecting on to their enemies the machinations they themselves perpetually engage in. Since the foundation of the new state, Anglo-Irish Masonry has habitually deployed this technique. Irish literature, for example, has long been one long whine about the power the Catholic Church and “narrow-minded Irish nationalism” supposedly wielded over the society at large in days of yore.

Masonic hogwash. Even at the height of Eamon De Valera’s alleged Catholic “theocracy”, Masonic Protestants and Jews owned all the major banks and industries in Ireland. Some of them, like Guinness, continued anti-Catholic employment practices until well into the 1960s. Ireland’s leading newspaper, The Irish Times, only got its first nominally (very nominal indeed) Catholic editor in the mid-1980s. Two of the first four Irish presidents of the Irish state were Protestants, even though Catholics accounted for over 95 per cent of the population. Trinity College Dublin was another Protestant citadel.

As for the vexed issue of clerical sexual abuse, some prominent Anglo Irish Protestants, to their great credit, have lamented how the Irish media and state class deliberately suppress information about such abuse in Protestant denominations—the presstitutes’ clear intent being to foster the false impression that this disgusting vice is a purely Catholic problem. And even the notoriously un-Catholic Catholic Archbishop of Dublin has revealed that the same Irish government which relentlessly bashes the Church for covering up clerical sexual abuse has written to him requesting that he allow lay teachers convicted of child sexual abuse to continue teaching in Catholic schools!
As they say, you couldn’t make it up.

There’s method in all of this. By depicting the founders of the Irish state as blood-crazed psychos, and the Catholic faith as an all-powerful religion of repressed, sadistic perverts, the Anglo-Zionist Irish media instill in the Irish people a crippling guilt about the very existence of their nation. And, needless to say, this form of psychic driving offensive dovetails perfectly with the mass-migration agenda. If you’ve been taught to believe your nation has no right to exist, why on earth would you fight its destruction?

There is almost no white nationalist movement in Ireland to speak of, partly for the reasons already cited, but also because old-school Irish nationalists can have no truck with an Anglo-white nat movement, which, much more often than not, loathes any form of Irish nationalism, and is slavishly devoted to the Ultra-Judaeo-Masonic tenets of Ulster British Orangeism (an enthusiasm Anglo-white nats share with their alleged enemies in the Talmudic Neocon movement.

Not that there are many old school nationalists left anyway. From the 1970s onwards, both wings of Sinn Fein/IRA were co-opted by their Anglo-Masonic enemies, and bizarre as it may sound, both now act as mouthpieces for the anti-nationalist agenda of mass migration and multiculturalism. The same applies to all the other political parties. Indeed, to an extent unparalleled by any other European country, Irish culture is defined by knee-jerk adherence to PC shibboleths.

Today the country is in a post-depression phase. Wages have been slashed, working hours increased, and draconian new taxes levied—all in response to the manufactured economic “crisis” of 2008. Shatter has been forced out of frontline politicals, but his protégé Dame Enda clings on as Taoiseach by his (varnished?) fingernails—with an openly homosexual half-Indian, Leo Varadkar, waiting in the wings to take over (which he now has).

The same Goldman Sachs lackeys who enforce this austerity affect to see no contradiction in continuing their de facto open borders policy, not to mention providing lavish social welfare, health, education, and so on, to the new arrivals. The political whores and the presstitutes defend this harishirt agenda by screaming “The party is over!
The money just isn’t there anymore!” Needless to say, they never get around to explaining why, if this is the case, so much largesse still abounds for the many tens of thousands of migrants who are waved through at our airports, ports, and northern border every year. The lackeys’ economic policy is like a father donating the family’s savings to able-bodied panhandlers, while forcing his wife and children to live on dry bread and water.

Because of their small numbers (around 4.5 million), the massive volume of new arrivals, and the complete absence of any form of organised resistance, the native Irish face ethnic extinction much sooner than most other western nations. But as things stand, that does not seem to bother most of them too much—or at least not enough to do anything about it. After all, there are more pressing things to worry about: Manchester United are struggling to regain their form in the English Premier League….

Like most Trads, Hoffman accepts without question the official results of the May, 2015 Irish “gay marriage” referendum – another example of how much faith he places in mainstream narratives – as long they don’t very directly impinge on questions relating to the Jews and the state of Israel. To put it bluntly, anyone who takes the results of Irish referendums at face value clearly doesn’t know much about the systemic corruption of Irish politics – or western politics generally. To cite just a few examples of this corruption:

A chance recount in the 2009 Irish European parliamentary elections in a west-of-Ireland constituency revealed that 3,000 votes had been taken from a pro-Palestinian, anti-EU activist and given to a much more pro-establishment, pro-EU candidate. The count took place in Castlebar, the heartland of the deeply corrupt rabidly pro-abortion, pro-homosexual Irish Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Enda Kenny. The really revealing thing about this scandal was the (non) reaction to it on the part of both the Irish media and the Irish Garda (police). The following day’s Irish Times newspaper noted the “misallocation” only in passing, and the state broadcaster RTE (“Rothschild Televised Effluent”) ignored it completely. According to the candidate who was the victim of this clear attempt to nobble the election, the Irish police refused his repeated requests to investigate the matter. It must be stressed that this fraud came to light completely by happenstance – a sombre fact that raises the question of just how many other attempts to nobble the voting process have gone unnoticed – and thereby succeeded.

In 2011, RTE’s tele-text service correctly stated the outcome of the Irish Presidential election several hours before voting had stopped, even though the opinion polls a day before had put the rabidly left-liberal winning candidate between 15 to 20 points behind a much more socially conservative rival. This weird phenomenon of television and radio broadcasters announcing the correct result of elections, hours, days, or even weeks, before voting has taken place, will be familiar to Americans acquainted with Jim Condit Jr.’s research on U.S. electoral fraud.

In the 2009 re-run of the Irish EU Lisbon Treaty referendum, there was an extraordinarily uncanny 20 per cent swing from the anti-treaty side to the pro-treaty side in EVERY SINGLE CONSTITUENCY. Video footage of the referendum count centre in Cork City on the night after voting had ended, showed a man walking out of the count centre with a ballot box tucked under his arm! No police, security checks, or supervision of any kind was evident at the centre, and people walked in and out of the building as they pleased – even though it was in the small hours of the morning, and the goods in the hall (the ballot papers) could not have been more politically and constitutionally significant – not just for Ireland, but for the whole of Europe (Ireland was the only state, the constitution of which necessitated a referendum on the Lisbon treaty – if the result had been NO for a second time, the Lisbon Treaty, aka the European Union Constitution, would surely have died). The same lack of supervision was true of other count centres throughout Ireland.

Alone among western nations, Ireland insists, for reasons that have never been questioned, much less explained, in delaying the counting of votes until the day after voting has taken place. Almost all other states begin counting votes minutes after voting has ended. If you want to rig an election or referendum, having 12 hours to play around with definitely helps.

In a transparent attempt to explain away the unlikely nature of the same-sex marriage (SSM) referendum result, the Irish media made the utterly outlandish claim that 100,000 young Irish emigrants made the journey home in order to vote for the proposal. This is preposterous – about as likely as suggesting that fifty million young Americans would travel home from abroad to vote in the final of American Idol. The idea that young Irish people would go to the enormous trouble and expense of travelling home from often insecure jobs in far flung locations such as Australia, New Zealand, the U.S. and Canada, to vote in this farce, in itself goes a long way towards proving that the vote was systematically rigged. Moreover, workers at Dublin Airport, whom I have spoken to, readily confirmed to me that there was no unusual spike in the number of Irish travelling home in the days leading up to the referendum.

The Irish Garda (police force) and the Irish Law Society both took an openly pro-SSM stance. Both of these bodies are mandated to be above politics, and both are – in their different ways – crucial to the integrity of state procedures such as elections and referendums. Yet both openly flouted constitutional norms in order to support the SSM proposal. If that is not a recipe for systematic fraud, hidden in plain sight, what is?

The SSM vote was only one of two referendums taking place that day. The other referendum related to changing the law to lower the age when Irish citizens could stand for the Irish Presidency – from 35 years of age to 18. That proposal was defeated! So, if, as the Irish and international media claimed, it was young people voting in droves that delivered the SSM victory, one would have expected a similar victory for the other referendum proposal. Why would “progressive-minded” young people, of the type who would vote for SSM, vote to bar themselves from standing for the presidency of their country until they reach middle-age?

The official results from Ireland’s hard-core working-class constituencies indicated an astonishing 90 per cent vote in favour of the SSM proposal. Anyone familiar with the Irish working class knows that they tend to be “homophobic” for reasons that have little or nothing to do with organised religion, so the idea, touted by everyone from the New York Times to the Remnant, that the vote could be explained as a rebellion against the Church simply doesn’t wash.

International oligarchs such as Chuck Feeney and George Soros poured billions into the Irish pro-SSM campaign.
Where did all that money go? Postering and leafleting cost next to nothing in a small country like Ireland. Does the real money trail lead to the purchase of holiday villas and new cars by referendum officials, police officers, and others charged with overseeing the integrity of the Irish voting process? Anyone who has read Brian Nugent’s book about Irish state corruption, “Orwellian Ireland”, would say that such a scenario is far from unlikely.

In a way, Hoffman’s facile response to the Irish referendum official result brings us to the crux of “the Hoffman problem”. The huge evidence of vote fraud throughout the West should make every professed media sceptic or “revisionist” extremely cautious about drawing conclusions based on the results of referendums or elections – not just in Ireland, but pretty much everywhere. Only last week, Nigel Farage, the leader of the British “Euro-sceptic” party, UKIP, called the result of a by-election in north-west England “perverse” – and hinted strongly that the election had been rigged. The pro-Palestinian campaigner and bête noire of British Zionists, George Galloway, made similar allegations of fraud in relation to his own loss of a huge majority at the last British general election.
Many Britons believe the Zio-Tory victory in that general election was down to carefully co-ordinated rigging in several key constituencies. By the same token, Russian election monitors stated categorically that the Scottish Independence Referendum of 2014 was likewise rigged.

Yet Hoffman finds it much easier to question the integrity of the Catholic Church’s many historical condemnations of Freemasonry, than to question the integrity of the actions of the Freemasons themselves in the here and now.
His relentless attacks on the Catholic Church are not the product of detached sceptical scholarship, but of irrational hatred, and perhaps some irrational love – of Protestantism – as well. There IS a case to be made that the institutional Catholic Church had begun compromising with the New World Order well before Vatican II, but someone who seeks to whitewash the corrupt and subversive influence of the Protestant Revolution is the very last person to make that case. If the pre-Vatican II Church can be blamed for anything, surely it is its undue cosiness with usurious-Judaeo-Protestant regimes.

Notes
(1) “Garda Union Urges Members To Vote Yes In Referendum”: http://www.independent.ie – April 21, 2015.
(2) Baroness O’Loan “appalled” at Garda referendum intervention” – IrishTimes.com – April 30 -2015.
(3) “Ombudsman Reviews European Vote Investigation”: http://www.villagemagazine.ie – April 2, 2010.
(4) “Vote Manipulation in Ireland in Run-up to Lisbon 2 “: http://WWW.youtube – Sep 22, 2009.
(5)” Irish Referendum Count At Cork City Hall”: http://WWW.youtube – October 7, 2009: This short video exposes the complete lack of supervision at one of the major vote counting centres for the crucial rerun of the Irish EU Lisbon Treaty referendum of 2009. It should be noted that the outcome of this referendum had vital implications, not just for Ireland, but for the whole EU integration project.
(6) “Ballot Box Problems, Broken Laws Cast Doubt on Irish Lisbon Referendum Result.” corbettreport.com – 8 October 2010.
(7) “Lisbon Referendum in Ireland Was Rigged”: The Tap Blog – Oct 5, 2009.
(8) “Democracy is dead” says UKIP leader, as Labour take 100% of postal votes surge in one area” – http://www.express.co.uk – Dec 5, 2015.
(9) “Farage claims “perverse” Labour win in Oldham” – http://www.express.co.uk – Dec 5, 2015.
(10) “Oldham by-election: Police could be called in to investigate complaints about Labour victory.”: http://www.telegraph.co.uk – Dec 4, 2015.
(11) “Whitehall in denial over extent of UK election fraud, says Eric Pickles.”: http://www.the guardian – August 13, 2015.
(12) “Here is how the Election in the UK was rigged.” http://www.youtube – May 8 – 2015. For further information on the huge potential for vote fraud in the UK, watch the interview between Ian R Crane and Brian Gerrish, on Crane’s website, The Crane Report. In it both men discuss the extraordinary fact that the brother of a very senior member of the British Tory Party, Peter Lilley, runs the firm that controls the postal voting system in the UK. It should be noted that Crane and another leading British anti-EU activist, David Noakes, have both said the 2009 Irish Lisbon referendum was definitely rigged. Indeed Noakes says he believes that the first 2008 Irish Lisbon referendum was also rigged – by 20 per cent, and when that didn’t work they rigged the second one by 40 per cent.
(13) Petition: Rerun the Rigged 2015 UK election.
(14) “SNP Election Landslide Proves Referendum Was Rigged, Claims Russian Official”: http://www.herald.scotland.com – May 10, 2015. This Russian election official wasn’t being wise with hindsight. Russian monitors at the Scottish referendum stated at the time that the vote had been rigged; the election result seven months later only served to add much more weight to their allegations.
(15) Scotland Independence Vote Rigging Exposed”: http://www.youtube – 19 Sep, 2014.
(16) One news item I was unable to locate on the internet, in spite of a very exhaustive search, was a report that appeared in most major Irish newspapers in 2008, in which the then Irish Taoiseach (Prime Minister), Brian Cowen, was caught on a live mike in the Irish Dail (parliament) referring to the leader of the Fine Gael opposition party and his colleagues, as “Freemason f…ers”. Quelle surprise, a short time after this episode, Cowen was deposed as leader of the then governing Fianna Fail party in a palace coup – orchestrated with the help of the British intelligence controlled Irish media. The man he referred to as a Freemason f…er, Enda Kenny, became Irish Taoiseach in 2011, and following last Friday’s Irish general election, it looks likely that he may assume the same role in the next Irish Dail – albeit with a reduced number of parliamentary colleagues. Kenny’s coalition government has not only legalised abortion and SSM – it has also imposed a Rothschild/Goldman Sachs regime of draconian austerity, and has further exacerbated Ireland’s massive immigration problem. Irish media reports about Cowen’s “Freemason f…er” outburst have clearly been very comprehensively deleted from the internet. Indeed a few years ago, when I searched for this intriguing item, I could find only one reference to it, and that was in a local newspaper in New Zealand (!). Even there however, the f word had been expurgated – not the expletive f-word I hasten to add – the “freemason” word!

Calvin’s own radical departure from traditional Christian views on economic and financial matters couldn’t be clearer: he explicitly endorsed usury and thus broke completely with the traditional Christian teaching on money (9). Hoffman attempts, quite absurdly, to muddy the waters by citing the Catholic Fuggers’ usurious activities, and certain Catholic theologians’ partial endorsement of usury. In so doing he ignores the crucial fact that neither the Fuggers nor such theologians formed the Magisterium of the Catholic Church – whereas Calvin very obviously defined the spirit and letter of Calvinism. The clue is surely in the name.

Hoffman argues that the Pope Leo X bull permitting limited interest on loans for charitable purposes, not Calvin’s teaching, was what really opened the floodgates to usury (10), though he never gets around to explaining why, if this is so, it was the great Protestant powers, Britain, Holland, Geneva, and latterly the U.S., where usurious capitalism really took off.

Regardless, of how one, with hindsight, views Leo’s bull on a prudential level, it was anything but a ringing endorsement of usury, but rather a partial and very tentative derogation in response to special circumstances. It may have been a foolish compromise with the usurious spirit, but the unpleasant truth is that most of us compromise in some way or other with the usurious spirit every day. Hoffman himself accepts donations through usurious financial institutions – in fairness he might not be able to carry on his work if he did not.

Hoffman argues that the failure of Cromwell’s effort to allow Jews en masse back into England proves that the conventional old-school Catholic critique of Cromwellian Puritanism is unfair. But again this is to engage in facile historical reductionism, whereby the context of history is ignored in favour of extracting isolated facts for use as debating points. Thus, while it is true that Cromwell didn’t succeed in allowing the Jews into England, it cannot be seriously argued that he did not plan to do so (11) or that the Puritans were not, in general, extremely philo-Judaic by the standards of the time (12).

In fact, the rise of “Anglo-Saxon Protestant” supremacism resembled Jewish racial supremacism in many ways – the very term White Anglo-Saxon Protestant” having its roots in crypto-Judaic national exceptionalism. The “Anglo-Saxons” were not especially Anglo-Saxon – recent DNA studies of the indigenous English population confirm what many serious historians and genealogists have known for years: that the English share more genetic heritage with the French than with the Germans (13). But like Zionists and German National Socialists, British Protestants invented an ersatz form of racial jingoism to justify genocide, enslavement, and persecution.

Like other philo-Puritans, Hoffman acknowledges that the Puritans were much more concerned with activity in the world than with contemplation, but he fails to see the implications of this fact for his attempt to portray these radical Protestant sects as at least partial inheritors of the true spirit of medieval Christianity. No medieval Catholic would exalt work and action over contemplation. The Catholic Church has always taught that prayer and contemplation are far more vital for salvation than economic activity in the world. When that order of priorities is reversed, as it was in much of Europe and the “Anglo-sphere”, in the centuries after Reformation, the stage is set for the triumph of vulgar materialism. One of Mrs. Thatcher’s economic gurus, the former Communist Sir Alfred Sherman, poured scorn on the large number of Spaniards in monasteries and convents during the Counter-Reformation era, in contrast to the “economic dynamism” of Protestant Europe.

This notion, that Protestantism brings in its wake dynamic modern progress, and commercial and industrial enterprise – as opposed to the rural reactionary stagnation of Catholicism – has been a recurring theme of Whiggish Protestant historians for centuries (the Whiggish philo-Judaic Victorian historian, Lord Macaulay being a famous example). Some corporate media commentators have even suggested that it is not coincidence that four of the five countries at the centre of the E.U. financial “crisis” were Catholic – Ireland, Italy, Spain and Portugal (the other one being Orthodox Greece). They may have a point: it may be no accident that Catholic countries should be the first on the hit list of larcenous City of London and Wall Street bankers.

It might sound like a curious thing to say about a holocaust revisionist, but Hoffman is in some ways quite a conventional thinker, all too happy to accept corporate mainstream media versions of events if they can be made to dovetail with his own prejudices. In this, ironically enough, he resembles the Traditionalist Catholic movement – a recurring target of his ire. Just as Traditionalist Catholics in general accept the media version of the Catholic abuse scandals without investigation, Hoffman does likewise, albeit for very different reasons. Whereas “Trads” embrace the media scandal narrative because they foolishly believe it can be made to vindicate their own critique of the corruption of the post-Vatican II Chruch, Hoffman does so because he thinks this narrative vindicates his own philo-Protestant dislike of post-Renaissance Catholicism.

Significantly neither he nor the Trads seem remotely interested in independently investigating (A) the reliability of the many allegations made against Catholic priests or religious, or (B) the context of the scandals. For example, in a recent piece on his blog Hoffman cites one of the many anti-Catholic books published about Catholic clerical abuse in Ireland, and suggests that the horrific revelations contained therein “apparently drove the Irish people mad” and led them to the ignominy of being the first nation to vote for sodomitic “marriage”. This piece encapsulates Hoffman at his worst: unbalanced diatribes based on uncritical regurgitation of highly dubious “facts” from ideologically tainted sources. Moreover, like the Trads, he never seems to consider the possibility that the pattern of cause and effect he identifies is far from happenstance.

Or to put it another way: an unbiased commentator would surely recognise that it is highly far-fetched to suppose that the anti-Christian media and media class suddenly discovered a selective horror of clerical paedophilia just at the time they planned to unleash an extraordinary intensification of their onslaught on vestigial Catholic culture. There is a familiar pattern here which every reflective person should recognise. Just as western media attacks on Saddam, Milosevic, Assad, and Ghaddafi preceded massive military attacks on these regimes, the relentless media blitz against the Catholic Church preceded a cultural Marxist version of Shock and Awe, whereby rabidly anti-Christian propositions, that a few short years previously had been confined to the outer fringes of the far left, were targeted successfully at the mainstream of respectable society.

Unbiased investigation quickly reveals that that many – although by no means all – of the allegations of sexual crime made against Catholic priests and religious remain to this day completely unproven. This is because, contrary to the corporate media line that Hoffman faithfully echoes, Church authorities, for reasons best known to themselves, handed over many billions of dollars/sterling/Euros, without any proper investigations of allegations – often in cases where priests and religious had been deceased for many years, and were therefore in no position to defend their good name (18). Furthermore, both Church and State authorities deemed accusations “credible” on the very flimsiest of circumstantial evidence, e.g., an accuser having lived in the same town as the accused at the time of the alleged offences.

But in the simplistic crypto-punk outlook of Hoffman and the Trads, the undeniable corruption of the modern Church makes every allegation against a Catholic priest credible, and therefore in no need of unbiased investigation – even when there were and are compelling religious (or anti-religious), political, financial, and cultural motives for blackening the name of Catholic clergy.

It should be noted that when it comes to World War II, Hoffman abhors his own logic. In that context he freely admits that Hitler was indeed a war criminal and “one of history’s prize fools” but argues that these facts in no way vindicate all the charges of systematic genocide laid at his door.
Incidentally, while we’re on the subject of revisionism, one of the ironies of the on-going anti-Catholic feeding frenzy is that Protestants like Dr. David Duke recognise it for the co-ordinated Zionist psy-op that it is, whereas the Catholic Hoffman – not to mention the Catholic Trads – refuse to see what’s staring them in the face.

It would be remiss to write on this subject without noting how the Zio-masonic media and political establishment treat genuinely credible allegations of paedophile rings in their own milieu. Since 2012, many senior public figures in Britain, living and deceased, have been accused of paedophilia. Some have already been sent to prison for such offences. Very recently, allegations of child abuse against former British Prime Minister Ted Heath made it into the mainstream media. Most of that media, including the BBC, implied that these were completely new allegations, and that Heath’s accusers were cynically taking advantage of the fact that he was no longer around to defend himself.
As anyone with even a passing acquaintance with the so-called alternative media can testify, this is complete bunkum. Regardless of one’s view of David Icke, it is a matter of public record that he publicly challenged Heath (in the Guardian newspaper) to sue him over precisely the allegations that many in the media are now dismissing as cowardly posthumous attacks on the reputation of the “asexual” former Prime Minister. Strangely the notoriously combative Heath declined to take up Icke’s gauntlet. The point here is that the same media which accepted without any reservation every allegation made against Catholic priests and religious, living or deceased, seem far less eager to form lynch mobs where pillars of the secular masonic establishment are concerned. Indeed many media outlets have viciously character-assassinated the alleged victims of establishment paedophile rings.

By the same token, many of the media that have obsessively pursued the Church on the issue of paedophile clergy, have themselves been deeply and very directly implicated in the cover-up of paedophile networks. The BBC, a deeply corrupt organisation that has broadcast endless hit pieces on the Church, not only covered up paedophilia in its own organisation, but actively facilitated the notorious child predator Jimmy Savile, by continuing to employ him as host of audience-based children’s TV shows long after his criminal proclivities were widely known.

(Editor’s note: Footnotes to come)

Michael Hoffman, the revisionist writer, clearly regards it as one of his missions in life to shift blame for the rise of “Christian” usury from Protestantism to the Catholic Church. In many articles and books Hoffman has asserted that Protestants, specifically Calvinists, have been unjustly scapegoated for usurious hegemony in the west. Hoffman’s method of argumentation on his website and elsewhere is to simply ignore facts that don’t support his thesis of Protestants as radical foes of usury. Thus he ignores or downplays the huge and well documented role of Calvinists and other Protestants in the rise of modern industrial usurious capitalism – a role modern Protestants and philo-Protestants not only admit, but brag about (1). He also ignores, or attempts to explain away, some central facts of post-Reformation history, such as, for example, the rise of great usurious Protestant capitalist powers in the centuries after the Reformation.

For example, Britain as a fanatically Protestant polity, became the world’s leading usurious industrial power in the post-Reformation age. Moreover overseas territories settled by Protestant Britons likewise eagerly embraced usurious capitalism (2). In this context it must be noted that since the Whig sponsored Dutch Orangeist conquest of England, it has never had a Catholic monarch or Prime Minister.

Anglo-usury and Anglo anti-Catholicism went together. The United States, another capitalist superpower with a long history of anti-Catholic persecution and discrimination, only got its first Catholic president in 1960, and we know what happened to him. The all-pervasive hatred of Catholicism that characterised both the British Empire, and to a lesser extent, the U.S., makes the idea that some form of subtle or subliminal Catholic influence explained these nations’ fervent embrace of state-sponsored usury bizarrely far-fetched.

Why, in any case, would Protestants, especially radical Protestants, obediently follow the lead of the hated Papists in something so fundamental, especially since the whole point of the Reformation was revolt against Rome? The question gains even more force when one remembers the central pivot of Hoffman’s thesis: the notion that during the Renaissance the Catholic Church broke with the teaching of the Medieval Church on financial matters, and that disgust at Catholic financial corruption partly drove the Protestant “reformers”. How likely was it that Protestants who rebelled against Rome, in part because of perceived financial corruption, and who repudiated apostolic succession and many ancient dogmas of the faith, would blindly sign up to a new anti-Christian financial dispensation, simply because their religious arch-enemy had already done so? If they revolted so violently against ancient teachings of the hated Papists, and went on an iconoclastic altar and statue smashing rampage across great swathes of Europe to prove the point, why on earth would they eagerly embrace newly minted Catholic teachings – unless, that is, such alleged new teachings dovetailed with their own materialistic agenda?

In an exchange on his blog, Hoffman noted that when Calvin endorsed usury, several prominent Puritans, including John Cotton, reproved him. Far from admitting the obvious implication of this statement, which is that the founder of the most successful radical Protestant sect decisively broke with the anti-usury traditions of Christendom, Hoffman attempts to argue that it proves the anti-usury outlook of many radical Protestants.

Not only is this highly disingenuous – Calvin defined the spirit of radical Protestantism far more than John Cotton did – but it also points to a more profound misapprehension on Hoffman’s part. He seems to be believe that the tendencies of Reformation and post-Reformation radical Protestantism can be illustrated simply by citing anti-usury writings and sermons of some prominent Puritans. Thus is if a prominent New England Puritan like Cotton condemns loan-sharking, this for Hoffman proves that the Puritans cannot be blamed for the rise of usurious capitalism. This is grossly simplistic on several levels.

First of all condemnations are one thing – actions are quite another. When it comes to the Catholic Church, Hoffman attaches no credibility whatsoever to the post-Renaissance Church’s many condemnations of usurious capitalism and freemasonry. According to him, all such condemnations amounted to nothing more than cunning and hypocritical ploys on the part of Rome, to disguise its true occultist-usurious agenda. On the other hand he takes all the statements by early Protestant leaders condemning usury or Judaic corruption completely at face value – even when they come from the mouths or pens of men such as Luther, who condoned all forms of sin including lying, and enthused about occult practices such as alchemy (3). Emotionally and spiritually, then, Hoffman is anything but a detached unbiased scholar when it comes to evaluating the merits of post-Reformation Catholicism on the one hand, and early Protestant movements on the other.

Another problem with cherry-picking anti-usurious or anti-Judaic statements of early Protestants is that this type of reductionism often fails to take note of the underlying trends at work in historic political or religious movements. For example, if most 1960s liberals had been asked what they thought of same sex unions, the vast majority of them would have said they deplored such a grotesque idea, and that social conservatives who suggested otherwise were simply scare-mongering. Indeed as recently as 2012 Barack Obama claimed to be opposed to “gay marriage”. Yet when the American Supreme Court ratified this evil sham in June 2015, the U.S. President celebrated by lighting up the White House with the colours of the LGBT rainbow flag. Revolutionary movements aren’t always open about what their true endgame is, and sometimes aren’t even sure themselves, so their past statements are by no means an infallible guide to their future actions.

Hoffman himself spots subtle “gradualism” everywhere where Rome is concerned, but ignores much more glaring examples of the phenomenon in the history of Protestantism. Thus he cites Pope Leo’s Papal Bull “Inter Multiplicis” as beginning the gradual process of abandonment of the Catholic Church’s prohibition against usury, but denies that Calvin’s much more definitive embrace of usury played a decisive role in the rise of loan-shark hegemony.

Unfortunately for his thesis, the historical facts speak for themselves. Protestant and Jewish families shaped the modern financial system in Britain and its dominions (including Ireland), and in the U.S., Prussia, Switzerland, Scandinavia and elsewhere. Even in predominantly Catholic nations like France, Protestants were at the heart of usurious banking. The rhetorical hostility of certain Puritans to usury does not in any way negate the huge role radical Protestants played in the rise of the usurious state, any more than the opposition of certain traditionalist Anglicans to “women priests” proves that Protestants have had no truck with feminism.

The Reformation unleashed forces which at least some of its devotees neither encouraged nor desired, but as with early social liberals, this in no way absolves the reckless “reformers” from blame for the predictable consequences of their revolutionary pride. That pride made it inevitable that greed and the love of money would follow in the wake of their revolution.

The usurious spirit cannot be divorced from liberal pridefulness generally – it is interwoven in the fabric of modern post-Catholic culture. If love of money is the root of all evil it is because money facilitates the commission of all other sins Rebellious pride was at the very heart of Protestantism from Luther to Henry VIII to Thomas Cromwell, from to John Calvin to Oliver Cromwell. That incidentally is why Whiggish Neo-conservatives, including pseudo-Catholics like Michael Novak, are such philo-Protestants: they grasp, in a way that seems to completely elude Hoffman, that the Reformation was the beginning of the modern revolutionary capitalist age. Those early Protestants who condemned usury did so because they still lived in post-Catholic post Medieval culture, just as the 1960s liberal who condemned sexual promiscuity, or abortion on demand, still lived in a world informed by vestigial Catholic morality.

Yet another problem with Hoffman’s approach to evaluating early Protestant statements on usury is his own definition of Puritanism. There is more than a touch of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy at work here, whereby Hoffman defines a Puritan as any radical Protestant who happens to meet his definition of what a good Christian should be. Thus when objectors point out that many Protestant denominations directly descended from Puritan sects – Congregationalists, low church Anglicans, Unitarians, and so on – pioneered a worldly liberal approach to moral issues, including usury, Hoffman blithely denies that such sects have any claim on the Puritan name (4). He adopts a similar form of circular logic in attempting to address the incontestable evidence that many of the pioneering usurious banks in Britain, New England, Geneva and elsewhere were owned by Calvinists or Puritans, or their descendants. A Puritan in his parlance is simply the type of Protestant who agrees with him on religious, political questions.

For example he says that to accuse Puritans of liberal tendencies is to adopt an “elastic” definition of Puritanism.
But Puritanism WAS elastic in most matters religious – apart, that is, from its hatred of Catholicism. Modern Whigs revere Oliver Cromwell because, like them, he loathed the Catholic Church, but not so paradoxically also embraced an early form of ecumenical liberalism, and tolerated many Protestant sects – ranging from Anglicans to Independents to Presbyterians and Unitarians – sects that disagreed with each other on many things, but shared a deep hatred of Catholicism. In other words liberals find Cromwell a congenial figure because his religious views don’t differ significantly from their own, and can be summed up as “ARBC” – Any Religion But Catholicism”.

The political and social authoritarianism of early radical Protestants should not blind us to this truth: Puritans were elastic in terms of religious dogma, but nonetheless deeply inflexible towards those who challenged their spiritual and political authority. In this they foreshadowed the modern left and the modern Neo-cons, who change their mind on a sixpence, but are utterly ruthless in their repression of dissent. Not so very long ago Communists persecuted homosexuals as bourgeois degenerates; now their hard left ideological descendants persecute critics of homosexual “marriage” as hate criminals. Like communism, with which it shares certain traits, Puritanism never lacked in fervour and authoritarianism – what it lacked was any coherent concept of moral and spiritual authority.

Notes:
(1.) Lagrave, Christian, “The Origins of the New World Order”, Apropos Journal, No. 29, Christmas 2011. This invaluable essay (translated from the French original), lays bare the pivotal role of British Reformation and post-Reformation Protestantism in the development of the NWO. As the late great Solange Hertz used to say: when it comes to tracing the roots of Judaeo-Masonic global tyranny, “all roads lead to London”.
(2.) Anger, Matthew, Chojnowski, Dr. Peter, Novak, Fr. Michael, “Puritans Progress: An Authentic American History”, Angelus Press, 1996. The role of Protestants in the rise of Anglo-American usurious capitalism is glaringly obvious; so glaringly obvious that it’s well nigh impossible to take seriously an argument based on denying or downplaying this central fact of American history. Furthermore writers such as the late Professor Anthony Sutton have documented just how steeped in occultism and corruption the Anglo-Protestant self-anointed “elite old-line” American families were and are. See his book, “America’s Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Skull & Bones”, Liberty House Press, 1986.
(3) Muggeridge, Anne Roche, “The Desolate City: Revolution in the Catholic Church.” Harper, San Francisco, 1985.  For more on Luther’s proto-Reichian sexual revolutionary tendencies, see also Dr E. Michael Jones 1993 Ignatius Press book, “Degenerate Moderns; Modernity as Rationalized Sexual Misbehaviour”.
(4) In an exchange with the author on Hoffman’s blog, “On The Contrary” in May 2015, Hoffman categorically denied that any Protestant who endorses sexual libertinism can legitimately be called a Puritan. In truth at the time of the Reformation, Catholics viewed the “Reformers” as dangerously indulgent on sexual matters. Hoffman is correct in saying that the idea of  the Puritans as strait-laced dour ascetics is a distortion, but it’s a distortion that, in a certain measure, works in Protestantism’s favour – tending as it does to obscure just how much the original Puritans had in common with modern liberals. If the Puritans were “joyless”, that joylessness stemmed from their materialist rationalism, rather than from the stringent nature of their creed.
(5.) Fahey, Fr. Denis, “The Mystical Body of Christ In The Modern World”, Browne & Nolan, Dublin, 1935. Even in an overwhelmingly Catholic country like Eamonn de Valera’s Ireland (over 95 per cent Catholic in those days), all of the major financial institutions were in the hands of Protestants or Jews. The same applied to most big commercial and industrial concerns, and to the Irish media. The role of exiled French Huguenots in advancing the Industrial Revolution, and in the rise of British usurious banking is well known – although, to the best of my knowledge, Hoffman largely passes over it.
(6) Lagrave: In his aforementioned essay, “The Origins of the New World Order”, Lagrave quotes the Scottish historian/philosopher David Hume’s description of Cromwell as in practice a religious “indifferentist” when it came to the various Protestant sects – a man who sought to form a united anti-Catholic international front of all the denominations, regardless of their doctrines. Indeed, such was his indifferentism many continentals believed him to be a Freemason. Whatever the truth here, it is certain that Cromwell’s policies dovetailed uncannily with those of “the Craft”. In modern times Neo-cons and other Zionist stooges on left and right are the most ardent members of the Cromwell fan club. Tony Blair keeps a bust of the vile old hypocrite on his desk. Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised at one mass murderer revering another.

By Timothy Fitzpatrick

Television personality Montel Williams seems to believe that conspiracy icon Alex Jones is a cokehead and con artist, even calling him out on it publicly via Twitter earlier this year.

Perhaps Williams’ coke claim isn’t so far fetched when you consider Jones’ superhuman confidence and energy levels, self-grandiosity, feelings of superiority and narcissism, cokehead friends like Charlie Sheen, and his patriot-funded millions in the bank (see: Cocaine, anatomy of a high and How Narcicissm relates to Cocaine Addiction).
And if he is a CIA/Mossad asset and a crony of wealthy elites, as this author believes, he would have ample access to the white stuff. It certainly wouldn’t be a shock if it turned out he were a cokehead.

Jones also appears to be jacked up on another Koch—powerful billionaires Charles de Ganahl Koch and David Hamilton Koch, who represent the Koch family empire of industrial capitalism. The Kochs are more or less the Rockefellers of the 21^st century, with their tentacles virtually everywhere, but especially in the realm of the neoconservative-libertarian mix. While not overtly Zionist, or even Jewish (nobody seems to know), the Kochs are a credit to predatory Judeo-masonic usury, also known as capitalism. Daddy Koch—Fred Chase—happened to found the crypto-Jewish “conservative” society of John Birch, of which Alex Jones appears to be a solid member (see Did the CIA recruit Alex Jones through the John Birch Society?). The Kochs are also behind the Tea Party and Libertarian movements in the United States, even throwing their support behind Jones cronies Rand and Ron Paul, and all helped by the promotion of controlled opposition news aggregates like the Jewish homosexual Matthew Drudge (DrudgeReport) and Zionist Joseph Farrah (WorldNetDaily).

Jones’ real agenda seems to have reared its trollish head more and more over the last few years, and perhaps it is because of the upcoming federal election in the United States, whether it’s outright endorsing neocon Zionists like Sarah Palin, rallying against raising the minimum wage, or touting the Koch’s Keystone XL pipeline as the saviour of the economy. Now that Jones has built up the core of his audience to its maximum potential, he can really let loose with his agenda, which directly lines up with the Koch agenda (the Koch agenda is a key fixture on the right of the kabbalist dialectic of seeming opposites. To show how flimsy Koch politics is, consider that the Koch empire helped set up the Soviet Unions oil industry under the watch of Stalin even though the Kochs have always been outspokenly anti-Communist. They have also gone both ways in the gay marriage debate as well as the abortion debate). Jones admits now that he is a “classical liberal” who advocates laissez-faire capitalism. The researched reader will know that laissez-faire is a product of the Judeo-masonic Enlightenment. Jones is as close to neo-conservatism as one can get (it also falls under the umbrella of masonic libertarianism). The Kochs are also for laissez-faire capitalism, as it allows them to conduct their exploitative practices, unfettered by government or anyone else.

Koch and Jones’ political views line up perfectly
Here’s some perspective on the similarities between what Alex Jones preaches daily through his media empire and the Koch Brothers’ agenda:

• Minimum wage freeze
• Anti-union
• Tea Party (Alex Jones claims to have founded Tea Party movement, so do Kochs—Kochs actually founded it: Study Confirms Tea Party Was Created by Big Tobacco and Billionaire Koch Brothers)
• Smaller government
• Laissez-faire capitalism
• Support Israel and neoconservative foreign policies despite being “libertarian” (anti-war)
• Stand with coal
• Support Keystone XL pipeline and conventional oil and gas development
• John Birch Society (Fred Koch a founding member of JBS)
• Libertarianism (David H. Koch was the Libertarian Party’s vice-presidential candidate in 1980; Kochs funded $250 million to libertarian causes from 1998 to 2008; Alex Jones is an outspoken Libertarian)
• Oppose socialized health care
• Oppose carbon tax schemes
• Oppose official narrative on climate change
• Attack renewable energy
• Anti-tax, especially for the rich
• Privatization of government services
• Ron Paul/Rand Paul (Koch Brothers Support Rand Paul)
• The Cato Institute (Ron Paul at the Cato Institute)
• Oppose net neutrality (Alex Jones’ Stance On Net Neutrality Proves He Is A Shill)
• Anti-police (Kochs have advocated criminal justice reform through Cato and The Charles Koch Institute; Alex Jones constantly fear mongers about the police state, even naming some of his documentaries “Police State”)
• Advocate restoration of U.S. Constitution (which is masonic)
• Monetary Reform, specifically a return to the gold standard

See now why Jones nor the alternative media rarely, if ever, talk about the Koch brothers, much less in a critical manner? The Kochs hide their money and influence in a complex web of political action committees (PACs) and tax-exempt foundations. Seems Jones has learned a trick or two from the Kochs, as he has done a good job of hiding his own funding through various incorporated dummy companies.

Koch brothers libertarianism, like JBS, serve to homogenize NWO dissenters and the so called right wing
In How the Money Power created Libertarianism and Austrian Economics, monetary reformer and anti-usurist Anthony Migchels draws some interesting conclusions about Koch involvement in the truth movement:

But in the meantime another very wealthy Jewish family, the Koch family (see ‘the Zionist Billionaires that Control Politics’), had taken over the organization of Libertarianism and Austrian Economics.

Fred Koch founded the John Birch Society in 1958. Ed Griffin was educated there. He later wrote a famous book, “The Creature of Jekyll Island”. This was a rehash of Eustace Mullins’ brilliant ‘Secrets of the Federal Reserve’, with one exception: it left out all Mullins’ analysis of the Gold Standard as a Banker operation and how Britain’s demand for taxes paid in Gold were the cause of the war of Independence. Instead it called for the reinstatement of a Gold Standard. This is a key part of the story OF how Austrian Economics managed to take over the ‘Truth Movement’.

Koch’s son Charles Koch founded the CATO Institute, together with Murray Rothbard. The CATO Institute remains to this day a leading Libertarian outlet.

Of course, Jones frequently references Griffin (also a JBS member) and dabbled in the gold trade himself (apparently he has moved on to just selling herbal supplements and water filters).

Infowars’ talent pool a who’s who of controlled opposition
In retrospect, Jones pool of “experts” used in his documentary films and on his daily radio show all seem to come from only a few groups, either from the John Birch Society, Koch-connected groups, the intelligence community, or Zionist groups like the Council For National Policy, the Remnant Saints Inter-Continental Congress, and WorldNetDaily. Here’s a short list of some of the Infowars go-to characters from these groups:

• G. Edward Griffin
• Joseph Farrah
• Joel Skousen (nephew of Bircher Cleon Skousen, a former FBI official and Mormon apologist)
• Phyllis Schlafly
• Matt Drudge
• Stanley Monteith
• Lew Rockwell
• Ron Paul
• Dan Bongino
• Jesse Benton

Jones is an honorary founding member of the Remnant Saints Inter-Continental Congress, a seemingly Christian Zionist, Birch-like think tank styled like a Koch PAC.

Why does Adnan Khashoggi keep popping up around Alex Jones?
Regular readers know that I have been onto Alex Jones’ disinfo trail for some time. One of the first big articles I wrote exposing Jones, with much credit to Daniel Hopsicker, revealed a possible connection of Jones to Israeli intelligence through Saudi arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi, who is as big as anybody in The Octopus—a moniker for the Judeo-Masonic criminal network, especially as it was revealed in the 1980s with arms scandals and BCCI. Like many Saudi elites, Khashoggi is an Israeli Mossad asset. (See: The Growing Complexity of Alex Jones’ Israeli Connections). There is yet another possible connection between the two characters, this time through our hosts of the evening, the Kochs.

In Triad, Khashoggi, and the Republicans: Together Again, we discover:

Triad Management, the company directed by the Koch Brothers, is one of hundreds of Triad companies run by global magnate Khashoggi. Incidentally this is the Khashoggi who was responsible for heading the Iran Contra arms for hostages deal for which he was later pardoned by senior George Bush. In 1983, the year Triad Governmental Systems was founded in Ohio, Khashoggi formed the gold company Barrick Gold Corp. In 1985, Khashoggi borrowed $21 million, using his Barrick stock as collateral, for the covert transfer of arms to Iran for the Bush-North group.

Khashoggi allegedly provided the loan from his Cayman Islands company, Triad American holding company. Khashoggi used the Monte Carlo offices of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) to launder money for Iran arms sales. After Khashoggi was investigated and indicted for his role in the Iran-Contra affair, the Canadian director of Barrick, Peter Munk, paid the $4 million to get Adnan bailed out.

I wonder if Alex Jones’ old-time listeners who bought gold from him back in his goldsmithing heyday are currently storing a quickly devaluing metal that was supplied by Khashoggi’s Barick Gold! Guess who has Barrick Gold in his top ten holdings? One Ron Paul.
The Kochs also happen to be subscribers to Israeli intelligence firm Stratfor, based in Austin, Texas. We suspect Jones is in cahoots with Stratfor—Stratfor being in cahoots with Khashoggi.

Line between Jones and Fox News fading into oblivion
If Jones is following the Koch agenda as a subplot within the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy, it explains his recent endorsement of Tea Partier Sarah Palin, which is odd considering his previous attacks on her, and his outrageous claim that all Muslims be deported from the United States or that Israeli proxy ISIS is a legitimate threat to America as far as it is perceived as Islamic. Furthermore, we can anticipate, as we inch closer to the election, that Jones will ramp up the Koch-neocon rhetoric. The strategy at first seemed to be the advocacy for the Libertarian ticket in Rand Paul, but Plan B may be to go with the Republican ticket in Jeb Bush. Alternatively, it’s difficult to see the Kochs opposing a Trump Whitehouse, should the impossible happen.

Jones has been criticizing President Obama and the Democrats hard in the last four years in the run up to Obama’s exit. Now that Jones’ core audience has been hooked by Jones exposing legitimate but fairly general conspiracies, they are struggling to see how they are being duped with his current rhetoric, which protects the Jewish money power that runs the show. Since his beginning as a conspiracy icon, Jones has played the right wing card of the Kabbalist dialectic of the NWO conspiracy. He has consistently advocated JBS-, Koch-styled political views as part of his counter-intelligence mission. His mission has been to homogenize, radicalize, and then misdirect dissenters of the NWO conspiracy. One of the key tactics he uses to achieve this is to dilute resistance by keeping his listeners from focusing on specific things. Instead, he has them looking in all directions, exerting, thus wasting their energy away from anything meaningful. It’s diabolical scheme to manage the NWO’s opposition to a predetermined outcome, thus we call Alex Jones and other shills in the patriot movement “controlled opposition.”
Jewish Soviet dictator Vladimir Lenin once said:

The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.

Life must be pretty good for Alex Jones.

He’s raking in millions, living large within the protective barrier of his CIA/Zionist handlers, and fooling millions of people with his sophisticated fake persona using psychological trickery and word magic.

His largely lower class audience haven’t the educated means with which to figure out the con. They are at the mercy of a heavily funded psychological operation, with an intelligent millionaire as the window dressing. His audience gets poorer and poorer with the doom and gloom Jones sells them as he himself gets fatter (literally) and richer.

One of the many rewards Jones has received for his establishment shilling is his Dogwood Creek home, which is safely located in a gated community in Austin, Texas . It is now valued at over $1 million, dwarfing the shanty his average listener rents or squats in. One source lists Jones’ home at $1,039,947. Jones also recently opened up another fancy, new studio, supposedly all with the funding of his meager PrisonPlanet TV subscriptions and the proceeds from his Infowars store, which consists of disinformation material and unverified health products. Late last year, Jones claimed to have invested $70-90 million into the Infowars group of companies. By the way, these companies, shown below, are registered through Jones’ Jewish, Bronfman-connected attorney Elizabeth M. Schurig. Other apparent shell companies, like Magnolia Management LLC and I Am That Girl, are listed here.

How Jones can come up with this kind of capital all on his own is as puzzling as his supposed Dogwood roommates and his Jewish neighbours.

Alex Jones’ Dogwood ‘tenants’
CorporationWiki lists three other questionable characters at Jones 6601 Dogwood Creek Drive address. They are deposed Texas state attorney Jack Stick, sports broadcaster Greg Swindell, and now defunct Jill Beckett Cochran Inc. When cross-referencing these characters with Wikileaks, only Jack Stick’s former employer, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission turns up. It appears the Commission’s Duane Pietsch was in contact with Stratfor on a personal level. Here is one example. Why these people are listed at Jones’ residence is strange.
Perhaps they are being listed at this address through attorney Schurig, or perhaps Jones is in kahoots with them.

Alex Jones’ Jewish neighbours
Another to add to the growing list of Jews connected to Alex Jones is his physical neighbours. Several have seemingly Jewish surnames, including Robert Feiner, Scott Snyder, Cheryl Shapiro. Is Jones and his Jewish wife Kelly more comfortable around such neighbours, or is it just a coincidence, as Texas has a disproportionately large population of Jews?