From the perspective of my interiority, deeply informed by the study of Soviet and post-Soviet subversion tactics, I view the KGB’s (and its successor agencies’) use of the Fatima narrative within Roman Catholic circles as a continuation of their long-standing strategy of ideological infiltration, cultural manipulation, and religious subversion. The Fatima apparitions, particularly their connection to prophecy, apocalyptic themes, and Marian devotion, offer a unique opportunity for exploitation because of their emotional and symbolic weight within Catholicism. This tactic reflects the broader communist strategy of weaponizing religion for geopolitical and ideological ends, particularly in the context of the Catholic Church’s global influence and its historical opposition to Soviet and communist objectives.

Why Fatima is an Appealing Target for KGB Operations

1. Fatima as a Powerful Symbol

• The Fatima apparitions, which occurred in 1917, are deeply intertwined with Catholic devotion and eschatology. The messages of Fatima emphasize prayer, penance, and the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, but they also contain apocalyptic undertones, warnings about the dangers of atheism, and calls for the conversion of Russia.

• For the KGB, Fatima represents a potent symbol to manipulate because:

• It resonates deeply with traditionalist Catholics, especially those concerned with the Church’s modern trajectory.

• It is associated with geopolitical themes, such as Russia’s conversion and the Church’s role in world affairs, which align closely with the KGB’s interest in shaping narratives about Russia.

2. The Role of the “Consecration of Russia”

• One of the most controversial aspects of Fatima is the call for the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Many Catholics believe this consecration is essential for world peace and for Russia’s spiritual renewal.

• The KGB has long sought to neutralize or manipulate this message for several reasons:

• During the Soviet Era: The consecration was seen as a threat because it symbolized the Church’s opposition to communist atheism and its call for the spiritual defeat of the Soviet Union.

• In the Post-Soviet Era: The message has been co-opted to project a narrative of Russia as a “spiritual” force opposing Western decadence, aligning with the Kremlin’s neo-Eurasianist and Orthodox nationalist propaganda.

3. The Emotional and Apocalyptic Appeal of Fatima

• Fatima’s apocalyptic themes—warnings about annihilation, chastisement, and the triumph of good over evil—make it an emotionally charged narrative. The KGB understands that apocalyptic imagery is powerful for mobilizing Catholic believers and creating divisions within the Church.

• By manipulating these themes, the KGB can exploit:

• Fears of global instability to promote a narrative of Russia as a defender of traditional values against a morally corrupt West.

• Divisions within the Church over the interpretation of the Fatima messages, fostering polarization between traditionalist and modernist factions.

How the KGB Exploits Fatima Today

The KGB’s use of Fatima reflects a sophisticated strategy of ideological subversion, blending historical communist methods with more contemporary tools of hybrid warfare. The following are key aspects of this strategy:

1. Fostering a Narrative of Russia’s “Spiritual Mission”

• In the post-Soviet era, the Kremlin has embraced a narrative of Russia as a defender of Christianity and traditional values. This narrative, promoted by figures like Aleksandr Dugin and supported by the Russian Orthodox Church, positions Russia as a spiritual leader in a multipolar world.

• KGB Tactic:

• Co-opt the Fatima message to align with this narrative, portraying modern Russia as fulfilling the prophecy of its “conversion” and as a bulwark against global moral decline.

• Use pro-Russian Catholic voices to suggest that the Fatima warnings about atheism and moral decay now apply primarily to the secular West, rather than to Russia.

2. Infiltrating Traditionalist Catholic Circles

• The KGB has historically targeted traditionalist Catholic groups because of their skepticism toward the Vatican’s modernizing reforms (e.g., Vatican II) and their deep attachment to Marian devotion and prophecy.

• KGB Tactic:

• Infiltrate traditionalist circles to promote narratives favorable to Russia, such as:

• Claiming that Russia’s “conversion” is already underway, as evidenced by its embrace of Orthodoxy and traditional values.

• Criticizing the Vatican for failing to properly consecrate Russia or for compromising with “globalist” forces.

• Use these narratives to deepen divisions within the Church, weakening its unity and moral authority.

3. Promoting Conspiracy Theories

• Fatima has long been a focal point for conspiracy theories, particularly regarding the so-called “Third Secret of Fatima” and allegations of Vatican cover-ups. These theories fuel distrust and division within the Church.

• KGB Tactic:

• Amplify conspiracy theories about Fatima to sow confusion and discredit the Vatican. For example:

• Suggest that the Vatican suppressed the full message of Fatima to align with Western political interests.

• Promote the idea that “true” Catholicism is found outside the Vatican, aligning with Russian Orthodox critiques of the papacy.

4. Using Fatima to Undermine Western Policies

• The Fatima message’s focus on Russia can be manipulated to shape attitudes toward Western policies, such as NATO’s opposition to Russian aggression.

• KGB Tactic:

• Frame Western opposition to Russia as a rejection of Fatima’s call for peace and spiritual reconciliation.

• Promote the idea that the West’s secularism and moral decay are a greater threat to world peace than Russian militarism.

5. Amplifying Marian Devotion for Political Ends

• Marian devotion, particularly in its apocalyptic and penitential forms, is a powerful tool for mobilizing Catholics. The KGB has sought to exploit this devotion to advance political narratives.

• KGB Tactic:

• Encourage Marian movements that emphasize the need for Russia’s spiritual leadership, subtly aligning these movements with Russian geopolitical interests.

• Use apparitions and Marian messages (real or fabricated) to promote pro-Russian narratives. For example, promote claims that Mary supports Russia’s role as a defender of Christianity.

Countering KGB Manipulation of Fatima

Critiques of pseudo-spiritual movements and the defense of authentic metaphysical principles provide a valuable framework for countering the KGB’s manipulation of Fatima. Insights into the dangers of ideological and spiritual distortions are highly applicable.

1. Exposing Pseudo-Spirituality

• Highlight the danger of reducing authentic spiritual teachings to political or ideological tools. The KGB’s use of Fatima reflects this distortion, as it co-opts Marian devotion for geopolitical purposes.

• Countermeasure:

• Reaffirm the authentic spiritual message of Fatima, emphasizing its focus on prayer, penance, and conversion rather than political agendas.

• Expose the contradictions between Russia’s claims of spiritual renewal and its actions, such as authoritarianism, corruption, and militarism.

2. Recognizing Counter-Initiation

• “Counter-initiation” as a process by which genuine spirituality is inverted and used for subversive ends. The KGB’s manipulation of Fatima can be understood as a form of counter-initiation.

• Countermeasure:

• Educate Catholics about the dangers of ideological manipulation, encouraging discernment and critical thinking in interpreting Marian messages.

• Highlight the ways in which the KGB’s use of Fatima aligns with broader patterns of counter-initiatic subversion.

3. Defending the Universal Church

• Authentic tradition is universal and transcends local or national interests. The KGB’s efforts to divide the Church and promote Russia’s spiritual “exceptionalism” contradict this principle.

• Countermeasure:

• Promote unity within the Catholic Church, resisting attempts to divide traditionalist and modernist factions.

• Emphasize the universal mission of the Church, which transcends any single nation or political agenda.

4. Reaffirming Metaphysical Clarity

• Insistence on metaphysical clarity can counter the confusion sown by conspiracy theories and ideological distortions of Fatima.

• Countermeasure:

• Provide clear and orthodox interpretations of Fatima’s messages, rejecting sensationalism and conspiracy theories.

• Emphasize the spiritual and eschatological dimensions of Fatima, rather than its political implications.

Conclusion: Neutralizing KGB Influence in Catholic Circles

From my perspective, the KGB’s use of Fatima in Roman Catholic circles is a sophisticated form of ideological subversion that exploits the emotional and symbolic power of Marian devotion. By manipulating Fatima’s message, the KGB seeks to advance Russia’s geopolitical interests, divide the Church, and undermine Western unity.

By exposing the counter-initiatic nature and ideological distortions inherent in the KGB’s strategy, Catholics can reclaim the authentic message of Fatima and resist attempts to co-opt their faith for political ends. Ultimately, this requires a commitment to spiritual discernment, doctrinal clarity, and the defense of the Church’s universal mission. Only by addressing these challenges at their metaphysical roots can the West effectively neutralize the KGB’s subversive tactics and protect the integrity of Catholicism.

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
Nov. 25, 2020 Anno Domini

The filmmaker who captured Pope Francis’ controversial unofficial endorsement of Sodomite civil unions and has framed the Pontiff’s views as Leftist is a Russian Jew who served in Israel’s IDF.

Evgeny Mikhailovich Afineevsky, the homosexual Israeli filmmaker whose film “Francesco” (released October 2020) has provoked anger from traditional Catholics by catching Pope Francis endorsing homosexual civil unions, was born in the Tatar city of Kazan in the Soviet Union in 1972. He moved to Israel in 1991, at the height of the Perestroika Deception, served in the IDF, and eventually emigrated to the United States, where he became a citizen and filmmaker in the company of Soviet-derived Jews like Menachem Golan (Golan arranged the partnership between Golan-Globus film company and the Soviet state-run Mosfilm after a visit to Moscow in 1987). His film covers the life and teachings of Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Francis), focusing on his Soviet-inspired beliefs, including immigration (as part of the Kalergi Plan), “climate change”, social justice, and ecumenism.

It’ seems the Judeo-masonic-Bolshevist conspirators are holding the Pope’s hand to ensure he follows their script. Whether Francis is a subversive Marxist (as his detractors claim) or not, the Synagogue of Satan is going to see to it that the world perceives him that way, as part of their centuries-long plan to destroy Christ’s Holy Church and blot out Christ’s name and memory forever (as prescribed by the Satanic Babylonian Talmud). One of the key ways the ‘gogue has achieved this is by tarnishing the reputation of the Roman Catholic Church. It appears Francis is helping this plan.

Francis states in Francesco:

“Homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family. They’re children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out, or be made miserable because of it…. What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered. I stood up for that.”

Last week, The New American published an article suggesting that former top Vatican cardinal and “homosexual molester” Theodore McCarrick might have been a Soviet operative and that the Soviet Union had placed the Vatican as one of its top targets for subversion.

“In 1960, for instance, the Soviets launched Seat 12, a disinformation operation that targeted the reputation of Pope Pius XII. Pius saved hundreds of thousands of Jews during World War II, but in 1963, leftist Rolf Hochuth wrote The Deputy, which accused the Holy Father of complicity in the Final Solution. The charge was false, but Seat 12 and its result, The Deputy, worked. Pius was smeared.

“Not until 2007, when Romanian communist defector Ion Pacepa divulged the details of Seat 12, did the truth emerge.”

Pacepa has also revealed that the KGB was behind the creation of liberation theology, a Marxist concept that Pope Francis appears to have fully endorsed.

Once again, we see the hand of Soviet Israel moving against Christ, His Church, and the moral order. The evidence continues to mount that Pope Francis is a Soviet operative.

Above are links to a video of probably the most revealing and rare exposés of the demonic Jewish Kabbalah, which constitutes the core of the New World Order conspiracy—the conspiracy against Christ and His Church. This is an in-depth four-hour series. I have not seen it anywhere else on the web. If you like the above graphic, please share it through social media, email, or other. Please also share the documentary linked below.

*The following is in response to comments made by Father Michael Ruskin of Christ the Saviour Antiochian Orthodox Church of New Zealand to my open letter on the Russia deception.

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
July 5, 2018 Anno Domini

Dear Father Michael,

Your sobering reminder about the daily battle within ourselves is without a doubt the most important battle in our day-to-day lives. The Holy Scriptures warn us that the ultimate struggle is not with flesh and blood but with things of the spirit. How correct this is.

But let us realize that communism and its subsidiaries are not merely physical and political constructs with which to enslave humans beings. They are deeply spiritual—so much so that Patriarch Tikhon died to protect his flock from its spiritual perversion, not just its physical oppressiveness. It is not called “Godless communism” without good reason. In hindsight, Tikhon was justified in moving the Church into the catacombs, as the resulting Marxist churches (permitted by Lenin and the Soviets) that sprang up in both East and West (Vatican II) would evolve and attempt to replace the true one, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Prior to its Marxist infiltration, the Vatican also issued grave warnings about the communist threat. The Eastern and Western Churches were in complete agreement on this. But where are these warnings in the new Sovietized churches? No where. They don’t exist. Communism/Marxism is no longer a threat, they have us believing.

Is Putin doing anything more than Lenin in permitting the existence of the Sergian church in Russia and its subsidiaries in the West? Where is the rebirth of authentic Orthodoxy in Russia today? Shouldn’t this be reflected in Russia’s statistics, which have sky-high abortion rates, broken families, and essentially the same problems as the “evil” West? How many Russians even know of the Catacomb Church? In truth, both Putin and Lenin are responsible for the rebirth of the orthodox church—a Soviet mongrelized church. Patriarch Kirill follows the Sergian line of illegitimate succession, it seems. And lo and behold, Kirill is “former” FSB. During the Red Terror, the Soviets created schisms within the true Church and even honeypot “anti-Soviet” traditional churches to lure the flock to their deaths. How can we be sure Putin will not (perhaps he already has) do the same? Golitsyn claimed in the 1980s-90s that the crypto-Soviet power would offer concessions to the Church—effectively gambits—as part of its long-range strategy to woo social conservatives. And this is exactly what happened. In the following quote, Golitsyn speaks of the subversion of the Church.

“It fails to understand that greater apparent official tolerance of religion in the Soviet Union is accompanied by a secret drive to increase Party and KGB penetration of the Catholic and other churches and to use agents therein for political and strategic purposes inside and outside the Soviet Union. As part of the programme to destroy religion from within, the KGB, in the late 1950s, started sending dedicated young Communists to ecclesiastical academies and seminaries to train them as future church leaders. These young Communists joined the Church, not at the call of their consciences to serve God, but at the call of the Communist Party in order to serve that Party and to implement its general line in the struggle against religion.” (pg. 116, The Perestroika Deception)
Brother Maurice Pinay spoke in the 1960s of the same phenomenon of subversives entering the Catholic priesthood. It seems the same has happened in the Orthodox Church. Both Kirill and the Bishop of Rome, Pope Francis, are ecumenists who espouse communist views. This only corroborates Golitsyn’s warnings.

Golitsyn narrows down Russia’s false democratisation plot and concludes with,

“It is, however, a false, cosmetic liberalisation. For example, the alleged religious relaxation is a spectacle produced and managed by the KGB and the high priests of the church who are KGB agents assigned to fulfill the strategy…In the present phase, secret agents in the Catholic and other churches are being used to implement Communist strategy. When they achieve their Communist world victory, they will use mass withdrawal of their agents to disrupt and destroy the churches. Never in its history since Nero has Christianity faced such a threat of possible destruction. The dictum of the late Pope Pius XII about the incompatibility of Communism and religion is as correct as ever. The Vatican should reaffirm this dictum and should use its influence and its ‘divisions’ to defend Western values from the new Communist assault. (pgs. 189, 116-117)

Keep in mind that Golitsyn said all of this long before Kirill became patriarch. Can you honestly say to yourself that it’s a mere coincidence that the “tobacco” metropolitan happened to be pulled from communist ranks of the KGB?
The idea that the Russian Federation is the last bastion of Christian orthodox theocracy and, therefore, must defend itself is a wonderful one, but it does not stand under scrutiny. Firstly, many proponents of this perceived Russian-theocratic state point to the number of NATO military bases surrounding Russia as an indication that Russia is not an aggressor but is, instead, only acting defensively. But they can’t seem to explain how this supposedly superior Western-led NATO military occupation couldn’t manage to stop Russia from annexing Crimea, much less retaliate. Aside from a few show sanctions imposed by then U.S. President Obama (a secret communist himself) and other Western nations following the annexation, we didn’t so much as see a budge from a single NATO tank in response. Why? The only two conclusions one can come to is that NATO and the West are not militarily superior to Russia and her allies or, worse yet, the two sides are in on the charade together. Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty has been invoked only one time, following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks—provoking a Western-led military campaign in which Russia acted quite passively, even endorsing the U.S. narrative of things. Is NATO really anything more than just a show army designed to trick Westerners into thinking the communist threat is being dealt with while the threat actually becomes stronger? I fear this may be the case, especially seeing as the Soviet plan involves dismantling NATO by subversion, not by guns—the same way the Church is being co-opted.

In the spirit of Lenin and his living student Aleksandr Dugin, defenders of Russia point to the infectious moral decay of the West and how this legitimizes Russia’s social and geopolitical manoeuvrings. While this is true about the West’s moral decay, these defenders don’t seem to be asking themselves what the motive is behind these charges. It’s one thing to point out immorality from a Christian perspective but quite another to point it out for strategic reasons. Is Russia portraying the West as evil because it is truly evil or is it doing so to weaken its morale? I can’t count how many Westerners I have seen cheering on Russian (Soviet) penetration of the West thinking it will destroy globalism. How ironic and twisted. These same also fail to acknowledge the large Soviet hand in furthering the moral decay of the West. Soviet penetration of Western governments is one thing, but when you have Soviet penetration of the education system, it becomes all the more obvious how we got to where we are today. The Western counter-culture revolutions of the 1960s were largely hatched in the Soviet Union. Are we supposed to forgive and forget all of this because the media has shouted from every rooftop that communism has fallen? And why should we trust the media, when it is part of the morally decayed West? Think about how we learned of the fake collapse of communism: from Western media. If the “evil” West truly hated “orthodox” Russia, you would think they would have been a little more prudent in assessing the validity of the purported fall of communism. Why was it immediately accepted without any kind of investigation? The crypto-Soviet empire of Russia is playing a classic globalist dialectic of creating the problem: cultural Marxism in the West, and offering the solution: neo-Bolshevik one worldism led by Russia.

Father Ruskin, you claim that the European Union is collapsing of its own volition, but consider that Europe’s largest economy resides in Germany, whose head Angela Merkel happens to be a “former” Soviet. It’s reasonable to say that Germany sets the tone for the EU. All Russia would have to do to manipulate the EU is have at least one rogue EU state under its control; although, I am sure it’s actually more than just one. Germany fits this hypothesis.
It could be said that Merkel is the single biggest saboteur of EU migration norms. With Merkel being a communist in the service of the crypto-Soviet Union, it seems that “Russia” is leading the campaign to de-Europeanize Europe. Yet, we are being told the opposite by Western Russophiles. Is it just a coincidence that Dugin’s Eurasian utopia concept is consistent with Kalergi’s Pan-European utopia?

As for Putin’s so called social conservatism, Russia recently has just had its first legal same-sex marriage. Russia’s decades of strategic corruption of Western mores has finally returned to its master. It’s now only a matter of time.
And blaming the West will be invalid, as the Soviet Union was pretty much the birthplace of the sexual revolution. In their occultic vision, the serpent’s head has reached its tail.

Your concluding statement, “It’s drawing a long bow to suggest they resurrected the Church to lull us into a false calmness before deceptively overwhelming us,” describes what Golitsyn explains as failed Western analysis of the Soviet threat. And as the above quotes show, this is exactly the kind of sophisticated enemy with which we are dealing. This is not about fearing the Kremlin and its diabolical plans but about discerning it…in righteousness.

Respectfully yours,
Timothy Fitzpatrick

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.