Brexit another Jewish dialectic?

By Northsider
June 25, 2016, Anno Domini
Editorial

Brexit champion Boris Johnson, the self-proclaimed 'passionate Zionist', with the elders of Zion.

Brexit champion Boris Johnson, the self-proclaimed ‘passionate Zionist’, with the elders of Zion.

There is great rejoicing in much of the so called alternative media over the “Brexit” result in yesterday’s British referendum on membership of the European Union. If more proof were needed that the alternative media is often misinformed and credulous, this is it.

Alternative types, from David Duke to David Icke, have of course been insisting for months that the Brexit movement represents a mighty blow against Zio-globalism. There may be some excuse for Duke to believe this guff: he is, after all, an American and presumably relies on British “white nationalists” for information about such matters. There is little or no excuse for British white nationalists themselves, or for British critics of Zionism like Icke, to be so deceived.

Unless they have been paying very scant attention indeed, they should have noticed that the Brexit movement is overwhelmingly dominated not just by common or garden Zionists, but by hard-core Zionist ultras of a particularly toxic variety. For example, Boris Johnson, the part-Jewish de facto frontman for Brexit, describes himself as “a passionate Zionist” and supports with an equal passion both the corrupt City of London and mass migration to Europe.

But compared to Michael Gove, the other leading Tory Brexit spokesman and senior British cabinet member, Boris is a veritable peacenik. Gove has long been the type of Zionist shill about whom it is fair to say he never saw a Zio-war he didn’t like. A former journalist with the Zionist London Times newspaper, he once penned the following excruciating line about war criminal Blair: “I can’t help myself! I love Tony!”.

It’s worth pointing out, by the way, that Johnson, and more especially Gove, are close personal friends of British Prime Minister David Cameron, which makes it, therefore, more than plausible to suggest that their dispute over Brexit is pure political theatre for the gullible masses and nothing more.

Chris Grayling, another senior Tory Brexiter, is a member of British Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM), a Zionist lobby group. When he was secretary of state for Justice and Lord Chancellor, Grayling declared war on “extremists”, the working definition of which, he made clear, amounted to anyone who criticised Israel or the War on Terror.

Theresa Villiers, the British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and Brexiter, is an “officer” of the Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) and ardent Zionist.

Iain Duncan Smith, a long standing supporter of Brexit, who resigned recently form his senior ministry in the Cameron government, also belongs to the CFI, as indeed do nearly all the leading Tory Brexiters.

Then there’s Liam Fox, another Neocon ultra, who was forced to resign from his job as Secretary of State for Defence, after it was revealed that billionaire Israeli arms dealer, Poju Zabludowicz, was funding his jet setting playboy lifestyle, and that of his erstwhile “adviser” Adam Werrity.

It isn’t just on the Tory side where Brexit goes with passionate Zionism. One of the small handful of Labour Party Brexit supporters was Gisela Stuart, a German born Zionist, and a member of the Neocon “Henry Jackson Society”. Stuart received lavish media coverage throughout the campaign – courtesy of her Zionist friends at the BBC. Other Labour Brexit supporters like Kate Hoey and Frank Field, also strongly support Israel.

Then there’s the media: Murdoch’s soft-porn rags have fervently advocated for Brexit since well before the vote was called. Ditto the soft porn Daily Mail, and the Daily Express, owned by Zionist hard-porn baron, Richard Desmond. The Telegraph is if anything even more Neocon than the Murdoch press, and likewise took a strong pro-Brexit stance. Even those media one might normally expect to be pro-EU adopted a distinctly ambivalent approach to the issue.

For example, the Guardian and the Independent published many articles in support of leaving the EU in the run up to voting day. By the same token, in one of the key televised debates on the Brexit issue, the BBC slanted the panel three to two in favour of Brexit. One of the two “spokespersons” they invited to appear that night to argue in favour of staying in the EU was Eddie Izzard, a buffoonish and widely despised transvestite “comedian” who appeared on the panel with bright red lip stick, mascara, nail varnish and clad in a woman’s jacket and blouse, and a pink beret. Not exactly an advocate designed to appeal to the undecided voters of  middle England – or middle anywhere else – one would have thought

When it comes to individual journalists, the roll call of pro-Brexiters in general corresponded to the leading names in “Zio-presstitution”: Julie Burchill, Douglas Murray, Charles Moore, Julia Hartley Brewer, Matthew Parris, Toby Young, Janet Daley, and even Peter Hitchens – who in spite of his stated reservations about western invasions around the world, can always be relied upon to stoutly defend the Israeli state. Throughout the campaign, Brexiters lamented how the establishment was ranged against them, but in truth the reverse was the reality. Indeed ironically enough the corporate media eagerly spun the Leave campaign meme of the referendum as a David and Goliath contest between the plucky Brexit underdog and the nasty pro-EU ruling elite. Moreover, unlike the case of the Scottish independence referendum two years ago, there were very few corporate celebs rushing to support the pro-EU side.

In the Scottish referendum, almost anyone who was anyone in showbiz – Mick Jagger, Paul McCartney, Kate Moss, et al – put their name to a letter calling on Scotland to stay in the United Kingdom. No such closing of celeb ranks took place against Brexit – which in itself goes a long way to refuting the notion that Brexit was an anti-establishment cause.

So if the Zio-globalists favoured Brexit what was their game? Not for the first time, the Russians seemed to have got closer to the reality than many of the western alternative media did.

Last week Putin suggested that Cameron had called the referendum in order to “blackmail” the rest of Europe. The evidence for this theory is compelling. It should be remembered that for all their self-serving chauvinistic rhetoric, the British Neocons don’t dislike the EU on account of its control by corrupt transnationals and even more corrupt bankers: au contraire they want it to be even MORE controlled by these forces than it already is. The referendum was clearly a move to force the EU to undertake “root and branch reform”, i.e., to surrender completely to Anglo-American Zionist warmongers and corporate privateers. In all the phoney euphoria over the Brexit result it’s easily forgotten that in so far as there has been opposition to Zionist war-mongering, surveillance and privatisation within the EU, it has certainly not come from Britain.

Furthermore the desire of British Neocons to force the EU’s hand is not really a secret: in the very early days of the referendum campaign, Boris Johnson and another leading Brexiter, former Tory leader, Michael Howard, both stated that a Brexit vote was a way of forcing Europe to make better terms with Britain.

For all its bellyaching, the British Zio-masonic state already gets much better terms from the EU than most European nations – not surprising since the EU is not, as British chauvinists of Hitchens’ type ludicrously claim, a German imperialist project, but rather a vehicle for Anglo-American Zionist dominion. For instance Angela Merkel agreed to take in a million refugees to Germany, while Britain has agreed to take in a paltry 20,000 over five years. By the same token the French are compelled by their Anglo-masters to oversee huge refugee camps on their northern coast – in order to prevent migrants making it to Britain.

None of the above is to in any way argue that opposition to the EU is misguided, but simply to illustrate that in this particular referendum there were no good guys. A triumph against globalism Brexit most certainly was not.

Radio host Alex Jones arrested in Build-a-Burger altercation in Austin

 

Radio host Alex Jones pictured here with dozens of burgers on the set of his popular Infowars broadcasts.

Radio host Alex Jones pictured here with dozens of burgers on the set of his popular Infowars broadcasts.


By Centari Jackson

TreasonPlanet.com
May 30, 2016

Radio host Alex Jones remains in police custody following an altercation at a Burger King in downtown Austin, Texas late this morning.

Burger King workers at the food court in the Srtatfor complex said that the altercation began after 42-year-old Jones demanded that he be able to customize a large number of cheeseburgers. When restaurant staff told him they were premade and were sold as they are, Jones grew very angry and began to flail his arms about, yelling and screaming about a “New world order conspiracy” to suppress him.

“He was hysterical,” says Jeffrey Hamilton, a 16-year-old employee of the popular fast-food chain. “He could not accept what we told him about the burgers. And he wanted a ridiculous amount of burgers, like 50 or something.”

At one point, another work intervened, calling Jones a “Zionist disinformation agent” and telling him to back down. The self-proclaimed patriot then lashed out and grabbed said employee by the collar and screamed, “I am the king of conspiracy! You must be a government agent!”

Jones, not satisfied, reportedly made a cellphone call to Stratfor chairman George Friedman. But by the time Friedman arrived to help his associate, police had already arrested Jones.

Friedman declined to comment on the altercation.

A food court security guard said that he sees Jones quite regularly in the food court, usually in the smoking room, where Friedman and other men in suits often accompany him.

Austin city police said they want to question Jones but are unlikely to press any charges.

Jones’ lawyer Elizabeth L. Morgan issued a statement to the press shortly after the arrest saying that her client has been under a lot of stress lately due to an ongoing custody battle over his three children. Jones’s ex-wife Kelly Rebecca Nichols filed for divorce in 2013. The host of conspiracy hub Infowars.com has also experienced disappointment over a drop in ratings of viewers of his various online programs over the last couple of years.

*The above article is satire and intended for entertainment purposes. Any resemblance to real life people or events is intentional.

14sgpwi

Former evangelical-turned Orthodox priest destroys evangelicalism

evangelicalism
Podcast Series by Father Andrew Stephen Damick of St. Paul Antiochian Orthodox Church of Emmaus, Pennsylvania:

Evangelicalism
Part 1a – Fr. Andrew introduces Evangelicalism as it comes out of the Pietistic and Revivalist movements.
Part 1b – Fr. Andrew explores the understanding of salvation in the Evangelical tradition.
Part 1c – Fr. Andrew concludes the first part of his survey of Evangelicalism by discussing the topics of dualism, incarnation and eschatology.

Part 2a – Fr. Andrew begins part two of his study of Evangelicalism by exploring some of the denominations which arose: restorationist, adventist, holiness, non-denominationalism, dispensationalism
Part 2b – Fr. Andrews concludes his description of Evangelicalism with a brief survey of the following: Emerging Church, Missional, New Calvinists, Ancient-Future

The Magisterial Reformation
Part 1a – Fr. Andrew begins his look at the Magisterial Reformation which includes the 5 “Solas.” In this episode he examines “Sola Scriptura” or Scripture Alone.
Part 1b – Fr. Andrew continues his examination of the 5 “solas” in reformational theology looking today at Sola Fide (by faith alone), Solus Christus (through Christ alone), Sola Gratia (by grace alone), and Soli Deo Gloria (glory to God alone). For his talk on Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) see the previous episode.
Part 2a – Fr. Andrew examines the distinctives of the denominations that arose from the Magisterial Reformation: Lutheranism, Calvinism
Part 2b – Fr. Andrew continues his examination of the denominations that arose from the Magisterial Reformation: Calvinism, Zwinglianism, Presbyterianism, Anglicanism, Methodism

*To be updated as new podcasts become available

Neo-masculine movement no antidote to social engineering

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
March 19, 2016 Anno Domini

false dichotomyThe irony of the neo-masculine movement is that while it masquerades as the antidote to socially engineered feminism, it serves as yet another tier of this social engineering.

Why would it have the true antidote when it’s run and dominated by self-proclaimed pickup artists and bad boys suffering from arrested development?

The movement, which offers naïve “beta” males a Hegelian alternative to today’s Judeo-Masonic-engineered feminist domination of society, is exemplified in 36-year-old Middle Eastern blogger Roosh V (real name: Daryush Valizadeh), who correctly points out the negative effects of feminism on the Western world’s patriarchal makeup. However, dominating women, as if that is what patriarchy is about, is the typical line from these self-deluded “Alpha” male pickup artists, who base their life experiences from weekends spent at bars and nightclubs. This shouldn’t be confused with the Christian concept of a man leading his wife and his household. Leading gives and nurtures while dominating exploits and takes. No matter how much “Alpha males” try to romanticize the domination of women, it’s still domination, and it only perpetuates a socially engineered society.

As opposed to a genuine anti-Feminist critic like Canadian Henry Makow, an anti-Judeo-Masonic writer who underpins his views on feminism with moralistic absolutism, Roosh V and other pickup artists like him justify their opposition to feminism on utility and the animalistic nature of fallen man. What works in the animal kingdom must also work in man’s world, the refrain goes. This view provides a pseudo masculine appeal to men who cannot see beyond it. Ironically for Roosh and others like him, Makow accurately points out the homosexual lifestyle of promiscuous heterosexuals in his article Why all porn is gay. “…Society has become more homosexual because, due to social engineering (i.e. the “sexual revolution,” feminism), many heterosexuals now fail to permanently bond. Normally, happily married heterosexuals can put sex in perspective and move on to more important things,” Makow says.

What they fail to realize is that by offering their audience their tips and tricks to “gaming” women, they are further enslaving these men by encouraging them to be ruled by their passions rather than ruled by the superior sense of reason and will of the spirit in man, which comes from dedication to Christ alone. And with dedication to Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit comes a new, true, and masculine identity. All too often, men seek to establish identity in the wrong places, be it in sports, occupation, political movements, people, or even in immorality (especially in the case of proud, sexually promiscuous men, like pickup artists). It’s only in Christ and through His Church that we come to fully be ourselves. It is only through Christ and His Church that we can fully love one another, especially a spouse and children. For example, if a man puts his wife above God, he is bound to fail not only God, but eventually his wife too. The same goes for loving our children and our brothers and sisters. Putting Christ first makes men better fathers, better husbands, and better men overall. Only through Christ can we fully establish our identities. After all, did not Christ perfectly create man with all his masculine qualities? Should He not know best how man ought to be?

While the techniques learned from pickup artists might help men attract and have sex with women (any resulting long-term relationships or marriage just being a coincidence), these men will ultimately end up unfulfilled and empty, as they were before they began the sexual conquest of women. Roosh V was recently forced to admit his dissatisfaction with his chosen player lifestyle. What about the rest of his many followers? Pick-up artist Neil Strauss is another to defect from the movement. He goes as far as to call the Alpha-Beta male dichotomy “nonsense”.

The neo-masculine movement’s gross error also sets the movement up as a sitting duck for charges of misogyny, hate, and gender inequality from the Left wingers, only further blurring the line between truth and falsehood. With a bunch of blind men leading it, where else can we expect the movement to go? It’s not the antidote to feminist social engineering and the systematic emasculation of men. Finding one’s inner Alpha male will not truly establish one’s identity. The antidote to feminism, to social engineering, to libido dominandi lies in Christ Jesus and His Holy Church. Only a return to the Church can save the West from the implosion it is currently undergoing.

Cult of sustainability seeks the death of beauty, crowning of utility and ugliness

Foto: Wildbild

Will beautiful Christmas scenes like this become a thing of the past?                   Photo: Wildbild

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
January 15, 2016 Anno Domini

I was provoked to write this piece after hearing the cult of sustainability (the greenies, environmentalists, sustainable development advocates, and such) this December use their co-religionists in the mainstream media to whine about Christmas lights.

They claimed that the use of Christmas lights, which are used to adorn the homes of those few left that still celebrate the designated day for the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ (as well as the Epiphany), were a senseless drain on hydro-electric resources and a defiance of the new state-imposed green religion in a world under the immediate threat of global warming. This public castigation of the celebrants (presumably mostly Christian) is a recent example of the hideous trajectory of “green” thinking, which works in tandem with modernism and trans-humanism.

Beauty, a meaningful delight that brings us closer to the divine (God), is no longer useful to the modern-thinking sustainabilists; therefore, they argue, we must abandon it in order to survive, for the planet to survive, and for technology to advance unhindered by rigid absolutes. But don’t worry; we will grow to like it, just as we grew to like scatological modern art, right? The usefulness of people, things and expressions, not their form or innate beauty, is the new maxim. Beauty is of no use and has no real value other than what we give it, they claim. This subjectivist fallacy allows for the death of objective beauty and the triumph of utility and materialism, with it, the death of objective truth and the triumph of relativity, and ultimately, the death of God and the triumph of death (Hades).

Any manifestations of beauty that may arise in this new utilitarian utopia are either accidental or coincidental; so don’t get too excited if you might come upon them. The cult of sustainability seeks to snuff out any vestiges of practices and things that are expressions of beauty and replace them with utilitarian things, not matter how ugly, sterile, and soul-destructive they may be. Because, they argue, in a world of scant resources and overwhelming population, we can’t afford any idealistic notions of beauty.

But doesn’t this utility gimmick seem like a convenient excuse? After all, revolutionaries have always been in love with death, decay, and deformity. If God is beauty and truth, then the absence of God must be ugliness and falsehoods. The sustainabilists, then, have revealed their love affair with the anti-thesis of God, their participation in the revolutionary conspiracy against Christ and the beautiful, moral order of the universe. Utility is a mask, revolution and death the goal.

Modern art, especially Dadaist, has already advanced the revolutionary goals of ugliness, defilement, and destruction; trans-humanism has taken them to a whole other level with the help of technology—technology itself, an ugly and cheap imitation of divinely created things, of miracles, and of healing. Trans-humanism and sustainability have sort of overtaken modern art as the fear-laden message of environmental doom has been pushed non-stop for about the last 30 years. Or, perhaps, they have become modern art themselves—a Frankensteinien devolution in which modernists naively take pride.

Evidence of vote fraud in Irish gay marriage referendum

By Northsider
December 12, 2015 Anno Domini

Michael Hoffman’s infatuation with Protestantism – Part III

Irish referendum fraudIt should go without saying that no sane Catholic would deny the problem of child abuse among Catholic clergy – and the even larger problem of “ephebic” abuse (around 80 per cent of the convictions of Catholic priests for sexual offences involved adolescent youths – a fact almost never mentioned by liberal pro-homosexual critics of the Church). The real argument is not that Catholic bishops have no case to answer, but that the singling out of the Catholic Church over clerical sex abuse is a particularly poisonous reheating of ancient Zio/Protestant/Masonic black legends. Hoffman himself frequently complains, with plenty of justification, that the corporate media ignore the huge scandal of rabbinical abuse, but he himself, in common with the corporate media, ignores the many cases of clerical abuse in Protestant denominations – abuse that plenty of Protestants – to their credit – have condemned the media for deliberately suppressing (1). If one were to read only the corporate media, one might assume that only Catholic clergy had ever been found guilty of abuse of children and adolescents; if one were to read only the Protestant fan-boy Hoffman, one would assume that only Catholic AND Jewish clergy had been found guilty of such abuse.

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.

Part I of this series
Part II

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!

Philo-Protestant lies about usury; paedophilic hypocrisy

By Northsider
December 7, 2015 Anno Domini

Michael Hoffman’s infatuation with Protestantism – Part II

Protestant usuryOne of the most celebrated Puritans in history, the 17th century English poet John Milton, advocated no-fault divorce, one of many historical facts that completely refute the notion that radical Protestant liberalism is a purely 20th or 21st century phenomenon. C.S. Lewis, no philo-Catholic, acknowledged that in so far as the Reformation was a struggle between rigour and laxity, the Catholics were the rigorists, the Protestants the liberals.

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.

John Calvin

John Calvin

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)

Part I of this series

Sheen sex scandal ensnares Alex Jones

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
November 28, 2015 Anno Domini

Close friends Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones.

Close friends Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones.

An alleged nurse who appeared on the Dr. Oz television show this week and revealed that she was hooked up with disgraced Hollywoodite Charlie Sheen through Alex Jones is yet more evidence that the COINTELPRO agent is under libido dominandi.

Amanda Bruce appeared on Dr. Oz[I] as one of Sheen’s ex-girlfriends to comment on the fallout from Sheen’s admission on television that he is HIV-positive.

“Charlie and I met through a mutual friend, Alex Jones,” Bruce told Oz.

Bruce claims she is a registered nurse. While this may be true, it appears she has a questionable past—a past that corroborates Sheen’s fixation for hookers and porn stars. The world’s largest gossip site The Dirty suggests that Bruce is or was an L.A. escort in kahoots with Freddy Figueroa, aka Freddy Figs. What? Alex Jones, hookers, Sheen, cocaine?

AmandaBruceOz_300

Bruce

Sheen, who revealed his HIV-positive status Nov. 17[II], has headlined the news lately as fallout ensues over the countless potential victims with whom he slept that may have had no idea as to his infection. Sheen claims he was diagnosed with the infection roughly four years ago, although skeptics conjecture perhaps much longer than that, and Sheen says all his past sexual partners were informed of his infection.

Jones’ friendship with Sheen is well known and admitted by Jones. Jones has misappropriated airtime on his pseudo conspiracy show to allow Sheen to vent his personal beefs with Hollywood[III]—something which resulted in CBS cancelling Sheen’s hit Two and a Half Men TV show. Jones providing this crackhead with a voice on his show, whether talking about Hollywood, clouded and confusing rants about 9/11 truth, or vaccinations eventually garnered the attention of the Zionist-controlled mainstream media. Jones received much publicity from the media, even appearing on shows like The View[IV] to defend Sheen while he faced pressure for his substance abuse.

Amanda Bruce twitter page

A screen shot of Amanda Bruce’s Twitter page. It was removed on or about May 6, 2016. Bruce followed Alex Jones, even retweeting some of his tweets.

The recent revelation, which includes an alleged gay sex video involving Sheen, is all the more interesting considering the bizarre details revealed in his divorce settlement with his ex-wife Kelly (Violet) Rebecca Nichols[V]. Additionally, rumours have swirled for years about Jones’ sexuality, especially considering his various associations with homosexuals [VI], and don’t forget how close Jones is with gay, Jewish, neocon Matt Drudge[VII]. These gay associations contradict Jones’ on-air anti-gay stance. How or why Jones hooked up the nurse with Sheen is unclear, as is whether Jones has been hooked up himself. But using Jones’ oft repeated claim that “like attracts like,” what else are we to deduce other than that Jones engages in debauchery, likely with Sheen in the picture, so to speak?

Divorcee Alex Jones with Lee Ann McAdoo at an Infowars Halloween party. Jones was more than happy to post this photo to his Twitter page.

Divorcee Alex Jones with Lee Ann McAdoo at an Infowars Halloween party. Jones was more than happy to post this night-of-evil, smutty photo to his Twitter page.

Jones’ divorce settlement involved number of sex addiction counselors
I am no legal expert, but there seems to be an unusually high number of counsellors that were slated to take depositions in the divorce proceedings between Jones and Nichols, upwards of 30—some from Texas, others from Arizona. Several of them specialize in sex addictions and/or sex offender treatment. But just because a marriage counselor specializes in sex addictions does not mean that this was the reason for counselling Jones and Nichols. Marriage counsellors treat couples for a wide range of problems. But in light of the supposed allegations of former Infowars employees of adultery[VIII], rumours of gay goings on, Jones’ circle of degenerate Hollywood friends, and Jones’ frequent on-air boastings of his sexual prowess (which he chalks up to the herbal supplements he sells, no doubt), perhaps there is something to this. As for the alleged adultery with a female Infowars employee, perhaps federal whistleblower Stew Webb was only partially correct. Perhaps the affair occurred between Jones and a man.[IX] Whatever the case, it was devastating enough to provoke a divorce, which appears to have been initiated by Nichols.

Does Jones ride the casting couch?

Linklater

Linklater

How did Alex Jones get to be featured in two Hollywood movies? More importantly, why would he, someone supposedly opposed to the establishment, agree to it?  And how did Jones get to the point where he became close friends with people in Hollywood? Hollywood is a crucial component of the New World Order conspiracy, yet Jones apparently has no issues being involved in it. Director/screenwriter Richard Linklater, a Texas-based film writer known for movies such as Dazed and Confused, chose Jones for his 2006 animated science fiction thriller A Scanner Darkly, featuring Keanu Reeves (the movie, like many in Hollywood, displays Illuminati symbolism). This wasn’t the first time the pair had worked together. In 2001, Linklater featured Jones in his Ethan Hawke movie Waking Life.[X] Linklater may be Jewish. His mother’s maiden name is Krieger. If true, this would add to the overwhelming list of Jewish friends and associates in Jones’ circle.[XI] Sheen himself is Jewish.

Rogan and LaVey.

Rogan and LaVey.

It’s no secret that many actors only get to appear in films depending on their willingness to perform sexual favours and/or engage in sexual and satanic rituals. Does Jones fall into this category? Kinky, degenerate Jones pal Charlie Sheen most certainly does. Perhaps Sheen is in the mess he is in because of selling his soul to ride the couch. He may even be an MKUltra monarch slave who may have serviced the many Hollywood pederasts actor Corey Feldman claims swarm the industry and its child actors. And Jones is a close friend of this guy? Jones often brags on air about having many Hollywood friends, producers included. Although he often lies and exaggerates, there is probably much truth to this. He has featured several Hollywoodites on his show and claims many in Hollywood listen to Infowars regularly. His other close friend, another degenerate, Joe Rogan, also rolls in Hollywood circles. He also rolls around in homoerotic Brazilian Ju-Jitsu rings. Rogan currently works on a couple of TV series, MeatEater and Silicon Valley. He is an outspoken occultist and appeared in the series NewsRadio (1995-1999). In one episode, he posed as a freemason. He has received some criticism over the years by truthers for posing in a photograph wearing a Satanic T-shirt while standing next to Satanist Stanton LaVey, grandson of Jewish Satanist and founder of the Church of Satan Anton LaVey.

Cocaine: Hollywood’s choice drug

Williams

Williams

Charlie Sheen’s substance abuse is admitted[XII], but what about Alex Jones? Is TV show host Montel Williams correct that Jones is a cocaine-addicted con artist who radicalizes people to commit terrorist acts?[XIII] And if Jones has a drug addiction, what are the chances that he might also have a sex addiction, like his close friend Sheen? If Jones is rolling in Hollywood, and we know one of his objectives as a counter-intelligence operative is to radicalize unstable elements of his audience, why not? I don’t see any reason why Williams would make up such an allegation. I also don’t see Jones trying to sue him for defamation. If true, cocaine has certainly given Jones the confidence and aggression he may lack otherwise. He has an overwhelming personality on air, maniacal really. Perhaps a cocaine or other drug addiction contributed to his divorce.

Libido Dominandi: control through sex

E. Michael Jones

E. Michael Jones

Controlling people through sex and blackmail is key to the success of the New World Order conspiracy. It has proven to be the most effective means of control, as sex is one of the strongest desires in human beings and is easily exploited. Sex is a powerful force that can be transmuted for good, exemplified by abstinent, pious Christians, or for bad, as exemplified by former U.S. president Bill Clinton or in 2002 when Israel attempted to distract and control Palestinian civilians by taking over their TV stations and broadcasting pornography on every channel all day and all night.[XIV] This system of control, which cultural critic E. Michael Jones calls libido dominandi[XV], could very well be at work in Alex Jones. His handlers, whether they be the Israelis, the CIA, FBI, or a combination of all three could be directing Jones by the lusts of his heart…also by his wallet. It has been perfected in Hollywood. Almost every actor is compromised from the beginning so that they step out of line with Hollywood’s Judeo-Masonic agenda. And if someone does manage to step out of line, the hammer is laid down in the form of scandals, theft (loaded bank accounts mysteriously disappear), or assassinations at the hands of Hollywood’s starwhacker hitmen. If true, however, Jones’ case of libido dominandi does not absolve him of guilt, especially as it pertains to his role as a public liar, misdirector, radicalizer, and agent of the New World Order conspiracy. He is accountable for his decisions and all the words he puts out into the public sphere. He has yet to publicly admit that he is divorced. This would be the appropriate course of action for Jones, as he makes money from his image as a family man and patriot. He also claims to be a Christian, so confession and repentance would also be in order. After he has done all that, he might also admit that he has lied and conned many people, sent people to jail and death (via radicalization), stole large sums of money from his naïve audience to pay for his private affairs (money bombs ), and confess to being a counter-intelligence operative working against the best interests of the average person, especially Americans.

Notes
[I]
Amanda Bruce on Having Unprotected Sex With Charlie Sheen (Originally aired on 11/18/2015)

[II] Stephen Battaglio (ed.). Charlie Sheen reveals he is HIV positive. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved November 17, 2015.

[III] Charlie Sheen Unleashed: I’m Not Taking It Anymore!! 1/3

[IV] Alex Jones on ABC’s “The View” and His Phone Call to Aaron on Air

[V] Fitzpatrick, Timothy, Alex Jones ignores adultery claim, leaked divorce with Jewish wife, September 8, 2015, The Fitzpatrick Informer

[VI] Sex Scandal: Alex Jones’s Anthony Gucciardi Threatens To Destroy Prominent Alt Media Journalists
Charlie Sheen, Alex Jones, Hollywood Gay Mafia and the Illuminati

[VII] Fitzpatrick, Timothy, Matt Drudge Undoubtedly a Zionist Agent, October, 7, 2015, The Fitzpatrick Informer

[VIII] Fitzpatrick, Timothy, Alex Jones ignores adultery claim, leaked divorce with Jewish wife, September 8, 2015, The Fitzpatrick Informer

[IX] Webb, Stew, Alex Jones Secret Divorce Revealed, September, 7, 2015

[X] Richard Linklater Filmography

[XI] Alex Jones and Jewish Sponsors

[XII] CHARLIE SHEEN SUFFERS STROKE AFTER OVERDOSE; Star in booze and drugs binge

[XIII] Fitzpatrick, Timothy, Alex Jones all Koched up!, July 25, 2015, The Fitzpatrick Informer

[XIV] Israelis Said Running Porn On Seized TV Channels (Rense.com)

[XV] Interview with author E. Michael Jones on Libido Dominandi

For more on the Alex Jones scandal, read the following:

Alex Jones ignores adultery claim, leaked divorce with Jewish wife

Why is Alex Jones telling us about his ‘deep masonic roots’?

Matt Drudge undoubtedly a Zionist agent

Alex Jones all Koched up!

Millionaire Alex Jones’ mysterious Dogwood Creek home

Alex Jones pulls the Goldman over the sheeple’s eyes

Alex Jones’ Jewish handler at Emmis promotes Hicks meme

Alex Jones using hypnosis, subliminals, and NLP on audience

Did the CIA recruit Alex Jones through the John Birch Society?

COINTELPRO caught setting up strawman attacks against Alex Jones

Stratfor had two Alex Joneses

Alex Jones creating bogus stories to circumvent Stratfor revelations

Parallels between Alex Jones and CIA front National Review

Alex Jones, freemasonry, and the cult of Constitution

The Stratfor Infowar – Wikileaks reveals more on Kinky cointelpro Jones

Alternative media continues to ignore Alex Jones’ Stratfor connections

Learned helplessness through the alternative media

Infowars photo op at Stratfor?

The growing complexity of Alex Jones’ Israeli Connections

False opposition Mark Dice returns to the InfoWhores fold

Hypocrite Alex Jones as fake as Obama when crying

Is Alex Jones externalizing the hierarchy?

Alex Jones follows in the footsteps of Vladimir Zhirinovsky

Michael Hoffman’s infatuation with Protestantism

By Northsider
November 26, 2015 Anno Domini
Part I

Untitled-1Michael 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?

hoffman2In 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.

Part II
Part III

The Star-Spangled Heresy

perf5.500x8.500.inddSource Unknown
(apparently based on the late Solange Hertz’ work pictured on the right)

The US constitution is not a solution to today’s problems. It is a Masonic document that teaches what Christianity calls “the Star-Spangled Heresy” the prominent tenets of which are: 1.) Revolution 2.) the separation of the Church from state 3.) Moral Relativism. Distrusting the Catholic Church and separating the Catholic Church from the state has led to the tyranny of moral relativism and to super demon possessed leaders who lie to their own subjects and carry out false flag acts of terrorism.

‘FOUNDING FATHERS’ FOUNDED AMERICA TO BRING IN THE NEW WORD ORDER
Adam Weishaupt founded the Illuminati on May 1st of 1776 which is the date commemorated on the back of the US dollar bill and has the words in Latin ‘Annuit Coeptis Novus Ordo Seclorum’ meaning ‘Announcing the Conception of the New World Order.’ The declaration of independence – a name that is not in the document itself – was not signed on July 4th supposedly in 1776 but August 2nd by 50 signers. Some of the remaining 6 signers did not even sign it until 2 years later. This is the consensus of the super majority of professional US historians. The ‘articles of confederation’ was the proto-constitution of the continental revolutionary congress. It was made in the early 1780s. The constitution itself which established the US political sect was not made until 1787.

July 4th is the date on which Babylonians lighted pyres for their false god Baal. This is why the masonic founders wanted the date to be observed in the celebration of the revolution. The date is dedicated to a concealed worship of Lucifer. The symbols of the dollar bill honor Lucifer. They do not honor God the Lord Jesus Christ and His Blessed Mother.

THE ILLUMINATI HATES MONARCHY AND THE CHURCH
Weishaupt had as his goal to destroy the States of Europe and the Church. He intended to do this by infiltration of Illuminati freemasons into the top positions of all the governments of the world and call them “republics.” Since they all believed in a universal humanity of religion they could all come together in an attempt to destroy the Church and develop a Luciferian world wide ‘state.’

Excerpt from Hertz’ Star-Spangled Heresy: Americanism:

The popular scientific writer Roger Burlingame coined the phrase, “America was discovered; the United States was invented.” He meant only to make a distinction between a principle and its application, but the eyes of faith see deeper than that: America is the creation of Almighty God and can indeed only be discovered, whereas the United States, being merely a political ontrivance, can qualify only as a human invention. Mistaking one for the other has disastrous consequences, for contrivances may fall apart without warning, as the United States nearly did during its so-called Civil War and may do now by internal collapse.

Catholics who mistake the United States for God’s America may furthermore easily fall into the heresy formally defined by Pope Leo XIII as Americanism. Basically, it is naturalism in American dress, and it accommodates itself to all the ideals of the Enlightenment. French radicals of the last century expected it then to produce a major schism in the Church under the able leadership of Catholic bishops in the United States, some of whom even dared preach Americanism to Europe. It was a threat, apparently, which drove Leo XIII to approve of democracy in practice, if not in principle rather than antagonize the enemy.

“But over there in America,” wrote Emile Zola:

…what fertile virgin soil for a triumphant heresy! How easy to see a Bishop Ireland one fine day like the banner of revolt and become the apostle of the new religion, A RELIGION RELEASED FROM DOGMAS, MORE HUMAN, THE RELIGION WE DEMOCRATS ARE WAITING FOR!

The United States had been only too well prepared for such regrettable leadership. Like Franklin, most of its Founding Fathers were not Christians. Although they often made references to the Deity, the God they invoked was their God, the alchemical God of nature in Christian dress. In fact the most influential among them were not so much deists as thoroughgoing pantheists, for, being avowed rationalists, they looked for divinity only in nature. Themselves products of the Enlightenment, they could hardly have been anything else.

In Alchemy, a Green Dragon signifies the Great Work in its beginnings, and it cannot have been coincidence that the Revolution was planned and carried out by men who met regularly in a Boston tavern of that very name. So diligently did they promote the serpent’s cause that America today finds herself immersed in a sea of neo-Gnosticism so pervading and controlling her moral, intellectual and political life that, by comparison, the Albigensian heresy which once ravaged the whole of Christendom now looks like a harmless childhood disease. God preserve us from the Red Dragon, alchemical sign for the Great Work in its completion!

(pp. 20-22)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 270 other followers