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

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.

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.

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)

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

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
October 31, 2015

df399c59afcdc60feb1128cbe852fcdc

New Atlantis (the American republic), the masonic ambition of Kabbalist Sir Francis Bacon and his fellow occultists.

Is Alex Jones playing a sleight of hand or his he really that dumb regarding freemasonry?

The word magician looks to be back to his game of revelation of the method. On October 16, 2015, Jones posted a clip from his show under the click-baiting headline of “Alex Jones Reveals His Deep Masonic Roots”. Sounds like something one of his critics would say, right? In the clip, Jones claims that he is not a mason but then goes on to brag of his ‘deep masonic roots’. Thereafter, Jones talks about how most masons are just dupes of a hijacked freemasonry and don’t really know its true Enlightenment (good) source, the kind embraced by America’s founders like George Washington. The show then ends with a sales pitch for some 1776 T-shirts glorifying the masonic U.S. founding fathers.

Jones is behaving consistently. He has always advocated masonic, Enlightenment principles throughout his public career, mainly under the themes of capitalism, Protestantism, and libertarianism. The only difference is that now he is not masking it. In the video clip, he even used the word “illuminati” in a positive context and glorifies the Rosicrucians. He says his family are from the “real Illuminati”. I guess the dumbfounded viewer is supposed to take away from it that freemasonry and illuminism are good and true, it’s just that “globalists” have hijacked its concepts and symbols, thus constituting a fake illuminati. As I outlined in one of my early critiques of Jones, this is the pattern used by the conspirators—to first withhold their agenda from their target (secrecy) and then gradually leak their secrets through the mass media, art, and culture (revelation). The purpose of gradual revelation is so that the target is not alarmed. Then, by the time the target has figured out that they are in the midst of an assault, it will have been too late. Most likely, though, the target will not figure any of it out. And with no alarm, there is no need to cease the new learned behaviour, the new way of thinking. In other words, the target internalizes the commands of its conspirators and champions its own destruction.

Jones is aligning his audience to the Judeo-masonic worldview, which is contrary to everyone’s best interests, except the conspirators’. It’s sold as human enlightenment, progress, and higher evolution.

Here is the video clip of Jones:

 

Related:
Is Alex Jones externalizing the hierarchy?
Alex Jones, freemasonry, and the cult of Constitution
Learned helplessness through the alternative media
Alex Jones using hypnosis, subliminals, and NLP on audience
Parallels between Alex Jones and CIA front National Review
Alex Jones all Koched up!

Matt Drudge undoubtedly a Zionist agent

By Timothy Fizpatrick
October 7, 2015 Anno Domini

drudge-matt-drudge-large*500 copyMost of the major Zionist spooks posing as journalists have been outed in the alternative and mainstream media in the last ten years. But still chipping away and maintaining his popularity is a lesser-known shill named Matthew Drudge of the Drudge Report news and gossip aggregator[1], a popular reference site for neoconservatives and their libertarian brothers as well as evangelical “Christians”.

Drudge, an allegedly gay[2] Jew who seemed to rise out of total obscurity (a hallmark of intelligence assets) after working in retail and telemarketing, jumpstarted his career by miraculously managing to break the Bill Clinton-Lewinsky scandal—Lewinsky being a Mossad asset herself apparently sent in to compromise the then president of the United States.[3] It was around this time that Zionist Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News chose Drudge to host his own Saturday night show on the neoconservative news channel. Although the show was short lived, top Fox Zionists like Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and Rush Limbaugh continue to give Drudge publicity.

Drudge Agenda

Drudge’s agenda completely lines up with that of all the Zionist-oriented news outlets, be it Joseph Farrah’s WorldNetDaily, Breitbart (who actually worked in tandem with Drudge at one time)[4], or the dubious shock jock of conspiracy Alex Jones of Infowars. They all push the same issues as those found among the Koch-neocon-Tea Party-libertarian network, which I have formulated into a convenient list[5] in my article on Jones and the Koch brothers. Unfortunately, the odd things that this network gets right, like its opposition to man-made global warming fear mongering and the abortion industry baits a lot of well meaning paleo-conservatives, who then get caught up in the various other fraudulent issues propagated by this network. Like William F. Buckley’s CIA-created National Review did before the Internet, its purpose is to homogenize the right into a more easily manageable group.[6] In other words, it has hijacked legitimate dissent and mutated it into controlled opposition. The right has been a sitting duck for quite some time. It has never been allowed to go beyond what the hijackers have designed it for. And it has used the kabbalist black art of dialectics to grow its scope of influence, occasionally allowing certain flashes of truth to glimmer in the sunlight only to steer the dissent into another tier of controlled opposition.

Israeli intelligence

When it was revealed that British media magnate and member of Parliament Robert Maxwell was living a double life as a publisher and Israeli Mossad agent, a whole new world of possibilities open up in the minds of inquisitive people. What a perfect scenario for Israel’s HASBARA (Zionist public relations). Instead of trying to influence the media to their Zionist worldview, why not just run the media themselves. So it is quite possible and, I argue, likely that Rupert Murdoch is another Robert Maxwell, which means Fox News is an arm of the Israeli government and International Jewry. To most of you reading this, it won’t surprise you. Fox News is quite open about its unwavering support for Israel and its dedication to faux conservative views. And it’s no different for the Jewish-controlled left in America. Zionist Sumner Redstone’s media left bias plays off nicely against the media right, creating the illusion of choice for viewers. Is it crazy to think that Drudge might have been groomed and brought to prominence by Murdoch and Fox News in the service of Israeli HASBARA and counter-intelligence, as some in the conspiracy community have claimed?

Stratfor built ‘relationship’ with Drudge?

According to Wikileaks files, Israeli intelligence gathering agency Stratfor discussed building a relationship with characters like Matt Drudge.[7]

Jewish Stratfor employee Aaric S. Eisenstein stated in an email addressed to Zionist Stratfor head George Friedman on Sept. 17, 2008,

Wow. Take a look at this. It’s small wonder that Politico is trying to follow the business model described below. I knew that Drudge was absolutely shitting money; I didn’t know how much.

From a targeting standpoint, Meredith, these are definitely players where we want relationships. If you hit the center of gravity, you don’t have to worry about the periphery, and this is definitely the center of gravity. Please pass this along to Brian. He ought to be reading this blog.

The Drudge link to Stratfor may be benign, but it’s interesting considering all of Alex Jones’ ties to the agency.[8]

drudgetweet-20130423

Drudge and Infowars

Although Drudge is quite moderate when it comes to linking to conspiratorial content, he does often link to Jones and HASBARA Infowars. This isn’t due to the 10 percent truth that Jones tells about conspiracies but happens because Jones will often venture away from conspiracies to push the Koch/libertarian agenda. This is when Drudge will link to Infowars. In turn, Jones, who has nothing but praise for Drudge[9], almost daily links to the Drudge Report. The alternative media was in a bit of a buzz yesterday because Drudge went on the Alex Jones show (but didn’t appear on camera even though he was in the Infowars studio) and made typical sensationalist claims, again about the supposed pending end of the Internet. Between the two shills, they exert a considerable amount of influence over disenfranchised paleocons, and of course neocons. They refer their audience back and forth between each other, creating a non-stop loop of distraction, misdirection, and fear mongering.

Notes

[1] Drudge Report – http://drudgereport.com/

[2] Closet homosexuality and homophobia – Source Watch – http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Matt_Drudge

[3] Thomas Reveals Mossad’s Role In Lewinsky Affair – http://www.rense.com/general36/lew.htm

[4] Hot links served up daily, Aug. 4, 2007, Los Angeles Times – http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-31639657/

[5] Alex Jones all Koched up!, Timothy Fitzpatrick, July 25, 2015 – https://fitzinfo.wordpress.com/2015/07/25/alex-jones-all-koched-up/

[6] Parallels between Alex Jones and CIA front National Review, Timothy Fitzpatrick, April 24, 2014 – https://fitzinfo.wordpress.com/2014/04/24/parallels-between-alex-jones-and-cia-front-national-review/

[7] WikiLeaks – http://search.wikileaks.org/gifiles/?viewemailid=1266882

[8] Alternative media continues to ignore Alex Jones’ Stratfor connections, Timothy Fitzpatrick, February 4, 2014 – https://fitzinfo.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/alternative-media-continues-to-ignore-alex-jones-stratfor-connection/

[9] How Matt Drudge Changed the World https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCPNUKQ05mo

Alex Jones ignores adultery claim, leaked divorce with Jewish wife

Alex and Kelly

A screenshot of Alex and Kelly from the British documentary Secret Rulers of the World, which followed Alex during his alleged infiltration of Bohemian Grove. The five-part documentary was written and directed by the Jewish Jon Ronson and aired just months before the Sept. 11, 2001 “terrorist” attacks, possibly as a strategy to position Jones in anticipation of 9/11 dissent.

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
September 8, 2015 Anno Domini

Leaked documents showing Alex Jones’ divorce settlement with his Jewish wife Kelly (Violet) Rebecca Jones have been circulating on the web for a couple of days now, yet Jones has decided to publicly ignore it, perhaps as a means of perpetuating his good-Christian-patriot persona as he continues his HASBARA/COINTELPRO operation.

The documents, first revealed by Aaron Wilson of AlexJonesCritic.com, show that the couple, after almost seven years of marriage, officially divorced on March 23 of this year after Kelly’s initial filing with the 428th Judicial District Court of Hays County all the way back on December 18 of 2013. As part of the settlement, Jones was ordered to pay Kelly a $3.1 million, as well as the deed to their Back of the Moon Drive, Austin, Texas estate, valued at just under $1 million. Divorces typically involve a 50/50 split of the assets between couples, so it’s very possible that Jones may be worth close to $8 million, assuming he has no other hidden assets. With Jones now apparently out of the house, it appears Jones is living at the Ashton apartments overlooking the Colorado River in Austin, Texas. Jones has done several broadcasts from a high-rise building resembling the Ashton building. The document in the “settlement” link above lists Jones’ address as 101 Colorado Street in Austin, which appears to confirm that it is the high-rise Ashton building.

Jones alleged to have had affair with Infowars employee

From Twitter, McAdoo in her apparent Wiccan attire.

From Twitter, McAdoo in her apparent Wiccan attire. Incidentally, a boyfriend of McAdoo’s named Zeale posted masonic photos to his social media awhile back (1, 2, 3, 4).

Alleged federal whistleblower Stew Webb alleges that the divorce was caused by an affair between Jones and an unnamed Infowars employee. Although Webb does not name the employee, he states that it is a female, based on his source within the Infowars operation.

I will not name this woman out of respect for her privacy. Everybody on the Infowars team knew about the affair, states Webb

Rumours are swirling that the employee is undoubtedly Infowars reporter Lee Ann McAdoo, a big-busted young woman who many believe was hired by Jones merely for sex appeal. Jones, being the intelligent PR man that he is, knows that sex sells.

Jones must protect his image
In order for Jones to salvage what’s left of the control he has over NWO dissent, he must protect his image and that of his Jewish wife, which explains his complete silence over the issue. As far as Jones’ listeners are concerned, Jones is a good Christian patriot and a hero. To think of Jones as an adultering pig with multiple ties to the Jewish lobby would devastate the trust he has built up with his audience over his 20-year on-air operation.

Conspiracy researcher and Protestant preacher Texe Marrs claims to have married Alex and Kelly. The irony of this divorce is heightened by the fact that Marrs has gone out of his way multiple times to vouch for Jones as the upstanding Christian patriot he presents himself as. Marrs has done this despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It’s strange, because Marrs, unlike Jones, tells the truth about Jewish power. He, of all people, should be able to spot a Zionist shill with great ease.

Jones misappropriating funds from his Infowars operation?
Is Jones using the proceeds from Infowars campaigns like his infamous “money bomb” to pay for his divorce settlement? Blogger Glenn Canady comes to a very likely conclusion:

This is only a story because Alex Jones continues to keep his huge divorce settlement a secret and is taking money from patriots which could now be going to the ex-wife and not to the fight against the new world order as he claims.  Alex needs to come clean on this divorce and admit that nearly $4 million of his money from his fans is going to the ex-wife now.

Alex Jones is doing a 24 hour money bomb on Sept. 16 to raise $1 million from his fans.  But since Alex Jones has kept his $4-million divorce a secret from his fans, how much of this money bomb will instead end up in the hands of his ex wife now?

You can’t put anything past Jones. There is no law that I know of that could stop him from misappropriating the money his naive fans donate to him.

HASBARA must go on
As well, nothing can interrupt Jones’ objective as an Israeli/Jewish HASBARA shill, especially following the defeat Jones conceded to one David Duke in a recent on-air debate. The debate proved so devastating that even Jones’ supporters walked away in disgust with Jones’ behaviour, coupled with the contradictory evidence Duke presented to Jones’ typical pro-Jewish narrative. Towards the end of the debate, Jones tried to save face, after realizing how bad he came off, by having his Jewish crewman Rob Jacobson attack Duke.

It appears that Kelly was the brains behind the Infowars operation, herself being a publicity hound for PETA at one time. Being Jewish just adds to the image of her as a Jewish revolutionary, with Jones as the parrot, whoring for Zionism every day on the microphone. But with this divorce, what direction will Jones and Infowars take? Was Kelly his Zionist handler? Perhaps his 34 Jewish advertizers, Jewish staffers, and apparent Stratfor connections will be enough to keep the engine running.

The Duke defeat as well as this divorce leak could be the final nail in the coffin of the Infowars operation. What credibility will Jones have left?

Libido Dominandi
If Jones’ alleged affair is true, what are the chances that this isn’t the first time Jones has let his passions rule him into a compromising situation? Could this, then, be the primary method by which Jones’ Jewish handlers direct him? Libido Dominandi is unequivocally the primary method the establishment uses to control and socially engineer people. For an exhaustive explanation of this form of control, I recommend historian E. Michael Jones’ most excellent book of the same title.

Above all, Alex Jones is human. His audience needs to unlearn the god-like image they have of him.

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

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

Mossad Exposed in Phony ‘Palestinian Al-Qaeda’ Caper

Screen shot 2015-09-02 at 7.43.24 PM

(Editor’s note: Publishing of this article is not an endorsement of Lyndon LaRouche or his affiliates.)

By Michele Steinberg and Hussein Askary
December 20, 2002 Anno Domini
Executive Intelligence Review

The United States government has been provided with con- crete evidence that the Israeli Mossad and other Israeli intelligence services have been involved in a 13-month effort to “recruit” an Israeli-run, phony “al-Qaeda cell” among Palestinians, so that Israel could achieve a frontline position in the U.S. war against terrorism and get a green light for a worldwide “revenge without borders” policy. The question: Does the United States have the moral fiber to investigate?

Evidence of the Israeli dirty tricks burst onto the public scene on Dec. 6, when Col. Rashid Abu Shbak, head of the Palestinian Preventive Security Services in the Gaza Strip, held a press conference revealing the details of the alleged plot, as his agency had put the pieces together. The revelations undermine the “big lie” that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has used to justify new brutal attacks on Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip and other occupied areas. Sharon claimed on Dec. 4 that Israeli intelligence had “hard evidence” of al-Qaeda operations in the Gaza Strip. Now, the top Palestinian leadership has shown the United States and other nations how Israeli intelligence entities were creating that al-Qaeda link!

American leader Lyndon LaRouche, a Democratic Presidential pre-candidate in 2004, commented that these revelations, if confirmed, could be “of strategic importance” in stop- ping the American, British, and Israeli warhawks pushing for a Middle East war, beginning with an invasion of Iraq. A war would justify the Sharon government’s plan to annihilate the very idea of a Palestinian state. LaRouche warned that if institutions of the American Presidency and the international community successfully block an American pre-emptive war on Iraq, the biggest danger would be that a “mega-terror” attack, blamed on Palestinians, or an “Iraqi-linked” al-Qaeda, would be staged by Israel’s ruling Jabotinskyite fanatics, to put the war back on the agenda.

News about the Mossad-run attempt to create an al-Qaeda cell came when well-informed intelligence sources based in Washington had already told EIR that there are many doubts about the Mossad’s hasty declaration that “al-Qaeda” had been responsible for the Nov. 28 attack on a hotel in Mombasa, Kenya, where three Israelis were killed, and the failed rocket attack on an Israeli chartered jet that was departing from Mombasa airport. There was no identification of the bombers within the first five days of the incident, the sources pointed out, yet Sharon’s government ministers went on an immediate propaganda rampage announcing worldwide revenge (see article in this section). Authorities in Kenya also denied the al-Qaeda link. But the usefulness of blaming al- Qaeda, for the Israeli right, was palpable, when Foreign Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the Kenya attacks “a golden opportunity” to prove to the United States that Bush’s war on terrorism, and Israel’s war with the Palestinians is the same thing. Netanyahu’s faction has violently rejected the Palestinian Authority’s revelations, and so far, the American and European press have followed suit, despite the dramatic nature of these charges, and the documents that the Palestinians have provided to the international press.

Chronology of the Revelations
On Dec. 7, the British news service, Reuters, the Israeli daily Ha’aretz, and Qatar-based Al-Jazeera TV network, all reported that the Palestinian Authority had accused the Mos- sad of creating a phony al-Qaeda cell in the Gaza Strip. Ha’aretz reported, “the head of Palestinian Preventive Security” in the Gaza Strip, Col. Rashid Abu Shbak, said on Dec. 6, “that his forces had identified a number of Palestinian collaborators who had been ordered by Israeli security agencies to ‘work in the Gaza Strip under the name of al-Qaeda.’ He said the investigation was ongoing and evidence would be presented soon.” Al-Jazeera TV added that the Palestinian authorities had arrested a group of Palestinian “collaborators with Israeli occupation” in Gaza, involved in the operation.

Reuters’ reporter Diala Saadeh, under the headline, “Palestinians: Israel Faked Gaza al-Qaeda Presence,” quoted a number of Palestinian Authority (P.A.) senior officials, including President Yasser Arafat, who told reporters at his West Bank Ramallah headquarters, that Sharon’s claims of al-Qaeda operations in Palestinian territories “is a big, big, big lie to cover [Sharon’s] attacks and his crimes against our people everywhere.” P.A. Information Minister Yasser Abed Rabbo detailed the case: “There are certain elements who were instructed by the Mossad to form a cell under the name of al-Qaeda in the Gaza Strip in order to justify the assault and the military campaigns of the Israeli occupation army against Gaza.”

Palestinian officials promised to provide detailed evidence, and did so on Dec. 8, in a press conference addressed by Colonel Shbak, and by Palestinian Minister for Planning and International Cooperation Nabil Shaath. Shbak told the international representatives that,“Over the past nine months, we’ve been investigating eight cases in which Israeli intelligence posing as al-Qaeda operatives recruited Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.” Colonel Shbak said that 3 men were under arrest, and 11 had been released. He explained that those released had voluntarily provided information going back to May 2002, about the contacts that had been made asking them to operate as an “al-Qaeda” group. The alleged al-Qaeda recruiters were traced to Israeli intelligence, said Colonel Shbak. He detailed incidents, some of which were described in official documents, of cell phone calls and e-mails, where Palestinians were asked to “join al-Qaeda.” Shbak said, “We investigated the origin of those calls, which used [wireless phone] roaming, and messages, and found out they all came from Israel,” reported the publication, IslamOnline. He said that the potential “recruits,” had been given money and weapons, “although most of these weapons did not even work.” He also noted that the money for these targeted Palestinians “was transferred from bank accounts in Jerusalem or Israel.”

Minister Shaath announced at the press conference that the P.A. had “handed ambassadors and consuls of the Arab and foreign countries, documents revealing the involvement of the Israeli intelligence in recruiting citizens from Gaza Strip in a fake organization carrying the name of Qaeda.” He said the ploy was intended “to create a new excuse to escalate the aggression on Gaza Strip.”

The international community was jolted again on Dec. 10, when Colonel Shbak held another press conference and the Preventive Security Agency presented the Mossad’s potential recruiter himself to the international media. According to re- ports in the Arabic press in Dubai, London and Ramallah, the man appeared in disguise (for security reasons,) and was identified only as “Ibrahim,” but explained in great detail that he was one of the “key recruiters” for the potential cell. He said the story started in October 2001, when, after he sent his photo and mobile phone number to a “contact page” in a Jerusalem magazine, he was contacted by a person calling himself “Youssef,” and nicknamed “Abu Othman.” After building up a personal relationship with “Ibrahim,” and telling him how much he resembled his own son, who had been killed, Youssef sent him $2,000, and began encouraging the Gaza man—who appeared to be in his early 20s—to become a more observant and practicing Muslim.

In May 2002, five months after the initial contact, said Ibrahim, Youssef “told me frankly, ‘you are a good candidate to work for us in the company of Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda group.’ ” This Youssef also claimed to have already created an al-Qaeda cell inside Israel. Ibrahim said that he then approached the Palestinian security services and told them about the transactions with Youssef, and that the security services asked him to continue the communications, which they would monitor. He said that the specific instructions were that Ibrahim was to announce through a communique ́—directly from Gaza—that al-Qaeda claimed credit for a bombing attack, or attacks, that Youssef indicated his network was about to carry out in Israel. Ibrahim stressed that the man also said that he (the Mossad officer) “had the capability to carry out major bombing operations inside Israel, but that the al-Qaeda group in Gaza should claim responsibility for the attack and no other group.” In an interview with the London- based Arabic daily Al-Hayat, after the press conference, Ibrahim stated, that “the man told him that mega military operations will be conducted inside Israel, and that these operations would be announced through Ibrahim.” This would mean that as soon as he gets the signal after a major terrorist act against Israeli civilian targets, Ibrahim and his group would send a communique ́ to the press or a videotape, similar to the ones sent by bin Laden to Al-Jazeera, claiming responsibility for the attack.”

Ibrahim was also asked to gather specific information for Youssef about a number of persons in Gaza, some of them known to be members of Hamas. When asked why he wanted this information, Youssef said, “I want them to join al-Qaeda.” At that point, Palestinian security services cut off the “Ibrahim-Youssef” contact, because it was becoming too dangerous.

At the same press conference, Colonel Shbak said direct money payments “transferred from Israel,” had been received by five out of the eight Palestinians who have been giving information to the Preventive Security Agency about this operation. Shbak also explained that his agency traced and obtained a number of telephone numbers, registrations, and bank receipts for money transferred to some of those persons.

Now, said Shbak, the United States and a number of inter- national intelligence and security organs had been supplied with documents and evidence refuting the Israeli allegations about Palestinian connections to al-Qaeda. “These documents prove without any doubt that the ones who are behind this alleged al-Qaeda group are the various Israeli intelligence organizations,” Shbak added. He told Al-Hayat Al-Jadidah daily that the “Americans have not responded yet to the documents . . . as provided by the Palestinian Preventive Security agency.”

The 9/11 Cover Story
The question is whether the U.S. government and other governments will take up the evidence given to them. It is well established that several top Cabinet officials in the current Sharon caretaker government, including Sharon himself, have a long, jaded history of staging precisely these kinds of “countergang” operations, using Israeli covert operatives and Arabs tortured and brainwashed in Israeli jails and recruited as false-flag terrorists. Sharon, Mossad chief Moshe Dagan, and Gen. Effie Eitam are proponents of such dirty-war tactics. As EIR reported in several extensive articles on the Hamas organization, that terrorist capability was actually created by Ariel Sharon and the Israeli right wing, for the purpose of supplanting Yasser Arafat and the organizations of the Pales- tine Liberation Organization (see EIR, Dec. 6).

Even more to the point, the Osama bin Laden authorship of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks has been a cover story from the first moments the media began reporting it as fact. Inter- viewed on the morning of Sept. 11 as the attacks were unfolding, LaRouche made clear that the breadth and sophistication of these attacks showed that it was “an inside job,” involving U.S. military and intelligence operatives capable of defeating or neutralizing all existing and backup security systems. Bin Laden was named as the culprit, explains LaRouche, because his name provided entry into the policy of a Clash of Civilizations against Islam, which right-wing neo-conservatives in the Bush Administration have as their goal. LaRouche has also pointedly asked when Osama bin Laden stopped being an American agent—a reality that the “Islamic card” networks of Zbigniew Brzezinski and the Iran-Contra financiers of the Afghansi mujahideen, want to bury. It must also be asked, when did al-Qaeda stop working for British intelligence? EIR has documented that British foreign intelligence, MI6, worked closely with so-called Islamist terrorist groups safe- housed in Britain, to destabilize Arab and Muslim nations, in the geopolitical service of Her Majesty’s government, and an Anglo-American imperial faction.

As recently as November, this coverup of British/U.S. covert support for terrorism continued, with the case of David Shayler, a former MI5 agent who was sentenced to six months in jail for disclosing “government secret information.” Shayler told London Guardian reporter Martin Bright that MI6 hired one of Osama bin Laden’s closest collaborators— Anas al-Liby, who remains on the U.S. government’s Most Wanted List, with a reward of $25 million for his capture— to assassinate Libya’s Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi in 1996.

Bright, who could not publish the article in the Guardian, but did so in the Pakistani daily, The Dawn, on Oct. 30, received a gag order from the British Attorney General, threatening him with prison, if he publishes any more information from Shayler.

With this background in mind, the public revelations about the Mossad attempts to set up al-Qaeda cells, could have strategic consequences for the discredited Sharon government—and even more broadly for the Clash of Civilizations zealots covering up the truth about Sept. 11. The Palestinian revelations could become the “straw that broke the camel’ s back,” in this dirty war.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 249 other followers