Media anti-Catholic narratives with an endless shelf life

A refutation of Michael Hoffman II

By Jude Duffy
June 29, 2017 Anno Domini

Michael Hoffman II says my comments about him posted on an article published on Henry Makow’s site are calculated to harm his “reputation as a historian”. This is provably false. Far from being “calculated”, my comments were originally a private reply to a woman who wrote to Henry taking issue with my passing reference, in another Makow piece, to Mr. Hoffman as anti-Catholic. This woman challenged me to substantiate my description of Mr. Hoffman and I did so. Henry asked me if he could publish this private reply on his site, and I agreed. So, no calculation.

However, since Mr Hoffman raises the subject, if he wishes to rebut slurs, real or imagined, on his historiographical credibility, no one is stopping him presenting all his formal academic qualifications in this discipline.

Incidentally, my original passing comment about Hoffman (and other alternative media types such as David Icke) alluded to their penchant for uncritically recycling any and all negative narratives the corporate media serve up about the Catholic Church—even though they urge their followers to treat the same media’s narratives about most other issues with contempt. Hoffman in his counter-attack has made no effort to refute this criticism.

Nor has he addressed my point about why he condones the media’s unrelenting efforts to portray clerical sexual abuse of minors as a uniquely Catholic crime. This co-ordinated hate campaign is one of the great media scandals of our time (as some Protestants and even some atheists have acknowledged), yet Hoffman promotes it very enthusiastically in his writings.

Only a few days ago, an item appeared on British Sky News relating to Peter Ball—former Anglican bishop and close friend of the heir to the British throne, Prince Charles—who has been convicted of multiple counts of sexual abuse of minors. The report stated that the former head of the Church of England, Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey, had been ordered by the current Archbishop of Canterbuy, Justin Welby, to cut all formal ties with the Church of England, because of his role in covering up the crimes of Bishop Ball.

In addition to being the former head of the worldwide Anglican Communion, Carey sits in the British House of Lords and is still a prominent figure in British public life, so this was by any standards a huge story. If it had related to a former Catholic bishop found guilty of sexual abuse, and a former head of the Catholic Church in England found to have covered up his crimes, it would have made front-page news, not just in the U.K. but also around the world. The ultra-Zionist New York Times would have devoted endless column inches to it, and the usual oligarch-funded and directed cultural Marxist groups would have staged noisy protests outside Westminster Catholic Cathedral.

Even the self-styled traditionalist Catholic movement would have jumped on the bandwagon, showering the corporate media with sycophantic garlands for “exposing the sickening corruption at the heart of the post-conciliar Church”.

Yet not only was this story not the main headline on Sky News, it didn’t even merit its own report from a religious affairs or legal affairs correspondent.

Furthermore, Sky News chose to downplay Peter Ball’s crimes by referring to them as the ‘abuse of young men’, when the victims were in fact teenage boys. Over 80 per cent of the victims of Catholic clerics convicted of sexual abuse were in the same age range as Ball’s victims (or the ones he has been convicted of – he has also been accused of abusing younger children). Yet the media invariably refer to Catholic clerical abuse of teenagers as ‘paedophilia’, ‘child abuse’, or the ‘rape of children’.

Needless to say, and regardless of the culprit, there can be no question of minimising the horror of the crime of homosexual abuse of teenagers, but the anti-Catholic vendetta of the media is discernible even in the different language corporate presstitutes use to describe equivalent crimes—depending on the religious denomination of the perpetrator.

Underscoring this vendetta, the Daily Mail, a vile pornographic propaganda organ of the British-Masonic establishment, in its report on the Ball scandal, repeatedly referred to Bishop Ball as a ‘priest’, a term that in Britain usually denotes members of the Catholic clergy.

Mr. Hoffman of course never has anything to say about this whitewashing of the crimes of Protestant clergy, because, quite demonstrably, he shares the Zionist media’s hatred of the Catholic Church.

He repeatedly insists it is only the post-Renaissance Church he objects to, but unless he is exceedingly dense, he must know that the Catholic Church has never held that her divinely guaranteed indefectibility would run out after a given period of history—quite the reverse. If the Church is not indefectible now, she has never been indefectible. And if she had never been indefectible, she would have been as much a fraud in the Middle Ages as she is now—according to Mr. Hoffman’s logic. He really must choose.

 

Moreover, Mr. Hoffman once again refuses to answer the crucial question as to what religious authority he deems worthy of obedience in the here and now. Does he believe that in today’s world every Christian must decide for himself on the great moral issues of our time? That is the definition of Protestantism—and liberalism

Hoffman challenges me to substantiate my claim that he admires Cromwell. This is extraordinary. In his writings he has repeatedly sought to downplay the Judaizing tendencies of Cromwell and the Puritans. Indeed, to read much of what he writes on this subject, one could be forgiven for assuming that the Jacobites had triumphed in the religious and political conflicts of 17th century Britain (see for example one of his most recent pieces on this subject ‘The Great Divide’ – May 2. 2017).

One doesn’t have to be a fan of the Stuarts (I’m not) to recognise the utter absurdity of placing the blame for Britain’s emergence as a usurious capitalist superpower on that dynasty—akin to blaming the Romanovs for the ills of the Soviet Union. Quite simply, Catholics were a defeated and persecuted minority in the days when usurious capitalism became the dominant economic system throughout the U.K. and its colonies.

If British Protestants had the aversion to usury that Hoffman attributes to them, they had ample opportunity to combat this vice from a position of enormous strength, as they held uncontested power in Britain and its possessions  throughout the late 17th century, the 18th century, and the 19th century. As it was, usurious capitalism went from strength to strength in the era of Protestant hegemony.

The United Kingdom has never had a Catholic Prime Minister and hasn’t had a Catholic monarch since the days of the Stuarts. The United States only got its first Catholic President in 1960, and he was only deemed a worthy candidate when he promised not to let his faith govern his political decisions.

And he got shot.

The incontestable fact is that Protestants were ‘early adopters’ of usurious capitalism. Many of the founders of the Bank of England were Huguenots—as was its first governor Sir John Houblon. Even in the predominantly Catholic countries of France and Italy, Protestants dominated usurious banking—something their religious descendants still acknowledge today.

The same applies, incidentally, to Freemasonry. Hoffman dismisses the many papal condemnations of Freemasonry as a smokescreen to hide the real agenda of the “Romanists”, just as he dismisses papal condemnations of usury. On the other hand, he ignores the indisputable and very concrete links between the Protestant churches and Masonry, e.g., Anglican and Lutheran archbishops’ and bishops’ membership of the Freemasons.

So, in Hoffman’s bizarre counter-intuitive form of historiography, binding papal encyclicals can be dismissed as charades, whereas irrefutable evidence of Masonic domination of Protestant churches is deemed irrelevant in assessing the merits of these denominations.

Hoffman doesn’t appear to worry unduly either about Calvin’s openly stated support for usury, Luther’s admiration for occult alchemy, his proto-modernist attempts to edit the Bible to his own taste, and his exhortation to his followers to “sin boldly”.

Nor does Hoffman get around to explaining why, if the radical Protestants of past centuries were such upstanding folk, most mainline Protestant churches now support abortion, homosexuality, and why even most of the more conservative Protestant denominations endorse birth prevention and promote Israel First ultra-Zionism.

He largely ignores, too, the Protestant Anglo-Israelist origins of corrupt occult societies such as the Orange Order, Purple Arch, the Black Preceptory, Skull and Bones, and Scroll and Key—most of which flourished in the radical Protestant heartlands of northern Ireland, Scotland, New England, and the British colonies. Instead, he focuses all his moral outrage about the degeneracy of modern institutional Christianity on the Catholic Church.

For someone who takes such offence at criticism of his own stated views, Hoffman falsely attributes statements to his critics with reckless abandon. He says I claimed that usury “began” with Protestants. I would never say anything so absurd. Usury didn’t begin with Protestants or “Romanists”; it has always existed. I did say that Hoffman has attempted to whitewash Protestantism’s role in the rise of usury, and he has made no attempt to refute this charge.

Hoffman calls my speculation about the reasons for his admiration for Luther, Calvin, et al., “Freudian drivel”. Actually if I had to write the piece again, I’d leave out the last bit about Hoffman’s possible motives for lionising Protestant leaders and Puritans—not because it’s in any way far-fetched to speculate that he may have fallen prey to romantic hero-worship—a much more plausible hypothesis than his own outlandish claim that the popes were secretly promoting Freemasonry while pretending to condemn it. No, the reason I’d omit this final paragraph is because, with hindsight, I think it gives Hoffman too much credit, and may falsely imply a nuanced outlook on his part about religious matters, where no such nuance or balance exists. Regardless of his motives, of which I obviously have no certain knowledge, Hoffman’s writings about the Church are quite simply the work of a crude anti-Catholic propagandist.

Incidentally, the only reason I even added the last bit is because Henry Makow, being a magnanimous sort of chap, asked me if I’d care to balance my criticisms of Hoffman with something positive. That was the context in which I wrote what I did about Hoffman’s piece on Bing Crosby and Irving Berlin. However his views on the Old Crooner notwithstanding, Hoffman’s anti-Catholic bigotry is beyond reasonable dispute in my view.

Ireland’s white dispossession began decades ago by Judeo-Masonic forces

By Jude Duffy
Editorial
June 11, 2017 Anno Domini

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ted Pike brings in Zionism through the back door

Ted Pike ZionistBy Timothy Fitzpatrick

Before I begin this brief critique of so-called truth teller Reverend Ted Pike, I want to redefine the definition of Zionism to something I feel is more accurate.

Zionism: the belief that God has set aside a tract of land in the Middle East for ethnic Jews for all eternity as long as they are obedient.

Ted Pike, a well known “anti-Zionist” in the anti-Zionist community, is actually perpetuating the Zionist myth, although in a subtler manner, through his “Bible studies” at his website TruthTellers and in his documentary videos, specifically The Other Israel and Zionism and Christianity: Unholy Alliance. With titles like these, you would think there would be no hint of Zionism in his teachings on Bible prophecy, but, unfortunately, this is not the case. And with his campaign against the Babylonian Talmud and Jewish ADL-sponsored hate laws, his anti-Zionism appears even more legitimate.

Pike a premillennialist Zionist

Give even a casual look at the roots of Christian Zionism and you will inevitably encounter a prophetical teaching known as premillennial dispensationalism. Many evangelical Christians and Protestants the world over adhere to this heretical school of thought, which is driving the end times delusion and the massacre by Israel of almost all of its neighbours, especially the Palestinians. What may surprise subscribers of Pike is that while he is not a dispensational believer—which, in this context, basically teaches that Jews are saved under their own Mosaic covenant (the law)—he does believe in premillennialism, which teaches that the Seventy Weeks Messianic prophecy in the Book of Daniel, the millennial reign of Christ, and the redemption of the Jews have not yet taken place. Some may argue that one can be anti-Zionist and premillennialist simultaneously, but, as Pike demonstrates in his confused prophetic world, it’s pretty much impossible. Pike claims a “remnant” of Jews will be saved in the future end times and will re-obtain the land, even though there was already a remnant of Jews saved in the time of Jesus, the apostles, and at the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem. I guess he doesn’t think Jesus’ redemptive work at His first coming was good enough to save all who would believe, so Jesus must come a second time redeem the Jews separately, at which point Jesus supposedly sets up an Earthly Zionist kingdom for 1,000 years. This is not taught in the Bible. It is a Jewish-centric heresy based on exclusivism—an exclusivism taught only in the unholy Babylonian Talmud and Kabbalah. To Bible scholars, this heresy is known as postponement theory—a sort of postponed Zionism.

Pseudo anti-Zionism

A word about anti-Zionists in general. Orthodox Jewish “anti-Zionists” are only anti-Zionist in the sense that, if Jews are disobedient to God, they do not obtain the right to dwell in Israel. So, these anti-Zionist Jews are actually Zionists, according to my definition above. They do believe that Jews would have a right to dwell in Israel, just as long as they are obedient. In other words, they are only anti-Zionist while the Jews are disobedient. Pike basically echoes these same pseudo-anti-Zionist beliefs. So, Pike, too, is a Zionist and believes the Jews will return to the land when Jesus supposedly comes a second time to redeem only the special Jews and rapture everyone else. The redemptive work of Christ on the cross is not enough for Pike and his Jewish gods. No, Christ must come again, merely for the sake of the special Jews, who rejected and crucified Him.

Universalism or Zionism?

The Bible, as well as the Early Church for 1,500-plus years, has taught that Old Testament Zionism was a temporal means to an end and, in and of itself, was never the intention of God from the beginning. It was to be a mere model of the true Zion, which was to be the entire world in obedience to God and the entire Earth as the land for believers in Christ Jesus. This is where we get the word “Catholic.” It means universalism, not exclusivism as the Zionists preach. This universalism, not to be confused with the secular definition of the term, has been taught by the Early Church onwards through the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. It wasn’t until Illuminist Jews and Freemasons wised up and distorted Bible prophecy that we were propagandized with this premillennial Zionist teaching. That and a twisting of Daniels 70-weeks prophecy has confused the good majority of American Christians and resulted in their unwavering support of Israel and Jews. It has also robbed them of enjoying the blessings from living under the millennial reign of our Lord Jesus Christ, who ascended to His throne almost 2,000 years ago. Premillennialists like Pike would have you believe that Jesus hasn’t ascended to His Throne yet. Pike can only conclude that Jesus is waiting in limbo somehwere.

70 weeks copy

Pike’s hyper Preterist strawman

Pike attempts to justify his false prophecy by putting all alternative views to premillennialism into the tiny box of hyper, or full, preterism. Full preterism is a heretical prophetical view that teaches that absolutely all Bible prophecy has been fulfilled. Without getting too technical, the Early Church’s prophetical teaching has always been more of a partial-preterist or historical view, which basically means that the majority of Bible prophecy has been fulfilled, especially the crucial Seventy Weeks Prophecy. Partial preterism and historicism are very different from hyper preterism, but that doesn’t matter to Pike; he is setting up a strawman. It also allows Pike to endorse the Judeo-Masonic inspired Seventy Week gap theory. Pike and his evangelical Zionist cohorts, including John Hagee, twist the Book of Daniel so that the final 70th week is separated (for no Biblical or logical reason) from the preceding 69 weeks, and tosses into the future so that Jews can be elevated again to godhood. I shall soon post a comprehensive article on the 70 Weeks deception and how it is based in a Rabbinical command to deceive Christians.

Ted Pike’s rabbinical connection

In 2006, author Michael Hoffman alerted his readers to Ted Pike’s connection with Orthodox Jewish rabbi Daniel Lapin. Hoffman points out Pike’s compromise in supporting Lapin merely because he is a perceived cultural conservative and the false belief that it’s only leftist or secular Jews that are out to get us. He illustrates how this Jewish dualism plays both liberals and conservatives alike in a sort Hegelian dialectic. Hoffman writes,

Orthodox Judaics have positioned themselves on both sides of the issue. Orthodox Judaic Foxman represents the Leftist ideal of secularism, while Orthodox Judaic Lapin is seen to attack Foxman in public, while offering support for the Right. To penetrate and overthrow this dialectic, we must anticipate the ultimate synthesis toward which this rabbinic chess game is oriented.

Part of Pike’s response to Hoffman reads,

One of the most powerful tools for awakening the church and nation was provided by Rabbi Daniel Lapin of ‘Toward Tradition,’ a politically conservative, orthodox Jewish organization in Seattle…Actually, Rabbi Lapin’s persistent admonitions to American Jews to deeply appreciate America and its Christian culture fulfill God’s command to exiled Jews to seek the peace and welfare of the nations in which they dwell (Jer. 29:4).

hopeofisraelPike is insinuating the heresy that a remnant shall be saved in the future and bring all Jews back into Israel while endorsing an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi, who is under the curse of the Babylonian Talmud and Kabbalah. Pike has been duped. The idea that a remnant of Jews will be saved, as described in the Book of Romans, in the future, is another postponed Zionism heresy. James B. Jordan wrote a brilliant piece shattering this myth, The late author Phillip Mauro wrote extensively on the lies of postponement theory, especially in The Hope of Israel.

A call to repentance

This post is not meant as a personal attack on Ted Pike. He appears to be sincere in his convictions, as heretical and confusing as they are. I hope this post will alert subscribers of Pike as well as Pike himself to the anti-Christ nature of his prophetical views.