Usury in Christendom

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
June 23, 2019 Anno Domini
Book Review

Michael Hoffman’s Usury in Christendom is a thought-provoking and challenging elucidation on the gradual acceptance of the mortal sin of usury in the Catholic Church contrasted with the supposed stern stand against usury by early Puritans—the supposed inheritors of medieval Catholicism.

The first couple hundred pages are fairly straight forward and illustrate the Biblical and Early Church teaching on usury, which appears uncompromising (no amount of interest is permitted under the sin of usury, according to traditional Church teaching). Hoffman starts with Medici Pope Leo X as the beginning of the Church leadership’s slide into apostasy (the love of money being the root of all evil). It was Leo X who, as Hoffman contends, created the loophole for moderate rates of interest with the institution of the monte di pieta, a Florentine bank supposedly designed to offer relief to the poor from the excessive interest rates of Jewish and gentile loansharks thriving in the region. Hoffman argues that the loophole of Leo X and those of Popes thereafter has absolutely no moral justification and is a contravention of Biblical teaching. A fair point by Hoffman that’s difficult to counter, especially considering that Leo X threatened excommunication to anyone publicly expressing doubts over his 1515 Bull. However, on page 226, Hoffman seems to inadvertently provide his own loophole when he writes, “Few churches today exhort against interest on loans beyond the rate of inflation….” How is Hoffman’s exception of inflation any more permissible than the monte di pieta’s exception of circumventing Jewish loansharking by way of low-rate fees required to keep the bank in operation? Hoffman then shows that the loopholes eventually led to mass acceptance of differing forms of usury, persecution of anti-usury dissidents (within the Church and outside of it), and the Catholic Church’s lending of its own money at interest. He claims encyclicals of post-Renaissance popes, like Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum of 1891, were merely rhetoric to placate the masses while Church-sanctioned usury continued unabated.

The latter half of Usury in Christendom ramps up the book’s overall polemical tone and uplifts the early Puritans—unlike the supposedly wayward later Puritans—as the harbingers of anti-usury, anti-capitalist Biblical economic practices. And even when he does discuss those wayward Protestants, like crypto-Jew John Calvin, he can’t help but blame their permittance of usury on the influence of “Roman Catholic nominalists”. Catholics are somehow solely responsible for all usury in the modern world, it seems. Hoffman clearly suggests that the apostate Roman Catholic leadership is primarily responsible for modern usurious capitalism, not Jews or Protestants. The latter have been unfairly scapegoated, although they are involved, Hoffman insists. The Catholics must also be responsible for the early Puritan’s usurist loophole, with which Hoffman seems to have no problem, of permitting usury on commercial investment.

“The early Puritans were capitalism’s worst nightmare; how they came to be made synonymous with its ‘spirit’ is an act of legerdemain by way of a malignant prejudice.”

John Cotton is one such early Puritan to whom Hoffman frequently refers.

Hoffman seems to feel that he must—in the name of historical truth, I suppose—correct Catholic “ignoramuses” in their prejudicial views on the early Puritans and, to a lesser degree, anti-usurist Calvinists. After all, it seems according to Hoffman, Catholics ought to look to Protestant reformers (heretics) to correct Catholic apostasy. A rather absurd conclusion, if in fact, it is his. Hoffman’s championing of the early Puritans is set up early on in his book as he leaves them out of his list of the guilty parties involved in usury. “Modern Protestants, Catholics, Mormons, and Mennonites are all guilty of this grotesque disobedience to God.” He seems to suggest, as he does with the early Puritans, that early Protestants were obedient to Biblical teaching on usury. It was only modern Protestants that got it wrong. While Hoffman be be correct that many Catholics throughout the ages have levelled unfair and/or exaggerated charges against early Protestants of usury and Shylockian economic practices, he comes across as quite angry and reactionary—the same way he does with his critics in public discussions (online comments, etc.).

Hoffman’s yearning for an Amish-like economic system may be ideal for the Church, but it is completely impractical in a time when Satanic communism co-opts any legitimate anti-capitalist movements. It may be even more impractical now because of the no-return-like state of the world economy (it seems the banksters have created a system by which only further usury and quantitative easing can keep it going). At times, Hoffman seems to embrace Soviet critiques of Western “colonialism”, particularly in the following mocking tone:

“Was it Puritan Conquistadors who, in an orgy of greed unprecedented in the annals of the western hemisphere, contracted a gold fever that burned so hot it plundered and enslaved the helpless indigenous nations at their mercy?”

Regardless, Hoffman does correctly point out that capitalism and communism are two dialectical forces that both serve the purpose of the money power. They are both based in materialism.

He also equates the “social justice” in Fr. Charles E. Coughlin’s The National Union for Social Justice with the same kind of modern “social justice” against which pundits like Glen Beck rail. Hoffman may be correct that Beck is a hopeless predatory capitalist, but I doubt very much that Coughlin’s social justice is the same as that expressed by the radical Left today.

Critics of Hoffman have pointed out his inconsistent reasoning when accepting mainstream media narratives in one instance and rejecting them as “cryptocracy” propaganda in the next instance. The following Hoffman polemic illustrates this:

“Are these fables about the first Puritans seeded by the Cryptocracy to keep us from studying the radical Protestant roots of resistance to the authority of money? With the virtual collapse of the credibility of popery in the 21st century—with its melange of institutionalized child molestation and ‘infallible’ canonization of ‘Blessed’ John Paul II, patron saint of Voodoo in Benin and Koran-kissing in Rome—an alternative to papalolatry is intensely to be desired.”

Hoffman’s refusal to publicly acknowledge to which Church authority he subscribes only further provides ammunition for his critics. But perhaps we can glean something from a small footnote on page 259. Is he Protestant? Catholic? Schismatic?

“In our protest of the idolization of mere human beings (Romans 3:10; Matt. 20:25-28), we meant to take nothing away from the esteem due to faithful and saintly pre-Renaissance pontiffs who upheld the integrity and authority of the Word of God.”

Completely left out of Usury in Christendom’s equation, oddly, is the history of usury and capitalism—for or against—in Eastern Orthodoxy, particularly as it pertains to the great and prosperous Byzantine Empire (the Eastern Orthodox position is the same anti-usury teaching of the traditional Roman Catholic Church). Was this an historiographical blunder or does Hoffman think it irrelevant? Apparently he feels that the relatively short Puritan period warrants more attention than 1,000 years of Byzantium—through which to learn lessons on usury.

On a minor note, the book has no index, which is unusual and inconvenient.

Putting aside Hoffman’s frequent Puritan apologetics, his book makes solid points about the apostasy of Catholic leadership since the Middle Ages when it comes to usury. His logic and standards are sometimes inconsistent, but his points on usury in the Catholic Church are valid and important. His theory on loopholes is plausible and should not be ignored, despite his biases.

“Contraception, abortion, and homosexuality are, in part, derived from the corruption of a society that has legalized the crime of usury.”

Michael Hoffman’s infatuation with Protestantism

By Jude Duffy
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

Jewish Capitalism

Interview with Barren Metal author E. Michael Jones.

 

To order this book, click here.

Goy Guide to World History IV-V

*Part 3 not available yet

Fallacies of the Jesuit conspiracy theory

Untitled-1

 Part I

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
February 3, 2015 Anno Domini

While agents of the Jewish-Masonic cryptocracy work around the clock spreading lies and disinformation, many sincere people are getting sucked into their traps. One of the fastest spreading fallacies of these agents is the conspiracy theory that the Catholic Church—through the Society of Jesus (Jesuits), the Pope, and/or the supposedly still-existing Knights Templars—are running the New World Order conspiracy.

“It’s not the Jews!” these agents and their naïve dupes claim. “We have been fooled for the last 400 years into thinking the Jews are leading the NWO when it’s really the Jesuits, the Vatican, and the Black Pope!”

The game of these agenturs is very simple. Everything that has been typically attributed to Jews for hundreds of years, for example, the creation of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, the drafting of the Satanic Babylonian Talmud, and even Zionism itself, are all the work of the Jesuits. It’s a rewriting of history. Take every historical book from the last 2,000 years that names “Jews,” cross it out, and replace it with “Catholics” or some euphemistic term that indicts the Church and you have the Jesuit conspiracy meme summed up.

From attributing the creation of Zionism to an excommunicated Jesuit named Franciso Ribera to blaming the rise of Hitler and Nazism on the Church, there is no place the Jesuit memers won’t go. It borders on clownish with absurd claims that the Jesuits sunk the Titanic, created Islam, and assassinated John F. Kennedy. Of course, the grand proof they present of this alleged Jesuit conspiracy is Jewish Adam Weishaupt’s (founder of the Bavarian Order of the Illuminati) education under the Jesuits—something these Jesuit memers almost always bring up. Hypocrisy runs deep among these anti-Catholics, as they say in one breath that it is wrong to blame one group of people (especially Jews) and in the next breath they blame all the world’s problems on the Church. These clowns must have low regard for their audience for them to believe their blatant double standard goes unnoticed.

One hand tied behind the back
Before I go on here, I want to point out that this is not to absolve the Catholic Church of clerical abuses and legitimate corruption within it. And, of course, there is the heretical Second Vatican Council that has been foisted upon Catholics, which further maligns the legitimate faith and demonizes (at least in Protestant eyes) Catholics in general. This council is the handcuff that has one hand of the Church behind its back—done so that She would not be able to defend herself against the Judeo-Masonic onslaught going on. With the Church on the ropes, so to speak, the Jesuit meme is a sucker punch.

*a note on semantics

Meme
I would define a meme as the mindless replication or imitation of a concept or idea, especially a false one. Much of the popularity of the Jesuit meme is due to dupes, especially in conspiracy circles, who mindlessly accept, without verifying, the Jesuit meme and then replicate it.

53a5fd185b71aProponents of the Jesuit conspiracy meme
Based on their worldview, the Jesuit conspiracy meme is a convenient scapegoat and tool of self-deception for several groups, including but not limited to:

  • Jewish groups, Zionists (Jewish and Protestant)
  • Seventh Day Adventists
  • COINTELPRO
  • New or naïve conspiracy researchers
  • New Agers
  • Evangelicals, fundamentalist Protestants, Calvinists
  • Freemasons, Enlightenment thinkers
  • Catholic haters

The idea that Jews are running the NWO is rather inconvenient for them and exposes them for what they are. You would be hard pressed to find a Jesuit memer who is the slightest bit anti-Zionist. Many of them also happen to endorse other irregular conspiracy theories, like that of “reptilians” and “death fakers”. Then there are some who pretend to be anti-Zionist but with the appendage that the Vatican is really behind the Zionists. The fact of the matter is, the idea that there exists a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy has been a cultural belief for hundreds of years; whereas the Jesuit conspiracy is the counter-culture belief, in other words, the revolutionary belief. Furthermore, the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory has a huge amount of evidence behind it while the Jesuit theory has next to none. Jesuit theorists count on memetic replication, because if one actually checks their claims against recorded history, they theorists will be revealed as frauds.

Eric Jon Phelps Cointelpro Zionist 2

Key individuals promoting the Jesuit conspiracy meme

  • Alexander Hislop (rabid anti-Catholic Protestant)
  • Malachi Martin (Vatican infiltrator paid by the American Jewish Committee)
  • Eric Jon Phelps (Israeli diamond merchant)
  • Lyndon LaRouche (Quaker)
  • Edward Hendrie (Calvinist)
  • Seventh Day Adventists (masonic)
  • Walter J. Veith
  • Jordan Maxwell (scam artist and crypto Jew)
  • Christian J. Pinto
  • Thomas Richards
  • Craig Oxley (internet personality, disinfo agent)
  • Greg Szymanski
  • Dan Brown (fiction writer, not even an historian)
  • Tupper Saussy (bitter Protestant)
  • David Wilcock
  • Felix Pantaleon, aka Caliberhitter (COINTELPRO)
  • Sherman Skolnick
  • Pete Santilli (FBI informant)

The list of Internet personalities replicating the Jesuit meme seems to be growing by the day.

Common fallacious arguments of the Jesuit conspiracy meme

  • The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) created Freemasonry (through the Knights Templars] and is implicitly masonic itself
  • Excommunicated Jesuit Francisco Ribera created Zionism/premillennial dispensationalism
  • The Jesuits/Vatican control the monetary system
  • The Jesuits control Hollywood
  • The RCC created the religion of Islam (yes, they really claim this)
  • The RCC created the Bavarian Order of the Illuminati through Jesuit-trained (actually a converso) Adam Weishaupt
  • The RCC published (created?) the Babylonian Talmud
  • The RCC created the Nazis and is responsible for all anti-Semitism
  • The Jesuits are behind the CIA, Federal Reserve, and communism
  • The Jesuits ignited the French and Russian revolutions

Basics of the Jesuit meme: The Black Pope
The Jesuit theorists claim that the head of the Jesuits, the Superior General, is the “Black Pope”—one whose power supersedes that of the Pope and, subsequently, the Holy Church. This Black Pope and his Jesuits are said to be leading the New World Order conspiracy; although, none of the Jesuit memers can give a clear explanation as to what the Jesuits’ supposed goal of world domination is and why they seek this. In contrast, with the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory, the goal is quite clearly the overthrow of Christianity and Western Civilization. With the New World Order, regardless of who one think is leading it, it’s clear to anyone that the NWO conspiracy is attempting to dismantle all religions, especially Christianity. So, why would the supposed leaders of that conspiracy, the Jesuits, be working to destroy their own Christian-based institution? If one says the Jesuits are not Christian in the first place and this is why they are leading the NWO to destroy religion and Christianity, then one has to admit that either a). the Catholic Church also is not a Christian institution (which would require a whole new set of evidence and proof), or b). the Jesuits are saboteurs of the Catholic Church and Christianity in general. If one answers with “a”, then the root of the problem is not the Jesuits but the Catholic Church itself, since the Catholic Church predates the Jesuits. But the Jesuit memers don’t focus on this. The focus is all on the Jesuits. This is the clearest evidence that they have other motives for propagating this theory. Now, if the answer is “b”, then we can speculate as to who is really behind the Jesuits, since it couldn’t be the Catholic Church itself. Seeing as the first Jesuits were overrepresented with Jews and a Jew, one Ignatius Loyola, founded the Jesuits, it’s plausible that a Jesuit conspiracy against the Catholic Church and society were being orchestrated by Jews. Add to this the fact that Jews were closely involved with the Protestant Reformation, around the time the Jesuits were formed, and the plausibility becomes stronger. Further evidence that the Jesuits, if they are acting on behalf of the Church’s interests, are a failed world conspirator is in the fact that world trends are going in the opposite direction of everything Catholic, be it the Church’s pro-life stance, anti-modernism, traditional marriage, etc. Add to that the world’s slide towards nihilism and the Jesuit conspiracy theory loses even more credibility.

The “Black Pope’s” alleged fronts: Knights of Malta, Catholic universities

“Jesuit Trained” – Jesuit conspiracy theorists claim that the Black Pope works to subvert society by positioning Jesuits in high positions of power throughout the world via the Knights of Malta and Jesuit training centres (Jesuit-founded universities). Since Jesuit universities are open to the public and do not require students to be Catholics, much less Jesuits, it’s a little ridiculous for the Jesuit theorists to claim that so and so is a Jesuit agent or “Jesuit trained” merely because they went to a Jesuit-founded university. But that’s exactly what they do. Due to the spread of the disease of modernism, Jesuit universities are now more or less secular and hostile to the Catholic Church. For example, many Jesuit-founded universities advocate—not just accept—homosexual rights, abortion, women’s liberation, LGBT rights, etc. Historian E. Michael Jones, a well respected traditional Catholic, was fired by one of these supposed Catholic universities because he simply stood for traditional Catholicism. Whether a result of the Jesuits or Second Vatican Council proscriptions, these Jesuit universities cannot be considered Catholic other than by having Catholic roots. The claim of someone being “Jesuit-trained” is vague and meaningless in the context in which these Jesuit theorists give. They have to provide more than just someone’s mere attendance at a Jesuit-founded university. And with their claim that many Jesuits are secret members, they think they can disregard the burden of proof further more.

The Scottish and York rites of freemasonry and their degrees—the names of some which were hijacked from the Catholic Church.

The Scottish and York rites of freemasonry and their degrees—the names of some which were hijacked from the Catholic Church.

Knights of Malta – Jesuit theorists, where they can’t malign someone based on their university attendance, malign them by their membership with the Knights of Malta or even if someone displays a logo or symbol[i] bearing the remotest resemblance to the symbols of the Knights of Malta or the Jesuits. If those canards fail, they outright deceive their audience by falsely associating the Catholic Knights of Malta—officially called Sovereign Military Order of Malta—with Freemasonry. Speculative freemasonry’s York Rite has a degree titled Order of Knights of Malta (click on the image to the right to see a larger view of the masonic structure of degrees). The Vatican has issued a clarification stating that it does not recognize any other group using the Malta name but its own.

“…the Holy See recognises and supports only the Sovereign Military Order of Malta – also known as the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta – and the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem. The Holy See foresees no additions or innovations in this regard.

All other orders, whether of recent origin or mediaeval foundation, are not recognised by the Holy See. Furthermore, the Holy See does not guarantee their historical or juridical legitimacy, their ends or organisational structures.

To avoid any possible doubts, even owing to illicit issuing of documents or the inappropriate use of sacred places, and to prevent the continuation of abuses which may result in harm to people of good faith, the Holy See confirms that it attributes absolutely no value whatsoever to certificates of membership or insignia issued by these groups, and it considers inappropriate the use of churches or chapels for their so-called “ceremonies of investiture”.[ii]

 

The Jesuit theorists must not have foreseen this embarrassing repudiation of their claims that the Jesuits and the Catholic Church are somehow masonic because of the Malta link. Perhaps had they done some actual research, they would have seen this coming and abandoned the lie. Furthermore, Freemasonry uses Jewish and Protestant names for its degrees as well. Using their reasoning, we could argue that Jews and Protestants are masonic because of this also.

The Knights Templar – Some Jesuit theorists will go so far as to say that the RCC founded freemasonry through the Knights Templar, a military order established by the Church at the beginning of the Middle Ages (the Templars eventually became corrupt and apparently compromised with gnosticism, and the Church disbanded them accordingly). Because the freemasons (an occult group established long after the Catholic Templars had been abolished) have a masonic title called “Order of Knights Templar Commandery”, part of the York Rite initiation, some confuse the two different Templar groups. Of course, the Jesuit theorists capitalize on this confusion and try to say that the two are one and the same. They elaborate on how the Medieval Templars supposedly evolved into what is now called freemasonry (they completely ignore the fact that the Catholic Church abolished the Templar order). The apparent gnostic influence on the Catholic Templars, before they were disbanded, was likely due to the spread of Kabbalism, so the Kabbalah is the root of what eventually became freemasonry, not “Templarism”. Consider that the written Kabbalah came into prominence in the 12th and 13th centuries, the same time the Templars were rising in power.

“The Jewish connection with modern Freemasonry is an established fact everywhere manifested in its history. The Jewish formulas employed by Freemasonry, the Jewish traditions which run through its ceremonial, point to a Jewish origin, or to the work of Jewish contrivers . . . . Who knows but behind the Atheism and desire of gain which impels them to urge on Christians to persecute the Church and destroy it, there lies a hidden hope to reconstruct their Temple, and in the darkest depths of secret society plotting there lurks a deeper society still which looks to a return to the land of Judah and to the re- building of the Temple of Jerusalem?”[iii]

Today, there is no organization called the Knights Templar, yet Jesuit conspiracy sites are full of references to them as if they still exist and run the world. Columnist Atila Sinke Guimarães explains in detail the history of the Knights of Malta and the Templars in contrast with their masonic imitators.[iv]

The suspicious trajectory of the Jesuit conspiracy theory
Whether the Jesuits were guilty of the charges laid against them in their early days, it’s highly suspicious that most, if not all, groups supporting theories against them were in league with Jews, be they Protestant reformers (late middle ages), Enlightenment thinkers, masonic/illuminist agents (18th and 19th centuries), and Jewish lobbies (20th and 21st centuries). All of these anti-Catholic groups are themselves accused of organizing and/or leading international conspiracies, so they have the motive to deflect criticism of themselves and provide a scapegoat in the hopes of saving face. Modern Jesuit conspiracy theorists appear to target two audiences: anti-Catholics and conspiracy researchers. The latter targeting functions to manage opposition to the NWO conspiracy and is further evidence that the Jesuit theorist meme is actually advancing the NWO’s revolutionary progress.

Nazi propaganda phamplet condemning the Jesuits.

Nazi propaganda phamphlet condemning the Jesuits.

The Nazi fallacy
So blind to history, the Jesuit theorists assume that because the Catholic Church is anti-Jewish by nature, restricted Jewish influence in society, especially during the Middle Ages, and helped spread anti-Jewish conspiracy theories, it must be that it was also in league with or brought about the rise of Nazi Germany’s racialist policies. Jewish lobbies share in common with Jesuit theorists this malicious libel against the Church. They blame Catholicism for the rise of Hitler and the alleged Holocaust of 6 million Jews. What they won’t tell their audience is that the Nazis propagated Jesuit conspiracy theories themselves—Hubert Hermanns’ The Jesuit: The Obscurantist without a Homeland[v], for exampleand persecuted and murdered Jesuits on account of their membership. But more importantly, Roman Catholic opposition to Judaism has always been on the grounds of the Jew as a “theological construct” created in opposition to Christ, in the words of Catholic historian E. Michael Jones. Papal decrees against Jews throughout the Church’s 2,000-year history maintains that Jewry should be resisted on the grounds of their rebellion against Christ and that Jews should be restricted from positions of influence in society, should they seek to subvert the Catholic theocracy. Papal bull Sicut Judaeis, first issued during the Middle Ages, is emphatic that Jews are not to be harmed. Furthermore, Catholics are forbidden on pain of excommunication to force convert Jews or take their property. Pope Callixtus II states in the original bull:

“[The Jews] ought to suffer no prejudice. We, out of the meekness of Christian piety, and in keeping in the footprints or Our predecessors of happy memory, the Roman Pontiffs Calixtus, Eugene, Alexander, Clement, admit their petition, and We grant them the buckler of Our protection.”

It’s obvious that because of the Jewish penchant for antagonistic behaviour, the Popes foresaw the potential for resentment of the Jews to evolve into pogroms. It’s absolutely absurd to think that the Catholic Church could in any way have brought about the “Holocaust” of the Jews, especially considering that 18 successive Popes re-affirmed Sicut Judaeis. The Church has not changed its stance in this respect. The Catholic Church never endorsed, either officially or unofficially, the policies of Hitler and the national socialists. Catholic opposition to Judaism then is quite different from Nazi opposition, which was based entirely on the assumption that Jews were racially corrupt.

The Jesuit theorist runs into a major contradiction when he attempts to say that Nazism is a Jesuit creation, because then he must account for his other theory that the Jesuits also supposedly created Zionism—something that runs contrary to Nazism. I won’t elaborate here, but the evidence suggests that Nazism is actually a Jewish creation, using a Cabbalist dialectic of opposites, which paved the way for establishing the illegal state of Israel in 1948 as well as the Holocaust dogma of Judaism[vi], which has undeservedly become iconic in recent history. There is also evidence that Hitler was not legitimate opposition to the Jewish money power, and even evidence that Hitler himself may have been Jewish.[vii]

Protestants Rewrite Bible

The Zionist fallacy
It seems the Jesuit theorist rests his entire claim that the Jesuits created Zionism on one obscure Jesuit who postulated a theory that was never established as Catholic dogma. It’s true that Jesuit Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) did advocate some views that would fall into a “futurist” eschatological point of view; however, it was not millenarianist, or of the premillennial dispensationalist type that lies at the root of the Christian Zionist heresy.[viii] Zionism comes from an arrested rendering of the Old Testament concept of a chosen people. This is why the Jews murdered the Old Testament prophets who tried to correct them on their perverted supremacist vision of what it meant to be God’s chosen people. This is one of the reasons why the Jews also murdered our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, for He pointed out the deception and evil in their supremacist yearnings. The whole Ribera claim is inconsistent in that Ribera allegedly concocted his views as counter-reformation teaching. But the Reformation was advocating futurism (specifically millenarianism), so how could he be countering it with more futurism (his supposed futurism was really amillennial)? Jesuit theorists are grasping at straws with this one. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that because the Jews rejected Jesus, they still await at future Messiah (futurism) when he will supposedly rule and reign with the Jews on the present Earth. Futurism, really messianism, is essentially Jewish. Furthermore, Ribera didn’t write his 500-page commentary on the Book of Revelation to start a new idea. He was indeed countering the Reformation propaganda of millenarianism, which held that the Papacy was the anti-Christ, Beast system, and the coming world messiah would destroy it and set up his millennial reign on Earth, headquartered in Jerusalem. Catholic teaching holds that the Church’s reign on this Earth since Christ died and was resurrected is evidence of fulfillment of Christ’s reign on Earth; therefore, a future millennial reign is not necessary.

The freemason fallacy
Equally as absurd and related to the Zionist fallacy is the claim that modern freemasonry is a continuation of the Catholic Knights Templars—Catholicism itself. Forget that Popes have issued decrees condemning freemasonry and its Enlightenment, libertarian offshoots; forget that Catholicism itself is philosophically and ideologically opposed to freemasonry, the Jesuit theorists are most persistent with this fallacy. Instead of providing any evidence that the Catholic Church is behind freemasonry, the Jesuit theorist will simply make the reach by associating the Church with freemasonry through the Knights Templars and Knights of Malta confusion. That’s their evidence—semantics.

Papal pronouncements against freemasonry and its offshoots—specifically “Americanism,” which sprang from the Enlightenment and masonic libertarianism—include but are not limited to the following:

Clement XII, Constitution “In Eminenti”, 28 April, 1738;
Benedict XIV, “Providas”, 18 May, 1751;
Pius VII, “Ecclesiam”, 13 September, 1821;
Leo XII, “Quo graviora”, 13 March, 1825;
Pius VIII, Encyclical “Traditi”, 21 May, 1829;
Gregory XVI, “Mirari”, 15 August, 1832;
Pius IX, Encyclical “Qui pluribus”, 9 November, 1846;
Pius IX, Allocution “Quibus quantisque malis”, 20 April, 1849;
Pius IX, Encyclical “Quanta cura”, 8 December, 1864;
Pius IX, Allocution “Multiplices inter”, 25 September, 1865;
Pius IX, Constitution “Apostolicæ Sedis”, 12 October, 1869;
Pius IX, Encyclical “Etsi multa”, 21 November, 1873;
Leo XIII, Encyclical “Humanum genus”, 20 April, 1884;
Leo XIII, “Præclara”, 20 June, 1894;
Leo XIII, “Annum ingressi”, 18 March, 1902 (against Italian Freemasonry);
Leo XIII, Encyclical “Etsí nos”, 15 February, 1882;
Leo XIII, “Ab Apostolici”, 15 October, 1890.

To demonstrate the seriousness with which the Church took of the heresy of freemasonry, 12 different Popes issued a total of 23 three papal pronouncements against it. No other heresy has received more attention.

The Judeo-masonic ambition to overthrow throne (monarchy) and altar (Catholic Church), which is well documented, was achieved through a series of subversions[ix] and revolutions—the French Revolution being one of which was most successful, as France was as stronghold of the Catholic theocracy. England, where Catholicism had been overthrown during the 16th-century reign of apostate King Henry VIII, was already under the control of freemasonry (specifically Rosicrucianism) and Enlightenment thought at the time of the French Revolution. Of course, the Jewish-masonic alliance was already well established during the 16th-century Protestant Reformation, so the Reformation was a natural fit for the anti-Catholic revolutionary arsenal of the cryptocracy; in fact, all the evidence suggests that freemasonry is a covert extension of Judaism—a sort of philo-Semitic religion with perhaps more aggressive methods than Judaism in destroying Christ’s influence on Earth. The Jesuit theorist will distort and twist history in all kinds of ways in a desperate attempt to fit their anti-Catholic, pro-Jewish worldview. It then becomes imperative for the reader to understand real history in order to see through the lies.

The Illuminati fallacy
When Adam Weishaupt founded the Order of the Illuminati in Bavaria in 1776, it seems he intended to prevent the Jesuit order, which had at that point been suppressed by Pope Clement XIV, from regaining their former position in Europe.[x] Weishaupt was not a Jesuit himself; however, Jesuits educated him during his youth. Jesuit theorists focus only on this, while ignoring the more important manoeuvrings that were going on during the formation of Illuminist systems. Additionally, Weishaupt did not invent the concept of Illuminism, which was based on a perversion of the Catholic sacrament of confession.

“It wasn’t the goal of world domination, which, in the popular mind at the time, the Illuminati shared with the Jesuits that the public found as upsetting; it was the means whereby the Illuminati were going to achieve those goals. Weishaupt took the idea of examination of conscience and sacramental confession from the Jesuits and, after purging them of their religious elements, turned them into a system of intelligence gathering, spying, and informing, in which members were trained to spy on each other and inform their superiors.”[xi]

Jewish writer Bernard Lazare, an anti-Catholic, seems to brag about the Jewish orchestration of secret societies and the Illuminati:

“There were Jews around Weishaupt, and Martinez de Pasqualis, a Jew of Portuguese origin, organised numerous groups of Illuminati in France, recruiting many adepts to whom he taught the doctrine of reintegration. The lodges founded by Martinez were mystical, whilst the other orders of Freemasonry were rather rationalist. This permits one to say that the secret societies represented the two sides of the Jewish mind: practical rationalisation and pantheism.”[xii]

Some historians credit Martinez de Pasqualis with creating Illuminism, not Weishaupt.

The Illuminati wasn’t so much an organization as much as it was a concept of blackmail and espionage that was soon adopted by almost all secret societies, and it is still in use today. Talk about the Illuminati’s influence on society is sort of a red herring, especially in the way that it is used today. Modern conspiracy researchers portray the Illuminati as the end all, be all…as a highly organized institution, which it isn’t. It’s a concept or system. The Jesuit theorist obsession with Weishaupt, the Illuminati, and their supposed collaboration with the Jesuits shows their inclination to sensationalism rather than historical accuracy.

Notes

[i] Alex Jones supposedly a “Templar Jesuit” because he uses universal health symbol on his products – http://youtu.be/sm3GD70Tc1w?t=29s

[ii] NOTE OF CLARIFICATION FROM THE SECRETARIAT OF STATE – http://www.news.va/en/news/note-of-clarification-from-the-secretariat-of-stat

[iii] Dillon, Monsignor George F., Grand Orient Freemasonry Unmasked, Edinburgh (1884), Revised Edition (1950), pg. 10

[iv] Are the Knights of Malta Members of Freemasonry? http://tradcatknight.blogspot.com/2014/10/are-knights-of-malta-members-of_16.html

[v] Hermanns, Hubert, The Jesuit: The Obscurantist without a Homeland, 1933

[vi] Condit Jr., Jim, The Final Solution to Adolph Hitler https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSeZoedS83w

[vii] Ibid.

[viii] Fitzpatrick, Timothy, The Jewish command to deceive Christians about Bible prophecy, May 29, 2014, The Fitzpatrick Informer – https://fitzinfo.wordpress.com/2014/05/29/the-jewish-command-to-mislead-christians-on-bible-prophecy/

[ix] Vennari, John, The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita: A Masonic Blueprint for the Subversion of the Catholic Church, Rockford, Illinois, Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1999

[x] Jones, E. Michael, Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control, South Bend, Indiana, St. Augustine’s Press, 2000, pg. 8

[xi] Ibid. p. 13.

[xii] Lazare, Bernard, Anti-Semitism: It’s History and Causes, Paris (1884), pg. 127

Goy Guide to World History

By Doctor E. Michael Jones

Part I

Part II

 

 

Khazar theory a scapegoat for Jews

James_Tissot_The_Morning_Judgment_400By Timothy Fitzpatrick
Sept. 7, 2014 Anno Domini

Regardless of if those who call themselves “Jews” today are indeed the descendants of Abraham, they are behaving in the spirit of the ancients who rejected Christ.

That is what matters most. People who obsess on the racial heritage of today’s Jews are missing the bigger picture. However, there is some value to the racial heritage question on a secular level. For example, if today’s Jews are not descendants of Abraham, how then can they, according to the Zionist view, justifiably claim a Biblical right to Palestine? But the focus of this article will be the Khazar theory as scapegoat for Jews and their anti-Christian behaviour.

Much of the confusion, present mainly in Protestant circles, is caused by a misunderstanding of Jesus words found in Saint John’s Apocalypse, chapter 2, verse 9.

I know thy tribulation and thy poverty, but thou art rich: and thou art blasphemed by them that say they are Jews and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

The confused are rendering this passage carnally, saying that Jesus was singling out only “fake Jews” as the synagogue of Satan but not the true descendants of Abraham. The root cause of this confusion stems from the heresy of dual covenant theology, which states that Jews are saved based on their race alone, not on their faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. The truth of the matter is that Jesus was speaking of the spiritual bankruptcy of ethnic Jews.

 

Khazars didn’t exist when Jesus spoke against the Synagogue of Satan

khazaria1The Khazar Empire, a medieval power that lay just north of the theocratic Christian Byzantium Empire, is believed to have been established around the 7th century A.D., several hundred years after Christ walked the Earth. During the 8th century, many of its nobles converted to Judaism. It is believed that many or most of today’s European (Ashkenazi) Jews are descended from this Turkish Khazar tribe. How is it, then, that Jesus could have been referring to these supposed “fake” Khazar Jews in His admonishment of the Synagogue of Satan throughout the Gospels? Were the Jews to whom He spoke indeed the literal descendants of Abraham? The answer is unequivocally, yes. In almost all of Jesus’ discourse with the Zionist Jews of His time, he focused on their spiritual blindness, not on their supposed racial legitimacy. In the following passage, Jesus makes it clear that the faithful spirit that was present with Abraham, not ethnicity, is what counts. The following passage also proves that Jesus did not view the Synagogue of Satan as Khazar Jews.

I know that you are the children of Abraham: but you seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and you do the things that you have seen with your father. They answered, and said to him: Abraham is our father. Jesus saith to them: If you be the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham. But now you seek to kill me, a man who have spoken the truth to you, which I have heard of God. This Abraham did not. You do the works of your father. They said therefore to him: We are not born of fornication: we have one Father, even God. Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded, and came; for I came not of myself, but he sent me: Why do you not know my speech? Because you cannot hear my word. (John 8:37-43)

Jesus then exposes the true source of their spirit.

You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. (John 8:44)

The consistent message in the New Testament is that one’s spirit towards Christ will determine his ultimate destiny, heaven or hell…to be reborn of the Spirit or to remain in the spirit of bondage to sin. There is no way of carnalizing the Gospels and making them about heritage or ethnicity.

these stones

 

The terms “Jew” and “Israel” were redefined by Christ’s coming

Adding to the confusion of the identity of the Synagogue of Satan is the definition of the term “Jew” in the Bible. In the New Testament, there are instances where Jew refers to a racial/national group and other instances where Jews are referred to as a spiritual group. Still yet, Jews are also referred to as an adversarial group, summed up in the term “Synagogue of Satan” and hinted at in passages like “they hid for fear of the Jews.” So how are we to determine what “Jew” means? Historian E. Michael Jones has a solid grasp of the variation in application of the term “Jew.”

When St. John uses the words “oi Ioudaioi,” he is referring to a group that has rejected Christ. The coming of Christ changed Jewish identity forever, something the Jews at His time comprehended only with difficulty. From then, the terms “Israelite” and “Jew” were no longer synonyms, because, Ferdinand Hahn points out in Caron’s book, “the true Israelites” from the Christian perspective “are precisely those who, like Nathaniel, recognize Jesus as the Messiah.

—E. Michael Jones, “The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and its Impact on World History”, Fidelity Press, South Bend, Indiana, 2008, p. 33-34

Upon Christ’s arrival…the situation changes, for the Jews have to accept Christ to remain Israel…John uses the term “Jew” two ways. He begins by saying that “Salvation comes from the Jews,” and ends by saying those who call themselves “Jews” are not children of Abraham or Moses and, in fact, have Satan as their father. From identifying the word Jew with “we,” as he does with the Samaritan woman, Jesus goes on to refer to what John calls “Jews” as “you,” which is to say, a group that does not include Jesus. Accepting or rejecting the Messiah becomes the principal way of defining what it means to be a Jew. (p. 36)

In other words, the true meaning of what it means to be a Jew has to do with the spirit that was present with Abraham. By rejecting Christ, the Jews also rejected Abraham, for the Spirit of Christ was with Abraham. However, now, the term “Jew” has been redefined as a rejecter of Christ, regardless of ethnicity; for the Jews, in their rejection of Christ, accepted Satan as their father.

There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)

One who distinguishes him or herself as Jewish is declaring their rejection of Christ and the spiritual redefinition of God’s people in the above passage from Galatians. Israel is the spiritual body of Christ, composed of the faithful, from all races. Spiritual Israel and the Church are one and the same. Fleshly Israel has been put away.

That because the rebellious Israel had played the harlot, I had put her away, and had given her a bill of divorce: yet her treacherous sister Juda was not afraid, but went and played the harlot also herself. (Jeremiah 3:8)

Scapegoating Jews

Those who continue to advance the lie that Jesus was referring to Khazar Jews when He admonished the Synagogue of Satan are not only guilty of falsifying history but also of excusing ethnic Jews of their rejection of Jesus the Messiah. There can be no excuse for a Jew, or anyone, who rejects Jesus. In a religious and spiritual context, the Khazar debate is irrelevant. There is no validity in the dichotomy of “fake Jews” vs. “real Jews” outside of St. John’s definition of “Jews”.  And Jewish behaviour today cannot be excused away as being the rotten fruits of Turkish impostors. Jewish behaviour today is no different than it was 2,000 years ago when the Jews cried for the release of the criminal Barabbas over Jesus and for Herod to crucify the Messiah. The likely reason why some push the Khazar theory is in a cowardice attempt to avoid being labelled a racist or anti-Semite whilst implicating “Khazars” in crimes and conspiracy.

Yet no man spoke openly of Him, for fear of the Jews. (John 7:13)

Another group advocating the Khazar scapegoat are British Israelists (Christian Identity) and some white nationalists. Under the same spiritual blindness as Jews, this group rationalizes that if they can make today’s Jews out to be racial impostors of the ancient Hebrews, they themselves will inherit the birthright or, a more extreme view, they are the true descendants of the Hebrews. The latter view has its roots in the millenarianist heresy that plagued England during the Protestant Reformation.

More disturbing, perhaps, is the fact that many evangelical Christians embrace the Khazar scapegoat, in an attempt to deify the Jews. To avoid implicating their god race in the world conspiracy—on the rare occasion when they actually admit a world conspiracy exists—these Christian Zionists dismiss it as being merely the work of the Khazar tribe, not “true Jews”. What they are saying then is that “true” racial Jews are racially incapable of sin, racially incapable of being the conspirators leading the New World Order. Of course, this is completely absurd and completely contrary to the basic tenets of Christianity. This belief is more in line with something from the Third Reich than the Bible.


Genealogical records destroyed along with the Temple
It is next to impossible to argue that destruction of Jerusalem, the Temple, and the slaughter of one million Jews (according to Titus Flavius Josephus) in 70 AD was not the work of God that brought the Old Covenant to fulfillment as well as prophet Daniel’s Seventy Weeks prophecy. But also destroyed by divine will were all genealogical records of the ancient Hebrews. This is not only a major problem for racialists today, it is further evidence of the deeper spiritual truth behind the chosen-people archetype. If God intended for a small Hebrew tribe to rule the world for eternity, surely He would have kept in tact proof of this tribe’s racial authenticity. But since this was not the case, the loss of the Temple records is further evidence that God’s intention from the beginning was a faithful universal people unto Him, with the ancient Hebrew era serving as a mere type of bigger things to come. Saint Paul drives this home in his instruction to Timothy:

As I desired thee to remain at Ephesus when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some not to teach otherwise, not to give heed to fables and endless genealogies: which furnish questions rather than the edification of God, which is in faith.  (1Timothy 1:3-4)

 

Christian anti-Judaism contrasted with anti-Semitism

Christian J. Pinto: Zionist espousing, what else, Jesuit conspiracy theories

Christian J. Pinto Zionist Judaizer CalvinistBy Timothy Fitzpatrick

Since the displaced Jews of Spain and Anterp provoked the Protestant Reformation, there has been no end to the number of conspiracy theories that the Roman Catholic Church, the longtime enemy of Jewry, has supposedly been involved in.

These age-old lies, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, still pervade popular thought throughout Protestant and conspiracy circles. Documentary filmmaker Christian J. Pinto of Adullam Films pulls out all the tired old slanders against the Church—all for the advancement of the Jewish-Protestant alliance in their goal of setting up a one-world millennialist kingdom unto their false messiah, ironic considering Pinto claims to oppose world government.

Lies and disinformation

Pinto carefully crafts conspiracy intrigue and Christian Zionist—specifically puritan-based—heresies into a neat little package in his films. Pinto draws in conspiracy enthusiasts through his film Secret Mysteries of America’s Beginnings and The Hidden Faith of the Founding Fathers, which show the Masonic origins of the founding of the United States of America—the new land being a fulfillment of the occultist fantasy of manifesting mystery Atlantis. Where Pinto can’t ignore the Jewish roots of America’s beginnings with the guiding magical wands of cabbalists Francis Bacon and John Dee, he attempts to neutralize the truth by diverting attention back to Jesuits-are-subverting-the-world conspiracy theories, which are specifically drawn out in his other films  A Lamp In the Dark: The Untold History of the Bible and Codex Sinaiticus: The Oldest Bible? Or a Modern Hoax? But even fellow Protestants can’t agree with Pinto and his wild Jesuit conspiracy theories. Reviewer Cris Putnam writes,

The film is centered on the idea that Codex Sinaticus or “Sinai Bible” was actually created as part of a Vatican conspiracy to undermine biblical inerrancy. I agree with Pinto and others that the Vatican has a vested interest in undermining Sola Scriptura and have argued vigorously that the Bible contradicts Rome’s theological traditions. So the idea is that Rome conspired to forge a Bible that differs significantly from the reformation efforts is plausible. However, Pinto’s conspiracy has huge gaping hole that seems fatal.
After watching the film and hearing Greek New Testament scholar Dan Wallace’s response, I am unconvinced that Codex Sinaticus is a forgery because the conspiracy is fundamentally incoherent. There’s no discernible pay off for the conspirators. The movie did not present any evidence that modern Bibles help Catholic theology in any meaningful way or undermine inerrancy. In fact, I think the opposite is true.  The problem for the Tares Amongst the Wheat thesis is that Codex Sinaticus is just as caustic to Rome’s traditions as the King James Version.  You would think that if Rome were going to concoct a forgery they might include something about Mary or purgatory but this is not the case. Where’s the payoff for Rome? (Source)

jesuit-conspiracy

The cover of one of Pinto’s propaganda CDs which he sells for $14.95 at his website.

Pinto a Zio-Calvinist heretic

Pinto is your typical Zionist shill accusing the Vatican of everything the world has know for 500-plus years that the Jews are responsible for. Make no mistake, the Vatican is now an agent of the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy, thanks to Jews and masons subverting the Church, especially during the buildup to the Protestant Reformation and the French Revolution, culminating in the Jewish-sponsored Second Vatican Council in the 1960s. But the true Church remains within the fractured Vatican as well as in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Protestantism has and always will be a Jewish perversion, a cheap imitation of the Church of Christ, right down to the sexually depraved Waledensians and Albigensians, whom Pinto specifically defends, giving away his puritan bias. In all of Pinto’s supposed unmasking of the freemasonic conspiracy, nowhere does he talk about the masonic hand in infiltrating and perverting the Vatican, as outlined in the Alta Vendita,or about the Jewish-Masonic orchestrating of the French and Russian Revolutions. As for the Jesuit order, it too was infiltrated by the Jewish-Masonic power structure in Europe, not the other way around as Pinto suggests. He ridiculously asserts that [pre-Vatican II] Rome and the Masons work together or, what’s more absurd, that Rome founded freemasonry. Incidentally, some of Pinto’s supposed online detractors accuse him of being a secret Jesuit agent and a Calvinist, even though Calvinism is considered utter heresy by the Vatican. Let’s not forget that Calvinism is as Jewish as they come, with it’s kabbalistic dualism, not to mention suspected Jew John Calvin being helped by Jews during the Reformation. In fact, Jews were the leading proponents of popularizing Christian heresy in the Middle Ages and thereafter as revenge against Christ and the Church. It’s difficult to tell who is more intellectually dishonest, Pinto or his strawman detractors. But they are correct that Pinto is a Calvinist. Historian E. Michael Jones expounds on the Jewish revolutionary spirit behind Calvinism and the Protestant Reformation:

The accusation that Protestants were Jews was not new. Calvin claimed an opponent “called me a Jew, because I maintain the rigor of the law intact.” Others claimed the Genevan reliance on “jure gladdi,” the law of the sword, to suppress dissent made Calvin “a Jew.” Calvin was a lawyer before he became a reformer; his reliance on the law to micromanage the minutiae of everyday life reminded many of Jewish proscriptions in Deuteronomy and Numbers. His notion that idolatry should be uprooted by military force was consistent with the Anabaptist reading of the Old Testament. His approach was a more refined, more sophisticated, and more legalistic appropriation of the Old Testament than the version that had inspired the Anabaptists in Muenster and the Taborites in Bohemia. The idea Calvin was a Jew or he was working for the Jews was, therefore, not new or far-fetched….

Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin were all students of Nicholas of Lyra, a Franciscan monk of Jewish descent who lived in the 14th Century. Nicholas got his ideas from Raschi, who was the conduit that allowed the Talmud scholarship of his father, Isaac of Troyes, to flow directly into Protestantism. Reuchlin was another conduit. When Pfefferkorn accused Reuchlin of being in the pay of the Jews to disseminate propaganda, the essential truth of the charge caused Reuchlin to issue a violent denial in his pamphlet Augenspiegel.  (E. Michael Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and its Impact on World History, Fidelity Press, South Bend, Indiana, 2008. pp. 340-341)

Is he shilling for the masons?TauEpsilonPhi

We know Pinto deceives his audience about the origins of Freemasonry and America. Freemasonry is a Jewish institution from A to Z, or more accurately, from Aleph to Tav. This is undeniable. Pinto doesn’t dispute this fact, he simply ignores it. Could this deception be due to Pinto’s own masonic affiliations? His Adullam Films production company produced A Lamp In the Dark at Pat Roberton’s Northstar Studios. Robertson, a notorious Christian Zionist and fake opponent to the New World Order, has long been suspected of being a freemason and is affiliated with the Illuminati-funded Trinity Broadcasting Network (chock-full of masons) through his own network Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN). The term Adullam, referred to in the Old Testament, has Judeo-masonic implications by contemporary uses of the term. Pinto’s heretical DVDs are sold across the net, even on, guess who, Alex Jones’ online media empire. Jones, an ardent Zionist and suspected freemason, promoted Pinto in 2009 on Infowars and PrisonPlanet. Pinto is also promoted by fellow Judaizers Joseph Farah (World Net Daily) and David Bay (Cutting Edge Ministries). Bay is actually the executive producer of some of Pinto’s films.

What’s most interesting of all is Pinto’s membership with Jewish-created fraternity Tau Epsilon Phi, whose membership boasts of Dwight D. Eisenhower, Jewish Agenda 21 technocrat Ray Kurzweil, and a whole host of anti-Christian Jewish entertainers, like Larry David, creator of Seinfeld, and Jerry Springer. The fraternity even developed an award in Pinto’s honour.

It seems Pinto’s revelations about the masons are 10o per cent certified kosher, which means he is allowed to expose them to a certain degree.

Judaizing

Protestantism and Zionism go hand in hand. Afterall, wasn’t that the ultimate goal of the Jews who provoked the Protestant Reformation…? To create a Crypto-Jewish front to wage war with Christ and His Church—in the name of Christ Himself. How clever. Pinto’s documentaries Megiddo: The March to Armageddon Bible Prophecy & The New World Order are as kosher as anything from the mainstream Christian Zionist pulpit, headed by stooges like John Hagee, Pat Robertson, and Jack Van Impe. There are no smoking guns in his films. His prophetical views ring of the old puritanical millennialism, which has since been refined by modern heretics like Cyrus I. Scofield, the father of modern Christian Zionism. Jones writes of the Jewish purpose for the Puritan heresy,

Viera’s reading of the end times got Menasseh thinking how he could use millennial expectation among the Puritans to Jewish advantage. So Menasseh encouraged these ideas among the English Puritans as a way of “furthering the ends of Jewish Polity.” Menasseh’s Politieia is the same as that of Maimonides. Its worldly nature and its existence in time stand out against the general Christian concept of the ‘Kingdom of the Spirit.'” He was both Marxist revolutionary and Zionist rolled into one, which Fisch recognizes when he links Menssaseh…. (Jones, p. 448.)

By the way, Pinto suggests that communism is a Vatican creation, showing his complete lack of basic history. To him, Jew commie Karl Marx was only a secondary player at best. It’s quite the shift in facts. It’s as if Zionist shills like Pinto make a list of all the crimes of Jews and switch the name of the perpetrator with whomever they want to indict.

site-of-first-synagogue-after-resettlement-c-1657

The Judaization of England following the purging of Catholicism. The result of the the rotten fruits of apostate King Henry VIII, Anne Boleyn, John Dee, and Oliver Cromwell. So much for the Byzantine Solution.

Anyhow, the establishment of the Puritan movement was Jewish through and through. It helped the Jews remain in England despite heavy opposition following their mass influx into the country and a previous banishment edict by King Edward I in 1290. The Puritans passed off wild tales as Bible prophecy in order to convince England that its millennial fever was warranted (not unlike the millennialist fever of dispensationalism today) and would become the New Jerusalem. These tales culminated in the modern heresies of premillennial dispensationalism (futurist eschatology) and its many variants, which was brought to the New World along with Judeo-Masonic cryptocrats. Incidentally, the leading proponents of the transplanted Jewish-Puritan millenarianism were either Jews, Zionists, Masons or all three—men like John Nelson Darby, Cyrus I. Scofield, Charles Taze Russell, and Dwight L. Moody. Jones argues that Protestant movements such as the Hussites, Albigensians, Waldensians, and Puritans were more revolutionary than they were about correcting the perceived perversions of the Catholic Church, and he documents the role played by Jews in each of these movements.

Graetz similarly protrays the Reformation as “the triumph of Judaism,” a claim that many Catholics made in Luther’s day. Graetz applauds Luther’s early defense of the Jews…describing Luther’s sentiments as words “which the Jews had not heard for a thousand years. They show unmistakable traces of Reuchlin’s mild intercession in their favor. many hot-headed Jews saw in Luther’s opposition to the papacy the extinction of Christianity and the triumph of Judaism. Three learned Jews went to Luther and tried to convert him. Enthusiastic feelings were aroused among the Jews at this unexpected revulsion, especially at the blow dealt the papacy and the idolatrous worship of images and relics; the boldest hopes were entertained for the speedy downfall of Rome and the approaching redemption by the Messiah.”

Walsh claims the “stormiest preachers” of the Reformation were “of Jewish descent.” Michael Servetus, the first Unitarian, was influenced in his attack on the Trinity by Jews. Calvinism became a “convenient mask” for Jews in Antwerp after their expulsion from Spain, confirming that Protestants were half-Jews and adding to the suspicions of Catholic leaders. Dr. Lucien Wolf claims, “Marranos in Antwerp had taken an active part in the Reformation movement and had given up their mask of Catholicism for a not less hollow pretense of Calvinism. The change will be readily understood. The simulation of Calvinism brought them new friends, who, like them, were enemies of Rome, Spain, and the Inquisition. It helped them in their fight against the Holy Office, and for that reason was very welcome to them. Moreover, it was a form of Christianity which came nearer to their own simple Judaism. The result was that they became zealous and valuable allies of the Calvinists.” (Jones, pp. 268-269)

Further evidence of Pinto’s pandering to Jewry is apparent in another of his films, The Kinsey Syndrome, which I wrote about in depth a few years ago. In it, Pinto teams up with Jews Judith Reisman and one of his regular co-producers Joe Schimmel (Zionist Christian) in blaming the entire sexual revolution on Hitler and the Nazis. The film conveniently uses gentile window dressing in the form of pervert Alfred Kinsey to cover up the fact that the modern sexual liberation movement is a specifically Jewish movement. Throughout the film, one can hear the term “Judeo-Christian” thrown around as if it has validity, and like Pinto’s obsession with the Jesuits, he narrows his focus on the Nazis this time. Nazi conspiracy theories are another favourite disinformation tool of the Judeo-Masonic elite. Not only do they throw people of the scent of Jews behind many world crimes, they victimize the Jews over and over, as a means of creating a gentile guilt complex. Furthermore, Pinto’s portrayal of the Vatican is disingenuous. He is taking cheap shots at a Vatican that is not her former self. She has been infiltrated and corrupted by Jews and Masons.

a-american-flag-jew-atrocitiesMost prominent evangelical ministries in the United States are cointelpro operations, not to mention tax-exempt organizations that must follow the policies of the Zionist-controlled US government. Pinto is yet another Jewish proxy to add to the list. Unfortunately, many will likely be taken in by his lies, as he does tell some truth about the masons and the occult. That’s the gambit, the bait, the decoy. Half truths. The fact of the matter is, the Jewish conspiracy theory is as old as the Crucifixion of Christ, even talked about in the Bible, and there is far more evidence to back it up than either Jesuit or Nazi conspiracy theories. The Nazi involvement in the conspiracy against Christ and His Saints has been insignificant next to that of Judaism and freemasonry.

Alex Jones, freemasonry, and the cult of Constitution

Freemason Alex JonesBy Timothy Fitzpatrick

With Alex Jones’ compromising Jewish connections now thoroughly documented, it’s not surprising to learn that Alex Jones consistently advocates specifically masonic concepts to his listeners.

Jones’s entire defense against the New World Order is based on the United States Constitution in the spirit of Founding Fathers like Thomas Jefferson and so called patriots like Paul Revere, both of whom were probable freemasons—both fighting each other within the purview of the Jewish kabbalist Hegelian dialectic (thesis + anti-thesis = synthesis [alchemical magic]). Jones apparently has no qualms about boldly declaring repeatedly on his daily radio show and in his documentaries that “the answer to 1984 is 1776.” I guess he sees no correlation between the Masonic founding of the United States of the America and the founding of the Jewish-Masonic Order of the Illuminati in Bavaria the same year. Perhaps it is a deceptive NLP technique of cryptically uplifting the date as it pertains to the Illuminati and their Enlightenment cult which paved the way for liberty, fraternity, and equality in the new world.

The Judeo-Masonic roots of the US founding fathers and the Constitution

De_Poncins_Leon_-_Freemasonry_and_Judaism_Secret_Powers_Behind_RevolutionFreemasonry, hatched in the British Empire following the Enlightenment-Rosicrucian revolutionary overthrow of the Catholic Church in England, is the proxy arm of the international Jewish conspiracy against Christ and His Saints. Throughout the centuries, the Jewish conspirators have struggled to refrain from publicly gloating of their engineering of this proxy movement.

Jews have entirely created Masonry to corrupt the nations of Christian civilization and to propagate behind this veil the general revolution which is to bring about the domination of Israel. It is simply a tool and a means in the hands of the Jews. In support of this, we can quote the article of Dr. Isaac M. Wise published in the Israelite of America, 3 August, 1866: ‘Masonry is a Jewish institution, whose history, degrees, charges, passwords, and explanations are Jewish from beginning to end.’[I]

This conspiracy to “corrupt the nations” was executed under the cover of “Enlightenment” progress and freedom. The Masonic Illuminati slogan is “liberty, fraternity, and equality”, which was shouted from rooftops as revolutionaries raped, pillaged, and murdered their way through France.

There are many instances where high-level Jews have admitted their leading role in the formation, development, and pursuits of freemasonry, the pinnacle of which being the bloody French and Russian revolutions. Revolution was the Jewish attempt at overthrowing Christ and His influence over Europe and Russia. But what many Americans may not know is that this same Jewish-masonic revolution was brought to the new world in the guise of liberty and freedom. The Statue of Liberty, made by French mason Frederic-Auguste Bartholdi and erected in New York’s harbor, was freemasonic France’s gift to the Founding Fathers and their spreading of masonic Enlightenment thought in the new world. The new world’s state religion of liberty, equality, and fraternity was eventually codified in the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution. Don’t let the term “enlightenment” fool you. Their concept is the same as illumination—out of darkness comes the light through man’s acquisition of knowledge (gnosticism) and self-elevation through Enlightenment-Newtonian-occult science (magic) . This is false enlightenment. And it shows that the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion …”, is a lie. This is why Americans have national monuments in honour of freemasons, obelisks in honour of pagan gods, the Great Seal of the United States in honour of Horus, and why the masons built America’s first cities on occult ley lines (America’s major cities along the Eastern seaboard are in perfect alignment with Stonehenge).

Masonic US Constitution

Historian E. Michael Jones writes of John Locke and the British masonic Enlightenment thinkers who inspired the US Founding Fathers,

These groups shared a common hatred of French Catholic Absolutism. They differed on how to deal with the common enemy. For a moderate like Locke, the answer was constitutionalism. Men of good will and property should unite in free association and establish rules to live as free and equal citizens. The Masonic Lodge hovered in the background of this discussion as the model for the new Protestant polity.[II]

The 20th century’s most profound occultist, Manly Palmer Hall, explains in his book The Secret Destiny of America (1944) that the seemingly Christian language used by the US Founding Fathers and in documents such as the Declaration of Independence is a deception:

The rise of the Christian Church broke up the intellectual pattern of the classical pagan world. By persecution of this pattern’s ideologies it drove the secret societies into greater secrecy; the pagan intellectuals then reclothed their original ideas in a garment of Christian phraseology, but bestowed the keys of the symbolism only upon those duly initiated and bound to secrecy by their vows. (Chapter 7, The Democratic Tradition Preserved by Secret Societies)

Jacob Cats' Lampado Trado depicts John Dee, who many believe founded Rosicrucianism and Freemasonry in England, passes the light of illumination to Francis Bacon. Bacon was to bring this "light" to the new world (America).

Jacob Cats’ Lampado Trado depicts John Dee, who many believe founded Rosicrucianism and Freemasonry in England, passes the light of illumination to Francis Bacon. Bacon was to bring this “light” to the new world (America).

Remarkably, Hall credits the establishment of the 13 US colonies (note that 13 is of occult significance) to 17th century kabbalist Francis Bacon:

The Alchemists, Cabalists, Mystics, and Rosicrucians were the incisive instruments of Bacon’s plan. Representatives of these groups migrated to the colonies at an early date and set up their organization in suitable places. (Ch. 13)

The Seven Noahide Laws of the Babylonian Jewish Talmud, a racist and highly dictatorial book that blasphemes our Lord Jesus Christ among other things, is entrenched in the United States law, included in the fifteen capital laws of New England and incorporated into US Public Law 102-14 March 26, 1991 as “Education Day.” The Noahide Laws are veiled in benevolent language and falsely attributed to being from the Old Testament of the Bible. They are, in fact, Talmudic and have a very different interpretation under rabbinic tradition than their language appears. One could say that they are the Jewish rendition of Islamic Sharia law.

Liber Pater, or Bacchus.

Pseudo freedom

Alex Jones and his false opposition cronies like Ron Paul, a suspected freemason, are always talking about libertarianism and freedom. Jones, who in the past has sometimes argued from a Christian point of view, albeit a Protestant one, now speaks from a completely libertarian perspective. What many of his followers may not know is that the concepts of liberty and freedom are not as liberated and free as Jones would have you believe.

Libertas, Latin for liberty, originates with the Roman god Liber Pater (father of freedom, wine, and fertility). Of course, the US founding fathers built Washington DC and other cities in honour of Liber (Bacchus to the Greeks), with the proof being the Roman architecture and art of the Capitol buildings and the masonic geometric design of Washington DC, among other US sites of veneration to Roman gods. Libertarianism is thus equivalent to “free” thought, which was the cry of the masonic enlightenment against traditional science, classicism, and the Orthodox/Catholic monarchies. It is Jewish-masonic through and through. However, true freedom comes not through so called free thought or liberation from the consequences of actions but through the redemption of Christ, who frees us from the bondage of sin. Liber Pater is a cheap imitator of Christ. The libertarian movement and the US constitution, complete with their spirit of freemasonry and idolatry, cannot bring anyone true freedom. They are completely useless against the Judeo-Masonic New World Order conspiracy.

Major problems with the US Constitution as an instrument of freedom

Some may argue that regardless of the US Constitution’s Masonic origins, it protects Americans’ civil liberties and rights. Certainly, it does in theory and in certain historical instances. But how good can the Constitution be having occult Enlightenment origins and being based in a temporal and false form of freedom? And knowing the compromised origins of the United States and its laws, is it possible that the masonic Founding Fathers designed the Constitution to fail the people? Here are just some of the major defects with the Constitution,

One of the two gravest defects lies in how courts are structured with respect to the constitutions they interpret. A basic design pattern for good government is that officials should not be interpreters of their own power. Allowing federal courts to interpret federal powers and state courts to interpret state powers has led to inevitable aggrandizement of the powers of both: to broad interpretations of power-granting clauses. Vague constitutional language, which is practically inevitable, would not lead to tyranny if the judiciaries who have final say interpreting these clauses did not have incentives to expand these powers. This effect is exacerbated by allowing the legislature and executive to choose the judges. I am afraid that, for example, Professor Barnett’s proposal for convincing federal courts to (in many ways return to) libertarian interpretations of our Constitution, desirable as such interpretions are, is nevertheless futile. Incentives operate to select judges who profess broad interpretations of power, and while sitting on the court for judges to further aggrandize governmental power. Our judicial structure is another one-way ratchet towards tyranny.[III]

What about private property?

The other of the two gravest defects is the lack of unbundled political property rights. Federalism and separation of functions are two very good, indeed crucial, features of the Constitution, but they are insufficient for protecting liberty. Unbundled rights to engage in narrow forms of coercive legal procedure are often a far better way to distribute power than hierarchical federalism and separation of powers in an entity that is supposed to be in totality sovereign. The gothi of medieval Iceland, often cited by anarcho-capitalists, were an example of a political property right. Medieval and Renaissance England was a world full of polycentric, or highly distributed, political property rights, but these were swallowed up by legislative powers in colonial America. We must revive this very important and legally mature method of distributing political powers. Many legislative, executive, and judicial functions should be granted to private entities as political property rights, with the jurisdictional boundaries and procedural standards defined in those rights to be enforced by an extraordinary court independent of all other governmental entities.[IV]

Keep in mind that freemasonic membership is a prerequisite to becoming a judge in the United States of America and elsewhere. What’s more, Jewish persons are overrepresented in the judiciary.

It wouldn’t be difficult to imagine the Constitution being designed to fail, since Freemasons have always offered lies as truth, enslavement as freedom. For they are against God, who is Himself all truth and life. Their entire existence is based upon a hijacking of truth, overthrowing god, proclaiming themselves gods, and establishing their false messianic kingdom on Earth.

TexasMason

Is Alex Jones a freemason?

So far, no one has been able to produce a list showing Infowars radio host Alex Emerick Jones’ as a registered freemason or fraternal brother. But based on his dialectic, he is absolutely espousing freemasonic concepts through his insistence upon a return to the Masonic Founding Fathers’ Constitutional Enlightenment government. He has also espoused other aspects of kabbalistic freemasonry in the forms of the New Age and pantheism[V]. And he is surrounded by Jews and questionable characters like Ron Paul (Freemason?), Charlie Sheen, and long-time Jewish pal Joe Rogan (a Satanist?) and a Freemason? Freemasonry, Judaism, and Hollywood are no strangers to each other by any stretch of the imagination. And we know that Paul is a member of the Masonic-like Lambda Chi Alpha fraternity.[VI] Jones’ kosher conspiracist pal Jesse Ventura is also suspected of being a mason. Ventura and Jones are always talking about the next American revolution, yet we know Jews and masons have orchestrated and engineered almost every single revolution in the last 300 years, including the American Revolution Jones is always glorifying. Ventura’s popular television show Conspiracy Theory, which is blatant controlled opposition, is produced by the Jewish Michael Braverman and regularly features Alex Jones.

anson jones 7It is only speculation at this point, but Alex Jones may be the descendant of a prominent Texas freemason named Anson Jones, who was Grand Master of the First Masonic Lodge of Texas, 1837 and Master First Lodge of Texas, 1835.[VII] The name, location, and occupation all share a similarity to Alex Emric Jones and his family, which now includes a Jewish revolutionary.

“One of the three sons of Anson Jones, namely Samuel Edward (formerly Houston) Jones, born 1841, was a successful dentist. He was an early president of the Texas Dental Association. According to Wikipedia Alex Jones is the son of a dentist! It seems as if the Jones clan has a monopoly in the cosmetic dental business. His father is David R. Jones-member of the Austin Liberty Coalition…David R Jones’ grandfather was probably Samuel Edward Jones, a dentist”[VIII]

Alex Jones' father David Ross Jones.

Alex Jones’ father David Ross Jones.

Alex Jones’ father, David, states on a meetup page,

I practice dentistry in south Austin and manage large dental practices. I am married and have children and grandchildren. Our family has farmed and ranched for many years. I believe our culture protected under the constitution is being eroded. Are you willing to sacrifice complacency for Truth, Liberty and Justice? My son is Alex Jones.[IX]

Jones’ father is part of a “liberty” group and advocates the Masonic-like motto of truth, liberty, and justice. This isn’t proof that Jones’ family were/are freemasons, but it suggests so. An interesting side not about David Ross Jones is that he uses fluoride in his dental practice despite the fact that his son is one of the most outspoken critics of the use of fluoride. According to Alex Jones, fluoride is being used by the New World Order to pacify and depopulate us. Jones senior became a member of the Alpha Epsilon Delta fraternity while attending the University of Texas at Austin in the 1970s. The fraternity is an international honour society for outstanding pre-medical and pre-dental students on campus.

It’s bad enough that the supposed leader of the truth movement is promoting the very concepts he claims to be opposing in the New World Order conspiracy. What’s worse is that unknowing Americans are being given a false sense of hope in the fraud that is the Masonic US Constitution and the pseudo-freedom libertarian movement in Jones and in politicians like Ron Paul.


[I] Vicomte Léon de Poncins, The Secret Powers Behind Revolution: Freemasonry and Judaism (Rancho Palos Verdes, CA: CSG and Associates, 1996, reprint of 1929 edition), p. 101.

[II] E. Michael Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History (South Bend, Indiana, 2008, Fidelity Press), p. 502-503

[III] Comments on the United States Constitution (ii), http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2008/03/comments-on-united-states-constitution_06.html

[IV] ibid

[V] Alex “Wolf” Jones: Luciferian Pantheist Doctrine Exposed http://bernarda-patelife.blogspot.com/2013/01/alex-jones-luciferian-pantheist.html