Media anti-Catholic narratives with an endless shelf life

A refutation of Michael Hoffman II

By Jude Duffy
June 29, 2017 Anno Domini

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

And he got shot.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Jude Duffy
Editorial
June 11, 2017 Anno Domini

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brexit another Jewish dialectic?

By Northsider
June 25, 2016, Anno Domini
Editorial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neo-masculine movement no antidote to social engineering

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
March 19, 2016 Anno Domini

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Henry Makow duped by Zionist

The Fall of Jerusalem

The Fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
August 12, 2014 Anno Domini

Normally I wouldn’t critique an article from Henry Makow’s website, as he posts from a number of different authors and on a wide variety of topics, not with all of which I agree. But because of the sensitive nature of the last month, the Gaza massacre, and because Mr. Makow is a popular anti-Zionist researcher, I felt it incumbent upon me to call out what I see as the Zionist subversion of his website.

On August 9, Makow published an article by Chris Glover entitled Is Israeli Aggression Based on End Times Prophesy? A quick search turned up nothing about the author, so there is little we can go on about the author’s motives other than what he has written. The article argues that despite the “satanic assault on Gaza”, it’s all going according to Bible prophecy and the media’s heavy focus on Gaza is hastening worldwide indignation against Israel, which the Bible supposedly said would happen in the “end times.”

Glover sets the tone early in the article for his propaganda with,

According to the Bible and the Book of Revelations, all the nations of the world will turn against Israel during the end times.

This is the typical premillennial-dispensationalist heresy of futurism—the myths of which I dispel in The Jewish command to deceive Christians about Bible prophecy (I asked Mr. Makow to republish this article at his website in response to Glover’s piece, but there has been no action on it at this time). Firstly, it makes the profound error of assuming that today’s Israel constitutes the Israel spoken of in the Bible and that God has any use for the physical nation of Israel as it was over 2,000 years ago. Furthermore, to support this heretical contrivance, the author makes a weak argument for what he perceives as the increased media attention on the Gaza massacre. Frankly, the media has under-reported the matter and, in the case of American media, portrayed Gaza as the villain. But that doesn’t matter to Glover. He must stretch the truth in order to support his remaining arguments. And any truths Glover tells, like that the Mossad-CIA alliance is behind the ISIS-ISIL threat, is overshadowed by his eschatological confusion.

After Glover has sucked the reader in with talk of false flags in the Middle East and Ukraine, which are mostly true, he finally lays down another heretical bombshell.

He will have a covenant with Israel and crush its enemies. But Israel must be hated by the nations in order for this to happen. Is this what the mainstream media is playing into at the current time?

Another typical futurist lie based on a misinterpretation of the Book of Daniel, Chapter 9, verse 26-27, where it’s supposedly talking about an anti-Christ figure making a seven-year peace treaty with Israel and it’s Islamic neighbours. In reality, this portion of Daniel is talking about Jesus confirming the New Covenant with all who would believe. The time period in which Jesus was prophesied to confirm this was seven years—the final week of Daniel’s Seventy Weeks.

Makow, or Glover, introduce the article with a couple of passages from the Old Testament:

Behold, I am going to make Jerusalem a cup, one that causes reeling to all the peoples around; and when the siege is against Jerusalem, it will also be against Judah. It will come about in that day that I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples; all who lift it will be severely injured. And all the nations of the earth will be gathered against it.

—Zechariah 12:2-3

The Orthodox Christian interpretation of these two passages is that they were fulfilled in 70 A.D., when Rome—an empire of many nations, the world as such—encompassed Jerusalem with a siege, slaughtered one million Jews (according to Josephus), looted and burnt the Temple, and left Jerusalem utterly desolate, as Jesus said would happen.

Behold, your house is left unto you desolate : and I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. —Luke 13:35

This effectively and permanently ended the Jewish age of history. Any chance for the Jews to receive salvation now lies with their acceptance of Christ. Israel as a nation is now no longer needed, as the bigger picture, as was intended from the beginning, is that all peoples, from all nations would come to the truth.

The only sense in the “world turning against Israel” is with respect to the Church, which is the true Israel of God. That certainly is and will continue to happen, which will hasten the real end times. And Israel, as we know it, will likely not even exist in the end times, although Jerusalem will likely by the capital of some New Age one-world government. But what Glover is advancing is fundamentally Zionist, despite his seeming distaste with “Zionist-Kabbalists”.

 

Stratfor had two Alex Joneses

Stratfor's JonesesBy Timothy Fitzpatrick

May 24, 2014 Anno Domini

Some websites are falsely reporting that Alex Emric Jones, of Infowars, worked as webmaster of Stratfor (Strategic Forecasting, Inc.) in 2005, according to Anonymous’s hack of Stratfor emails and credit card data in 2011.

A little research shows that the webmaster of Stratfor in 2005 was another Alex Jones, also from Austin, Texas (Stratfor, a Zionist-run intelligence gathering apparatus, is located downtown Austin, Texas, where Alex Emric Jones also lives). This other Jones is Alexander S. Jones. In reading the emails between this webmaster and others within Stratfor, as well as emails mentioning Alex Emric Jones, Stratfor staff make clear distinctions between the two. The webmaster used the email jones@stratfor.com, which some mistakenly believe is what implicates Alex Emric Jones with Stratfor. But this is not the case. The Anonymous hack also revealed paid clients of Stratfor’s intelligence forecasting service, of which one was definitely tied to Alex Emerick Jones of Infowars. That email address is 1oldpath@infowars.net, which is a domain owned by Alex Jones and Free Speech Systems LLC. Jones owns other domains as well. Another so called patriot-9/11 truther discovered in the Stratfor clientele was the late Michael Ruppert, under mruppert@copvcia.com. Ruppert, like Jones, was heavily criticized for giving a kosher explanation of the 9/11 conspiracy, completely absolving international Jewry of any involvement. And yet another “truther” was implicated, one Michael Rivero of WhatReallyHappened.com using wrh@whatreallyhappened.com. Is it any wonder that Rivero has not touched the Infowars-Stratfor scandal? Up until recently, Rivero has been rather soft on the Jewish/Zionist question. Keep in mind now that the hack does not specify whether Stratfor’s clients are paid or not (except for some) and whether they are using Stratfor’s intelligence services above just gaining access to data. Either way, it’s difficult to believe that Jones, in light of all his other Stratfor connections, is just using Stratfor to read a few articles. He said on his show once that Stratfor “puts out propaganda,” yet he is their subscriber. This statement is disingenuous as much as it is an alibi for Jones. There is a high probability that Jones and Stratfor are in cahoots.

A sreenshot showing one of Alex Jones' email addresses in the Anonymous hack of Stratfor clientele lists.

A screenshot showing one of Alex Jones’ email addresses in Stratfor clientele list leaked by the Anonymous hack.

The confusion over the two Alexes associated with Stratfor has given fuel to Alex Jones’ diehard fans, who show this as proof that the Alex Jones-Stratfor scandal is a bunch of hot air.

Unsurprisingly, Stratfor has denied the accuracy of its hacked emails released via Anonymous and Wikileaks. In those emails, Stratfor’s rank and file repeatedly talk about Alex Emric Jones. There is not really any smoking-gun information contained in them. However, the fact that Jones is some kind of client receiving intelligence from Stratfor is alarming enough and could have serious ramifications for the way the public perceives Infowars and its so-called news reporting. For example, Jones’s accurate prediction of the 9/11 attacks was perceived as being because of Jones’ own intellectual intelligence and insight on world affairs. It gave Jones credibility early in his patriot career at the time, and still does. But if he received that information from Stratfor, or perhaps from one of his Zionist handlers, then he is presenting it under false pretenses. If this is true, it calls into question everything he says. And because Stratfor and Alex Jones have their own agendas, or agenda, as the case may be, it’s logical to assume that we aren’t being told the whole truth, despite what Jones claims. Then there are all the other compromising connections between Alex Jones, Stratfor, Zionists, the CIA, and even freemasonry.

Alex Emric Jones’ other Stratfor connections

IP HarvestingAlex Jones Shill Bronfmans

Another disturbing possibility is that Infowars is harvesting information from its subscribers as well as anyone who visits the website and passing it on to Stratfor and perhaps to the government. Planet Infowars admits in its privacy policy that it may hand your information over to government entities and other third parties.

3.2. “we may use your personal identifying information” “when complying with an order” from “..other government entity…”

3.4. “We us cookies, log files, and third parties to create a profile of our users and the information gathered is personally identifiable as belonging to you…”

3.7. Any information you disclosed to third parties on our Website or other websites becomes public information, and you should exercise caution when deciding to disclose any personal information.

Follow the Stratfor-Infowar scandal:

Alex Jones creating bogus stories to circumvent Stratfor revelations

Infowars photo op at Stratfor?

Parallels between Alex Jones and CIA front National Review

The Stratfor Infowars – Wikileaks reveals more on Kinky cointelpro Jones

Alternative media continues to ignore Alex Jones’ Stratfor connections

The growing complexity of Alex Jones’ Israeli Connections

Did fallen angels help Jews write the Protocols of Zion?

Nephilim Protocols of Zion

By Timothy Fitzpatrick

The credibility of the infamous Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, an intricate and ingenious hundred-year-old blueprint for global domination, has stood the test of time against dismissive and deceitful charges.

Because of its implication of the Jewish money power, naturally, it has incurred the wrath of the Jewish-controlled press, academia, pseudo historians, heretics, and political pundits. It has been called everything from an anti-Semitic forgery written by the Russian secret police to a Vatican-shadow-written libel against Jewry. While these charges have little to no evidence, little has been said about its highly elaborate scheming and cunning word play. It’s comparable to almost any classic work in its imagination and mastery of plot. Works of such reputation are typically considered divinely inspired or of the vaporous odours from the bowels of hell.  The occult has worked through the medium of drama and literature for millennia, Shakespeare’s (kabbalist Sir Francis Bacon?) The Tempest, for example. On the other hand, pen and the stage have brought us messages from the divine, that is, from God, the Logos; the Holy Bible is the premier example. Christopher Marlowe’s exposition on the British Judeo-Masonic cryptocracy, Doctor Faustus, and Johann Andreas Eisenmenger’s stunning 17th century exposé of Judaism in Entdektes Judentum are just a couple of other example with regards to divine defense against the Judeo-Masonic plot. In modern times, the transparency of the threatre is even more apparent with today’s far less sophisticated forms of drama and writing.

Are the Protocols the work of genius Jewish minds?

DBP_1979_1030_Doctor_Johannes_FaustJews often boast of their supposed intelligence, and their lapdogs in the Evangelical Protestant pulpit do also. But just how smart are they? Could they have written the diabolically ingenious Protocols? Historically, the Jewish conspirators against Christ and His Church have been cabbalists, that is, practitioners of magic and divination, according to the Jewish unholy book, the Kabbalah, which is more revered than the Old Testament in Judaism. White magicians attempt to distort the devilry of their craft by claiming that they only summon good angels through their incantations. But the Church has always taught that if one summons spirits, regardless of intending to summon ‘good’ spirits, only evil spirits will manifest. Thus, is it unreasonable to conclude that anti-Christ Jews plotting the overthrown of the Christian Church in England, Europe, and Russia throughout history and especially during the time of the writing of the Protocols were guided by dark spirits—those whom they regularly summon up through their sorcery and wicked rituals?  This would make a lot of sense, because angels, even fallen ones, have knowledge far greater than men. And where there is superior knowledge, there is power, and this power is used to control others (Gnosticism and Freemasonry). For all we know, Sir Isaac Newton, a Jewish kabbalist and alchemist, could have received his scientific knowledge from the spirits he regularly conversed with. We do know that his mechanistic bias provided the foundation for the Jewish-Masonic Enlightenment and still lingers today in the form of modernism, materialism, and so-called skepticism. And what of all the other supposed great Jewish minds credited with bringing knowledge and innovation to the world? Where this knowledge hasn’t been outright stolen and forged from others, could they, too, have merely passed on what was relayed to them by their dark spirits?

With God inspiring the Holy Bible, Lucifer and his fallen angels answered back by inspiring the Babylonian Talmud, the Jewish Kabbalah, and blueprints like the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.

1Thessalonians 2:15 The Jews…who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:

Are the Jews capable of carrying out a 2,000-year plan all by themselves?

How is it that one group of people have, for generations, kept the plan outlined in the Protocols of Zion going on all these years? How have individual conspirators been able to contribute to it through the narrow vision of only one generation, which is about 70 years at best? It would take a great deal of vision, unification, and determination to carry out such an ambitious plot. Or perhaps, like the inspiration for the Protocols, the same dark spirits have guided the Jews as they execute every jot and tittle of the Protocols. The Protocols, published in 1905, work in two directions: they sum up history at the start of the Jewish-Masonic Enlightenment and French Revolution to the then-future Russian Revolution. But beyond that, the Protocols outline a plot that is completely consistent with the Jewish revolutionary spirit, which began as far back as the Pharisees who screamed for the crucifixion of our Lord Jesus Christ almost 2,000 years ago. Since Jesus’ coming, the Jews have worked tirelessly in attempting to overthrow His influence over the world. In truth, the Protocols are really only a snippet of their war strategy against Christ and His saints. If God ceased leading the Jews following the the sealing of the Old Covenant at the death of Christ, who is leading them now? Could it be that the elders of Zion acted as channellers of the Protocols, mediums for Satanic spirits?

In the Middle Ages, demonic interaction with mankind was widely known, thanks to the Church’s divine influence in the world. Today, due in part to Newton and his anti-spirit influence, angels and demons have been but completely forgotten. And this has aided the cryptocracy’s hold over mankind, for fallen angels are the hidden power behind world events today; they are the hidden power behind the Jewish-Masonic plot. The Book of Genesis as well as the non-canonical Book of Enoch seem to go so far as blaming the fallen angels for the fall of mankind…for all evil on Earth. Men seek these fallen angels out for knowledge in the hopes of using that knowledge to have power over others and to gratify their passions—a Faustian tradeoff.

Kinsey: The Crypto-Psychoanalyst

Providing the Gentile Veneer for the Jewish-led Sexual Revolution – Part 2

By Timothy Fitzpatrick 

There is perhaps no greater critic today of the late sexual revolutionary Alfred C. Kinsey than Jewish-American Judith Reisman, author and former investigator with the U.S. Department of Justice, who has “chased” Kinsey and his controversial sex researchers for more than 35 years.

Reisman, who plausibly asserts that Kinsey was a saboteur of the “Greatest Generation” onwards in the United States of America, claims that Kinsey was a co-conspirator in league with a Nazi-linked Rockefeller Foundation, based on her years of study of The Kinsey Sex Research Institute. Reisman stretches this and implies that Kinsey and the Sexual Revolution were part of a Nazi conspiracy against the West (she never explains the purpose of this conspiracy other than to say it benefits Big Pharma and Big Sexology). But the greater weight of evidence shows that Kinsey was more Jewish-linked than anything— particularly with the Jewish-dominated psychoanalytic movement—and that Reisman is engaging in deception or self-deception in reaching her conclusions—a trait common among strong self-identifying Jews.[1]

Reisman’s case for Kinsey and the sexual revolution being Nazi/fascist subversion of America

Reisman bases her claim that Kinsey was a stealth Nazi largely on the Kinsey Institute’s funding by the Rockefeller Foundation, which had financed parts of the Nazi regime during the Second World War.

But elites like the Rockefellers financing opposing factions is hardly out of the ordinary. What’s more, Jewish financiers, like Brown Brothers Harriman and the Warburg bank, also financed the Nazi war machine. High Jewish finance does not discriminate, especially when its loans give it the ability to manipulate both sides in a dispute or, in Nazi Germany’s case, the war.

“Was Kinsey, like his Rockefeller patrons, unsure which side would win? Could he have thought that, if Hitler won, his ‘work’ would receive continued support, greater funds, and more opportunity? After all, psychopathic scientists, such as Kinsey, did well—unhindered—under Hitler. Additional information about Kinsey’s links to fascists and Hitler’s henchmen suggest much is hidden.”[2] Reisman speculates that the Kinsey Institute must have hidden files locked away that demonstrate Kinsey’s Nazi associations.

But radical leftists were booted from and/or persecuted in Nazi Germany. What makes Reisman think Hitler wouldn’t have tossed Kinsey out of Germany had he been there? Even Sigmund Freud, perhaps the true father of the sexual revolution, and his psychoanalysts didn’t survive the Nazi purges in Germany.

Reisman points to Kinsey’s collaboration with Nazi pedophile Dr. Fritz von Balluseck as more evidence of Kinsey’s crypto-Nazism.

“Indeed, Kinsey and his fellow WWII draft-dodging team feared public exposure for aiding and abetting a WWII Gestapo agent in his ongoing, even murderous sexual violence against children.”[3]

A poster advertising a presentation by Judith Reisman depicts Kinsey and the Nazis.

She also points out his collaboration with serial child rapist Rex King but does not mention King’s Jewish ethnicity.[4] (At some point, King was given the gentile pseudonym of Mr. Green.) Reisman accuses Kinsey of being anti-Semitic, despite his collaboration with King and despite Kinsey’s friendship with his highly connected Jewish lawyer Morris L. Ernst and Jewish sexologist Harry Benjamin. Despite the Ernst-Benjamin-Kinsey connection, Reisman claims that Kinsey refused to employ Jews. Kinsey also received support from New York Times owner Arthur Hays Sulzberger, a practicing Jew who not only gave Kinsey’s books prominent coverage in the press, he also helped secure financing for Kinsey as a board member on the Rockefeller Foundation. Reisman makes no mention of this seemingly strange association. And without a friendly Jewish press to promote Kinsey’s falsified research, it’s questionable that his books would have sold like they did.

Reisman’s claims about Kinsey, the Nazis, and homosexuality are echoed in the The Pink Swastika (Lively, Abrams 1995), which attempts to further demonize all Jew haters, particularly Nazis, as closet homosexuals. While it may be true that Hitler and the Nazis engaged in homosexual behaviour, it is irrelevant in the bigger picture. The book is a sort of neoconservative treatise targeted at “Judeo-Christians,” an oxymoronic term Reisman also frequently uses in Sexual Sabotage (2010). (Reisman references Nazis no less than 47 times in this book). Joseph M. Schimmel and Christian J. Pinto’s 2007 film The Kinsey Syndrome, in which Reisman participated, carries on the theme of Kinsey representing a Nazi-led sexual conspiracy against the West.

Kinsey was an admitted eugenicist, something that Reisman uses to further her Nazi case. But Reisman fails to reveal the heavy Jewish hand in the eugenics movement, which predates Nazi Germany.[5] Eugenics was certainly not an exclusively Nazi practice.

Reisman also heavily identifies with Jewish suffering in the form of the iconic Holocaust dogma of Judaism. And she doesn’t hold back when linking it with Kinsey and the sexual revolution.

“And while Hitler’s Gestapo and SS tortured, shot, hung, and gassed millions on their march toward world domination, the Kinsey lobby prepared a sexual revolution for Western Society.”[6] Reisman likens the subversive cartoons contained in Playboy, Hustler, and Penthouse to the political cartoons of Nazi Germany.

Where Reisman is forced to reveal the Jewish nature of the psychoanalytic movement, she simply refers to them as German or European. The implication then is that it is a fundamentally Nazi movement.

“…European sex ‘science’ radicals preceded Kinsey. For example, by 1895, the German homosexual movement had grown so rapidly that they were a major power lobby,” she writes.[7]

Reisman was born to German and Russian Jewish communist parents, something that would also predispose her to anti-Nazi, anti-nationalist sentiment.[8]

Who really was Kinsey?

On the exterior, Kinsey was neither a homosexual nor a revolutionary. He voted Republican as a capitalist (Christian raised), believed in restricting immigration, and even advocated eugenics. But on the inside, he was a tormented and possibly demonically possessed man, starting in early childhood. Kinsey engaged in self-torture (as a form of pleasure), other perversions, and likely serious crimes. He was a bi-sexual at best and a pederast and full-blown homosexual at worst. And according to U.S. Congress, he caused “incalculable” damage to the moral structure of American society with the publishing of his Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and the following female volume (1953).

As Kinsey matured on the outside, becoming an adult, he brought his perversions with him to Indiana University, where he became known as a perverted professor who would constantly harass and stalk men, and especially women, on campus for his so-called sex research.  Where Kinsey couldn’t obtain actual research on average Americans, which was the case most of the time, he allegedly used prostitutes, homosexuals, pederasts, pedophiles, and rapists—who provided the bulk of his data. The sexual revolution in 1950s America turned out to be based almost entirely on the habits of these sexual deviants, and not everyday Americans as most were led to believe.

The case for Kinsey as crypto-psychoanalyst

U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy and U.S. Congress viewed Kinsey and his sex research institute as communist insurgents and the furtherance of the Jewish psychoanalytic movement, fulfilling the words of psychoanalytic father Freud, who said the psychoanalysts were “bringing them [Americans] the plague.”

“Psychoanalysts think Kinsey’s work will advance the status of psychoanalysis by 50 years. I am inclined to think that it will change a good many things,” wrote Robert S. Morrison in his diary about Kinsey and his “research,” which was being given prominent coverage in the press. Morrison was associate director of the Medical Science Division of the Rockefeller Foundation, assistant to director Alan Gregg.

Psychoanalysis appears to be a Kabbalistic[9] black art, culminating in the victim being mind controlled and supplanted with false memories and/or ideas. Freud was a Zionist and Lurianic Kabbalist. Kinsey’s use of this black art managed to fool the entire American public into thinking average men and women were largely promiscuous, homosexual, and repressed wild animals. And like Freud, Kinsey would psychoanalyze (gather sex history) his colleagues and financial backers in order to control them, or blackmail them if necessary. Kinsey was every bit the charismatic cult leader that Freud was.[10] Another similarity between Kinsey and Freud was their views on “childhood sexuality.” Freud said that children were sexual but that it was latent until puberty; Kinsey took this further, saying children were completely sexual from birth. Even the Jewish founder of Playboy, Hugh Hefner, didn’t leave out Freud when he said Freud and Kinsey “have done more for sex than any other men who ever lived.” Hefner even recommends The Freudian Approach and The Kinsey Approach when trying to seduce a female virgin. At times, Reisman appears to defend her fellow Jew Freud in contrast to the monster Kinsey.[11]

Unfortunately, and not surprisingly, the good people in the Reece Committee (Select Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations, 1952-54), after years of trying, failed to shut down Kinsey and his institute of perversion, following a lengthy examination of U.S. tax-exempt foundations. The Rockefeller alliance with the already radically left-wing Jewish media proved to be too much, as did the Zionist control of then President Harry Truman, a 33rd degree Freemason. Ironically, Reisman admits that Kinsey had powerful allies in the media. But of course, we are supposed to believe the U.S. media then was Nazi-controlled, not Jewish-controlled.[12] She even goes as far as saying that the Rockefellers carried out a “media Blitzkrieg” to promote Kinsey and his work. Perhaps had Reisman known that the enemy wasn’t simply Nazis, assuming she was ignorant, she would have been better prepared when academia and the media attacked her research on Kinsey. (See overrepresentation of Jews in the sexual liberation movement)

Perhaps seeing the U.S. Congressional attempts to eradicate subversive homosexual elements as a threat to the greater goals of the psychoanalytic movement in which he was carrying out, Kinsey soon agreed to serve on an advisory committee to the communist Mattachine Foundation, an early gay rights organization co-founded by the Jewish Franklin E. Kameny, one of America’s most significant gay rights activists.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender activist Larry Kramer (Jewish) holding up a Kinsey Institute T-Shirt. Notice the Illuminist “6” beside the half hexagram. The Kinsey Institute’s current director is the Jewish Julia Heiman.

Kinsey may have shown disdain for Judaism as a religious institution as it relates to perceived moral restraint, but there doesn’t seem to be any evidence that he engaged in any anti-Semitism. And like Freud, Kinsey expressed his view that sexual repression (self-control) led to pathology.[13] University of California-Long Beach Professor of psychology Kevin MacDonald, perhaps Freud’s greatest modern critic, explains in The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (1998),“Many early proponents viewed psychoanalysis as a redemptive messianic movement that would end anti-Semitism by freeing the world of neuroses produced by sexually repressive Western civilization…. The cure for aggression characteristic of anti-Semitism was therefore believed to lie in freeing gentiles from their sexual repressions. Although Freud himself eventually developed the idea of a death instinct to explain aggression, a consistent theme of the Freudian critique of Western culture, as exemplified for example by Norman O. Brown, Herbert Marcuse, and Wilhelm Reich, has been that the liberation of sexual repressions would lead to lowered aggression and usher in an era of universal love.” (Pages 112-113).

Kinsey’s alleged anti-Semitism did carry with it the advantage of giving the sexual revolution in America a gentile appearance, following years of speculation that Freud and the Frankfurt School were part of a Jewish plot against the West.

“He has the temperament of a reformer rather than a scientist: fierily against hypocrisy and repressive law of every sort, censorship, etc., and against Judaism and Catholicism and Irishy,” writes Kinsey’s biographer James H. Jones. (page 611)  Are Jones and Kinsey ignorant of the Talmud? Or do they carry out the charade that Judaism is the same bastion of sexual morality that is Christianity?

Jones gives us some insight into his and Kinsey’s convenient ignorance of the highly sexually immoral Babylonian Talmud.

“Current sex offender laws, he (Kinsey) explained, were based on English-American common law traditions, which in turn were ‘a direct constitution of the Talmudic proscriptions on such activities and not the product of scientific judgments.’”[14]

MacDonald explains Freud’s strategic use of gentiles in the psychoanalytic movement.

“Deception is also indicated by the evidence that Freud felt that one reason psychoanalysis needed highly visible gentiles was because he viewed psychoanalysis as subverting gentile culture. After publishing Little Hans in 1908, he wrote Karl Abraham that the book would create an uproar: ‘German ideals threatened again! Our Aryan comrades are really completely indispensable to us, otherwise psychoanalysis would succumb to anti-Semitism.’ (in Yerushalami, 1991, 43).”

“Moreover, there were conscious attempts at deception directed at making Jewish involvement in radical political movements invisible by placing an American face on what was in reality largely a Jewish movement (Liebman 1979, 527ff). Both the Socialist Party and the CPUSA took pains to have gentiles prominently displayed as leaders, and the CPUSA actively encouraged Jewish members to take gentile-sounding names…. Despite representing over half the membership in both the Socialist Party and the CPUSA during some periods, neither party ever had Jews as presidential candidates and no Jew held the top position in the CPUSA after 1929. Gentiles were brought from long distances and given highly visible staff positions in Jewish-dominated socialist organizations in New York. Jewish domination of these organizations not uncommonly led gentiles to leave when they realized their role as window dressing in a fundamentally Jewish organization.” (MacDonald 1998, 111 and 94 respectively)

The powerful cabal that helped bring Kinsey to prominence likely saw him as the perfect gentile window dressing for the continuance of the Jewish psychoanalytic movement.

Kinsey, Freemasonry, and the Illuminati

Contrary to what Reisman leads people to believe, the sexual revolution didn’t start with Kinsey. Freud had an arguably larger and more influential role in the revolution, and according to author E. Michael Jones, the sexual revolution began in the 18th century when the Illuminati and Freemasons were gutting Europe of the Christian theocracy. Revolutionary Marquis de Sade (possibly Jewish but definitely an Illuminist), from whom we get the term “sadism”, was another key figure—possibly the pioneer of sexual revolution. And if Illuminism was largely a Jewish movement, then sexual revolution was a Jewish byproduct, helping to fulfill the Talmudic goal of bloting out the memory and name of Jesus Christ and the moralist standards attached to Him. Illuminists like the French Revolutionaries, Rockefellers, and the Frankfurt Schoolers have all played central roles in fomenting sexual revolution among the populations, yet Reisman has the sexual conspiracy beginning and ending with Kinsey and the Nazis. Ironically, Kinsey’s participation in the sexual revolution arguably began in 1948, the same year that Israel became an official nation.

Illuminist Aleister Crowley

It is not certain whether Kinsey was a Freemason; although, he was associated with many high level Illuminists. He had to be, in order to get the backing of the Illuminist Rockefellers and the support from the Illuminist-controlled press. Kinsey was untouchable even though there was clear evidence that he and/or his colleagues were sexually abusing children.[15]  Interestingly, the Kinsey Institute Logo, designed by David Enock in 1986, appears to be stylized after the Jewish star of Moloch (six-pointed star or hexagram). The Masonic square and compass itself was stylized after the hexagram. Then there is Kinsey’s association with high Illuminist Aleister Crowley. Kinsey allegedly went on a voyage seeking Crowley’s psychosexual occultist diaries.

The title page of Illuminist revolutionary Marquis de Sade’s Justine depicts the Illuminist triangle with the Cabalistic tetragrammaton. The Marquis de Sade was a key figure in the bloody French Revolution and also the father of Sadism.

Conclusion

While Reisman did likely pose a significant threat to the sex industrial complex during the Reagan Administration’s porn inquiries, she is also acting as a gatekeeper by not revealing the real movers and shakers in it as well as its pre-Kinsey history. Her intentions in exposing Kinsey appear to be sincere (Reisman’s daughter was the victim of a pornography-induced rape.[16]); however, it is difficult to believe that she is not aware of the leading role that Jews and Jewish organizations have played in the shaping of ideas of human sexuality in our culture. Her obsessive use of Nazism and the Holocaust in her works exposing Kinsey are nothing more than sensationalism and intellectual dishonesty. However, her work through the Justice Department analyzing and exposing the sinister nature of Kinsey, for example his child orgasm charts (tables 30-34, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male) as well as the resulting American Law Institute Model Penal Code, is impeccable, as is her work showing the negative effects of pornography on culture. It’s unfortunate that she hasn’t expanded the scope of her investigations. Perhaps she did but chose not to reveal it. Perhaps she is ashamed of the work of her revolutionary parents.

Alfred Kinsey appears to have been a psychoanalyst in the tradition of Freud and other Judaic sexual revolutionaries. There is no evidence that he was conspiring with some Nazi agenda to subvert Western social mores. History shows that the Nazis persecuted psychoanalysts and sexual liberationists; therefore, Kinsey could not have been taking direction from them. But her certainly fell in line with the eugenic goals of the Protestant WASP ruling class of his time. We are only left with the Frankfurt School and the Jewish New York Intellectuals, through the Rockefeller Foundation, as providing Kinsey’s direction.

[1] Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, 1st Books Library, Second Edition, 1998, p. 55

[2] Judith Reisman, Sexual Sabotage: How One Mad Scientist Unleashed a Plague of Corruption and Contagion on America, 2010, p. 336

[3] On Kinsey’s German, Nazi Pedophile Aide; The New York Times Asks: “Alfred Kinsey: Liberator or Pervert?” http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/2007/02/on_kinseys_germ_1.html

[4] Judith Reisman, Sexual Sabotage: How One Mad Scientist Unleashed a Plague of Corruption and Contagion on America, 2010, p. 29-30

[5] `Do not have children if they won’t be healthy!’ Haaretz, Tamara Traubmann Nov. 6, 2004 – http://www.haaretz.com/do-not-have-children-if-they-won-t-be-healthy-1.124913

[6] Judith Reisman, Sexual Sabotage: How One Mad Scientist Unleashed a Plague of Corruption and Contagion on America, 2010, p. 59

[7] Ibid, p. 171

[8] E. Michael Jones, Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control, 2002, St. Augustine’s Press, South Bend Indiana, p. 571

[9] David Bakan, Sigmund Freud and the Jewish Mystical Tradition, Free Association Books, 2004

[10] Judith Reisman, Sexual Sabotage: How One Mad Scientist Unleashed a Plague of Corruption and Contagion on America, 2010, p. 52-53

[11] Ibid, p. 174

[12] Ibid, p. 71-72

[13] Ibid, p. 44

[14] James H. Jones, Alfred C. Kinsey, A Public/Private Life, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 1997, p. 619

[15] Judith Reisman, Sexual Sabotage: How One Mad Scientist Unleashed a Plague of Corruption and Contagion on America, 2010, p. 55