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.

Former evangelical-turned Orthodox priest destroys evangelicalism

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

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

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

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

*To be updated as new podcasts become available

Michael Hoffman’s infatuation with Protestantism

By Northsider
November 26, 2015 Anno Domini
Part I

Untitled-1Michael Hoffman, the revisionist writer, clearly regards it as one of his missions in life to shift blame for the rise of “Christian” usury from Protestantism to the Catholic Church. In many articles and books Hoffman has asserted that Protestants, specifically Calvinists, have been unjustly scapegoated for usurious hegemony in the west. Hoffman’s method of argumentation on his website and elsewhere is to simply ignore facts that don’t support his thesis of Protestants as radical foes of usury. Thus he ignores or downplays the huge and well documented role of Calvinists and other Protestants in the rise of modern industrial usurious capitalism – a role modern Protestants and philo-Protestants not only admit, but brag about (1). He also ignores, or attempts to explain away, some central facts of post-Reformation history, such as, for example, the rise of great usurious Protestant capitalist powers in the centuries after the Reformation.

For example, Britain as a fanatically Protestant polity, became the world’s leading usurious industrial power in the post-Reformation age. Moreover overseas territories settled by Protestant Britons likewise eagerly embraced usurious capitalism (2). In this context it must be noted that since the Whig sponsored Dutch Orangeist conquest of England, it has never had a Catholic monarch or Prime Minister.

Anglo-usury and Anglo anti-Catholicism went together. The United States, another capitalist superpower with a long history of anti-Catholic persecution and discrimination, only got its first Catholic president in 1960, and we know what happened to him. The all-pervasive hatred of Catholicism that characterised both the British Empire, and to a lesser extent, the U.S., makes the idea that some form of subtle or subliminal Catholic influence explained these nations’ fervent embrace of state-sponsored usury bizarrely far-fetched.

Why, in any case, would Protestants, especially radical Protestants, obediently follow the lead of the hated Papists in something so fundamental, especially since the whole point of the Reformation was revolt against Rome? The question gains even more force when one remembers the central pivot of Hoffman’s thesis: the notion that during the Renaissance the Catholic Church broke with the teaching of the Medieval Church on financial matters, and that disgust at Catholic financial corruption partly drove the Protestant “reformers”. How likely was it that Protestants who rebelled against Rome, in part because of perceived financial corruption, and who repudiated apostolic succession and many ancient dogmas of the faith, would blindly sign up to a new anti-Christian financial dispensation, simply because their religious arch-enemy had already done so? If they revolted so violently against ancient teachings of the hated Papists, and went on an iconoclastic altar and statue smashing rampage across great swathes of Europe to prove the point, why on earth would they eagerly embrace newly minted Catholic teachings – unless, that is, such alleged new teachings dovetailed with their own materialistic agenda?

hoffman2In an exchange on his blog, Hoffman noted that when Calvin endorsed usury, several prominent Puritans, including John Cotton, reproved him. Far from admitting the obvious implication of this statement, which is that the founder of the most successful radical Protestant sect decisively broke with the anti-usury traditions of Christendom, Hoffman attempts to argue that it proves the anti-usury outlook of many radical Protestants.

Not only is this highly disingenuous – Calvin defined the spirit of radical Protestantism far more than John Cotton did – but it also points to a more profound misapprehension on Hoffman’s part. He seems to be believe that the tendencies of Reformation and post-Reformation radical Protestantism can be illustrated simply by citing anti-usury writings and sermons of some prominent Puritans. Thus is if a prominent New England Puritan like Cotton condemns loan-sharking, this for Hoffman proves that the Puritans cannot be blamed for the rise of usurious capitalism. This is grossly simplistic on several levels.

First of all condemnations are one thing – actions are quite another. When it comes to the Catholic Church, Hoffman attaches no credibility whatsoever to the post-Renaissance Church’s many condemnations of usurious capitalism and freemasonry. According to him, all such condemnations amounted to nothing more than cunning and hypocritical ploys on the part of Rome, to disguise its true occultist-usurious agenda. On the other hand he takes all the statements by early Protestant leaders condemning usury or Judaic corruption completely at face value – even when they come from the mouths or pens of men such as Luther, who condoned all forms of sin including lying, and enthused about occult practices such as alchemy (3). Emotionally and spiritually, then, Hoffman is anything but a detached unbiased scholar when it comes to evaluating the merits of post-Reformation Catholicism on the one hand, and early Protestant movements on the other.

Another problem with cherry-picking anti-usurious or anti-Judaic statements of early Protestants is that this type of reductionism often fails to take note of the underlying trends at work in historic political or religious movements. For example, if most 1960s liberals had been asked what they thought of same sex unions, the vast majority of them would have said they deplored such a grotesque idea, and that social conservatives who suggested otherwise were simply scare-mongering. Indeed as recently as 2012 Barack Obama claimed to be opposed to “gay marriage”. Yet when the American Supreme Court ratified this evil sham in June 2015, the U.S. President celebrated by lighting up the White House with the colours of the LGBT rainbow flag. Revolutionary movements aren’t always open about what their true endgame is, and sometimes aren’t even sure themselves, so their past statements are by no means an infallible guide to their future actions.

Hoffman himself spots subtle “gradualism” everywhere where Rome is concerned, but ignores much more glaring examples of the phenomenon in the history of Protestantism. Thus he cites Pope Leo’s Papal Bull “Inter Multiplicis” as beginning the gradual process of abandonment of the Catholic Church’s prohibition against usury, but denies that Calvin’s much more definitive embrace of usury played a decisive role in the rise of loan-shark hegemony.

Unfortunately for his thesis, the historical facts speak for themselves. Protestant and Jewish families shaped the modern financial system in Britain and its dominions (including Ireland), and in the U.S., Prussia, Switzerland, Scandinavia and elsewhere. Even in predominantly Catholic nations like France, Protestants were at the heart of usurious banking. The rhetorical hostility of certain Puritans to usury does not in any way negate the huge role radical Protestants played in the rise of the usurious state, any more than the opposition of certain traditionalist Anglicans to “women priests” proves that Protestants have had no truck with feminism.

The Reformation unleashed forces which at least some of its devotees neither encouraged nor desired, but as with early social liberals, this in no way absolves the reckless “reformers” from blame for the predictable consequences of their revolutionary pride. That pride made it inevitable that greed and the love of money would follow in the wake of their revolution.

The usurious spirit cannot be divorced from liberal pridefulness generally – it is interwoven in the fabric of modern post-Catholic culture. If love of money is the root of all evil it is because money facilitates the commission of all other sins Rebellious pride was at the very heart of Protestantism from Luther to Henry VIII to Thomas Cromwell, from to John Calvin to Oliver Cromwell. That incidentally is why Whiggish Neo-conservatives, including pseudo-Catholics like Michael Novak, are such philo-Protestants: they grasp, in a way that seems to completely elude Hoffman, that the Reformation was the beginning of the modern revolutionary capitalist age. Those early Protestants who condemned usury did so because they still lived in post-Catholic post Medieval culture, just as the 1960s liberal who condemned sexual promiscuity, or abortion on demand, still lived in a world informed by vestigial Catholic morality.

Yet another problem with Hoffman’s approach to evaluating early Protestant statements on usury is his own definition of Puritanism. There is more than a touch of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy at work here, whereby Hoffman defines a Puritan as any radical Protestant who happens to meet his definition of what a good Christian should be. Thus when objectors point out that many Protestant denominations directly descended from Puritan sects – Congregationalists, low church Anglicans, Unitarians, and so on – pioneered a worldly liberal approach to moral issues, including usury, Hoffman blithely denies that such sects have any claim on the Puritan name (4). He adopts a similar form of circular logic in attempting to address the incontestable evidence that many of the pioneering usurious banks in Britain, New England, Geneva and elsewhere were owned by Calvinists or Puritans, or their descendants. A Puritan in his parlance is simply the type of Protestant who agrees with him on religious, political questions.

For example he says that to accuse Puritans of liberal tendencies is to adopt an “elastic” definition of Puritanism. But Puritanism WAS elastic in most matters religious – apart, that is, from its hatred of Catholicism. Modern Whigs revere Oliver Cromwell because, like them, he loathed the Catholic Church, but not so paradoxically also embraced an early form of ecumenical liberalism, and tolerated many Protestant sects – ranging from Anglicans to Independents to Presbyterians and Unitarians – sects that disagreed with each other on many things, but shared a deep hatred of Catholicism. In other words liberals find Cromwell a congenial figure because his religious views don’t differ significantly from their own, and can be summed up as “ARBC” – Any Religion But Catholicism”.

The political and social authoritarianism of early radical Protestants should not blind us to this truth: Puritans were elastic in terms of religious dogma, but nonetheless deeply inflexible towards those who challenged their spiritual and political authority. In this they foreshadowed the modern left and the modern Neo-cons, who change their mind on a sixpence, but are utterly ruthless in their repression of dissent. Not so very long ago Communists persecuted homosexuals as bourgeois degenerates; now their hard left ideological descendants persecute critics of homosexual “marriage” as hate criminals. Like communism, with which it shares certain traits, Puritanism never lacked in fervour and authoritarianism – what it lacked was any coherent concept of moral and spiritual authority.

Notes:

(1.) Lagrave, Christian, “The Origins of the New World Order”, Apropos Journal, No. 29, Christmas 2011. This invaluable essay (translated from the French original), lays bare the pivotal role of British Reformation and post-Reformation Protestantism in the development of the NWO. As the late great Solange Hertz used to say: when it comes to tracing the roots of Judaeo-Masonic global tyranny, “all roads lead to London”.

(2.) Anger, Matthew, Chojnowski, Dr. Peter, Novak, Fr. Michael, “Puritans Progress: An Authentic American History”, Angelus Press, 1996. The role of Protestants in the rise of Anglo-American usurious capitalism is glaringly obvious; so glaringly obvious that it’s well nigh impossible to take seriously an argument based on denying or downplaying this central fact of American history. Furthermore writers such as the late Professor Anthony Sutton have documented just how steeped in occultism and corruption the Anglo-Protestant self-anointed “elite old-line” American families were and are. See his book, “America’s Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Skull & Bones”, Liberty House Press, 1986.

(3) Muggeridge, Anne Roche, “The Desolate City: Revolution in the Catholic Church.” Harper, San Francisco, 1985.  For more on Luther’s proto-Reichian sexual revolutionary tendencies, see also Dr E. Michael Jones 1993 Ignatius Press book, “Degenerate Moderns; Modernity as Rationalized Sexual Misbehaviour”.

(4) In an exchange with the author on Hoffman’s blog, “On The Contrary” in May 2015, Hoffman categorically denied that any Protestant who endorses sexual libertinism can legitimately be called a Puritan. In truth at the time of the Reformation, Catholics viewed the “Reformers” as dangerously indulgent on sexual matters. Hoffman is correct in saying that the idea of  the Puritans as strait-laced dour ascetics is a distortion, but it’s a distortion that, in a certain measure, works in Protestantism’s favour – tending as it does to obscure just how much the original Puritans had in common with modern liberals. If the Puritans were “joyless”, that joylessness stemmed from their materialist rationalism, rather than from the stringent nature of their creed.

(5.) Fahey, Fr. Denis, “The Mystical Body of Christ In The Modern World”, Browne & Nolan, Dublin, 1935. Even in an overwhelmingly Catholic country like Eamonn de Valera’s Ireland (over 95 per cent Catholic in those days), all of the major financial institutions were in the hands of Protestants or Jews. The same applied to most big commercial and industrial concerns, and to the Irish media. The role of exiled French Huguenots in advancing the Industrial Revolution, and in the rise of British usurious banking is well known – although, to the best of my knowledge, Hoffman largely passes over it.

(6) Lagrave: In his aforementioned essay, “The Origins of the New World Order”, Lagrave quotes the Scottish historian/philosopher David Hume’s description of Cromwell as in practice a religious “indifferentist” when it came to the various Protestant sects – a man who sought to form a united anti-Catholic international front of all the denominations, regardless of their doctrines. Indeed, such was his indifferentism many continentals believed him to be a Freemason. Whatever the truth here, it is certain that Cromwell’s policies dovetailed uncannily with those of “the Craft”. In modern times Neo-cons and other Zionist stooges on left and right are the most ardent members of the Cromwell fan club. Tony Blair keeps a bust of the vile old hypocrite on his desk. Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised at one mass murderer revering another.

Part II
Part III

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.

Satan is LGBT!

“At the heart of hermeticism lies androgyny”

27300baphomet

By Timothy Fitzpatrick

9781891396953_p0_v1_s260x420A lot can be gleaned from 19th century French occultist Alphonse Louis Constant’s depiction of Baphomet in Dogme et Rituel de la Haute Magie (Dogma and Ritual of High Magic), a treatise on ritual magic. First, we see that the androgynous Baphomet, an incarnation of Lucifer or perhaps some other fallen angel, has breasts, and most likely a penis of some sort, although we can’t say for sure. But the double helix definitely indicates some kind of phallus representation.

The gods’ (fallen angels, led by Lucifer) hermaphroditism is the result of their supposed alchemical transformation, which they are currently imposing on the masses through large-scale homosexual indoctrination, commonly referred to in the Western world as LGBT (Lestiban, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender)—and soon to be, LGBTPB, with pedophilia and bestiality added to these supposed “sexual orientations.” André Nataf writes, in The Wordsworth Dictionary of the Occult (1988),

At the heart of hermetism lies androgyny. Androgyny or hermaphroditism is an awareness of one’s bisexuality and is the ultimate goal of the alchemist’s search. All the disciplines grouped under the general heading of hermetism or occultism—magic, alchemy, initiation, etc.—suppose that the human being, once he is rid of his innermost darkness and lack of understanding, realizes that he is bisexual. This bisexuality is what enables him to relate to other people and the universe. From this point of view, the hermaphrodite symbolizes bisexuality controlled, refined, and harmoniously integrated.

There it is, plain as day. Did you notice the occult view of heterosexuality in the above passage? Darkness. The prophet Isaiah warns the flock:

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Isaiah 5:20, Greek Septuagint (Old Testament)

The Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality and sexual perversion, in all of its variations, is unequivocal. Only a church compromised by Satan himself (itself) would teach otherwise.

The Baphomet, Satan incarnate, could be all four elements of the LGBT dogma, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered, since we don’t really know what it is. It is the perfect spokesman for the gay lobby and the hidden force behind this exploding moral perversion. Another thing Constant’s (his alchemical Hebrew name is Eliphas Levi, but apparently isn’t Jewish by blood) Baphomet depiction reveals is the kabbalistic nature of Lucifer and his fallen ones. The right hand pointed up indicates the path of white magic (as above) while the left hand pointed down indicates black magic (so below)—the kabbalistic concept of a unified dualism (the Hegelian dialectic is also an occult concept of dualism). This concept, exemplified in the Yin and Yang symbol, lies at the foundation of virtually every religion but Christianity. Christianity stands out in its specifically monistic concept of the universe (see Privatio Boni). Unlike the occult, which teaches that good and evil are two sides of the same coin, Christian theology holds that evil is not substance but the lack of good and truth. 1 John 1:5 tells us that “God is light, and in Him there is no darkness.” (The 16th-century heresy of Calvinism, engineered by crypto-Jew John Calvin and his Judaic cohorts, is occult subversion of Christian theology.) St. Augustine of Hippo wrote, “what are called vices in the soul are nothing but privations of natural good. And when they are cured, they are not transferred elsewhere: when they cease to exist in the healthy soul, they cannot exist anywhere else.” This is because there is no life or sustenance in darkness.

9780877280798On the cover of Constant’s Dogme et Rituel de la Haute Magie is the following Judeo-Masonic hexagram, also depicting the Kabbalistic concept of a unified dualism (as above, so below):

Sealsolomon

Judeo-Masonic Illuminati Hollywood is out in full force externalizing Satan’s alchemical homosexualism to the masses. Below is singer Lady Gaga, who many believe is an hermaphrodite and who claims she is “born this way” even though science has never revealed a homosexual gene, striking an obvious kabbalistic pose in the fashion of Constant’s Baphomet.

Lady Gaga Baphomet

Nataf’ continues with the occult perversion of sexuality,

In sexual magic, or in alchemy, the hermaphrodite represents the orgasm, which, in turn, represents the universe, created by and in the act of love. In magic, the hermaphrodite, freed from customary human sexual polarity, represents the state of purity in which occult work may take place. It should be noted that black magic, with its techniques of alienation, aims to obscure the (potential) state of hermaphroditism.

Clearly, homosexuality isn’t merely a means for the Illuminati power structure to destabilize and depopulate the planet, although this is an added benefit. Homosexuality is the goal and aim of Luciferianism. Homosexuality is Luciferian indoctrination—Satan’s vainglorious alchemical transformation of God’s creation.

LGBT gay conspiracy Jewish

Illuminati Agents – Series IV

Kicking things off is Alex “Judas Goat” Jones, who was recently outed by Ms. Sherrie Lea for hiring a former Stratfor employee, Molly Maroney, adding to growing speculation that his media empire is a Mossad/CIA honeypot and part of a Project Mockingbird psyop.

Illuminati agents-Alex Jones Stratfor-Maroney

More and more, the pseudo-environmental movement is being used by the Illuminati to achieve their aims of excessive taxation (outlined in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion), land grabs, and a cashless society, electronic control grid. This illustration features Zionist technocrat Ray Kurzweil, a leading cheerleader of the totalitarian “smart” grid, as well as green movement founder Maurice Strong, the United Nations architect of what later became Agenda 21.

Illuminati agents-technocracy-agenda21-kurzweil-strong

And finally, thanks to the work of people like Mr. E. Michael Jones, the Illuminist/Cabalist roots of the Protestant Reformation are becoming well known. These are three of the major players who helped shape the Protestant Reformation in Europe and England: John Calvin (a Cabalist whom many considered a crypto-Jew or at least a demi-Jew), Jan (John) Huss, the butcher who led the Hussite rebellion, and Zionist John Wycliffe, the result of the Jewish-Masonic takeover of England during the reign of Queen Elizabeth.

Illuminati agents-Protestant-Reformers-Wycliffe-Huss-Calvin