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….