Evidence of vote fraud in Irish gay marriage referendum

By Northsider
December 12, 2015 Anno Domini

Michael Hoffman’s infatuation with Protestantism – Part III

Irish referendum fraudIt should go without saying that no sane Catholic would deny the problem of child abuse among Catholic clergy – and the even larger problem of “ephebic” abuse (around 80 per cent of the convictions of Catholic priests for sexual offences involved adolescent youths – a fact almost never mentioned by liberal pro-homosexual critics of the Church). The real argument is not that Catholic bishops have no case to answer, but that the singling out of the Catholic Church over clerical sex abuse is a particularly poisonous reheating of ancient Zio/Protestant/Masonic black legends. Hoffman himself frequently complains, with plenty of justification, that the corporate media ignore the huge scandal of rabbinical abuse, but he himself, in common with the corporate media, ignores the many cases of clerical abuse in Protestant denominations – abuse that plenty of Protestants – to their credit – have condemned the media for deliberately suppressing (1). If one were to read only the corporate media, one might assume that only Catholic clergy had ever been found guilty of abuse of children and adolescents; if one were to read only the Protestant fan-boy Hoffman, one would assume that only Catholic AND Jewish clergy had been found guilty of such abuse.

Like most Trads, Hoffman accepts without question the official results of the May, 2015 Irish “gay marriage” referendum – another example of how much faith he places in mainstream narratives – as long they don’t very directly impinge on questions relating to the Jews and the state of Israel. To put it bluntly, anyone who takes the results of Irish referendums at face value clearly doesn’t know much about the systemic corruption of Irish politics – or western politics generally. To cite just a few examples of this corruption:

A chance recount in the 2009 Irish European parliamentary elections in a west-of-Ireland constituency revealed that 3,000 votes had been taken from a pro-Palestinian, anti-EU activist and given to a much more pro-establishment, pro-EU candidate. The count took place in Castlebar, the heartland of the deeply corrupt rabidly pro-abortion, pro-homosexual Irish Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Enda Kenny. The really revealing thing about this scandal was the (non) reaction to it on the part of both the Irish media and the Irish Garda (police). The following day’s Irish Times newspaper noted the “misallocation” only in passing, and the state broadcaster RTE (“Rothschild Televised Effluent”) ignored it completely. According to the candidate who was the victim of this clear attempt to nobble the election, the Irish police refused his repeated requests to investigate the matter. It must be stressed that this fraud came to light completely by happenstance – a sombre fact that raises the question of just how many other attempts to nobble the voting process have gone unnoticed – and thereby succeeded.

In 2011, RTE’s tele-text service correctly stated the outcome of the Irish Presidential election several hours before voting had stopped, even though the opinion polls a day before had put the rabidly left-liberal winning candidate between 15 to 20 points behind a much more socially conservative rival. This weird phenomenon of television and radio broadcasters announcing the correct result of elections, hours, days, or even weeks, before voting has taken place, will be familiar to Americans acquainted with Jim Condit Jr.’s research on U.S. electoral fraud.

In the 2009 re-run of the Irish EU Lisbon Treaty referendum, there was an extraordinarily uncanny 20 per cent swing from the anti-treaty side to the pro-treaty side in EVERY SINGLE CONSTITUENCY. Video footage of the referendum count centre in Cork City on the night after voting had ended, showed a man walking out of the count centre with a ballot box tucked under his arm! No police, security checks, or supervision of any kind was evident at the centre, and people walked in and out of the building as they pleased – even though it was in the small hours of the morning, and the goods in the hall (the ballot papers) could not have been more politically and constitutionally significant – not just for Ireland, but for the whole of Europe (Ireland was the only state, the constitution of which necessitated a referendum on the Lisbon treaty – if the result had been NO for a second time, the Lisbon Treaty, aka the European Union Constitution, would surely have died). The same lack of supervision was true of other count centres throughout Ireland.

Alone among western nations, Ireland insists, for reasons that have never been questioned, much less explained, in delaying the counting of votes until the day after voting has taken place. Almost all other states begin counting votes minutes after voting has ended. If you want to rig an election or referendum, having 12 hours to play around with definitely helps.

In a transparent attempt to explain away the unlikely nature of the same-sex marriage (SSM) referendum result, the Irish media made the utterly outlandish claim that 100,000 young Irish emigrants made the journey home in order to vote for the proposal. This is preposterous – about as likely as suggesting that fifty million young Americans would travel home from abroad to vote in the final of American Idol. The idea that young Irish people would go to the enormous trouble and expense of travelling home from often insecure jobs in far flung locations such as Australia, New Zealand, the U.S. and Canada, to vote in this farce, in itself goes a long way towards proving that the vote was systematically rigged. Moreover, workers at Dublin Airport, whom I have spoken to, readily confirmed to me that there was no unusual spike in the number of Irish travelling home in the days leading up to the referendum.

The Irish Garda (police force) and the Irish Law Society both took an openly pro-SSM stance. Both of these bodies are mandated to be above politics, and both are – in their different ways – crucial to the integrity of state procedures such as elections and referendums. Yet both openly flouted constitutional norms in order to support the SSM proposal. If that is not a recipe for systematic fraud, hidden in plain sight, what is?

The SSM vote was only one of two referendums taking place that day. The other referendum related to changing the law to lower the age when Irish citizens could stand for the Irish Presidency – from 35 years of age to 18. That proposal was defeated! So, if, as the Irish and international media claimed, it was young people voting in droves that delivered the SSM victory, one would have expected a similar victory for the other referendum proposal. Why would “progressive-minded” young people, of the type who would vote for SSM, vote to bar themselves from standing for the presidency of their country until they reach middle-age?

The official results from Ireland’s hard-core working-class constituencies indicated an astonishing 90 per cent vote in favour of the SSM proposal. Anyone familiar with the Irish working class knows that they tend to be “homophobic” for reasons that have little or nothing to do with organised religion, so the idea, touted by everyone from the New York Times to the Remnant, that the vote could be explained as a rebellion against the Church simply doesn’t wash.

International oligarchs such as Chuck Feeney and George Soros poured billions into the Irish pro-SSM campaign. Where did all that money go? Postering and leafleting cost next to nothing in a small country like Ireland. Does the real money trail lead to the purchase of holiday villas and new cars by referendum officials, police officers, and others charged with overseeing the integrity of the Irish voting process? Anyone who has read Brian Nugent’s book about Irish state corruption, “Orwellian Ireland”, would say that such a scenario is far from unlikely.

In a way, Hoffman’s facile response to the Irish referendum official result brings us to the crux of “the Hoffman problem”. The huge evidence of vote fraud throughout the West should make every professed media sceptic or “revisionist” extremely cautious about drawing conclusions based on the results of referendums or elections – not just in Ireland, but pretty much everywhere. Only last week, Nigel Farage, the leader of the British “Euro-sceptic” party, UKIP, called the result of a by-election in north-west England “perverse” – and hinted strongly that the election had been rigged. The pro-Palestinian campaigner and bête noire of British Zionists, George Galloway, made similar allegations of fraud in relation to his own loss of a huge majority at the last British general election. Many Britons believe the Zio-Tory victory in that general election was down to carefully co-ordinated rigging in several key constituencies. By the same token, Russian election monitors stated categorically that the Scottish Independence Referendum of 2014 was likewise rigged.

Yet Hoffman finds it much easier to question the integrity of the Catholic Church’s many historical condemnations of Freemasonry, than to question the integrity of the actions of the Freemasons themselves in the here and now. His relentless attacks on the Catholic Church are not the product of detached sceptical scholarship, but of irrational hatred, and perhaps some irrational love – of Protestantism – as well. There IS a case to be made that the institutional Catholic Church had begun compromising with the New World Order well before Vatican II, but someone who seeks to whitewash the corrupt and subversive influence of the Protestant Revolution is the very last person to make that case. If the pre-Vatican II Church can be blamed for anything, surely it is its undue cosiness with usurious-Judaeo-Protestant regimes.

Part I of this series
Part II

Notes

(1) “Garda Union Urges Members To Vote Yes In Referendum”: http://www.independent.ie – April 21, 2015.

(2) Baroness O’Loan “appalled” at Garda referendum intervention” – IrishTimes.com – April 30 -2015.

(3) “Ombudsman Reviews European Vote Investigation”: http://www.villagemagazine.ie – April 2, 2010.

(4) “Vote Manipulation in Ireland in Run-up to Lisbon 2 “: http://WWW.youtube – Sep 22, 2009.

(5)” Irish Referendum Count At Cork City Hall”: http://WWW.youtube – October 7, 2009: This short video exposes the complete lack of supervision at one of the major vote counting centres for the crucial rerun of the Irish EU Lisbon Treaty referendum of 2009. It should be noted that the outcome of this referendum had vital implications, not just for Ireland, but for the whole EU integration project.

(6) “Ballot Box Problems, Broken Laws Cast Doubt on Irish Lisbon Referendum Result.” corbettreport.com – 8 October 2010.

(7) “Lisbon Referendum in Ireland Was Rigged”: The Tap Blog – Oct 5, 2009.

(8) “Democracy is dead” says UKIP leader, as Labour take 100% of postal votes surge in one area” – http://www.express.co.uk – Dec 5, 2015.

(9) “Farage claims “perverse” Labour win in Oldham” – http://www.express.co.uk – Dec 5, 2015.

(10) “Oldham by-election: Police could be called in to investigate complaints about Labour victory.”: http://www.telegraph.co.uk – Dec 4, 2015.

(11) “Whitehall in denial over extent of UK election fraud, says Eric Pickles.”: http://www.the guardian – August 13, 2015.

(12) “Here is how the Election in the UK was rigged.” http://www.youtube – May 8 – 2015. For further information on the huge potential for vote fraud in the UK, watch the interview between Ian R Crane and Brian Gerrish, on Crane’s website, The Crane Report. In it both men discuss the extraordinary fact that the brother of a very senior member of the British Tory Party, Peter Lilley, runs the firm that controls the postal voting system in the UK. It should be noted that Crane and another leading British anti-EU activist, David Noakes, have both said the 2009 Irish Lisbon referendum was definitely rigged. Indeed Noakes says he believes that the first 2008 Irish Lisbon referendum was also rigged – by 20 per cent, and when that didn’t work they rigged the second one by 40 per cent.

(13) Petition: Rerun the Rigged 2015 UK election.

(14) “SNP Election Landslide Proves Referendum Was Rigged, Claims Russian Official”: http://www.herald.scotland.com – May 10, 2015. This Russian election official wasn’t being wise with hindsight. Russian monitors at the Scottish referendum stated at the time that the vote had been rigged; the election result seven months later only served to add much more weight to their allegations.

(15) Scotland Independence Vote Rigging Exposed”: http://www.youtube – 19 Sep, 2014.

(16) One news item I was unable to locate on the internet, in spite of a very exhaustive search, was a report that appeared in most major Irish newspapers in 2008, in which the then Irish Taoiseach (Prime Minister), Brian Cowen, was caught on a live mike in the Irish Dail (parliament) referring to the leader of the Fine Gael opposition party and his colleagues, as “Freemason f…ers”. Quelle surprise, a short time after this episode, Cowen was deposed as leader of the then governing Fianna Fail party in a palace coup – orchestrated with the help of the British intelligence controlled Irish media. The man he referred to as a Freemason f…er, Enda Kenny, became Irish Taoiseach in 2011, and following last Friday’s Irish general election, it looks likely that he may assume the same role in the next Irish Dail – albeit with a reduced number of parliamentary colleagues. Kenny’s coalition government has not only legalised abortion and SSM – it has also imposed a Rothschild/Goldman Sachs regime of draconian austerity, and has further exacerbated Ireland’s massive immigration problem. Irish media reports about Cowen’s “Freemason f…er” outburst have clearly been very comprehensively deleted from the internet. Indeed a few years ago, when I searched for this intriguing item, I could find only one reference to it, and that was in a local newspaper in New Zealand (!). Even there however, the f word had been expurgated – not the expletive f-word I hasten to add – the “freemason” word!

Philo-Protestant lies about usury; paedophilic hypocrisy

By Northsider
December 7, 2015 Anno Domini

Michael Hoffman’s infatuation with Protestantism – Part II

Protestant usuryOne of the most celebrated Puritans in history, the 17th century English poet John Milton, advocated no-fault divorce, one of many historical facts that completely refute the notion that radical Protestant liberalism is a purely 20th or 21st century phenomenon. C.S. Lewis, no philo-Catholic, acknowledged that in so far as the Reformation was a struggle between rigour and laxity, the Catholics were the rigorists, the Protestants the liberals.

Calvin’s own radical departure from traditional Christian views on economic and financial matters couldn’t be clearer: he explicitly endorsed usury and thus broke completely with the traditional Christian teaching on money (9). Hoffman attempts, quite absurdly, to muddy the waters by citing the Catholic Fuggers’ usurious activities, and certain Catholic theologians’ partial endorsement of usury. In so doing he ignores the crucial fact that neither the Fuggers nor such theologians formed the Magisterium of the Catholic Church – whereas Calvin very obviously defined the spirit and letter of Calvinism. The clue is surely in the name.

Hoffman argues that the Pope Leo X bull permitting limited interest on loans for charitable purposes, not Calvin’s teaching, was what really opened the floodgates to usury (10), though he never gets around to explaining why, if this is so, it was the great Protestant powers, Britain, Holland, Geneva, and latterly the U.S., where usurious capitalism really took off.

John Calvin

John Calvin

Regardless, of how one, with hindsight, views Leo’s bull on a prudential level, it was anything but a ringing endorsement of usury, but rather a partial and very tentative derogation in response to special circumstances. It may have been a foolish compromise with the usurious spirit, but the unpleasant truth is that most of us compromise in some way or other with the usurious spirit every day. Hoffman himself accepts donations through usurious financial institutions – in fairness he might not be able to carry on his work if he did not.

Hoffman argues that the failure of Cromwell’s effort to allow Jews en masse back into England proves that the conventional old-school Catholic critique of Cromwellian Puritanism is unfair. But again this is to engage in facile historical reductionism, whereby the context of history is ignored in favour of extracting isolated facts for use as debating points. Thus, while it is true that Cromwell didn’t succeed in allowing the Jews into England, it cannot be seriously argued that he did not plan to do so (11) or that the Puritans were not, in general, extremely philo-Judaic by the standards of the time (12).

In fact, the rise of “Anglo-Saxon Protestant” supremacism resembled Jewish racial supremacism in many ways – the very term White Anglo-Saxon Protestant” having its roots in crypto-Judaic national exceptionalism. The “Anglo-Saxons” were not especially Anglo-Saxon – recent DNA studies of the indigenous English population confirm what many serious historians and genealogists have known for years: that the English share more genetic heritage with the French than with the Germans (13). But like Zionists and German National Socialists, British Protestants invented an ersatz form of racial jingoism to justify genocide, enslavement, and persecution.

Like other philo-Puritans, Hoffman acknowledges that the Puritans were much more concerned with activity in the world than with contemplation, but he fails to see the implications of this fact for his attempt to portray these radical Protestant sects as at least partial inheritors of the true spirit of medieval Christianity. No medieval Catholic would exalt work and action over contemplation. The Catholic Church has always taught that prayer and contemplation are far more vital for salvation than economic activity in the world. When that order of priorities is reversed, as it was in much of Europe and the “Anglo-sphere”, in the centuries after Reformation, the stage is set for the triumph of vulgar materialism. One of Mrs. Thatcher’s economic gurus, the former Communist Sir Alfred Sherman, poured scorn on the large number of Spaniards in monasteries and convents during the Counter-Reformation era, in contrast to the “economic dynamism” of Protestant Europe.

This notion, that Protestantism brings in its wake dynamic modern progress, and commercial and industrial enterprise – as opposed to the rural reactionary stagnation of Catholicism – has been a recurring theme of Whiggish Protestant historians for centuries (the Whiggish philo-Judaic Victorian historian, Lord Macaulay being a famous example). Some corporate media commentators have even suggested that it is not coincidence that four of the five countries at the centre of the E.U. financial “crisis” were Catholic – Ireland, Italy, Spain and Portugal (the other one being Orthodox Greece). They may have a point: it may be no accident that Catholic countries should be the first on the hit list of larcenous City of London and Wall Street bankers.

It might sound like a curious thing to say about a holocaust revisionist, but Hoffman is in some ways quite a conventional thinker, all too happy to accept corporate mainstream media versions of events if they can be made to dovetail with his own prejudices. In this, ironically enough, he resembles the Traditionalist Catholic movement – a recurring target of his ire. Just as Traditionalist Catholics in general accept the media version of the Catholic abuse scandals without investigation, Hoffman does likewise, albeit for very different reasons. Whereas “Trads” embrace the media scandal narrative because they foolishly believe it can be made to vindicate their own critique of the corruption of the post-Vatican II Chruch, Hoffman does so because he thinks this narrative vindicates his own philo-Protestant dislike of post-Renaissance Catholicism.

Significantly neither he nor the Trads seem remotely interested in independently investigating (A) the reliability of the many allegations made against Catholic priests or religious, or (B) the context of the scandals. For example, in a recent piece on his blog Hoffman cites one of the many anti-Catholic books published about Catholic clerical abuse in Ireland, and suggests that the horrific revelations contained therein “apparently drove the Irish people mad” and led them to the ignominy of being the first nation to vote for sodomitic “marriage”. This piece encapsulates Hoffman at his worst: unbalanced diatribes based on uncritical regurgitation of highly dubious “facts” from ideologically tainted sources. Moreover, like the Trads, he never seems to consider the possibility that the pattern of cause and effect he identifies is far from happenstance.

Or to put it another way: an unbiased commentator would surely recognise that it is highly far-fetched to suppose that the anti-Christian media and media class suddenly discovered a selective horror of clerical paedophilia just at the time they planned to unleash an extraordinary intensification of their onslaught on vestigial Catholic culture. There is a familiar pattern here which every reflective person should recognise. Just as western media attacks on Saddam, Milosevic, Assad, and Ghaddafi preceded massive military attacks on these regimes, the relentless media blitz against the Catholic Church preceded a cultural Marxist version of Shock and Awe, whereby rabidly anti-Christian propositions, that a few short years previously had been confined to the outer fringes of the far left, were targeted successfully at the mainstream of respectable society.

Unbiased investigation quickly reveals that that many – although by no means all – of the allegations of sexual crime made against Catholic priests and religious remain to this day completely unproven. This is because, contrary to the corporate media line that Hoffman faithfully echoes, Church authorities, for reasons best known to themselves, handed over many billions of dollars/sterling/Euros, without any proper investigations of allegations – often in cases where priests and religious had been deceased for many years, and were therefore in no position to defend their good name (18). Furthermore, both Church and State authorities deemed accusations “credible” on the very flimsiest of circumstantial evidence, e.g., an accuser having lived in the same town as the accused at the time of the alleged offences.

But in the simplistic crypto-punk outlook of Hoffman and the Trads, the undeniable corruption of the modern Church makes every allegation against a Catholic priest credible, and therefore in no need of unbiased investigation – even when there were and are compelling religious (or anti-religious), political, financial, and cultural motives for blackening the name of Catholic clergy.

It should be noted that when it comes to World War II, Hoffman abhors his own logic. In that context he freely admits that Hitler was indeed a war criminal and “one of history’s prize fools” but argues that these facts in no way vindicate all the charges of systematic genocide laid at his door.

Incidentally, while we’re on the subject of revisionism, one of the ironies of the on-going anti-Catholic feeding frenzy is that Protestants like Dr. David Duke recognise it for the co-ordinated Zionist psy-op that it is, whereas the Catholic Hoffman – not to mention the Catholic Trads – refuse to see what’s staring them in the face.

It would be remiss to write on this subject without noting how the Zio-masonic media and political establishment treat genuinely credible allegations of paedophile rings in their own milieu. Since 2012, many senior public figures in Britain, living and deceased, have been accused of paedophilia. Some have already been sent to prison for such offences. Very recently, allegations of child abuse against former British Prime Minister Ted Heath made it into the mainstream media. Most of that media, including the BBC, implied that these were completely new allegations, and that Heath’s accusers were cynically taking advantage of the fact that he was no longer around to defend himself.

As anyone with even a passing acquaintance with the so-called alternative media can testify, this is complete bunkum. Regardless of one’s view of David Icke, it is a matter of public record that he publicly challenged Heath (in the Guardian newspaper) to sue him over precisely the allegations that many in the media are now dismissing as cowardly posthumous attacks on the reputation of the “asexual” former Prime Minister. Strangely the notoriously combative Heath declined to take up Icke’s gauntlet. The point here is that the same media which accepted without any reservation every allegation made against Catholic priests and religious, living or deceased, seem far less eager to form lynch mobs where pillars of the secular masonic establishment are concerned. Indeed many media outlets have viciously character-assassinated the alleged victims of establishment paedophile rings.

By the same token, many of the media that have obsessively pursued the Church on the issue of paedophile clergy, have themselves been deeply and very directly implicated in the cover-up of paedophile networks. The BBC, a deeply corrupt organisation that has broadcast endless hit pieces on the Church, not only covered up paedophilia in its own organisation, but actively facilitated the notorious child predator Jimmy Savile, by continuing to employ him as host of audience-based children’s TV shows long after his criminal proclivities were widely known.

(Editor’s note: Footnotes to come)

Part I of this series

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

Fallacies of the Jesuit conspiracy theory

Untitled-1

 Part I

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
February 3, 2015 Anno Domini

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

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

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

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

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

*a note on semantics

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

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

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

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

Eric Jon Phelps Cointelpro Zionist 2

Key individuals promoting the Jesuit conspiracy meme

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

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

Common fallacious arguments of the Jesuit conspiracy meme

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

Nazi propaganda phamplet condemning the Jesuits.

Nazi propaganda phamphlet condemning the Jesuits.

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

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

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

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

Protestants Rewrite Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

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

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

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

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

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

[vii] Ibid.

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

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

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

[xi] Ibid. p. 13.

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

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.