Right-wing Catholic media—gatekeepers for masonic anti-Catholic hate industry

By Jude Duffy
Dec. 9, 2018 Anno Domini

In 2007, Cardinal George of Chicago responded to calls from organised Jewry for the Catholic Church to abandon  its prayer for the conversion of the Jews, by suggesting that the Jews themselves might consider removing anti-Christian passages from the Talmud (I). A short time later, Cardinal George found himself accused of “covering up” sexual abuse in his diocese. As coincidences go, this is right up there with former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook dying suddenly weeks after writing in the Guardian that “Al Qaeda” was just another name for the CIA’s Arab assets (2).

Predictably, right-wing traditional Catholics saw nothing fishy about the timing of the accusations against Cardinal George. Traditional Catholics, you see, are avid tinfoil hat coincidence theorists, and never see anything fishy about media targeting of Catholics. Like these media, they long ago abandoned the very traditionally Catholic principle of innocent until proved guilty, and are more than happy to play the role of Judas goats leading committed Catholics to the New World Order slaughter.

But hang on, I hear you say, surely the traditional Catholics are right to blast the Church over its cover-ups of heinous crimes? Well, yes, when the crimes have been proven in a court of law – not, as in the case of the recent Pennsylvania hysteria – when most of the cases have never been tried at all.

There’s an absurd contradiction at the heart of traditionalist denunciations of bishops and the “Catholic establishment” over the clerical scandals: in many of the cases they condemn the bishops for “covering up”, it is the bishops and their bureaucrats who have summarily found priests – living and deceased – guilty, without a proper investigation – much less a trial – ever having taken place. Thus, on the one hand, the trad Catholics unquestioningly accept the utter nonsense of men and women who have no authority or expertise whatsoever to adjudicate on criminal matters, pronouncing the guilt of priests who have never been tried in a court of law. Then the same trads hysterically chimp out about the bishops and bureaucrats “covering up” the crimes of priests – when the only authority they have to substantiate these priests’ guilt is the word of this same Catholic bureaucracy.

So which is it? Are the bishops and Catholic bureaucrats corrupt enablers or not? And if they are corrupt enablers, why do trads take their completely unqualified pronouncements of priests’ criminal guilt as the legal equivalent of holy writ?

It’s safe to say that most folk, including most Catholics, know nothing, and couldn’t care less about the “Catholic traditionalist movement”. But that doesn’t stop this “movement” exerting a subtle, defeatist influence on the wider Catholic culture. Indeed it’s not going too far to say that if the Catholic trad movement didn’t exist, the globalists would have had to invent it. Then again perhaps they did.

Take Malachi Martin, a great hero to Catholic traditionalists in the 1980s and 1990s. An Irish Jesuit, Martin wrote a series of books decrying the modernist takeover of contemporary Catholicism. Surprisingly, given their radical right-wing conspiracist content, these books always found mainstream corporate publishers.

Maybe though it wasn’t such a surprise after all. Though he modestly kept it to himself throughout his latter day career as a super-trad Catholic, Martin, knew the anti-Catholic conspiracy from the inside. According to Robert Keiser, Time magazine’s correspondent at the Vatican Council in the early 1960s,  Martin received large sums of money from  the American Jewish Committee to use his influence to get the Council to alter Catholic teaching on the Jews – teachings which up to that point had held the Jews (the religion, not the race) culpable for Christ’s crucifixion. Keiser also alleged that Martin seduced Keiser’s wife, using the funds he received from the AJC (3) .

Martin still has his defenders within Catholic traditionalism, but no one seriously disputes that during the Council, writing under the name ‘Michael Serafian’, he laid the blame for historical anti-semitism directly at the door of the Catholic Church – thus echoing the anti-Catholic discourse of the Judeo-Masonic establishment of B’nai Brith and its offshoot, the ADL (4).

In the 1970s and 1980s, Martin re-invented himself as a fierce traditionalist Catholic critic of post Vatican II liberalism in the Church, but even in this role, he often hinted at distinctly un-Catholic facets to his character. The Canadian Catholic traditionalist, Bernard Janzen, conducted a series of taped interviews with Martin in the mid 1990s, in one of which Martin claimed to be personally acquainted with elite New York Satanists, whom he extolled as highly respectable men “whose word was their bond” ( see ‘The Deep Descent’: Malachi Martin interviewed by Bernard Janzen: Triumph Communications). Maybe Martin was indulging in Mitty-esque fantasies, or maybe he really did hobnob with Satanists, but either way his statements should have led Catholic trads to treat his narratives about the Church and the world with caution.

Not a bit of it. Far from shunning Martin, trads exalted him to the status of a modern prophet – the more lurid his tales of Satanism and rampant homosexuality in the higher echelons of the Church the more they lapped it up.

What was Martin’s game? Surely a Zionist/Masonic anti-Catholic agent in the Church would espouse liberal modernism rather than traditionalism? Not necessarily. In truth, the Church’s enemies viewed the capture of the conservative and traditionalist wings of the Church as the grandest prize of them all, since they knew that many practicing Catholics saw liberal-left Catholics as CINOs – Catholics in name only. A Judas goat can’t lead the lambs to the slaughter if they know he’s a Judas goat. Just as crypto-Trotskyist Neocons took over the right-wing political parties of most western nations by posing as hardline anti-communists, Neocon Catholics took over both the conservative and tradtionalist wings of the Catholic Church by posing as old-school anti-modernists.

Hence in the 1990s, Zionist oligarchs bought up conservative Catholic publications such as Crisis in Catholicism (renamed ‘Crisis‘ at the oligarchs’ insistence), and turned them into Neocon propaganda journals (5). In 2005, the former editor of the Catholic New Oxford Review, Dale Vree, revealed that a Jewish businessman had offered to fund his publication on condition that it promoted Neocon foreign policy and neo-liberal economics (6). Even in Ireland, the right-wing Catholic magazine, The Brandsma Review, mixed articles promoting the Latin Mass and conservative social policies with arguments in favour of mass immigration, support for the Iraq War, sanctions on Iran, and Israel’s 2006 invasion of Lebanon. By the early ‘90s, so called conservative Catholic journalism had become Neocon occupied territory.

By the same token, EWTN, the Catholic religious TV network, has close ties to Freemasonry via the Knights of Columbus (7) – ties reflected in the station’s de facto ban on any criticism of either Protestantism or Masonry.

The Neocon Catholics  and the Remnant style trads had their differences – mostly over Pope John Paul II (the Neocons loved him, the trads were less than keen) but tellingly the one thing they always agreed on was that dissent from the media’s version of the Catholic clerical sex abuse scandals was forbidden.

Indeed if anything defines the modern right-wing Catholic media, it is the unswerving principle that Catholics must never even imply that Zio-media coverage of the scandals is in any way anti-Catholic or disproportionate. How very fortuitous for those who hate the Church, to have the most ostensibly hardcore Catholics of them all singing from the same Masonic anti-Catholic songbook as the Southern Poverty Law Centre and the New York Times. What greater example of full spectrum dominance could one find in the modern world?

Significantly, in recent years the trads and the Catholic neocons have drawn much closer together. Thus, Austin Ruse, a Catholic convert and arch-Neocon, who once called the Zionist war criminal George W.Bush, “America’s first Catholic President” (8), recently expressed strong support for traditionalist attacks on the Catholic hierarchy.

Another raving Neocon, Elizabeth Yore, writes hysterical tirades attacking the Church over the clerical scandals for traditionalist Catholic outlets like The Remnant, and regularly appears in similar Catholic bashing vein on EWTN’s current affairs show “The World Over’, hosted by Raymond Arroyo. Yore, it should be noted, boasts of being a former “children’s advisor” to pro-abortion New Ager Oprah Winfrey, and used to work for the UN – an organisation not renowned for a blameless record when it comes to the exploitation of children.

Like Yore, Raymond Arroyo – in the company of his fellow Neocons Fr Gerard Murray and Robert Royal – habitually denounces the Church over the clerical scandals, but slavers like the proverbial lovesick puppy in the presence of trashy Hollywood celebs – which, if nothing else, indicates that his outrage over institutional tolerance of sexual abuse is rather selective. An unabashed Israel Firster, he has also outspokenly defended British and U.S.  torture of War on Terror prisoners, and vitriolically denounced the Obama administration’s lifting of sanctions on Iran.

As with their Neocon political counterparts, the pioneers of Neocon Catholicism often turn out to have distinctly left-wing pasts: The late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, a convert form Lutheranism, and advisor to war criminal George W Bush, was a left-wing activist in the 1960s, while the late Michael Novak, another EWTN favourite, led the American liberal left Catholic dissent against Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul’s 1968 encyclical condemning contraception.

EWTN these days spends much of its time urging Catholics to masochistically cheer on the secular media’s anti-Catholic hate campaign, but no one on the network ever mentions, much less condemns the MSM’s longstanding cover-up of paedophile rings in the secular establishment and Hollywood, just as no one queries why these corporate outlets suppress all news about sexual abuse among rabbis and clerics of mainline Masonic Protestant denominations.

When the British police stated that accusations of sexual abuse against late former British Prime Minister Ted Heath and other U.K. political big-wigs were highly credible, the same media that portray every accusation against Catholic clerics as self-evidently true ferociously attacked Heath’s accusers as paranoid fantasists. Quite incredibly some right-wing “Catholic” outlets joined in the smear campaign (9).

Anyone who believes sexual abuse is a predominantly Catholic problem lives on Planet Zog. In his memoir of his childhood, ‘Surprised By Joy’, C.S. Lewis recalled that at the English Protestant boarding school he attended in the early 1900s, sodomy of pre-pubescent boys by adult males was insitutionalised – and the chief topic of conversation in the school (10). After his death, Lewis’s brother, Warnie, who attended the same school, posthumously rebuked C.S. for blackening their school’s reputation – not because he denied that sodomy of children described by C.S Lewis went on there, but rather because he had discovered in conversations with officer colleagues in the British army, that most British boarding schools were much of a muchness in this regard (11) .

Don’t, however, hold your breath waiting for the MSM – or indeed the curiously philo-Protestant Catholic right – to call for inquiries into historical sexual abuse at Anglo-Protestant schools or institutions.

As for the trads themselves, they have shown themselves to be very quick learners when it comes to regurgitating the Neocon anti-Catholic script. Not so long ago The Remnant regularly published pieces championing the writings of Fr. Denis Fahey and Fr. Edward Cahill, two 20th century priests famous for their critiques of Judeo-Masonry and Anglo-Protestant Masonry. Even though both men insisted that racial hatred against Jews was gravely sinful, and that ordinary Jews were themselves victims of the machinations of Judeo-Masonry, the modern liberal elite have long excoriated these priests as raving anti-semites.

In 2007, the Southern Poverty Law Centre put The Remnant on a hate map of the US (12), after which The Remnant never mentioned Fr Fahey and Fr Cahill again, and its editor Michael Matt had a $20,000 security system installed in his home to protect against attacks from Antifa. A prudent precaution on his part no doubt, but notice how the trads – with just cause – fear the thuggery of the rabidly anti-Catholic far left, but yet actively collaborate with these thugs and their globalist sponsors to reduce the Catholic Church’s name to mud. If that isn’t religious Stockholm Syndrome, what is?

A couple of years after the SPLC debacle, Matt and his lawyer sidekick Christopher Ferrara both wrote articles excluding those who had any truck with “wacky conspiracy theories” about things like 9/11 and the JFK’ murder, from membership of “the traditionalist movement” (13) – thus formalising Catholic trads’ role as right-wing gatekeepers for the anti-Catholic Zio-establishment. Apparently, anti-Catholic conspiracy theories are the only conspiracy theories trads will tolerate these days.

Not to be outdone, the once very radical traditionalist critic of modern globalism, Robert Sungenis, deleted all conspiracy and anti-Zionist content from his site a few years ago, in response to pressure from Zionists; In an exchange with Dr. E. Michael Jones in Culture Wars magazine, he argued that given the scandalous behaviour of Catholic clerics in recent times, Catholics no longer had any right to point the finger at Jewish tribalists or other non-Catholics over the state of the world (14).

How very convenient: if you can’t beat the globalists, join them in bashing the Church. After all, unlike the globalists, the Church doesn’t lock you up for hate crimes and doesn’t send Antifa goons to hurl bags of urine and HIV infected shit at you. To paraphrase Stalin, how many divisions of masked thugs armed with mace and diy flame-throwers does the Pope have?

It’s one thing to refrain from telling the whole truth for reasons of worldly prudence—a stance which may or may not be justified depending on circumstances—but quite another to side with the sworn enemies of the Church as a form of displacement activity.

 

The Remnant regularly bans contributors from its forum’s comments who take issue with the unrelenting psychic driving media hate campaign against the Catholic Church over the clerical scandals but happily publishes on the same forums the most lurid anti-Catholic smears imaginable – stuff that makes 19th century crazed Papist bashing of the Masonic Know Nothings and the Ku Klux Klan seem mild by comparison. But once again, the robot-like trad punters lap it up – gaslighted as they are to believe that the authenticity of one’s Catholic traditionalism is measured by how relentlessly one hammers the post-conciliar Catholic Church.

As the Welsh Protestant academic Philip Jenkins noted in his book ‘Paedophiles And Priests’, 19th Century crypto-Masonic sects such as the Know Nothings, the Klan, the Orange Order, and the American Protective Association, sought to portray the Catholic Church as a den of perverts in much they same way as the media and liberal establishment do today (15); the crucial difference these days being that Catholics on left and right noisily collaborate in this relentless black propaganda war against their own religion.

The trads and the Neocon Catholics endlessly whine about the ghastliness of the Francis papacy (if papacy it be) but it never seems to occur to them that their own adolescent scorched earth approach to “cleansing the Church” might be to blame for the weakness of modern popes and bishops. After all, why should any pope or any prelate fight the Zio-globalists when they know for a certain fact that to do so will place them in the firing line of the MI5/Mossad hatchet men – folk who have an impressive facility to conjure from nowhere scandals implicating enemies of the NWO? They also know for a certain fact that when this happens, the armchair counter-revolutionaries of the trad movement will be the first to throw them under the bus, a la Cardinal George.

Much of the old-school traditionalist critique of the modern Church – as articulated by the late Archbishop Lefebvre and lay activists such as the late Hamish Fraser – had great merit. The problem is that today’s generation of Catholic trads often behave like half-baked teenage punks, yearning for the modern Church to be destroyed in pursuit of some juvenile idea of “purification”. They never get around to explaining how this much smaller “purified” Church they claim to be fighting for will escape the same relentless secular onslaught that is laying waste to great swathes of the Catholic world right now. After all, their own less-than-heroic antics today don’t fill one with optimism that they will be a match for the forces of the NWO.

Another late great Catholic traditionalist writer, Solange Hertz, once observed that modern Catholic traditionalists tend to suffer from a virulent form of lay clericalism, devoting most of their energies to issues they have no authority to resolve- such as Church governance – while declining to engage with their true province – secular politics. In other words, trads don’t know how to mind their own business.

Alternative types may not like hearing it, but it is far from happenstance that the massive intensification of the cultural revolution in the last two decades has coincided with the huge loss of authority the Catholic Church has suffered on foot of the abuse scandals. Everything, from the rise of transgenderism to Neocon wars to immigrant invasions of the West can be traced back to this spiritual and cultural calamity. Like it or not, the Catholic Church is the locus of moral authority in the world.

Maybe, therefore, it is time both the trads and David Icke style Catholic bashers tried for once to honestly answer the key question in all of this: why, if the Church is such a corrupt and powerful arm of the establishment, do the globalists devote so much of their energy to seeking to destroy its standing?

Notes available on request.

Dirty secrets of the Jewish Kabbalah

Below is video of probably the most revealing and rare exposés of the demonic Jewish Kabbalah, which constitutes the core of the New World Order conspiracy—the conspiracy against Christ and His Church. This is an in-depth four-hour series. I have not seen it anywhere else on the web. If you like the above graphic, please share it through social media, email, or other. Please also share the documentary linked below.

Secrets of the Kabbalah Revealed:

Part I

Part II

A response to Father Michael Ruskin regarding the Russia deception

Anti-Christian Soviet propaganda. Perhaps this rendering has dual meaning. On one hand, the Soviets portray the church as a religious snare, but on the other hand, perhaps they are crytpically telling Russians of the Soviet control of the Patriarchate of Moscow.

The following is in response to comments made by Father Michael Ruskin of Christ the Saviour Antiochian Orthodox Church of New Zealand to my open letter on the Russia deception.

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
July 5, 2018 Anno Domini

Dear Father Michael,

Your sobering reminder about the daily battle within ourselves is without a doubt the most important battle in our day-to-day lives. The Holy Scriptures warn us that the ultimate struggle is not with flesh and blood but with things of the spirit. How correct this is.

But let us realize that communism and its subsidiaries are not merely physical and political constructs with which to enslave humans beings. They are deeply spiritual—so much so that Patriarch Tikhon died to protect his flock from its spiritual perversion, not just its physical oppressiveness. It is not called “Godless communism” without good reason. In hindsight, Tikhon was justified in moving the Church into the catacombs, as the resulting Marxist churches (permitted by Lenin and the Soviets) that sprang up in both East and West (Vatican II) would evolve and attempt to replace the true one, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Prior to its Marxist infiltration, the Vatican also issued grave warnings about the communist threat. The Eastern and Western Churches were in complete agreement on this. But where are these warnings in the new Sovietized churches? No where. They don’t exist. Communism/Marxism is no longer a threat, they have us believing.

Is Putin doing anything more than Lenin in permitting the existence of the Sergian church in Russia and its subsidiaries in the West? Where is the rebirth of authentic Orthodoxy in Russia today? Shouldn’t this be reflected in Russia’s statistics, which have sky-high abortion rates, broken families, and essentially the same problems as the “evil” West? How many Russians even know of the Catacomb Church? In truth, both Putin and Lenin are responsible for the rebirth of the orthodox church—a Soviet mongrelized church. Patriarch Kirill follows the Sergian line of illegitimate succession, it seems. And lo and behold, Kirill is “former” FSB. During the Red Terror, the Soviets created schisms within the true Church and even honeypot “anti-Soviet” traditional churches to lure the flock to their deaths. How can we be sure Putin will not (perhaps he already has) do the same? Golitsyn claimed in the 1980s-90s that the crypto-Soviet power would offer concessions to the Church—effectively gambits—as part of its long-range strategy to woo social conservatives. And this is exactly what happened. In the following quote, Golitsyn speaks of the subversion of the Church.

“It fails to understand that greater apparent official tolerance of religion in the Soviet Union is accompanied by a secret drive to increase Party and KGB penetration of the Catholic and other churches and to use agents therein for political and strategic purposes inside and outside the Soviet Union. As part of the programme to destroy religion from within, the KGB, in the late 1950s, started sending dedicated young Communists to ecclesiastical academies and seminaries to train them as future church leaders. These young Communists joined the Church, not at the call of their consciences to serve God, but at the call of the Communist Party in order to serve that Party and to implement its general line in the struggle against religion.” (pg. 116, The Perestroika Deception)

Brother Maurice Pinay spoke in the 1960s of the same phenomenon of subversives entering the Catholic priesthood. It seems the same has happened in the Orthodox Church. Both Kirill and the Bishop of Rome, Pope Francis, are ecumenists who espouse communist views. This only corroborates Golitsyn’s warnings.

Golitsyn narrows down Russia’s false democratisation plot and concludes with,

“It is, however, a false, cosmetic liberalisation. For example, the alleged religious relaxation is a spectacle produced and managed by the KGB and the high priests of the church who are KGB agents assigned to fulfill the strategy…In the present phase, secret agents in the Catholic and other churches are being used to implement Communist strategy. When they achieve their Communist world victory, they will use mass withdrawal of their agents to disrupt and destroy the churches. Never in its history since Nero has Christianity faced such a threat of possible destruction. The dictum of the late Pope Pius XII about the incompatibility of Communism and religion is as correct as ever. The Vatican should reaffirm this dictum and should use its influence and its ‘divisions’ to defend Western values from the new Communist assault. (pgs. 189, 116-117)

Keep in mind that Golitsyn said all of this long before Kirill became patriarch. Can you honestly say to yourself that it’s a mere coincidence that the “tobacco” metropolitan happened to be pulled from communist ranks of the KGB?

The idea that the Russian Federation is the last bastion of Christian orthodox theocracy and, therefore, must defend itself is a wonderful one, but it does not stand under scrutiny. Firstly, many proponents of this perceived Russian-theocratic state point to the number of NATO military bases surrounding Russia as an indication that Russia is not an aggressor but is, instead, only acting defensively. But they can’t seem to explain how this supposedly superior Western-led NATO military occupation couldn’t manage to stop Russia from annexing Crimea, much less retaliate. Aside from a few show sanctions imposed by then U.S. President Obama (a secret communist himself) and other Western nations following the annexation, we didn’t so much as see a budge from a single NATO tank in response. Why? The only two conclusions one can come to is that NATO and the West are not militarily superior to Russia and her allies or, worse yet, the two sides are in on the charade together. Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty has been invoked only one time, following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks—provoking a Western-led military campaign in which Russia acted quite passively, even endorsing the U.S. narrative of things. Is NATO really anything more than just a show army designed to trick Westerners into thinking the communist threat is being dealt with while the threat actually becomes stronger? I fear this may be the case, especially seeing as the Soviet plan involves dismantling NATO by subversion, not by guns—the same way the Church is being co-opted.

In the spirit of Lenin and his living student Aleksandr Dugin, defenders of Russia point to the infectious moral decay of the West and how this legitimizes Russia’s social and geopolitical manoeuvrings. While this is true about the West’s moral decay, these defenders don’t seem to be asking themselves what the motive is behind these charges. It’s one thing to point out immorality from a Christian perspective but quite another to point it out for strategic reasons. Is Russia portraying the West as evil because it is truly evil or is it doing so to weaken its morale? I can’t count how many Westerners I have seen cheering on Russian (Soviet) penetration of the West thinking it will destroy globalism. How ironic and twisted. These same also fail to acknowledge the large Soviet hand in furthering the moral decay of the West. Soviet penetration of Western governments is one thing, but when you have Soviet penetration of the education system, it becomes all the more obvious how we got to where we are today. The Western counter-culture revolutions of the 1960s were largely hatched in the Soviet Union. Are we supposed to forgive and forget all of this because the media has shouted from every rooftop that communism has fallen? And why should we trust the media, when it is part of the morally decayed West? Think about how we learned of the fake collapse of communism: from Western media. If the “evil” West truly hated “orthodox” Russia, you would think they would have been a little more prudent in assessing the validity of the purported fall of communism. Why was it immediately accepted without any kind of investigation? The crypto-Soviet empire of Russia is playing a classic globalist dialectic of creating the problem: cultural Marxism in the West, and offering the solution: neo-Bolshevik one worldism led by Russia.

Father Ruskin, you claim that the European Union is collapsing of its own volition, but consider that Europe’s largest economy resides in Germany, whose head Angela Merkel happens to be a “former” Soviet. It’s reasonable to say that Germany sets the tone for the EU. All Russia would have to do to manipulate the EU is have at least one rogue EU state under its control; although, I am sure it’s actually more than just one. Germany fits this hypothesis. It could be said that Merkel is the single biggest saboteur of EU migration norms. With Merkel being a communist in the service of the crypto-Soviet Union, it seems that “Russia” is leading the campaign to de-Europeanize Europe. Yet, we are being told the opposite by Western Russophiles. Is it just a coincidence that Dugin’s Eurasian utopia concept is consistent with Kalergi’s Pan-European utopia?

As for Putin’s so called social conservatism, Russia recently has just had its first legal same-sex marriage. Russia’s decades of strategic corruption of Western mores has finally returned to its master. It’s now only a matter of time. And blaming the West will be invalid, as the Soviet Union was pretty much the birthplace of the sexual revolution. In their occultic vision, the serpent’s head has reached its tail.

Your concluding statement, “It’s drawing a long bow to suggest they resurrected the Church to lull us into a false calmness before deceptively overwhelming us,” describes what Golitsyn explains as failed Western analysis of the Soviet threat. And as the above quotes show, this is exactly the kind of sophisticated enemy with which we are dealing. This is not about fearing the Kremlin and its diabolical plans but about discerning it…in righteousness.

Respectfully yours,

Timothy Fitzpatrick

Michael Hoffman’s infatuation with Protestantism

By Jude Duffy
November 26, 2015 Anno Domini
Part I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part II
Part III