November 26, 2015 Anno Domini
Michael 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?
In 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.
(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.
One 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.
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.
It 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.
(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!