Below-copied by ap submitted, but CENSORED/deleted by kike, Unz, at comments,
http://www.unz.com/tsaker/the-great-...ional-zionism/
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Hoffman's Lies, Lying About History And "Usury,"
Borne Of Sheer Ignorance, Pretension
(Apollonian, 24 Mar
19)
Folks: Mike A. Hoffman has transformed over the yrs into a
full-fledged Pharisaic-styled liar and outright mystic moron--he's LOST the
meaning of Christianity which is simply worship of truth (= Christ, Gosp. JOHN
14:6) against satanic lies and lying, Jews (JOHN 8:44) the foremost liars and
satanists, such Christian truth directly implying the objective reality which
gives meaning and substance to truth, reality being the necessary reference for
any truth.
Jews, defined as followers of Pharisees and Talmud (distinct
fm Judeans, the people who lived in Judea at time of Christ, only 5% of whom
were followers of Pharisees, the middle-class party), rather hold to "midrash"
and "Oral Law Tradition" (SUBJECTIVISM) by which Torah is INTERPRETED, meaning
then ONLY what rabbis say it means, according to their "midrash"
(interpretation), this "midrash" depending then upon what is "good for the Jews"
and against the gentiles (humanity) who are hated by Jews as simple matter of
course and dogma--gentiles to be made slaves, upon whom Jews are to
parasitize.
Thus Hoffman now wants to pretend no one can criticize Jews
but for Hoffman himself--as if Hoffman owns the Jews by his putrid, mysticism
and virtue-signaling "moralistic" putridity and pretension. Just listen to
(read) all this nonsense and psycho-babble by Hoffman in his (above) comment #
111. And remember further that the "Church" is simply the people--TOTALLY DIFF.
FM that bureaucracy of parasite officials and charlatans which we now call the
"Vatican." The "Vatican" (and officials) ARE NOT NOT NOT same as the
"Church"--never forget that.
Note then there is serious problem for what
the very word, "usury" really means--ESPECIALLY if it is to connote something
objectionable. For if "usury" is truly something objectionable, it couldn't
merely be the charging of interest--for there's nothing wrong w. charging of
interest. And remember, charging of interest is simply a matter of CONTRACT and
agreement btwn individuals--there could be nothing wrong w. such "interest"
unless there was some fraud or coercion involved. And simple historical fact is
that the increasing business of late medieval and Renaissance times couldn't
have occurred without the natural charging of interest which made lending and
borrowing more feasible among the people.
Note further that if there's
competition among businessmen for the borrowing of (relatively) scarce
money--real money, like gold/silver--then the charging of interest makes perfect
sense to everyone, the lender naturally preferring the customer willing to pay
the competitive price, other conditions being equal. And this practice of
lending to and among business people was historically what was evermore taking
place during the late medieval, early Renaissance time in question, don't
forget.
Thus ALL BUSINESSMEN AND BANKERS understood the NECESSITY of
charging interest, given the business conditions, and it was simply idiotic for
the "Vatican" bureaucracy (NOT THE "CHURCH") to stand in the way of economic
life and necessity for charging of interest--the "Vatican" looks stupid and
foolish pretending to dis-approve and condemn what all the business people KNEW
had to be done (charging of interest), and which was being done by everyone
ANYWAY. It was the "Vatican" bureaucracy which found soon enough they had to
change their moronic dogma regarding "interest"--or they (the "Vatican"
charlatans) would simply pass into ever greater ridicule and
irrelevance.
Another relevant side-note to consider is that "Vatican" and
its personnel were intimately involved w. their own banking, lending, and buying
and selling activity--they knew perfectly well the problems of the "usury"
prohibitions which could obstruct otherwise legitimate activity among the
people.
It's far more likely that "usury," understood as something
objectionable, most probably referred to "central-banking" and "fiat-currency"
(see Mises.org; use their search-engine) which "currency" is artificially
produced in place of real, commodity-based money, like gold/silver, which is
FINITE in amount, currency being practically INFINITE (literally legalized
counterfeiting), constantly issued, thus fraudulently losing value per unit as
the amount issued is ever-increased, the people despoiled and impoverished who
are forced to using such currency--as we see in this very day.
Upon this
fraudulent currency, note it doesn't matter if "interest" is charged or not--the
currency system will necessarily collapse as the "inflation" continues,
regardless of interest charging. Thus the blame of "usury" is falsely put upon
charging of interest, rather than the fraudulent issuance of "currency" (fake
money--legalized counterfeiting) in place of real commodity-based MONEY, like
gold/silver.
Such then are the real facts and circumstances regarding
money, banking, charging-of-interest, and "usury." Hoffman is simply the typical
moralistic Pharisaic, obsessed w. pretending to pushing his virtue-signaling,
imagining he is "better," more "moral" and "virtuous than others w. this
nonsense and brainless clap-trap about "usury," etc. Can thou imagine the
hellish lives of this fool, Hoffman's children, of whom I understand he has
about ELEVEN--those poor kids, having to endure such a fatuous, brainless,
pretentious fool as parent. Lord have
mercy.
--------------------above by ap in response to
below-copied--------------------
# 111, Michael Hoffman says: •
Website
March 24, 2019 at 3:49 pm GMT • 500 Words
@Digital
Samizdat
Still, it is rather clear that under the Presidency of Donald
Trump the US influence and power in the world have declined truly dramatically –
so much for making anything at all “great again”.
Actually, if ruining
The Empire’s image is the best we can get out of Trump, I’ll still take
it.
BTW, does anyone else here see an inconsistency in the following two
statements:
As for the Papacy, it has been in bed with Talmudic and
Kabbalistic rabbis for many centuries (just read Michael Hoffman’s superb book,
the 700 pages long “The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome”) and not just since
Vatican II (as some Latins naively believe!).
If it weren’t so ugly and
tragic, it would actually be funny (especially to see the Latins and the
Talmudists in bed with each other after centuries of mutual hatred).
So
when exactly did the “Latins” first hop in bed with the Talmudists? Many
centuries ago? Or a few years back, when Steve Bannon first hit the
scene?
Apart from a few minor quibbles though, this is a good essay
overall. Saker has an important point to make: now that nationalists are making
a comeback in the West, it’s totally predictable that the zionists will try to
infiltrate and steer their movements for the benefit of Israel. If they succeed,
there’s no way this can end well. If you don’t believe me, take a look at what
happened to all those zio-rapture-Xtian idiots. What did they ever get out of
that relationship? Zilch.
Don’t let this happen to you, alt-right. Don’t
get used by the Zionists. They will never repay you for your services, no matter
what they promise.
Cardinal Raymond Burke and the rest of the
Maltese-masonic “Catholic conservatives” are representative of the chess game
that has been in play since the middle of the fifteenth century, beginning with
the first stirrings of Neoplatonic Hermeticism, Talmudism and Kabbalism
bankrolled by the Medici and other exceedingly wealthy Italian and
German-Catholic (House of Fugger) usury operations, which were all non-Judaic
(
http://a.co/ac3tikh).
Promotion, preservation and
publication of the Babylonian Talmud was a sub-rosa project of the papacy in the
16th century, followed by a few token theatrical burnings of the Talmud to
placate disoriented and demoralized conservative forces whose fealty had to be
maintained until the coming of the Revelation of the Method era in the 20th
century, when the reality of the papal-rabbinic alliance no longer needed to be
concealed.
The “Latins first hopped into bed” with the Talmudists in the
Renaissance as documented in The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome (
http://a.co/8qqGIwf). There were
indeed initiatives put forth prior to the fifteenth century, but medieval popes,
monarchs, Judaic converts (Nicholas of Donin), poets (Dante Alighieri) and
saints (such as the anti-usury crusader Anthony of Padua) halted the movement in
that direction. The very real Latin/Judaic clash of the Middle Ages was at the
center of Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice, a Renaissance-era play attempting to
rekindle medieval truths.
Renaissance Catholicism represented the first
time in the history of the Church when situation ethics — the core of Talmudic
epistemology — gained firm purchase, and the ancient standard of antiquity and
catholicity (universality) — what was believed always and by all— was abandoned
(except rhetorically). Consequently, the immemorial Catholic dogma against the
renting of money, the recognition of the implacable hostility of the Talmud to
the gospel of Jesus, and the intrinsic incompatibility of paganism and
Christianity — all were derogated in the name of a “situation” — “changing
times.” This is one reason why the arguments of the pseduo-traditionalists
against the innovations of the Second Vatican Council are laughed out of
consideration by the hierarchy of the Roman Cryptocracy who are well aware that
those arguments were long ago vitiated by the radical changes instituted by
Renaissance popes employing the situation ethics which would be fully displayed
beginning with the pontificate of Paul VI and every pontiff
thereafter.
Cognizant of the traditionalist claims made for the
supposedly orthodox Popes Pius IX, Leo XIII and Pius X as papal paladins who
combated these trends, one should keep in mind the infernal depths of deceit of
the Kabbalah-steeped papacy. Pius IX achieved Joseph de Maistre’s masonic aim of
institutionalizing the papacy as a dictatorship with the power to move the
church in any direction; Leo XIII publicly attacked Freemasonry in patently
anemic terms (never once unmasking the key Kabbalistic doctrine and praxis of
the Brotherhood), while Pius X finally removed all proscriptions against the
renting of money from the 1917 Code of Canon Law (which he did not live to see
promulgated).
The history of the Church of Rome since the Renaissance is
the history of high hoax.
https://www.revisionisthistory.org/p...ge5/page5.html
