Then I suggest you get your "suspicion-o-meter" re-calibrated.

Mine has been set to high alert ever since M-B.

If he does, maybe he can publish his agenda and positions so that there can be fruitful dispassionate discussion about them.

That would show some integrity and honesty, and a sincere belief that the positions are correct.  Not to mention it would be at least an indication of willingness to be corrected if they are wrong, for why would a person fail to fully reveal their positions in an organized docuмented way unless they were lacking in confidence as to the veracity of the same.

John[/u] 3:20]For every one that doth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, that his works may not be reproved.

Sorry for the sloppiness above.

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: g_v

I cannot speak for what he did or did not think.

Are you suggesting that sedetrad might have some form of Tourette syndrome?

Where do you get this stuff, "SJB"?  I suggested NOTHING, good, bad, or ugly.  Learn to READ a little more closely and remember your own favorite maxim: Contra factum non valet illatio.  You probably should have kept this in mind when you declared that "there must be something to it" about the "conspiracy" between sedetrad and me.

Quote

Yes, but that's irrelevant isn't it?

It is relevant insofar as, of late, you are manifesting a tendency to see a conspiracy where none exists ("Hello, Kettle, this is Pot.  You're black!").  Remember: Contra factum non valet illatio.

I don't really see a conspriacy. Didn't you read what I wrote.

Quote from: SJB

Now I don't really think that, but the mindset around here makes me want to suggest it...I mean why would you answer for him? There must be something behind it.

Of course I read it, "SJB"!  Did you?

Now, you might understandably focus more on the words above that are NOT in bold, but the bold is pretty clear: "There must be something behind it."

As you and others caught with their pants down often say (in place of the simple admission that your pants are, in fact, down), "it is irrelevant."  Carry on, my good man...

Now I don't really think that, but the mindset around here makes me want to suggest it...I mean why would you answer for him? There must be something behind it.

Contra factum non valet illatio.  :cheers:

Hoffman is suspicious, gladius_veritatis.

Maybe he's even Malachi Martin for intellectuals.

He holds the Constitution above the Catholic Church, and the amount of time he spends defending the former is infinitely greater than the amount of time he spends defending the latter.  An obvious red flag.  Here is a quote from an interview.

It's not hard to see that W. Mark Felt, the "Deep Throat" informer who passed away yesterday and who helped blow the cover off Watergate, was motivated not by noble Constitutional motives (in 1980 Felt was convicted of violating the Constitutional rights of Americans), but by rage at President Richard Nixon for failing to nominate him to head the FBI.

Our "Constitutional rights" are a Freemasonic farce, and this man is too smart not to see it.  No Pope has ever advocated free speech.

Hoffman knows the Founding Fathers were Freemasons.  Yet he clearly hates monarchy.  What's with the schizo attitude?  It seems his position is an immature revolt against all authority.

More:

Public school students have little if any understanding of their hereditary, Common Law and Constitutional rights. They are increasingly herded like assembly-line automatons. The elite among them intuitively revolt. Once our people as a whole would have rebelled. It was a common pastime of the English people to hurl rocks at the royal carriage during the reign of George I (1714-1727). Bill Clinton would have been routinely stoned and spat upon by our ancestors.

More Revolutionary rhetoric that sounds just like Alex Jones, despite their supposed enmity.  

Hoffman is a new breed -- he engages in an elite form of populist demagoguery.  He is like Robespierre for well-read conspiracy theorists.  He constantly pushes some notion of the "people" against the "leaders" without any sort of qualification of who the leaders might be.  Are you telling me you don't smell the blood dripping off the guillotine when you read the above paragraph?

He is a promoter of endless revolution, and I'd say seemingly an instigator of the staged "cινιℓ ωαr" that seems to be gearing up in this country.  He has a rabble-rousing attitude that equates "freedom" and "truth" with rebelling against authority.  The implication of his writings, over and over again, is that we should stand up for the CONSTITUTION -- not for the CHURCH.

Most Americans don't understand why this is bad.  That is because they are totally brainwashed, and it is people like Hofmann who have brainwashed them, by insinuating constantly these "values" of liberty and free speech and supposed freedom.  The Constitution is not a noble docuмent, it is a form of the "Declaration of the Rights of Man" which was condemned by the Church.

This is endemic with Americans.  They are addicted to "freedom" the way some are addicted to alcohol.  But they don't know what it is, they just know they never have enough.  Same Mel Gibsonian/revolutionary/Freemasonic propaganda.

How about a Catholic monarchy with strict, inescapable rules, and the abolishing of vice?  How about faith, order and morality?  Is Hoffman for the separation of Church and state? Is he against the Social Reign of Christ the King?  All indications would appear to say so.  That may be why he's so evasive about being Catholic.

I've never known a Catholic to not mention Mary or make certain comments about being a sinner or discuss the saints or quote doctors of the Church or mention how they missed saying the Rosary on Tuesday -- he rarely does these things.  Yet he'll bleat about the Constitution all day and night.  It's also worth mentioning that at one point he worked for Reuters which is pure disinfo.  If he had integrity I wonder how he could have ever had that job.  

P.S. It is interesting that in one of the prophecies that talk about the days leading to the Great Monarch, it says "the good will have little to do" because the "republicans" will be killing each other in cινιℓ ωαrs.  Notice the implication here.  The good are not those who are tricked by ideals of the republic.  These people burn each other out.  The good are those whose ideal is restoring the CATHOLIC CHURCH to the place of honor it must have, as the guide of both the temporal and supernatural spheres.

Let those who have ears to hear, hear.

I guess you are right, I did say that.  Touche, my eccentric friend, it looks like "U" have scored one on me.

I must have been thinking about why David Hobson would use Malachi Martin, who he calls "controversial," to bolster his theory.  

If Malachi Martin really did know that Siri was elected in 1963 then he also knows that Paul VI was never even a Pope.  He didn't even have to lose the throne through heresy because he had no valid election.  The Holy Spirit must choose a Pope, and the Holy Spirit cannot be coerced or strong-armed.

Why did Malachi then act as if Paul VI were Pope?  Just more misterioso from the Man of Mystery himself.

Hobson then claims on his website that Malachi accepted the V-2 Popes were "anti-Popes" before his death.  All I know is his requiem Mass was said by Malachi's confessor, Fr. Wickens, a priest who could be described as a "Novus Ordo conservative" -- he offered the Latin Mass I believe but was no sedevacantist.  

So far I've seen no proof that Malachi ever became sedevacantist.  I used to believe it because I believed the story that he "ordained" Rama Coomaraswamy but now that has been thrown into doubt.

I recant what I said about the Siri thesis dying along with Malachi.  His espousal of the Siri theory means nothing, even less than nothing, because nothing he said could be trusted.  It neither helps nor hinders the theory, which as I said, until we have further information, died out not with Martin but with SIRI, because there is no way he could have elected a successor.  Some kind of "Pope Michael" may be trotted out claiming to be the successor, however.

My post was not to 'score one on U', it was just a valid point. And since I am not familiar w/ the Martin/Siri connection-- did M Martin say that Card Siri was elected in 1958 or 63 or both?

Greg XVII may not have been the best Pope, but I think that over 30 yrs, he would have a chance to make cardinals.