Hey Claudel! Nadir informed me that you're still active, not lurking as much as I used to I hadn't realized that you've been posting infrequently since April.

My view of Hoffman is that he's serpentine. I once made the same point BTNYC makes, about how one should be suspicious of a man who puts people in a position of having to constantly question what he represents.

He also has a surname associated with Jєωs, and has the look of someone who is part Jєωιѕн. The traditional Jerry Seinfeld Jєω-look, mixed with some non-Jєωιѕн blood. Just a hunch which could be offbase, but it always pops into my head when I think of him.

If Hoffman is a crypto he would share one tactic I've noticed employed by other cryptos, in that they're willing to inform on other cryptos so as to gain the trust of non-Jєωs. Such as his expose on Malachi Martin. Or the crypto who runs VNN, Alex Linder. I learned from him that Steve Sailer, who was adopted, thinks he has Jєωιѕн blood and is proud of it.

He is puzzling though. He's friends with the guy who runs the MauricePinay blog (are they one and the same?), one of the best blogs out there and one of the few places to call out Gilad Atzmon as a fraud. Though no activity for a year or more.

And as Incredulous points out, his relationship to that ridiculous town in Idaho raises some flags.

marranos...

So he's just a garden variety weirdo, then?

Dear rum and BTNYC:

I had hoped that it was apparent in what I wrote that I consider Michael Hoffman* a man to be regarded with some caution. I am not, however, prepared to diagnose or characterize him any more specifically than that. Frankly I don't think you gentlemen should either—unless, that is, you have read his books in greater depth and with more attentiveness than I have (by no means an impossibility, of course). This is not to say that I don't value your forthright, informed comments. I do.

I suspect you both recall that several years ago, Hollingsworth spoke up for Hoffman on the basis of firsthand acquaintance with the man. Whatever my disagreements (or for that matter, yours) on matters large and small with Holly, he is anything but a fool, and thus his opinion of Hoffman ought to be considered consequential. Indeed, I think that it is foolish to treat it otherwise! Still, that Holly's or anyone else's informed opinion might count for little with so many hereabouts should hardly surprise anyone at this late date.

Please accept my prayerful wishes for a Happy New Year.
______________________
* I earlier misspelled Hoffman's name Hoffmann. I apologize to the gentleman and to all readers of my earlier comment for the error.

Fair enough Claudel and Hollingsworth. I respect you two, but I find a lot of red flags with Hoffman.

But I would direct the OP member to take a look at the following links:

https://fitzinfo.wordpress.com/2015/12/07/philo-protestant-lies-about-usury-paedophilic-hypocrisy/
https://fitzinfo.wordpress.com/2015/11/26/michael-hoffmans-infatuation-with-protestantism/
https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/michael-hoffman-quotes/
https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/hoffman039s-liberalism/

More threads on Hoffman can be found here on Cathinfo, some admiring and some not:
https://tinyurl.com/y9l5crj4

Makow link

Hoffman - Vatican a Cabalist Jєωιѕн Front Since Renaissance
June 7, 2017

Far from being a break from elite Roman Catholicism the Judaic policy of the 'Vatican II Church' is the fulfillment and culmination of the centuries-old
crypto-Kabbalism and тαℓмυdism of the Roman Catholic hierarchy.


Michael Hoffman's new book, The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome,
substantiates
the argument made here in 2012 that Vatican II was
a continuation rather than deviation from the past.

Below it, find Jude Duffy's view that Hoffman is fundamentally anti-Catholic.



by Michael Hoffman
(henrymakow.com)

With regard to the rivalry of competing elites, it is true that in general the Vatican, from the 16th century onward, served тαℓмυdic-Kabbalistic Judaism in a manner radically different from that of the British Crown.

But to mistake tactical differences and smokescreen rhetoric for a genuine war between an anti-Judaic Vatican Catholicism and a pro-Judaic British Crown, is an enormous blunder.

From the Renaissance onward, the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy had been infiltrated by тαℓмυdic/Kabbalistic forces, even though, on occasion, individual popes, cardinals, bishops, saints and laymen attempted to reverse the trend, without success.


One of these, the Dominican Savonarola, left, was hanged and burned for his trouble. While it is true that Giordano Bruno was also immolated, Bruno was killed for the same reasons that the Cryptocracy did away with Mormon founder Joseph Smith, not because the cartel disagreed with his masonic philosophy, but due to his overweening ambition, whereby he was becoming a threat to their leadership. Observe too that Bruno's cult is very strong today, while Savonarola's memory is shrouded in ignominy.

My thesis is that, far from being a break from elite Roman Catholicism since the sixteenth century, the Judaic policy of the 'Vatican II Church' as it emerged publicly after 400 hundred years, is the fulfillment and culmination of the centuries-old crypto-Kabbalism and тαℓмυdism of the Roman Catholic hierarchy.

This is the solution to the riddle of the resistance of the popes from Paul VI onward, to naive -- though sincere and often heroic -- traditional Catholic calls to the recent occupants of the papacy, to be 'loyal to the Church of all Time,' and 'repudiate Vatican II,' and 'return the Church to as she was before the 1960s.'

(Left. Pope John Paul outed himself and his Roman Catholic Church as Zionist flunkies by sitting on a throne with an inverted satanic cross during his visit to Israel in 2000.)

The popes of the late twentieth and twenty-first centuries know what these uninitiated traditionalists do not: the Roman Church before Vatican II had been serving the kings of Kabbalah since the time of the Florentine Medicis. As startling as this datum will appear to most, the historical record will show that this was the case. From this occult root grew the accursed fig tree we see today.

I anticipate the protests of some: 'but I have this church docuмent that excoriates Masonry;' and 'in such-and-such a city the тαℓмυd was burned by ecclesiastical order during the Renaissance.'

Yes, indeed, and if these acts were part of a seamless theology and statecraft from on high, then this would be significant evidence contradicting my thesis. But those who cite these anti-Judaic tactics without being cognizant of the pro-Judaic strategy that informed them, are lost in a wilderness of mirrors.

As Lenin stated so succinctly: "Two steps forward, one step back." In order to preserve the secret of the Renaissance and post-Renaissance Vatican's fundamental orientation to rabbinic ideology and mystical Kabbalistic gnosis and suzerainty, sometimes the hierarchy appeared to discipline or repress Judaic elements, to placate either the Catholic mob or restless intellectuals and holy persons in its own ranks. I will have much more to say about these chess moves in Renaissance Roman Catholicism.

A call to a return to the dogma and praxis of the medieval Lateran-era Church would be truly Catholic and anti-rabbinic, and this should be the banner of the "traditionalists."

Anything else plays into the hands of the current Vatican adepts who know better than the "traditionalists," that revolutionary change commenced in the 1500s, and that 1960s Catholicism is merely the natural child of an unnatural parent. Until Catholic "traditionalists" know what these Vatican initiates know, they will be privately mocked in Rome as gullible and ignorant enthusiasts of something that hasn't existed for more than 400 years.

Our ignorance only evokes contempt. The conversion of modern Rome requires that we negotiate from a position of knowledge. To do this we must dispel our illusions and learn the clandestine history of the serpent that grasped hold of the Catholic Church and subjected it to revolutionary change, beginning from one of the great citadels of the Money Power, the moral sewer that was Florence -- the magnificence of its art works being no kind of absolution -- but rather, a Dorian Gray-like cover for the filth that flowed above and below, and soon spread throughout the Church at its most stratospheric levels; as presaged in The Inferno by that other Florentine, the truly Catholic Dante Alighieri.

Don't be hoodwinked!


(Hoffman is the author of Judaism Discovered (hardcover, 1100 pages), and Judaism's Strange Gods). His website is revisionist history.org


Jude Duffy on why he thinks Michael Hoffman is anti Catholic-

There are many reasons that Mr Hoffman is anti-Catholic: e.g.,  his attempts to whitewash the proven leading role of Protestants in the rise of usurious capitalism. Mr Hoffman persistently implies that this role is largely an invention of Hilaire Belloc and other Catholic polemicists, whereas in fact it is something Protestants boasted about long before Belloc was even born - and something they still boast of today.  And the facts speak for themselves, e.g., the dominating role of Huguenots in the foundation of the Bank of England.

It's one thing to argue, validly, that Catholics were far from blameless for the rise of usury, but Mr Hoffman goes far beyond this, and makes no secret of his admiration for Luther, Calvin and that vile hypocrite Oliver Cromwell - a man who appears to have had no religious convictions of any kind apart from a genocidal hatred of Catholics - as David Hume (an admirer of Cromwell let it be said) noted.

However one does not have to take into account Mr Hoffman's views on history in order to perceive his strong animus toward the Catholic Church. Like many other professed enemies of the corporate media, he consistently and uncritically recycles MSM narratives about the clerical child abuse scandals in the Catholic Church - never  entertaining the possibility that these narratives form part of a coordinated hate campaign against the Church.

Sure, he'll sometimes complain that the media ignore clerical abuse among "Judaics", but he studiously ignores the equally obvious truth that the media also cover up clerical abuse in all of the Protestant denominations - in order to portray clerical sɛҳuąƖ crime as a uniquely Catholic vice. Many Protestants, to their great credit, have acknowledged the way their denominations have been given a free pass on this issue.

Where are the blockbuster Hollywood films about sɛҳuąƖ abuse in British Protestant private schools - something C.S. Lewis, A.N. Wilson, and many other writers have recalled as being institutionalized? By contrast Hollywood produces an anti-Catholic blockbuster on average every two or three years.

By the same token, has Mr Hoffman ever addressed the British media's coordinated campaign of vile character assassination against those who have accused British establishment bigwigs such as Ted Heath and Leon Brittan of sɛҳuąƖ abuse? The media have also gone so far as to attack the British police for daring to investigate these allegations - allegations the police insist are credible. Contrast that with the same Masonic media's unquestioning acceptance of any and all allegations against Catholic priests and religious - no matter how far back in time they go.  

But let's cut to the chase: if Hoffman isn't anti-Catholic, what exactly is he? In spite of repeated requests, he refuses to state what his own current religious position is. He appears to believe that the post-Renaissance Catholic Church is a corrupt counterfeit of the "true" Medieval Church, but so far as I know, he has never made clear what religious authority, if any, he deems worthy of obedience in the modern world. To further complicate matters, he has also dismissed Sedevacantism - the belief that the seat of Peter is currently vacant. So if he believes the modern popes are real popes, but are nonetheless heads of a corrupt body, that sounds like anti-Catholicism to me.

In truth the anti-Catholicism of much of Hoffman's recent output is so glaringly obvious I'm surprised anyone can seriously question it. It isn't a case of him merely lumping in Catholicism in with the general corruption of modern Christianity: on the contrary, like the corporate media he claims to despise, he directs a vastly disproportionate amount of his fire at the sins, real and imaginary, of the Church.

To be honest Hoffman baffles me a bit when it comes to the Church - a couple of years ago he wrote quite a philo-Catholic piece about Bing Crosby and Irving Berlin, but yet I think I'm being quite fair in describing much of his recent output as anti-Catholic. I also recall that a few years ago when you published the article by Tony Blizzard about the evils of the Reformation he wrote the piece above attempting to refute Blizzard's argument. I suspect the real problem is that he is romantically attached to the idea of the heroic rebel - exemplified by the likes of Luther, Cromwell and the New England Puritans. In Luther's case his latter denunciation of the Jєωs is a huge bonus where Hoffman is concerned. I'm not sure he knows himself what his true position is - he strikes me as in some respects  quite an emotional character.  I also read somewhere that he is quite proud of being related to the German Anabaptist of the same name.  

Michael Hoffman replies:

On no evidence, "Jude Duffy" upholds the notion that usury began with the Protestants and not the Romanists, while ignoring the extensive arguments and docuмentation in my books Usury in Christendom and The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome (chapter 16, "The Breeders of Money Gain Dominion").

Instead of responding to the plethora of facts marshaled in those books we are greeted with lies about this writer supposedly "admiring" Oliver Cromwell.  Where does my critic offer any docuмentation for the preceding libel?

My histories are a defense of the true Catholic Church against the modernism, paganism, institutionalized sodomy, papalolatry and usury of the Renaissance and post-Renaissance Church of Rome. The following is Freudian drivel:

"I suspect the real problem is that he is romantically attached to the idea of the heroic rebel - exemplified by the likes of Luther, Cromwell and the New England Puritans."

He "suspects"?

These reckless statements are calculated to harm my reputation as a historian. On what basis do these absurd personal attacks qualify for publication? I welcome scholarly contradictions and challenges to my thesis; this is not one of them.