"Gay" Rights Campaign Obtains the Imprimatur of "Pope"
Francis and his "Magic Circle"
By Michael
Hoffman •
Copyright©2020
www.RevisionistHistory.org
From the website of the Jesuit
publication, America, we read:
In the new
documentary, “Francesco,” the filmmaker, Evgeny
Afineevsky, asked Pope Francis during an interview about
the place of L.G.B.T. ("Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,
Transgender") Catholics in the church. Francis reemphasized
his belief that L.G.B.T. people should be made to feel
welcome in the church. “Homosexuals have a right to
be a part of the family,” the pope said.
“They’re children of God and have a right to a
family. Nobody should be thrown out or be made miserable
because of it. “What we have to create is a civil
union law,” he said. “That way they are legally
covered. I stood up for that.” As pope, Francis has
urged a more welcoming church for L.G.B.T. people,
beginning with his response to a question in 2013
about gay priests, “Who am I to judge?” Juan
Carlos Cruz, a survivor of clergy sexual abuse who clashed
with church leaders over the pope’s handling of
sexual abuse in Chile, has developed a friendship with
Francis. In the documentary, Mr. Cruz says he has discussed
his sexuality with the pope, who allegedly told him,
“God made you gay. God loves you like you are and you
have to love yourself. (End quote).
This is not going to be a prolix column because not a great
deal needs to be said. The fewer words the better was
George Orwell’s writing philosophy and we concur.
It’s like being asked whether or not America is a
white supremacist nation. While white racism is real and
undenaibly exists in pockets in this country (along with
anti-Hispanic, anti-white and anti-Asian racism), no
disquisition on white supremacy as America's alleged
signature contemporary pestilence, is necessary. Reply in
seventeen words and end the matter:
“No nation
that twice elected a black man to its highest office is a
white supremacist nation.”
Case closed.
We would prefer to be just as succinct with anti-Pope
Francis: “No Catholic
pontiff can welcome into the Church those who practice
sodomy.”
Case closed.
Yet, in dealing with Vatican pilpul
and
flummery it is necessary to elucidate at least a few
dimensions of this crisis for the sake of clarity.This is
necessary because Francis and his conferes are likely to
generate a smokescreen by arguing that they are
not
welcoming those who actively engage in sodomy,
but
only those who have an orientation
toward it.
Let's test this putative pontiff's sincerity. Substitute
for “L.G.B.T. people” the holocaust
revisionists who doubt, according to conscience, the
existence of homicidal gas chambers in Auschwitz. Imagine
Francis issuing the following pronouncement:
“Holocaust revisionist people have a right to be a
part of the family. They’re children of God. Nobody
should be thrown out because of it.”
Anti-Pope Francis would never make that statement. Why?
Because Francis believes that doubting the existence of
execution gas chambers is a grave sin. So what is the
logical corollary? “L.G.B.T. people” are not
committing grave sins. His absolution is contrary to the
law of God; concerning which, we should contemplate Psalm
119, and the words of Jesus in John 14:15, “If you
love me, keep my commandments.” To rehabilitate
homosexual acts, one must nullify the Torah.
“But Jesus never spoke against homosexuality,”
is the reply. Neither did He speak contra abortion. He did
however, define marriage exactly as His Father decreed in
Genesis 5:2: between a man and a woman. Sex is a
transgression against divine law on any occasion when it is
not between a male and female within the bonds of
matrimony.
This is fixed dogma which permits no loopholes, or the
infamous casuistry which this pope, like many before him,
employs. It is at this juncture that our position differs
radically from almost all other conservative Catholics,
when we observe that sex with men and boys was
institutionalized
inside the Church long before Vatican II.
Molestations
were at epidemic levels in pontificates regarded as
“traditional,” due to the perceived need to
protect the reputation of the “higher-souled”
priest-molester, and because of the secrecy in which is
wrapped the homosexual activities of the Roman hierarchy
(which are as labyrinthine as its financial dealings).
The most faithful and effective opponent of sodomy in the
past 500 years was an Italian Dominican who Pope Alexander
VI excommunicated and demanded be executed by fire. The
pope’s wish was made reality on May 23, 1498.
The burning of Savonarola and two of his supporters,
Florence, 1498
The
martyr’s name was Girolamo Savonarola and he had
turned Florence, previously the capital of sodomy in Italy,
into a renewed Catholic community free of the homosexual
gangs that had roamed brazenly. After he was stripped and
burned in the city’s central Plaza della Signoria,
the “gay” elite were heard to remark,
“Now we can sodomize!” and Florence quickly
returned to its pagan putrescence (cf. The Occult Renaissance Church of
Rome, pp.
222-237).
As far back as a thousand years ago Saint Peter Damian
spoke of a “Satanic
tyranny” that had spread
the “cancer of sodomy” inside the
Church. (cf.
The Occult
Renaissance Church of Rome, pp. 481-498).
He recognized that a celibate religious priesthood must
exercise constant vigilance against the attraction of
homosexually-oriented persons to its ranks, and to keep
from positions of ecclesiastical influence or power those
individuals, while maintaining a relentless Biblical
polemic contra sodomy. Such are the minimum requirements of
male celibacy lived in community, which prudence dictates.
Search the records: over a millennia Peter Damian and
Savonarola comprised only a minuscule number who raised
this warning, and of these two, one of them was burned to
death at the urging of the reigning pontiff.
Centuries after St. Damian, and twenty-nine years after the
judicial murder of Savonarola, on Maundy Thursday, 1527,
the heroic Italian peasant street preacher Brandano da
Petroio called Medici Pope Clement VII—to
his face, “Bastardo sodomita!” (“sodomite
bastard”)—
an
act of intrepid truth-telling for which he was imprisoned
under harsh conditions, until liberated by Spanish troops
during the sack of Rome.
In the ensuing 493 years no other jeremiad against papal
and Vatican sodomy appeared until the extent of the
systematic molestation of youths was made notorious
beginning in the early years of this century. The
molestation network is still in place, however. For
example, in Spokane, Washington a “Catholic”
institute has been created, named for William Skylstad, the
bishop who facilitated molester priests in the diocese. It
advertises in the local newspaper. Moreover, beginning in
2007, Blase Cupich, while bishop of Spokane,
conspired with the Jesuits of Gonzaga University to
secretly harbor child molesters at Cardinal Bea House, a
priests' retirement home situated on the
campus. This area
was frequented by many dozens of children of the local
St. Aloysius parish church, and thousands of students at
the university. Cupich
was subsequently rewarded by being elevated to the rank
of cardinal by “Pope” Francis.
Under Francis, the charming and voluble Rev. Fr. James
Martin has become the highest profile “homosexual
rights” campaigner in the English-speaking world,
spreading the "Catholic" gospel of “gay.”
It is a truism that homosexually-oriented persons who do
not engage in the sin of sodomy are as deserving of rights
and protection as any other human being. Thoughts, emotions
and proclivities are not in themselves criminal or even
necessarily sinful, and yes — some people are
“born that way.”
Yet, we ought to keep in mind that certain individuals from
a young age have over-powering desires to engage in incest.
In the name of their “love” for their mother,
sister or daughter, shall we “make them feel welcome
in the Church” as they practice their perversions?
Some people would also seem to have developed, from early
youth, tendencies toward murderous predation, cannibalism,
sex with children and even bestiality. How is a strong
orientation from a young age toward abominable sins,
grounds for accommodating those sins by “welcoming"
those who engage in them?
For the views of Francis to be even remotely Catholic, he
would have to strenuosuly and without a trace of ambiguity,
differentiate between celibate homosexuality and practicing
homosexuality, and warn in the gravest terms against the
latter.
Francis would also have to be cognizant that a lax attitude
even toward non-practicing homosexuals can lead to the
further entrenchment of the sub-rosa “gay”
culture inside the hierarchy and priesthood of the Church.
It is incumbent on him to parse his words in such a way
that he makes it clear that Jesus offers complete
liberation from all forms of bondage, including sex
addictions. No one need accommodate themselves to the
torment of a disordered orientation—least of all the
Church itself. The first step in the divine healing process
is for the individual to acknowledge his sinfulness and
then call upon the grace of Jesus Christ to change his ways
in sorrow for his transgressions: “Repent therefore
and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so
that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the
Lord” (Acts 3:19). We see no such call coming
from Francis. Rather he is sending signals of accommodation
of the predominant media culture, of the
continue-in-your-sins variety, normalizing the unnatural.
This is the voice of the Vatican's centuries-old "gay"
mafia, not of anything holy or
counter-cultural.
In the name of the compassion which Our Lord offers to all
of us sinners, including filthy usury bankers, wicked
environmental polluters of our air, soil and water,
ruthless purveyors of ruinous false witness and gossip, and
all of the other mortal sins of which we are guilty, we
must surely feel pity and exhibit profound Christian
charity toward those afflicted
with a
homosexual orientation.
Admittedly, this charity has been lacking in self-righteous
Right wing and conservative circles. This omission on their
part has contributed to the sense on the Left that persons
with homosexual feelings have been wronged by the Catholic
world. Both views are unbalanced. Biblical truth must be
affirmed and proclaimed without fear of being termed
politically incorrect or "bigoted," yet these Scriptural
admonitions should be offered from a foundation of loving
kindness.
In the long tradition of fork-tongued Vatican double-talk,
we think that this papacy will exploit the confusion
concerning what is at issue in this struggle. Francis and
his allies will say
they are
defenders only of those who “were born that
way.” Perish the thought that their intention is to
welcome into the Church men who have sex in the sewer of
the human body. But make no mistake: that is the end result
of this latest papal pronouncement.
As damage control, we predict that in the future Francis
will shade and modify the remarks he made to film-maker
Evgeny Afineevsky. He will run the gamut between the
casuist’s poles of laxity and severity. By this
stratagem his supporters on the Left can cite the
declaration of Francis in the “Francesco”
documentary to harass Catholic schools and hospitals that
have thus far rebuffed employees engaged in homosexual
“civil unions” and “marriages.”
The moderating "clarification" which he or his cronies will
issue will convey something along the lines of, “In
no way has the pope ever intended to depart from the
doctrine of the Church on this matter.” This ruse
will in turn provide Catholics on the Right with the
ammunition they need to deceive themselves and others into
fantasizing that their pope is not engaged in opening the
ecclesiastical door ever wider to the curse of sodomy, and
the enablement of the homosexual cabal which, since the
Middle Ages, has clamored for control at the highest
levels.
We have seen many references to "Sodom and Gomorrah" in the
course of this upheaval, as if that was the only event in
the Bible that takes up coercion and violence by
homosexuals. Because Christians in general and Catholics in
particular seldom actually read the Scriptures in depth, a
Scriptural case far more relevant to the current crisis is
being overlooked. It is found in the last three chapters of
the Book of Judges, which some exegetes have termed darker
and more grim than anything in the whole of the rest of the
Old Testament. In Judges we read that members of
God’s own covenant people defied Yahweh and forced
homosexuality on their brethren.
While it’s true that the papacy is in a state of
disrepute not seen since the era of Luther and Calvin, this
man Jorge Bergoglio who is styled, “Pope
Francis,” continues to retain star power in the
media, along with the ability to direct the massive
resources of the occult Church of Rome in the direction of
further revolutionary betrayal of the Gospel.
With reference to the network of cardinals, bishops and
priests around the “gay rights” campaign of
Francis, dissident Archbishop Carlo Viganó has termed it a
“magic circle.” We
don’t think he chose those words by accident.
Michael Hoffman
is the editor of the periodical Revisionist
History® and the
author of many books, including Twilight
Language,
forthcoming in 2021. His work is supported by
donations from truth-seekers
and
the sale of his writings and
recordings.
___________________________
Francis
Blesses Homosexual Unions
Damage Control Now
Underway
By Michael
Hoffman
In the preceding column we analyzed the ramifications of
the pope's comments as recorded in the new documentary film
"Francesco," extending his "Who am I to judge?"
existentialism concerning homosexuality, into outright
papal approbation for "gay civil
unions.”
In our column we warned about the damage control that
would inevitably be launched on the Right, heavily laden
with the intelligence agency concept of plausible
denial. First at bat on the morning of October 23 was
the Right wing Ignatius Institute, an allegedly
"conservative" Jesuit operation that publishes the online
"Catholic World Report." They suggest that the pope's
remarks on homosexuals were taken out of context, spliced
together; that they were not contiguous, that the pope is
made to say what he did not say in the way he said it, not
explicitly. If you think that sounds more like a Rodney
Dangerfield comedy monologue than a reasonable exculpation
of the pope's beliefs, you're probably
correct.
From the same
“Catholic World Report” another columnist comes
nearer to the truth of the matter and skirts dangerously
close to revealing the game afoot. We'll quote from him and
then add our own comments:
The
deeply flawed opportunism of Pope
Francis
By Carl E. Olson
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2020/10/21/the-deeply-flawed-opportunism-of-pope-francis/
The matter of the specific question might not be clear, but
the end result of this quintessentially Francis moment
seems clear enough: more controversy, more confusion,
further sniping over what the Church really teaches, and
where papal comments in documentaries should be placed in
the realm of magisterial statements: Above interviews given
to an elderly, atheist Italian journalist? Below
off-the-cuff remarks made while flying at 30,000 feet?
Close to private phone calls made to this mother or that
old friend?
Here’s
the thing: if Francis’s remarks were made without
prudential concern for how they would be received, they are
deeply troubling. Or worse. If they were carefully made
with specific attention to how they would be received, they
are deeply troubling. Or worse.
Yes, everyone
has a “right” to be a “part of a
family”; their very existence suggests they came from
a family. But is Francis then saying that homosexuals have
a “right” to have a family? It appears so. As
the Catholic News Agency report notes, the film includes a
story of Francis “encouraging two Italian men in a
same-sex relationship to raise their children in their
parish church, which, one of the men said, was greatly
beneficial to his children.”
But
“...in his 2013 book On Heaven
and Earth, Francis
stated that...if same-sex couples “are given adoption
rights, there could be affected children. Every person
needs a male father and a female mother that can help them
shape their identity.”
So, which is
it? Well, that probably depends on the day and week.
Changing course and shifting narrative parameters for
different audiences has been a regular feature of this
pontificate...
(End
quote from Mr. Olson)
Whether he is
aware of it or not, the utility of
Olson’s last paragraph is that it accurately
articulates the profound deceptions that began to emerge
from the papacy, beginning in the late fifteenth century,
with the clandestine “baptism” of the Talmud
and Kabbalah, which is the subject of our
book, The
Occult Renaissance Church of
Rome.
We would revise
Mr. Olson’s observation, “Changing
course and shifting narrative parameters for different
audiences has been a regular feature of this
pontificate,” to note
that this camouflage and shape-shifting has been a regular
feature not just of Francis, but of dozens of pontificates
long before the liberal Second Vatican Council of the
1960s.
In 1515 Pope
Leo X issued a bull permitting interest on loans for the
good cause of his Medici relatives’ charity banks
(the main charity being the Medici). E. Michael Jones has
challenged our assertion that the Church gradually betrayed
the dogma banning the renting of money. He did so by
alluding to Pope Benedict XIV’s Vix
Pervenit, which
ostensibly reasserts the immemorial anti-usury teaching of
the Bible and the sacred tradition that is in line with it.
Dr. Jones missed the “fine print” in this
document, however. The pope inserted an escape clause
permitting a little bit of interest on loans, if reasonable
and necessary in certain situations, rather like permitting
whoredom in “extenuating circumstances” so long
as the prostitute’s rates are discounted. Usurers,
like their brethren in the legal profession, are fairly
adept at smelling the odor of situation ethics and reading
fine print. Consequently, the historical record shows that
usury increased
among Catholics
after the issuance of the “great and wonderfully
orthodox” Vix
Pervenit.
We could
furnish a hundred more examples of papal swindles like this
one, from far back in the “traditional
Catholic” past. How about the papally-spomsored
publication of the finest edition of the Babylonian Talmud
ever printed up to 1521? No, you protest, the Renaissance
popes burned the Talmud! Yes, they did, but first they made
certain they rescued the Talmud from the oblivion in which
it was descending in the early sixteenth century. They made
it what it is today, even ensuring that Rashi was included
as a canonical part of the text, an underwriting the
survival and expansion of the Talmud. Later, the
Renaissance papacy burned copies of the Talmud as
damage
control in order to
keep their Right wing faithful to their dictatorship. Sound
familiar? Do you imagine the tactics of “Pope”
Francis are new? He
inherited them as part of the ancient Neoplatonic-Hermetic
gnosis.
In one case we
documented in The Occult
Renaissance Church of Rome, Spanish
troops were outraged that the pontiff’s forces were
protecting the Talmud. The troops searched for other
diabolic rabbinic books in Italy, one of which was the
demonology known as the Kabbalah, which was the
“bible” of Renaissance “Catholic”
occultism. The clever pontiff of the time ordered the
Talmud burned (the Spanish would have done it anyway), to
distract the Spaniards’ attention from the stockpile
of Kabbalah texts that the papacy was protecting. The sly
misdirection succeeded. The Kabbalah was saved while some
copies of the Talmud were burned. The event entered history
as, “Anti-Semitic Pontiff Burns Talmud.” The
part about doing so to protect the stock of Kabbalah
volumes is never reported. And so it goes: misdirection
after misdirection, deception after deception.
As we tried to
show in our book Secret
Societies and Psychological
Warfare,
and
in the volume we are currently writing, Twilight
Language, the
Cryptocracy proceeds over time in stages. What it divulges
now it could not have made public 70 years ago without dire
consequences to its operations. The current stage in
the human
alchemy which
is at the core of the process of our transformation and
devolution, is to reveal to us the Satanic harm perpetrated
by our esteemed leaders, whether the “Holy
Father” or the Queen of England or the President of
the United States, and then have us do nothing, thereby
exponentially increasing our bondage to the dark forces. My
teacher James Shelby Downard termed it, the
“Revelation of the Method,” and alternately,
the “Making Manifest of All that is Hidden”
(Luke 8:17).
Perverse irony
of ironies: the secrets-keeping Cryptocracy that killed,
maimed or ruined everyone from Capt. William Morgan
(drowned in New York in 1826), James Forrestal
(defenestrated in 1949), Lee Harvey Oswald (shot to death
in 1963), to Jeffrey Epstein (choked to death in 2019), to
prevent them from revealing secrets, is increasingly
publicly disclosing their secrets to us, as Francis did in
“Francesco.” This is accomplished for reasons
of psychological warfare and timed to coincide with our own
enervated condition. Thus far their gambit has succeeded.
We are more than ever distracted, demoralized, indifferent,
misdirected, confused and fatigued. Our humanity is being
drained. We dress like slobs and casually employ obscene
language which formerly was the lingo only of pimps,
perverts and drunken sailors. We claim to love truth but in
fact we are awed by our Satanic Majesties’ digital
carnival, promising daily ever more apocalyptic thrills and
adrenaline rushes.
This week, as
the presidential election jolted us in one direction and
another like passengers on a Twilight Zone roller coaster,
and while NASA’s spacecraft dubbed “Osiris
Rex,” after the supreme king of the Pharaonic
Egyptian magic that is the root of the Kabbalah,
snatched prima
materia from an
asteroid, the “Holy Father” stepped forth from
the pit of hell to bless the practice that across millennia
has been universally recognized by every civilization that
observed the natural law, to be a malediction that destroys
nations.
Michael Hoffman is the editor of the
periodical Revisionist
History®,
published six times a year.
Copyright©2020 by Independent History and Research, Box
849, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho 83816 USA
https://www.revisionisthistory.org/page4/page4.html
______________________________
April 12, 2007
Don Imus,
Trash-Talk and the Decline of Civility in America
By
Michael Hoffman
My daughter
studies piano and classical Latin, is an honor student and
co-cpatain of her high school basketball team. She has many
role models, among them the college women's NCAA
championship teams.
Don Imus said that the black women on the championship
Rutgers basketball team were nappy-headed.
But those women did not design the texture of their hair,
God did. Imus said they are whores ("ho's"). To utter that
slander, when they are in fact scholar-athletes, is like
something out of the Talmud.
False witness against the German people is a deadly sin;
how can false witness against black women at Rutgers, who
are trying their best to contribute to our society, be
anything less grave?
Of course Imus has the absolute constitutional right to
speak his mind. But I have no problem with sponsors and
networks who speak theirs by no longer supporting or
employing him; that too is their constitutional right.
His accusation against the university women is being
described as a "racial" slur. The media are omitting the
fact that his accusation was also a sexual slur, an
imputation of moral turpitude. I notice that Imus does not
accuse scantily-clad cheerleaders and half-time dancers of
being "ho's," only the women athletes in the modestly long
uniforms. It seems that he has no problem with women who
shimmy and shake for him half-dressed. His problem seems to
be with women who pursue a higher education, while
excelling at a difficult and demanding collegiate sport,
modestly attired.
Mr. Imus has talked trash, and trash-talk is a symptom of
the incivility and decaying standards in dress and
deportment which we see on display in America today. From
George Bush's pride in his slovenly speech and unbecoming
swagger, to the
I-just-rolled-out-of-bed-and-came-to-the-mall-in-my-pajamas
fashion statement, which some Americans favor for all
occasions, our nation appears to have lost its sense of
shame and self-respect.
The attempt to make Imus' attack on the Rutgers women a
black/white-divide issue, reveals a hidden agenda. Imus'
false witness is so unjust and despicable that fifty years
ago Americans North and South, black and white would
have, in unison, decried and repudiated it as
nausea worthy of either a drunk or a bum. But in our 21st
century, Imus is an underground hit, slyly commended by the
outlaw kulchur
as
just the sort of shock-o-rama titillation that drives
up ratings, thanks to the enthusiasm of American
kids-gone-wild on the devolutionary road from angels to
beasts.
This case is not without its contradictions. Some of the
sick behavior can be found in black male "gangsta" circles
where the slur Imus wielded is a not uncommon epithet. This
too needs to be addressed. Moreover, the exploitation of
the controversy by Al Sharpton does no one any credit, but
then it was Imus who chose to go running to Sharpton.
Furthermore, to be credible, it is incumbent on American
society, including the television networks, to combat
reverse discrimination and hatred of poor and working class
whites. In Miami on April 10, during the Imus controversy,
NBA basketball star Adam Morrison, who is white, was
repeatedly racially harassed and called "white trash"
throughout the game. Yet it was Morrison who was the one
who was fined, for having, in exasperation, responded with
an obscene gesture. Nothing happened to the racial heckler,
nor did the heckler's anti-white bigotry become an issue in
the press. To be
effective, to unite us, justice must be
blind.
But the fact that there are bigots among other races in no
way diminishes the offense against the Rutgers team. Imus
should know better; with his prominent position comes
responsibility. And let's be
real. Any black talk-show host who called a sports team
comprised of Judaic girls "shikses"
or "zonah,"
would be out of a job faster than you can spell A-D-L.
With all the temptations that assail young people of any
color nowadays, the Rutgers ladies have set an academic and
athletic example that requires courage and asceticism,
dignity and self-respect, precisely the qualities fathers
like this writer pray their daughters will evince in these
strange and challenging times. The popularity of Don Imus
is in exact proportion to the degree to which Americans
have lost their dignity and perhaps to some extent, even
their souls; hence, the need to mock those who have
not.
Copyright ©2007
RevisionistHistory.org
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Home | News Bureau