"...in the seventeenth century the Cryptocracy traded the Protestant revolution of Oliver Cromwell for the restoration of the British monarchy of the Anglo-Catholic Charles II. Cromwell's dramatic and public attempt to return Judaics and their rabbis to Britain was resisted by the people because it was viewed as a revolutionary departure from English law. Under the reign of the "conservative" King Charles II however, the rabbinic power and Judaic presence were gradually and quietly reestablished in Britain without attracting inordinate suspicion. In that case the Right wing antithesis was called into service, as it is now by the Vatican's grand-masters of the chess board." (End quote from Michael Hoffman, "The New Catholic Shoah Theology")
Michael: Anyone would have been an improvement over Cromwell, who
considered himself an Old Testament type, slaughtering idolators, i.e.
Catholics. I read that that Mannaseh ben Israel and friends supported
him from the first. Oliver, who is also said to have had a Jewish
grandmother, would have brought more of his kind to England if he
could, but there was too much opposition. Even so about 300 made it
unofficially, and, as I recall, Simon Schama, British Jewish historian
par excellance, said they opened a synagogue in London.
On May 6, 2009 J. M. G. wrote:
Michael: Anyone would have been an improvement over Cromwell, who
considered himself an Old Testament type, slaughtering idolators, i.e.
Catholics. I read that that Mannaseh ben Israel and friends supported
him from the first. Oliver, who is also said to have had a Jewish
grandmother, would have brought more of his kind to England if he
could, but there was too much opposition. Even so about 300 made it
unofficially, and, as I recall, Simon Schama, British Jewish historian
par excellance, said they opened a synagogue in London.
Their ultimate triumph came, however, not with the Anglican Charles II,
but with William of Orange, who was financed to the hilt by the Sephardic
Jews of Amsterdam. Under him they formed the Bank of England
(using gentile front men, of course) and endorsed the worst set of penal
laws against Catholics yet. Having paid for William's victory (most of his
troops were Protestants from the continent), we can assume they had
their say in such matters. It stands to reason that they didn't want the
Scots, Irish or other infidels allying with their chief rival, Spain. Having
suffered from that Inquisition, they instituted their own to prevent any
possible Catholic rebellion. Belloc says that Protestant Britain became
henceforth the chief ally of the Jews in the world. With the demise of
the British empire following the world wars, of course, the U.S. took over
that enviable position.
Dear J.M.G.
Yes, that's the standard story, but I beg to differ.
We are all "Old Testament types" if we are true Christians. We cannot follow the heresy of Marcion, and disparage it.
Oliver Cromwell was not of Judaic descent.
The Anglo-Catholic monarch Charles II quietly built on Cromwell's revolution and admitted more Judaics, mostly without opposition from his supporters, whereas the Puritans under William Prynne had rebuked and defeated Cromwell's pro-Judaic initiative in Parliament. After that the Cryptocracy used subterfuge of the type practiced by Charles II to gain the admission of increasingly larger numbers of Judaics to Britain.
"Protestant Britain" had been the ally of the rabbis since the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. Hilaire Belloc's notion that there was some respite under the tyrant King Charles I and the conspirator King Charles II is not supported by the facts and is exactly the type of disinformation that leads Catholics to believe that one wing of the Cryptocracy is superior to another, which was the point I was trying to make in my "Shoah" essay in Revisionist History Newsletter no. 47.
Sincerely,
Michael Hoffman
but with William of Orange, who was financed to the hilt by the Sephardic
Jews of Amsterdam. Under him they formed the Bank of England
(using gentile front men, of course) and endorsed the worst set of penal
laws against Catholics yet. Having paid for William's victory (most of his
troops were Protestants from the continent), we can assume they had
their say in such matters. It stands to reason that they didn't want the
Scots, Irish or other infidels allying with their chief rival, Spain. Having
suffered from that Inquisition, they instituted their own to prevent any
possible Catholic rebellion. Belloc says that Protestant Britain became
henceforth the chief ally of the Jews in the world. With the demise of
the British empire following the world wars, of course, the U.S. took over
that enviable position.
Dear J.M.G.
Yes, that's the standard story, but I beg to differ.
We are all "Old Testament types" if we are true Christians. We cannot follow the heresy of Marcion, and disparage it.
Oliver Cromwell was not of Judaic descent.
The Anglo-Catholic monarch Charles II quietly built on Cromwell's revolution and admitted more Judaics, mostly without opposition from his supporters, whereas the Puritans under William Prynne had rebuked and defeated Cromwell's pro-Judaic initiative in Parliament. After that the Cryptocracy used subterfuge of the type practiced by Charles II to gain the admission of increasingly larger numbers of Judaics to Britain.
"Protestant Britain" had been the ally of the rabbis since the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. Hilaire Belloc's notion that there was some respite under the tyrant King Charles I and the conspirator King Charles II is not supported by the facts and is exactly the type of disinformation that leads Catholics to believe that one wing of the Cryptocracy is superior to another, which was the point I was trying to make in my "Shoah" essay in Revisionist History Newsletter no. 47.
Sincerely,
Michael Hoffman
***
2 comments:
"As each old skin is shed by the reptile..."p. 871 Judaism Discovered
This old snake quietly sheds it skin of disinformation never arousing suspicion.
Johnny
Charle was a notorious womanizer and constantly in need of funds to support his many mistresses. Such a man is easy pickings for those who can afford to pick up the tab in return for favorable policies.
Post a Comment