Welcome Information Connoisseurs

Welcome Information Connoisseurs

Saturday, July 04, 2020

Concept of freedom for every human was born in the U.S. July 4

The Concept of Freedom for Every Human Being was born in these United States on July 4, 1776

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. 

 The Declaration of Independence

The freedom that Washington, Jefferson and the other patriots sowed eventually lifted all boats. It took time, but the concept of freedom for every human  endowed by God and irrevocable by government   was born in these United States on July 4, 1776

Whether they were deists or orthodox believers, this emancipation of man and woman derived from a milieu saturated in principles of Gospel liberty. Freedom was born in the minds of Americans who, from cradle to grave, inhabited a society and culture where the struggle to have “No King but Jesus,” resonated with the power of a dynamo. 

By Michael Hoffman
Copyright©2020. All Rights Reserved

The recent upheaval in our streets has sometimes been dubbed the “1619” protests in a tip of the hat to the “1619 Project” published by the New York Times, which is woefully inadequate as history. For example, the 1619 Project suppresses the significant Judaic part in the enslavement of black people. The magisterial three volume history penned by black scholars that does study these matters, The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, was banned by Amazon during Black History Month, in February, 2019.

When it takes up the ideology of white supremacy, the "1619 Project omits all mention of the pivotal influence of the rabbinic Midrash and Rabbi Moses Maimonides in shaping savagely racist Judaic and gentile attitudes which dehumanized black people and furnished the specious justification for their brutalization in the holocaust that constituted the black experience of slavery in the United States

The rabbinic Midrash consigns black people to the role of inevitable enslavement as a matter of divinely established heredity (nowhere does the Bible say this). 


Maimonides, for whom countless buildings in America are named and whose marble plaque hangs in a place of honor in the halls of Congress, taught that black people are “irrational animals” and “lower than human” in his celebrated text, Guide of the Perplexed.

Thomas Jefferson on the History of White Slavery

Jefferson’s views on slavery were drawn from the classical world of Greece and Rome, where in many cases the majority of the slaves were white. In his Notes on the State of Virginia (1781) Jefferson wrote of the history of the oppression of white slaves (p. 151): 

“...in this country the slaves multiply as fast as the free inhabitants. Their situation and manners place the commerce between the two sexes almost without restraint. The same Cato, on a principle of economy, always sold his sick and superannuated slaves. He gives it as a standing precept to a master visiting his farm, to sell his old oxen, old wagons, old tools, old and diseased servants, and every thing else become useless...It was the common practice to expose in the island of Aesculapius, in the Tyber, diseased slaves, whose cure was like to become tedious….

“We are told of a certain Vedius Pollio, who, in the presence of Augustus, would have given a slave as food to his fish (fed his slave to the fish), for having broken a glass. With the Romans, the regular method of taking the evidence of their slaves was under torture….When a master was murdered, all his slaves, in the same house, or within hearing, were condemned to death….they were of the race of whites. 

“That a change in the relations in which a man is placed should change his ideas of moral right and wrong, is neither new, nor peculiar to the color of the blacks. Homer tells us it was so 2600 years ago... ‘Jove fix’d it certain, that whatever day makes man a slave, takes half his worth away.’ But the slaves of which Homer speaks were whites.” 

We cannot fully or adequately comprehend slavery in America without 1. taking into account the complacency with which the Founders viewed the enslavement of whites in antiquity and 2. without considering the extent to which Queen Elizabeth I’s empire established the buying and selling of sub-Saharan Africans as an important base of the economy. Let us recall too that Elizabeth was steeped in Renaissance Kabbalism, under the influence of her Protestant “Astrologer Royal” John Dee, the British empire’s occult founder.

Jefferson’s Ethics vs. the Barbarism of Maimonides

Undoubtedly Jefferson’s racist assessment of the intellectual and moral disabilities of black Africans played a key part in the acceptance of their bondage. Compared to Maimonides however, our future third president made that assessment reluctantly, with many qualifications, and one could almost say, in the fear of God: 

Notes on the State of Virginia, p. 153: “The opinion, that they are inferior in the faculties of reason and imagination, must be hazarded with great dissidence. To justify a general conclusion, requires many observations...let me add too, as a circumstance of great tenderness, where our conclusion would degrade a whole race of men from the rank in the scale of beings which their Creator may perhaps have given them. 

“To our reproach it must be said, that though for a century and a half we have had under our eyes the races of black and of red men, they have never yet been viewed by us as subjects of natural history. 

“I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind” (p. 153).

“Hazarded with great dissidence...as a circumstance of great tenderness...I advance it therefore as a suspicion only” 

Jefferson is not establishing a dogma, he is thinking aloud, while making allowance for error and in the fear of daring to do as Rabbi Maimonides did and deny to black people the Imago Dei:

 “... as a circumstance of great tenderness, where our conclusion would degrade a whole race of men from the rank in the scale of beings which their Creator may perhaps have given them.”

There is no foundation in the preceding statement by which the evil Ku Klux Klan praxis, Seedline Identity theology, or neo-Nazi hatred can build a white racist imperium upon. Jefferson’s early views, in 1781, were not intended as doctrine. This intellectual of the Christian Enlightenment wrote his words mindful that they were conditional upon his further observation and study, as we discover when we read the letter he penned in 1809 to Henri Gregoire Washington: 

“I have received the favor of your letter of August 17th, and with it the volume you were so kind as to send me on the Literature of Negroes. Be assured that no person living wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a complete refutation of the doubts I have myself entertained and expressed on the grade of understanding allotted to them by nature, and to find that in this respect they are on a par with ourselves. My doubts were the result of personal observation on the limited sphere of my own State, where the opportunities for the development of their genius were not favorable, and those of exercising it still less so. 

"I expressed them therefore with great hesitation; but whatever be their degree of talent it is no measure of their rights. Because Sir Isaac Newton was superior to others in understanding, he was not therefore lord of the person or property of others. 

"On this subject they (black people) are gaining daily in the opinions of nations, and hopeful advances are making towards their re-establishment on an equal footing with the other colors of the human family. I pray you therefore to accept my thanks for the many instances you have enabled me to observe of respectable intelligence in that race of men, which cannot fail to have effect in hastening the day of their relief; and to be assured of the sentiments of high and just esteem and consideration which I tender to yourself with all sincerity” (emphasis supplied).

To make a cartoon of American history and cast Thomas Jefferson as a “hate-filled, evil white supremacist” who deserves to have his statues dynamited and his Declaration of Independence burned, is the kind of sheer bad faith and ill will of the sort the Bolsheviks visited with similar erasures and rewrites upon Russia. 

The conceit that people living in 1781 were required to exhibit the suffocating political correctness of 2020 lest they otherwise stand accused of monstrous iniquity, is a species of stupidity so abysmal it could only have been concocted on our Orwellian college campuses, corporate boardrooms and the dens of government bureaucrats. 

Let a competent team of historians survey the attitudes toward labor and bondage in 1776 or 1781 of the rabbis of Judaism, the imams of Islam, the chieftains of the Congo and the mandarins of China, and see how many Jeffersons they find among them. Precious few, we’ll warrant.

The freedom that Washington, Jefferson and the other patriots sowed eventually lifted all boats. It took time, but the concept of freedom for every human was born in these United States on July 4, 1776

Whether deists or orthodox believers, this emancipation of man and woman derived from a milieu saturated in principles of Gospel liberty. Freedom was born in America derived not from the Talmud or the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita or Buddha. It was the gift of minds who from cradle to grave inhabited a society and culture where the struggle to have “No King but Jesus,” resonated with the power of a dynamo. 

It was in the air. It was on the printed page. It was inescapable. Colonial and early America were Bible-literate societies to an astonishing degree. America’s gift of the idea of liberty evolved into a framework for gradually achieving freedom for all. 

On the steps of the ladder of liberation the first to gain the benefits of liberty were the free white yeomanry of America, then the enslaved (“indentured”) whites, and decades later, enslaved blacks. The second step has been almost completely erased from our nation’s history. For years this writer has been gathering new research material for a sequel to our book, They Were White and They Were Slaves. Most of this recent research testifies to the fact that the condition of whites in bondage was even more severe and more enduring than what we first detailed in our book. 

One must dig deeply in the archives because white slaves are nearly always mislabeled “servants.” Recently we found a military law imposed in 1756 on the American colonies by King George II (1683-1760), entitled, “An Act for the Better Recruiting of His Majesty’s Forces.” It was promulgated from Boston. Under this act, white slaves were seized from their owners and forced into the Redcoat’s army. 

How do we know they were slaves and not servants? By reading the protest of their owners against the king’s law, such as in Pennsylvania where the opposition was worded in terms of the army’s conscription of “a great number of bought servants.” 

The objection was to the interference with the legal property and rights of the owners of the whites in bondage, constituting a “manifest and grievous injustice.” To distinguish themselves from their white slaves, their petition was signed “the Freemen.” (Humble Address of the Representatives of the Freemen of Pennsylvania [to Lt. Governor Robert Hunter Morris], February 11, 1756).

After the American Revolution the British Crown could no longer dump white slaves in America under the “Transportation” of “felons” laws. These “felons” subject to capital punishment or enslavement in the colonies, were often English male and female shoplifters who had pilfered food or clothing, or poachers who had killed a deer or a hare on an aristocrat’s property. After 1786 they were shipped to “Botany Bay” (Australia). Their white skin did not prevent the merciless suffering inflicted upon them. 

Their enslavement is concealed by the juggling of words. Like the American white slaves misnamed servants, our potential outrage is mollified by the application of the term “convicts” to the white slaves of Australia. Approximately 160,000 were transported and placed in bondage in Australia, or Van Diemen’s Land (present day Tasmania). 

These “convicts” performed slave labor, and the females among them often toiled under the additional penalty of suffering enforced whoredom. These whites were regularly whipped. At the dreaded white slave camp of Port Arthur in Tasmania they were used as beasts of burden to pull passengers in a railway. 

In the face of these revisionist facts we find ourselves overwhelmed with contempt at the liberals’ idea that all the white people in that era were members of the “Master Race,” possessed of “white skin privilege.” To have credibility this hoax must exclude all considerations of class in the British empire, wherein destitute and indigent whites were regarded as a barely human, hereditarily tainted class. 

We know the identity of the members of the Master Class then and now, and they are not and never were white Christian slaves and paupers. 

This essay originally appeared in Revisionist History® no. 104 (September, 2019). Subscribe here.

Michael Hoffman is a professional historian and the author of nine books. His new history of the ruling class war on its own people, Hanging Poor Whites, is due for publication in early 2022.
__________

Tuesday, June 30, 2020

Assessing Mikael Nilsson’s critique of Jordan Peterson

Exposing Jordan Peterson’s Barrage of Revisionist Falsehoods About Hitler and Nazism


By Mikael Nilsson
Mr. Nilsson is a Swedish historian. His latest book Hitler Redux: The Incredible History of Hitler’s So-Called Table Talks, will be out from Routledge in the fall of this year
My assessments follow quotes from Mr. Nilsson's article published in the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz
—Michael Hoffman

Nilsson: "Peterson’s endless barrage of falsehoods includes the outrageous claim that “Hitler was elected” and “by a large majority too. It was a landslide vote; the kind of vote that no modern democratic leader ever gets.” Hitler was not elected, and the NSDAP never received more than 37.27 percent in a free election (in July 1932). A small camarilla of conservative politicians, led by Franz von Papen, convinced President Hindenburg to appoint Hitler as Chancellor in a coalition cabinet."

TRUE. THE MALIGNANT  MYTH OF HITLERS "DEMOCRATIC ELECTION" AS GERMANY’S LEADER NEEDS TO BE LAID TO REST.

Nilsson:"Hitler’s Table Talk - 1941–1944 insects are only mentioned twice, once in relation to the Russian people. Furthermore, Hitler’s Table Talk  does not contain Hitler’s words verbatim. It is a collection of edited notes made largely from memory and it has to be treated with the critical skepticism that such a source demands."

TRUE 

Nilsson: "Peterson has repeatedly claimed that Hitler was just 'the mouthpiece of the collective unconscious of the German people.' He says Hitler developed his ideology through a trial-and-error process whereby he kept saying what caused a good response as he was, partly unwittingly, “being molded by the crowd”; he acted out 'the dark desire of the mob.' There is no evidence that supports any of this. And it, too, comes dangerously close to Hitler apologetics." 

TRUE 

Nilsson: "And it is mirrored in his equally misinformed idea that basically all Germans participated in the Holocaust, and that almost every human being has the potential to be a Nazi or even a Hitler. Why is this so pernicious? Because blame placed everywhere is blame placed nowhere."

TRUE   

Nilsson: "And Peterson’s claim ignores the inconvenient truth that many Germans – not least many Jews and Marxists – resisted Hitler. The fact that Peterson systematically ignores those heroes and ordinary people of conscience (who often died fighting the Nazis) is problematic. It suggests some kind of collective rather than individual agency, which ends up flattening Hitler’s own agency and responsibility." 

TRUE 

Nilsson:"Most Germans were not fervent card-carrying Nazis. Any serious historian would state that without Hitler there would have been no Holocaust."

Only partly true. If Goebbels had led Germany, Judaic people would have been mass murdered, and perhaps in even greater numbers than Hitler perpetrated. The same would have probably been true if Heydrich or Alfred Rosenberg had been in charge. A tiny Nazi clique shared Hitler’s criminal eliminationist views of Judaic people. Beyond that handful, mass murder would have been unlikely.  

Read my book, Adolf Hitler: Enemy of the German People.

Nilsson:"Peterson has a long history of equivocating between Nazism and Communism, and suggesting an absolute equivalence between Nazi death camps and, for instance, the Soviet gulag camps. He seems unable to really see the very crucial differences, perhaps blinded by his equally manifest hostile obsession with what he calls “cultural Marxism” or the “postmodern neo-Marxists.”   The railing against “cultural Marxism” (a phrase with a long antisemitic history) is of course something that Peterson, unfortunately, has in common with Hitler and the Nazis. It is his blind spot, and to what degree this hatred of Marxism has influenced his analysis and understanding of Hitler and National Socialism is unknown. 

(End quote. Read more at www.haaretz.com)

The last paragraph quoted from Nilsson is nearly totally false. This is Communist dogma: if you’re a critic of Marxism or Soviet mass murder it is alleged that you have something in common with Hitler, who was also a (sometime) critic. (Hitler briefly served in a Marxist government in Munich).

If you dissent from cultural Marxism, i.e. the anti-family dictatorship exerted by radical feminism, you’re "anti-semitic.” 

And according to Nilsson, "hatred of Marxism" is a "blind spot.” 

All of the preceding statements are absurd. 

Many anti-Nazis, particularly Polish Catholics who valiantly fought Hitler and the Nazis, detested Marxism and rightly so, as do even those honest Leftists who are disgusted by Karl Marx’s underhanded deprecation and libels against, for example, Pierre Proudhon. 

Mr. Nilsson makes some valid points concerning Hitler’s record and Jordan Peterson’s sloppy disregard for certain facts, but Nilsson is in danger of seriously detracting from his credibility with his doctrinaire Marxism. Nothing feeds the alt-right narrative like a double-standard. Defeating neo-Nazism requires the avoidance of any appearance of biased political partisanship.

There is the whiff of the thought cop in Nilsson’s writing. For instance, he turns the phrase “revisionist history” into a pejorative. Why is that? Moreover, he regards the failure to sufficiently employ the “Holocaust” neologism as a sign of sinister thinking. 

Yet he makes no protest over the fact that holocausts that meet the dictionary definition (death by fire), such as occurred in the bombing of Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, as well as Hamburg, Dresden and nearly every major German city, are almost never termed a holocaust.

Hitler’s reign of evil was a disaster for not only Judaic and other targeted people, but for Germans and Germany, and one can find unbiased, reliable evidence for these facts in Adolf Hitler: Enemy of the German People.
_________

Saturday, June 20, 2020

Freemason Albert Pike’s Graven Image Toppled

Freemasonry’s “Supreme Commander”
Albert Pike’s Graven Image 
Toppled into the Dust


On the eve of the Summer Solstice, the  graven image of Albert Pike, the chief of 19th century Freemasonry and Satanism in America, has fallen and burned in Washington D.C. 

Read more: Our complete report has been published in the July issue of Revisionist History® newsletter 



Friday, June 12, 2020

Will Freemason Albert Pike’s Statue be removed?

Will Freemason Albert Pike’s Statue be Removed in Washington D.C?


By Michael Hoffman

In the Soviet-like frenzy to erase historical memory and generate amnesia, Nancy Pelosi’s Congress is hellbent on pulverizing the remembrance of things past. 

The move is on to raze every statue to a Confederate in Washington D.C., which begs the question, will Albert Pike’s monument also fall?

Pike was a Confederate general and the Supreme Commander of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry Southern Jurisdiction, the most powerful masonic organization on earth. 

His book, Morals and Dogma espoused Satanism. 

Hundreds of thousands of whites were (and are) his disciples. 

His statue in our nation's capitol honors Satanism, which probably means that the diabolic U.S. Congress, recognizing a fellow-traveler, might leave it untouched, even while it razes other statues.

Our proposal: keep Pike’s monument intact. Place a plaque prominently next to it containing the statement: "This statue to a masonic Satanist testifies to the hold a powerful secret society has exerted over our nation.”

Freemasonry is Kabbalism for Goyim

Revisionist history reveals that Kabbalism was first infiltrated into the West in "Catholic" Florence in the late 15th century. You will search in vain for a Renaissance or post-Renaissance papal encyclical condemning it. Pope Leo XIII's famous denunciation of Masonry carefully avoided Kabbalah, which is tantamount to writing about the origin of the automobile without mentioning the internal combustion engine. 

From Pico della Mirandola to Cardinal Henri de Lubac, for more than five hundred years the Church of Rome has been the deep cover center for Kabbalism among the goyim

Pike's satanic Freemasonry was ancillary fungus, generated by a far deeper, papal rot. Natural slaves (see Aristotle's tripartite division of humanity), will never be able to handle these radical truths. True sons and daughters of Augustine, Aquinas and Dante, will. 

Read The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome for the documentation. 
___________

Tuesday, June 02, 2020

Archbishop Viganò protests Freemasonry and Pope Francis

Archbishop Viganò protests the One-world religion of Freemasonry and the “infernal” Pope Francis

By Michael Hoffman

COVID 19

Last May 8,  Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò released an “Appeal for the Church and the world to Catholics and all people of good will,” which was also signed by Cardinal Gerhard Müller, former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and several other cardinals and bishops. In it, he said there is “reason to believe, on the basis of official data on the incidence of the epidemic as related to the number of deaths, that there are powers interested in creating panic among the world’s population with the sole aim of permanently imposing unacceptable forms of restriction on freedoms, of controlling people and of tracking their movements. The imposition of these illiberal measures is a disturbing prelude to the realization of a world government beyond all control.” 

Michael Hoffman's comment: In my opinion every word of the preceding is true, and commendable.


FREEMASONRY AND THE "INFERNAL PARODY"

Archbishop Viganò also mentioned in a May 29 letter “the top levels of the Hierarchy” (who are) “openly placing themselves at the service of the Prince of this world, adopting the demands made by the United Nations for the globalist agenda, Masonic brotherhood, Malthusian ecologism, immigrationism.”

He argued that “a single world religion without dogmas or morals, according to the wishes of Freemasonry” is currently being created. Speaking of Pope Francis, Viganò said “it is obvious that Bergoglio, along with those who are behind him and support him, aspires to preside over this infernal parody of the Church of Christ.” 

Michael Hoffman's comment: 

Archbishop Viganò has been living in hiding, allegedly in fear of assassination, since his August 2018 letter accusing Pope Francis of not enforcing the sanctions placed upon then-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, a homosexual predator whose crimes were facilitated by recent popes.

The question to ask is whether the archbishop is as naive and unschooled as he appears. Can we trust him? Is he for real or playing a part in the ancient Vatican game of good cop/bad cop and Right/Left dialectic, whereby seeming opposites are actually serving the same Master? 

We pose the question because in resurrecting the old Leo XIII rhetoric against Freemasonry, Viganò compounds the errors of omission which Leo himself propagated. Freemasonry is in fact the offspring of the Church of Rome's revolutionary Renaissance occultism. It grew out of the prisca theologia of the Neoplatonic-Hermeticism and Kabbalism which arose in the Church beginning in Florence in the 15th century, under Medici patronage, and was never dislodged

In this writer’s book, The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome, the documentation is presented for those who have eyes to see. For now we will point to Pope Leo's glaring omission: he cited Freemasonry as the opponent of the Church, but as all competent students of the occult know, Freemasonry in its essence is Kabbalism. About Kabbalism Leo XIII said nothing in his encyclicals contra Masonry. How could Leo and his army of Catholic scholars with access to the legendary Vatican archives, have missed the elephant in the room? Was this simply a mistake, or an indication of the deep cover and protection which Rome has afforded the Kabbalistic theology for more than 500 years?

Sincere campaigners on the Left who oppose usury banking and money worship in Rome, see in Right-wing figures like Viganò the possibility of a hidden hand of sponsorship by reactionary occult forces, such as the Knights of Malta, as well as Italian racketeers who desire to keep the usurious Vatican Bank functioning as their private money laundry. 

We do not know that the archbishop is culpable for any of the preceding. He is, however, guilty of manifesting grotesque ignorance of masonic origins, which are to be found in the Renaissance Church itself. Until that fact is known, Viganò's protests are a band-aid and little more. At this late hour, to work successfully for victory requires the articulation of radical truth.

I will address a familiar objection: "Oh, but Hoffman, the Freemasons despise the Church." 

Correct. Like Pepsi despises Coke, IBM despises Microsoft, and Ford detests Toyota. This rivalry does not signal they are not all working for the same objective — commerce — the marketing of products (soda pop, computers and vehicles) in the acquisitive competition to gain the most profit. 

Freemasonry is a Thelemic Counter-Church, competing with the Church of Rome for members and power. In itself, the rivalry between the two is no proof that they do not serve the same Master. 

When the Gambino crime family made war on the Genovese crime family did it signify that one faction was opposed to the Mafia? No, of course not. They were both mafia, contesting for money and power. 

The same is true of the “war” between the post-Renaissance Church of Rome and the masonic lodge. Don’t believe it? Study the 723 pages of The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome. Don’t have the time or inclination? In that case, your lassitude and incomprehension disqualify you from the debate. Opposition to our research predicated on obstinate ignorance does not persuade or impress.

Furthermore, over the course of more than five centuries, from the pontificate of Alexander VI to that of Francis,  the secret theology of that "infernal parody of the Church of Christ” — the post-Renaissance papacy — is the gnostic belief that all religions descend from a single primal truth. 

One World masonic conspiracy inherited its syncretism from the Renaissance "Catholicism" that clandestinely spread it among the upper echelons of the hierarchy and intelligentsia. True believers too pious or lethargic to investigate this harsh truth are cursed (2 Thess. 2:9-12), to continue to play bit parts in the solve et cogaula psychodrama now enveloping the West.

Copyright ©MMXX by Independent History and Research 

For further research:


_________