Welcome Information Connoisseurs

Welcome Information Connoisseurs

Saturday, October 08, 2016

Update on our Occult Renaissance book


The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome

Progress and Perils

By Michael Hoffman

By the grace of God we are about two-thirds of the way though the writing of our forthcoming book, “The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome.” The skullduggery we are discovering is more grievous than we had anticipated.

One section of the work deals with Reuchlin the “Catholic Humanist” Judaizer, and the papal treachery against his nemesis, Johannes Pfefferkorn, the heroic German-Judaic convert to Catholicism who wrote powerful pamphlets exposing the Talmud. The treachery against Pfefferkorn was put into motion by the Archbishop of Mainz, by the Holy Roman Emperor (who took a bribe from Rabbi Joel of Rosheim), and by Medici Pope Leo X, among many other churchmen. We have the proof. “The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome” should prove explosive. Please pray for its success. We can anticipate the objections from cultists: “The Holy Father didn’t intend to…”

“The Holy Father actually condemned Reuchlin…”

“The Church would never…”

This fact-averse cult mentality’s apologetic is less compelling under the current Revelation-of-the-Method pontiff, however. Pope Francis is showing us the tactics of the Vatican for the past 550 years. Formally, Francis does not advocate divorce or deny the indissolubility of marriage, then with his other hand he encourages bishops in South America to admit the divorced and remarried Catholics to communion, “after reflection.” What infant imagines this stratagem is only employed in the modern papacy? Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI did not officially promulgate the doctrine that Pharisaic-Talmudic Judaism is the benign parent of Christianity. then on the other hand by their exhortations and synagogue visits —in other words by their example —they did so to tremendous effect.

The last resort of the cultists is to state, “But the pontiff did not do these things ex cathedra.”


If by their pontificates the popes enlarged the kingdom of Satan, then that fact alone is enough to demonstrate that the Renaissance and post-Renaissance Church of Rome is not that Church against which Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail. Sometimes people confuse this writer with a theologian. I am not. I am a researcher in history. God gave us reasoning faculties which, if we are scrupulous, lead us, after investigating and studying the evidence for years, to state that “A” is what happened, not “B.” Making this assertion about “A,” it does not follow that it is incumbent upon us to say what happened to “B.”  Res ipsa loquitur.

Christ’s Church was in Rome prior to the Neoplatonic-Hermetic-Kabbalistic satanists capturing the papacy in the Renaissance

  • Fact: No pope from 1515 onward restored the 1500-year immutable dogma of Christ’s Church against profit on loans that Leo X had incrementally derogated. On the contrary, many pontiffs expanded and enlarged permission for this heinous mortal sin, sometimes with disgusting, Talmudic-type escape clauses (cf. Vix Pervenit), and sometimes with relentless, incremental steps which made possible the revolution of Pius VIII in 1830. 

  • Fact: No pope after circa 1450  reversed the march of the Kabbalah through the recesses of the hierarchy of the Church. Leo XIII in his famous denunciation of Freemasonry (“Humanum Genus”), dared not refer, in the slightest respect, to masonry’s Kabbalistic derivation; he dared not declare that Freemasonry is Kabbalah-for-gentiles, and that its foundation first arose in the West by means of the protection the papacy granted to Count Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Johannes Reuchlin and their demonic epigones.

  But, some will protest, “The popes burned Giordano Bruno—and the Talmud!” Yes, and mafia bosses assassinate one another when one of them attempts to usurp the other. To live and thrive as a Kabbalist-Satanist under the pontiffs of the Renaissance one had to submit absolutely to their authority. This was a pre-requisite. Bruno would not. He saw himself as greater than the pope; that’s the reason he was burned; not for his occultism, which Pico had previously fully initiated under papal auspices, and the humanist Reuchlin had established within the Church like the rock of Gibraltar.    

Fact: Reuchlin, who was father to Bruno’s occultism, died an honored professor at two papally-chartered Catholic universities. Pico and Reuchlin were both papally obedient Satanists. They thrived and Bruno died.

The Talmud and the Renaissance popes: a shocking fact
Fact: no force on earth better extended, preserved and shielded the Babylonian Talmud from the virtual extinction sought for it by the Catholic Saint Vincent Ferrer—the most successful evangelist of the Judaic people since apostolic times, as well as the Dominicans of Cologne, and Savonarola in the Florentine Republic — than the Renaissance popes.

Patsies and suckers cannnot discern the point at which it was necessary for the sly chess players in the Vatican to shore up the institutional unity of the ecclesiastical bureaucracy by making concessions to powerful conservative Catholic forces, and thus, they will take the occasional burning of the Talmud in the Renaissance era at face value. 

We challenge papalolaters to answer this question 
What does it signify to publicly burn centuries-old, crumbling manuscript copies of the Talmud in public, in the Campo di’ Fiori, when the pope made certain that privately, two thousand pristine new copies were reprinted in the finest published edition in history, up to that time? 

Moreover, when oppression of working men and women was reaching a crushing point in the nineteenth century and Pope Leo XIII, “the light from heaven,” was called upon to blunt the appeal of Marxism by restating to the world the force of law of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the medieval Church’s implacable defense of the worker, the Catholic faithful beseeched Pope Leo, in his encyclical Rerum Novarum, to destroy the basis of  the parasitic Money Power by restoring the ancient Catholic ban on profits on loans. Leo XIII declined. No such restoration will be found in Rerum Novarum, which is otherwise filled with nice-sounding rhetoric and palliatives. How could it? At the time the encyclical was penned the Vatican was in hock to the Rothschild bank

These money facts are found in our 2012 book, Usury in Christendom, which cannot be advertised in conservative or “traditional Catholic” publications, or stocked in their bookstores, because the truth hurts. It's going to hurt considerably more after the publication of “The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome;” the Rome which has nurtured a child-molester, transvestite culture among the hierarchy as far back as St. Peter Damian’s noble jeremiad exposing it.

The robber Church stole the Tridentine Latin Mass from the Faithful and in the 1970s drove a generation of priests for whom it was the Mass of their ordination, to depression, alcoholism, mental illness, and suicide. Many loyal laity shared the same fate. Throughout the history of the post-Renaissance Church it had been the parish priests and the lay people who upheld the Faith, and the “Eminences” and “Holy Fathers” who ravaged it.

Even the pagan kings of the Republic of Rome had been sufficiently honorable to fulfill their duty as the protectors of the commons against the aristocracy, but the popes, i.e. the “kings” of the Church of Rome, betrayed and sacrificed the common Catholic people on the altar of elite conspiracy. From 1470 to 1970 and beyond, twas ever thus. My mother would often say, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” Those who run around like wind-up toys praising the Rothschild asset Pope Leo XIII as a “light from heaven” are shaming themselves.

Excavating revisionist data can be perilous
Excavating revisionist data without fear of shattering people’s cherished fantasies, can be perilous. When, in our Revisionist History newsletter no. 74, (“Right Wing Myths with an Endless Shelf Life”), we implicated the Catholic idol Hilaire Belloc in perpetuating a hoax about English history, we lost about 15% of our subscriber basis and some considerable portion of our donor base.

When, in our Revisionist History newsletter no. 80, “Hitler Had Him Murdered: Gregor Strasser, The German Visionary Who Could Have Led His Nation to a New Birth of Freedom,” we lost another hefty segment of subscribers and benefactors.

In “True and False Heroes,” the cover story of Revisionist History issue no. 83, in which we reported that the right wing idol Antonin Scalia had for decades assisted the Talmudic-Kabbalistic Chabad-Lubavitch rabbinic cult in infiltrating the American legal system and perverting thousands of American lawyers with the Talmud’s legal standards, we lost the support of more readers.

In October we received the following note from Michael D., a Catholic in Harrogate, England: “I’m looking forward to your book on the ‘Occult Renaissance Church of Rome.’ I fear it will have the same fate in Catholic circles as your work, Usury in Christendom. The St. George Educational Trust blog blocked me from posting a link to your usury book. However, it’s the truth that counts so I’m grateful for your research.”

As you can probably appreciate, we are not the John Birch Society or National Review. We don’t have tens of thousands of subscribers or donors. We can ill afford to lose anyone. The publication early next year of “The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome,” may prove to be the straw that broke the camel’s back, spelling the collapse of our publishing enterprise, which at present subsists “paycheck-to-paycheck,” as economists say with regard to Americans in straitened circumstances. 

With us, we operate mailbox-trip to mailbox-trip. Whatever we find when we turn the key on our post office box every week decides the fate of our work, and too many more blows will put us on the unemployment line as surely as if we were toiling for a textile plant in the South that just cut a deal with a factory in Red China.

We can’t think of a better way to go down however, than fighting for the facts. And lest we commit a sin against hope, it is also quite possible that those who prize knowledge and have a thirst for truth in history and a desire to put things right, will make our book a success.

Either way, we know that Jesus Christ is above all else, Truth. It is by the power of impostures that Satan rules. Where there is truth, there is Christ and His Kingship. This is our consolation. If we have indeed managed in “The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome” to unearth the truth, then He is with us — and who can be against us? 

No restoration of Christ’s Church can, or will, ever come about from crediting comforting lies and illusions. His Church can only be taken back from the robbers and fully restored, when His People are willing to stare harsh, tragic facts about our supposed “great leaders” in the face, and then proceed to clean house with an iron broom.

Copyright©2016 by Michael Hoffman


JMoore said...

Looking forward to reading this new work, and sincerely hope you get the support you need to carry on. It's very sad to hear of the loss of readers and support due to telling the truth about very difficult and complex historical events. One would hope the opposite would be the case but such are the times we live in. It seems as though Christ the source of truth would also be the source of true unity, and when popes are enabling the masonic-kabballistic infiltration, it's no wonder the sheep would be scattered, falling into various factions to fight each other instead of uniting against the common and extremely lethal foe.

Unknown said...

I am really looking forward to your new book, which I am sure would be very profound and full of amazing insight. I sincerely consider your book Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare as one of the best I have ever read. It is indeed very sad, that people don't want to read the truth and opt for ignorance these days. But you are definitely on the right path and despite some interim problems the success awaits you.

Dead Reckoning said...

I of II

Based on this little column of yours - your forthcoming book may be your most important and ground breaking work. Do you have any idea what size the final product will be?

I would submit that your criticisms of Catholics, particularly some of the leaders and currents of thought in the Traditionalist movement - which you have interspersed throughout many of your books and columns over the years, are becoming more and more prescient as time rolls by. Even Malachi Martin (who we have to read with a skeptical eye - I know) had stated on Art Bell's radio show 20 years ago that the documents and destruction of the Church as allowed at Vatican II was merely the end result of processes and problems brewing and stewing in the Catholic Church for a long time prior to the Council. I think much of the paralysis in the more Orthodox wing of the Catholic Church is that the Vandal like and evil behavior of Churchmen and the Popes are rationalized through the prism of Papal 'infallibility' and the use of Christ's statement to the effect that the 'Power of Satan will never overcome the Church.'

The problem with that is that you now have to suspend all powers of reason and intelligence to rationalize to not see nullification of the Gospel, for instance, with Francis' de facto permission for Catholics to divorce and remarry. You can't rationalize anymore. Its either the Pope is 'intentionally mistaken' or Francis is 'not' the Pope. Its all well and good for a traditionalist to argue that the Gates of Hell will never prevail against the Church - that's true - but you can't avoid the fact that the Church remaining at the end of time could be a mere handful of people having Mass said for them in a cave somewhere under threat of execution.

If by 'the cult' you are referring to Catholics who cannot admit the Popes may have been mistaken (no matter how honest or pure their intentions were), or have intentionally allowed occult and forbidden concepts entry into Church practice and dogma, its interesting because this 'cult' transcends and crosses all ideological boundaries - from the 'long skirt' crowd staunchly upholding and defending the Renaissance Papacy to the closeted homosexuals and their enablers in the Church hierarchy that praise Pope Francis now. It runs the gamut.

I am also not surprised that the Belloc crowd pulled support for your work because you argued that Belloc was wrong on certain aspects of his work on usury as if Belloc was beyond historical review and revision. Both Belloc and Chesterton were anti-German and mocked Germanics (both Catholic and not Catholic). For all their work in upholding traditional Catholic and European society, both authors expressed contempt for Germans and supported that war which, more than anything else, ended European civilization.

Dead Reckoning said...

I also want to thank you for raising the destruction of many Catholic Priests as a result of our being robbed of the Tridentine Mass. I was born after Vatican II, but from my grandparents we heard many stories of Priests in their 60's and 70's being removed from office and thrown out with a loss of pension and all benefits for refusing to say the Novus Ordo or sack their own Churches of Holy images and statutes. My home parish in the diocese of Brooklyn/Queens saw its Monsignore sacked and laicized at the age of 70 whereupon he moved into an apartment and lived with his unmarried brother until he passed away. The Priest's crime was rejecting his Bishop's demand that he remove the traditional marble alter and replace it with a 'liturgical table'. These stories are being lost as the generation that can remember them passes away.

With respect to the homosexual clergy - is their any mention in your work why sodomy was/is so prevalent that St. Peter Damian (who I have been reading after you mentioned him) wrote on it a thousand years ago? Why even today would it exist in such number - all a man needs now to engage in nights of l'amour that would make Cassenova blush is to have some charm with woman, nice clothes and some money in your pocket and head to a big City. What the hell is so attractive about male sodomy - of all the ways to ruin yourself, why that. Perhaps it is Divine punishment?

Unknown said...

You would enjoy James Kelley's book Anatomyzing Divinity on how this trend developed into what you are discussing.


Michael Hoffman said...

Dear Mr. Dyer

re: "Anatomyzing Divinity"

The book's notion that St. Augustine is at the root of the Neoplatonic conspiracy is completely untenable in my eyes. Cf. Books vi - ix of "The City of God," (preferably in the excellent Cambridge University edition translated by R.W. Dyson).

Moreover, "Anatomyzing Divinity" makes too much of an alleged "Frankist conspiracy" to uphold the Filioque; and from that point onward the strong Greek Orthodox orientation of the author becomes patent. For this writer it becomes an obstacle, in that I don't subscribe to the Greek Orthodox dogma that the Filioque was the start of a major portion of the esoteric conspiracy. In fact, that conspiracy in the western Church was sparked by a Greek in the mid 15th century -- granted a wayward one -- Plethon (also spelled Plethos). For some reason this major figure in the dissemination of Neoplatonism does not appear in "Anatomizing Divinity."

As a specifically Greek Orthodox critique of some aspects of esotericism, the book is adequate within that tradition, but without stating its religious affiliation, it is a disappointment for a non-Greek Orthodox reader that does not share the author's serious misreading of Augustine, and insistence on the supposed heresy of the Filioque.

Anon said...

Dear Sir what you say is undoubtedly true. It is true because Satan has been always attacking the one and only church that Christ instituted while on earth. Waugh said that it had to be protected by the Holy Ghost because it could never have survived this long. The level of degradation that is currently seen in the Church is truly shocking for all to see. As a Traditionalist it is obvious that the heretic currently occupying the See of St. Peter is a mason and an enemy of the Church. That doesn't stop us praying for him. Our Holy Mother is undergoing the last trial that is written of in the Catechism of the Catholic Church before the end of the world. This is the crucifixion of the Church that we as faithful Catholics must follow our Saviour if we wish to take up our cross. The Catholic Church was usurped at the 1958 conclave when Cardinal Siri was elected and took the name of Gregory XVII, but was forced to stand down through threats to the Vatican and to his family, it is said by B'nai B'rith and a cabal of masonic cardinals. The 2nd Vatican Council was masonry's new religion promulgated by Paul VI. It is for this reason that we Traditional Catholics follow Our Lord into the tomb which is being prepared by His enemies. But the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, as spoken by the Blessed Virgin at Fatima, will also restore all things in Christ. Out of this tribulation of the world and the Church will come the Great Monarch to France and Europe and the Holy Pope who will lead the final battle against Antichrist.

If you don't know of the work of Father Villa who was given the task to unmask ecclesiastical masonry by Saint Padre Pio and with Pope Pius XII blessing, then it is worth reading up on him. http://padrepioandchiesaviva.com/ If you didn't know then things are far worse than you can imagine. Paul

Unknown said...

Glad you've read it. Would you like to have a discussion or debate on this topic? I am very fluent in St Augustine and am aware of his critique of his former positions. The Filioque is an outworking of the problem of the essence - energy distinction which Rome formally rejects. The west followed the trek of Augustine in holding Gods attributes are His essence as Aquinas mandates, as well as the confusion like "love" being a Person (and not an energy common to all three Persons).

Dr. Sherrard explains this well. The Filioque is merely one aspect of this confusion, where hypoatatic properties are lost in RC.


Unknown said...

As a reference point, I rewrote this for this discussion:


Jeff Masters- San Francisco said...

Dear Mike,

I am confused about the timeline of subversion of the Church Hierarchy. Peter Damian campaigned against sodomy and other vices in the Church of Rome IN THE 11TH CENTURY. Dante wrote against corruption in the Church IN THE EARLY 14TH CENTURY. The Great Schism which began in 1054 culminated in the Sack of Constantinople in 1204 and the Latin occupation of Byzantium for more than 60 years. So how can you say that the elite conspiracy began only around 1470?

You wrote in this post and in the recent email- Leo X-Occult father of Luther's movement :

Christ’s Church was in Rome prior to the Renaissance, prior to the smoke of usury and the Neoplatonic-Hermetic-Kabbalistic satanism capturing the papacy.

The Catholic Church had stood for 1400 years as Christ’s ecclesia, and a bulwark of the Gospel, until the coming of the Renaissance and the revolutionary popes of that era.

It's going to hurt considerably more after the publication of The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome; the Rome which has nurtured a child-molester transvestite culture among the hierarchy as far back as St. Peter Damian’s noble jeremiad exposing it.

Even the pagan kings of the Republic of Rome had been sufficiently honorable to mostly fulfill their duty as the protectors of the commons against the aristocracy, but the popes, i.e. the “kings” of the Church of Rome, betrayed and sacrificed the common Catholic people on the altar of elite conspiracy. From 1470 to 1970 and beyond, twas ever thus.

Michael Hoffman said...

Dear Al Ellis:

Corruption, rot or however you want to parse it, has always been present in the Church. Christ had 12 apostles and “one of them hath a devil.”

The question is, when did this state of affairs decline to the point where the papacy was captured by The Adversary, and the Church of Rome became in many respects, an enemy of Christ? I answer the Renaissance. The Greek Orthodox will put it much sooner. It’s a point of contention, certainly.

Unknown said...

Would that mean that the eastern orthodox were right in placing a primacy of honor to the bishop of Rome rather than that of authority?