Thursday, May 21, 2015

Atlantic Philanthropies: Stop Meddling in Irish Politics


Atlantic Philanthropies is run by a Gara LaMarche who formerly ran the U.S. operations of George "Soros" Schwartz' Overthrown Society Institute.

In the context of the rapidly approaching referendum on same-sex marriage in Ireland on 22nd May (tomorrow!), people around the world should be made aware that this push for same-sex marriage in Ireland has not at all been a "home-grown" phenomenon, but, rather, a carefully-orchestrated and massively well-funded assault on the natural family, coming from private American funding.
Over the last 13 years, Atlantic Philanthropies, an American organisation, has donated €735 Million to causes in Ireland. And, according to their own website, roughly €25 Million of that money has been earmarked for the promotion of LGBT interests in Ireland.
€25 Million.
Simply put, that kind of money can have a major influence on Government policy. In fact, in a recent article in Alliance Magazine (1 April 2013) Christopher Oechsli, CEO of Atlantic Philanthropies, said: "Our Board recently met with the Taoiseach (the Irish Prime Minister) and Government Ministers about what we are seeking to do in our final years and the key questions that arose were about impact and sustainability."
With respect to impact on social issues, Atlantic Philanthropies certainly are not shy about reporting on what they have done. In their report, entitled, "Catalysing LGBT Equality and Visibility in Ireland," Atlantic Philanthropies details its funding, and gives a breakdown of how their money has been able to influence Irish social and political life.
In the report's synopsis page, (http://www.atlanticphilanthropies.org/learning/report-catalysing-lgbt-equality-and-visibility-ireland), the author reviews some "accomplishments" of Atlantic's grantees, including:
"* Passage of a landmark 2010 civil partnership law
Secured public referendum on civil marriage, which is scheduled for 2015 [The referendum which is about to take place!]
and
* Government creation of a Gender Recognition Advisory Group, the role of which is make recommendations on how to proceed toward legal frameworks for gender recognition for transgender people"
The report itself goes into much greater detail about the efforts of Atlantic's grantees to influence different sectors of Irish society, including Irish politicians. And, in one part, it expressly says: "The Funding Aimed to Achieve These Four Goals: * Deliver legislative change on same-sex partnerships and transgender identity".
Having an office in Dublin shields Atlantic Philanthropies from the usual government restrictions on foreign money being used to influence Irish government policy. Actually, in reality, it has allowed them to use their money to buy influence over Irish social life - importing into Ireland policy which the vast majority of Irish people have not asked for.
In that sense, this interference in Irish life has been most unwelcome, and is seen by many as a type of cultural imperialism. (http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/breda-o-brien-asking-questions-about-funding-for-referendum-campaign-1.2205469)
In the run-up to the referendum on same-sex marriage, which has largely been foisted on the Irish people, please send Atlantic Philanthropies a clear message: Stop interfering in Irish politics, and stop your funding of projects which seek to change Irish government policy and law!
Thank you!
For more information:

35 comments:

Anonymous said...

A Warning from Canada: Same Sex Marriage Erodes Fundamental Rights.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14899/

Of course, it is meant, by the term "fundamental rights," the right to be in error, but nonetheless some valid points about natural law are made in the article.

Northsider said...

I'm writing from Dublin on the night of this referendum - the expectation seems to be that the "same sex marriage bill" will sail through. God forbid, but if it does, I wouldn't necessarily take the result at face value. The recent British election raised many eyebrows, when against all expectations the ardent Neo Con Tories won an overall majority. About a week before the election 250,00 ballot papers were stolen from a van near Dagenham. There were many many anomalies about this election - far too many to go into here - but suffice to say that the result was exactly what the Rothschild elite wanted. Indeed the very first thing the new government announced was its intention to bring in a bill outlawing "non-violent extremism". Ireland is no stranger to systemic vote fraud - in 2009 a recount in an election in a west of Ireland constituency revealed that a pro-Palestinian activist who opposed a Shell gas pipeline had 3,000 votes stolen from him and given to another candidate. This huge scandal was almost completely ignored by the Irish media and the Irish police refused to investigate it. So the lesson is: don't take the results of elections or referendums at face value.

MaryC said...

What Northsider says is correct: remember also the "Lisbon Treaty" vote in Ireland a few years ago. Everything points to vote fraud in that instance, also.

annely said...

Has it been a systematic ruin of a last stronghold of the Roman Catholic Church? The sex abuse scandals, The Convent scandals of slavery, dead children in a mass grave, taking babies from unwed mothers, LGBTQ or Bust...

Northsider said...

Annely: Your comment is rather difficult to decipher, but all these scandals are nothing but a psy-op. The proof of that is the way the corporate media ignore much bigger scandals in other religious denominations and institutions. As for"Convent scandals of slavery" what a load of tosh! Do try and distinguish between masonic corporate media propaganda/Hollywood anti-Catholic drivel on the one hand, and truth on the other. Even an official report on the Magdalen laundries that was heavily slanted against the Church was forced to admit that many of the the "slaves" in these homes had extremely fond memories of the nuns. By the way the fact that this campaign to blacken the name of the Irish Church is so meticulously coordinated, and involves all branches of the media and the Masonic establishment and civil society, makes it all the more plausible that the same forces would be ready, willing, and able to coordinate the rigging of crucial referendums, not to mention elections.

Northsider said...

Mary C: Very true: Lisbon and Nice Treaty fraud was glaringly obvious. Ditto the 1995 Divorce referendum, not to mention the 2011 Irish Presidential election. In that instance RTE's teletext service miraculously had correct result on its site before voting had even stopped! - in spite of the winner being around 15 points behind in the polls a day before the election. In the West we now live in a Soviet style polity - where election and referendum results are decided by the elite before the event even takes place. The only difference between us and the Soviets is that, unlike them, most of us don't know it.

Anonymous said...

Maurice

Ireland is acting as if possessed.
My Wife's relatives, and mine, believe 'the pill' is ok - they believe adultery is ok - homosexuality is ok - there's more to life than the 'Faith' - all the while still going to Mass, Confirmations, Baptisms, Weddings.......
How I wish todays result was fraud - no, it was the majority will of the possessed people of Ireland who, to be honest, are more than revelling in their new found filthy freedom to resist, mock and attack the very Hand that kept this country alive for centuries. Today was a public denial and rejection of the Holy Roman Catholic Church - the rainbow flag has replaced the Bride, and everyone in Ireland thinks it's just great.
Well, not quite everyone. 100's of thousands said NO - was Christ the foundation of that decision in their minds? I hope so.
Maurice, please Pray, and ask your readers to Pray, for the Irish. Pray that Our Lord and His Blessed Mother will raise up a lowly person to lead the Irish out from this putrid sinful state of mind.
And pray, Maurice, that the Irish will recognise that, in this instance, the rainbow represents more than just support for disordered perversion - that the symbol of the rainbow is a camouflage, behind which hides the very force that spends every waking moment plotting, planning and scheming for the destruction of the Holy Roman Catholic Church and all the souls of the world they can get their evil hands on.

Northsider said...

Anonymous: how can you can say this result wasn't a fraud? That is pure arrogance on your part. I have presented evidence of very serious fraud in Irish elections - fraud that was in the public realm and that nobody contested, but that was completely ignored by the Irish media. The Irish Times in its report the next day on the results from the constituency in question mentioned in passing that Declan Ganley's request for a recount had "back-fired" when the recount revealed that he had been given 3,000 votes from another candidate. That was the extent of their interest in this extremely serious miscarriage of democracy. Imagine the outcry in the Masonic western media if this had happened in a Russian or Iranian election. They'd all say it made a mockery of the voting process. And as I said before the GardaĆ­ (Irish police) refused the wronged candidate's repeated demands to investigate. I could give you many other examples of very serious miscarriages, both from Ireland and Britain. So,to say catergorically that this referendum was NOT rigged is insupportable. The very most you can say is that you don't believe it was.

Northsider said...

There's another point here: where did all the many, many millions cited above go to? Postering? Leafleting? Canvassing? All those things cost comparatively little in a small country like Ireland - or in the case of canvassing nothing at all (theoretically anyway - the recent revelations of black Americans demanding the "pay for protest" they'd been promised by Soros front groups tell a different story). So one has to ask who received the bulk of this money. Given the corruption of modern western states it isn't remotely far fetched to suggest that those in charge of running and overseeing this referendum got their slice. The book Orwellian Ireland by Brian Nugent makes it clear just how corrupt law enforcement authorities in the Irish Republic have become in recent decades. And his information is on the record and mostly taken from mainstream sources such as the The Phoenix magazine (a rough Irish equivalent of Private Eye - only rather more hard hitting). The referendum results from certain rural and working class constituencies (eight to one in favour) strike me as bizarrely far fetched. Anyone who knows the Irish working classe (the working class generally in fact) knows that there is among such communities a strong antipathy to homosexuality that has almost nothing to do with religion. Indeed some of the most pronounced working class "homophobes" I've encountered are often strongly anti-religion in general. Militant homosexuals such as the late Gore Vidal have often admitted just how "homophobic" the working class tend to be. Yet we are asked to believe that such folk turned out in droves to support not just homosexuality, but what was, until around a decade, ago the wildest shores of the homosexual revolution. I don't buy it. Not for a second.

JMR said...

I live in a South American country that was once 90% Catholic. The military dictatorship, which took power to prevent a communist takeover, encouraged the establishment of evangelical sects in order to promote a culture that was more receptive to capitalism. The evangelical sects have grown exponentially into huge organisations and own their own television stations. Because of their tithing policies, they are the ideal front for money laundering for the drug trade. But you never read any newspaper reports about the prrsonal wealth of the leaders of these sects.
The post Vatican II Catholic Church here has been totally dominated by liberation theology and supported the return of the communist exiles who have been in power for 12 years now and whose government is the most corrupt ever known in the history of the country.
Ironically, it is these evangelical sects that are in the forefront of the battle to combat the legalisation of abortion and the legalisation of homosexual marriage. The representatives of the post Vatican II Church are remarkable for their absence.
I was present at a talk where Bishop Williamson, the' defender 'of traditional Catholicism openly praised the evangelical sects for their combat against the legislation of abortion and homosexual marriage, as well as the' modesty'of Muslim women and the 'family ties' of the Hindus. I was open mouthed with astonishment, the fact that these religions were heretical and idolatrous didn't seem to mean anything to him.
However, one cannot underestimate the power of television and films in the 'softening up' process which makes this legislation possible. Homosexuals are always portrayed as being more intelligent, witty, better dressed and victims of ignorance and prejudice.
Most people probably have very little contact with homosexuals and their world, the degradation and the promiscuity, their only experience is that of related through television.
I come from an age when I didn't even know homosexuals existed until I was 18. There do seem to be a greater proportion of homosexuals now but I don't know if it was because I was completely unaware as a child or whether there really are more due to endocrine interruptors in modern chemicals and oestrogen mimicking properties of soy
which is so pervasive nowadays.
I vaguely remember when homosexual
relations between consenting adults over the
age of 25 were decriminalised but I was young and my parents certainly didn't discuss it . I certainly don't remember there being a huge outcry against this legislation on the part of the Catholic Church or society in general.
The real cause of the problem, however was tacit acceptance of contraception. The Church did warn us but nobody wanted to listen.

Northsider said...

JMR: A very good point about contraception. My own view, for what it's worth, is that it's time traditional Catholic critics of the liberalism of the post-Vatican II Church got real. As I see it we're dealing here with a criminal conspiracy to silence the Church. We can all have our views on whether or not Edward Snowden is a whistleblower or a double agent, but there's no question of the authenticity of the information he has divulged, and the huge scope it reveals for blackmailing Churchmen, politicians, journalists, celebrities and just about everyone in a position of power or influence. And it's not just blackmail in the sense of revealing dirty secrets. The veteran British left-wing politician Ken Livingstone recently stated on RT that politicians who resist American corporate interests tend to "have accidents". I'd say ANYONE who resists the New World Order (a phrase an old leftie like Livingstone would obviously deprecate) full stop, not just American corporations, is in danger of having "accidents". An Irish Catholic singer Dana (she used to appear regularly on EWTN) who stood for Irish presidency in 2011 on an anti-banker corruption platform had an attempt made on her life during the election campaign (her car was tampered with). Catholics in Mexico and Spain and elsewhere used to understand that the Masonic enemies of the Church were extremely ruthless criminals - not cuddly high flown idealistic liberals. Catholics - even Traditional Catholics - have lost that understanding, even though the criminality of "Talmudo-masonry" has never been more obvious. Rigged elections and referendums, blackmail, entrapment, death threats,infiltration,false flags,"whackings", smear campaigns, and so on are part and parcel of the modus operandi of the New World Order. Acceptance of that grim reality should be the starting point for any Catholic restoration in my view.

Anonymous said...

JMR said .....

I was present at a talk where Bishop Williamson, the' defender 'of traditional Catholicism openly praised the evangelical sects for their combat against the legislation of abortion and homosexual marriage, as well as the' modesty'of Muslim women and the 'family ties' of the Hindus. I was open mouthed with astonishment, the fact that these religions were heretical and idolatrous didn't seem to mean anything to him.
---------------------------------

Williamson is of the one step forward one step backward variety.
He knows nothing of the "modesty" of Muslim women or the "family ties" of the Hindus.

Northsider said...

The Masonic media in Ireland is claiming that 100,000 young Irish immigrants came home to vote in the referendum - hence the result. This is so hilariously far-fetched it makes Soviet propaganda seem both subtle and trustworthy by comparison. Most young Irish people couldn't be bothered switching off the telly and walking 100 yards to vote in this referendum, so the idea that 100,000 of them paid big bucks and took valuable time off from their often fragile jobs to travel from Australia, the U.S. and Canada to vote is about as likely as 30 million young U.S. expats flying home to vote in the finals of American Idol. In fact, on reflection, the latter is more plausible.

By the way, it should be noted that the Chief Imam in Ireland strongly urged all Muslims to vote no to "same sex marriage", whereas the head of the biggest Protestant denomination in Ireland, the Church of Ireland, enthusiastically supported the Yes campaign. There are now huge numbers of Muslims in Ireland, so if they had all voted as the Imam urged, they might very well, all on their own, have swung it for the No side. But that would of course be based on the extremely unlikely hypothesis that the Zio-Catholophobes would leave the result to chance.

annely said...

Northsider, I said systematic. That means methodical, organized, by design. Love in Christ.

JMR said...

Anonymous. Bishop Williamson knows exactly what he is doing. Never underestimate his intelligence.

JMR said...

Northsider. The starting point for any Catholic restoration is for Catholics to follow the example of Saint Athanasius and learn, understand and firmly believe in the dogmas of the Catholic faith.

Northsider said...

Annely: Very sincere apologies if I misconstrued your words. Love in Christ.

Northsider said...

JMR: "The starting point for any Cathoic restoration is for Catholics to follow the example and learn, understand and firmly believe in the dogmas of the Catholic faith."

I couldn't agree more, but there were (and still are) plenty of Catholics who knew Catholic dogmas off by heart and theoretically accepted them all, but who were nonetheless led astray by political or social currents of their time. I could cite a host of controversial modern examples, but the enthusiastic support many educated orthodox Catholics gave to the crazed bloodletting of World War I and World War II suffices to make the point. Knowing the dogmas of the Church does not automatically immunise one from the desire for human respect, or from the pharisaism and facile intellectual snobbery that reflexively despises "conspiracy theorists".

As for Bishop Williamson: whatever reservations one may have about some of his views, it's quite unfair in my view to criticise him for making the obvious point that Muslim women are much more modest in their dress than modern Catholic or modern Protestant women. This is a truth easily observable by simply walking down any street in any major city.

Anonymous said...

This talk best encapsulates why I -a long time reader of both your blog as well as Revisionist Review- decided to walk away from the Roman Church six years ago:

http://jaysanalysis.com/2015/05/26/jaysanalysis-deconstructing-vatican-2-the-papacy

JMR said...

Northsider. For a Catholic, modesty 'is an intuition of the spiritual dignity proper to man' CC2524. Modesty which is enforced by a heretical religion that also supports polygamy, female circumcision, incestuous marriage between cousins, stoning for adultery, and the preferential abortion of girls is not true modesty.
Bishop Williamson, the FSSPX, the CMRI, the FSSPV , the Resistance are all equally as heretical as the post- Vatican II Church in their teachings regarding salvation by desire and invincible ignorance which are NOT dogmas of the faith and as such, in accordance with St. Paul's epistle to the Galations, it is my obligation as a Catholic to anathemize them.
I am not old enough to remember the Second World War but I doubt that many Catholics were enthusiastic about going to war. The powers that be needed false flags to work up public opinion sufficiently to support the entry of the USA into both world wars. In those pre-internet days most Catholics were probably as unaware of the real reasons for the wars as most people are nowadays (with much less justification).
I'm not knowledgeable enough to quote the Church's teachings regarding Catholics and war, but I understand that it is the duty of a Catholic in such times to obey the civil authorities and fight to defend ones country.I understand that the commander of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was a japanese Catholic. There have been times in history when two Catholic countries have gone to war with each other such as those between England and France.

annely said...

Northsider, Thank you. I understood. Love in Christ.

JMR said...

Northsider. The Catholic countries, Portugal, Spain and Ireland remained neutral during the 2nd World war. I don't know the reasons why each country decided to remain neutral ( I would be interested to find out) but I assume that, whilst they didn't want to side with the jewish anglo-american alliance and sympathised with Germany's fight against communism, they didn't agree with Hitler's paganism, anti-catholicism and racialism with regard to the Slavs for example. This, however is complete supposition on my part.
Franco guaranteed the safe conduct of jews escaping through Spain, and considering that he had just defeated the jewish communists in a bloody civil war, it was remarkably magnanimous of him. The jews of course have not publicised the generosity of this Fascist dictator as it does not fit their narrative.

Northsider said...

JMR: "Modesty is an intuition of the dignity proper to man."

Precisely. And Muslim women seem at this time to possess this intuition to a greater degree than their nominally Christian counterparts, in that, for whatever reasons, they do not deliberately provoke occasions of sin in the public sphere to anything like the extent that nominally Catholic women and nominally Protestant women do. Often these days non-Muslim females take great pride in their provocative dress and behaviour, viewing it as a form of feminist empowerment. For Bishop Williamson to point this out is not only reasonable in my view, but commendable.

Many prominent Catholics supported their country's participation in one or both world wars, e.g. Fr Bernard Vaughan, G.K. Chesterton, Belloc, Evelyn Waugh, and many more. It's not a question of condemning these men, all of whom I admire. They got it very wrong in my view, but to err is human. The real point is that Catholics have for over a century now often allowed a flawed understanding of duty to one's country, and to the civil authorities, to excuse collaboration in very sinful state actions. A Catholic is only enjoined to obey legitimate authority in so far as doing so does not conflict with Catholic teaching. Quite clearly the conduct of both sides during the two world wars conflicted at almost every point with Catholic teaching. Furthermore even obedience to civil authority does not obligate one to assent to falsehoods advanced by those authorities, such as when they present clearly spurious justifications for going to war. My original point was and still is that credulity regarding the words and actions of clearly corrupt state power, and even more corrupt mass media, is not a Catholic virtue - though even some Traditional Catholics appear to think otherwise these days.

Contrary to the frequent bellyaching of the British and Irish media and of Anglo-Masonic supremacists generally, Ireland's "neutrality" during WWII was heavily weighted in favour of the Allies. Some have even argued that it was a complete sham. As for Franco: he clearly saved Spanish Catholics from an unspeakable holocaust, so I wouldn't want to disrespect his memory either, but he didn't exactly leave Spain in tip top shape spiritually when he died. For instance he actively encouraged the development of modern consumerism and mass tourism in his country - though I'm guessing he would be appalled at the unabashed decadence of the Spain that came after him

JMR said...

Northsider. I'm sorry, but you seem to misunderstand my point which is that no behaviour is praiseworthy if it is the fruit of heresy. Muslim women belong either to their fathers or their husbands , they dress the way they do, not because of any superior intuition but because they are forced to do so. Bishop Williamson's praise of Muslim women's dress is a sympton of his heretical beliefs in religious indifferentism. Religious indifferentism has been condemned by many Popes including Pope Gregory XVI in Mirai -vos and Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors.
Bishop Williamson with his denial of the dogmas of the faith is just as much a heretic as Luther or Calvin. The fact that you praise him indicates to me that your own understanding of the Catholic faith is deficient which is the norm nowadays unfortunately since Vatican II.
It is easy to judge with hindsight. Your righteous condemnation of the behaviour Catholics in the war period suggests to me that you are very young. Situations as black and white as you seem to think very rarely exist. Many German Catholics caught between the alternatives of communism or Hitler, sided with Hitler but with grave misgivings. Poor old Franco, he managed to save Spain from a communist takeover, and the fate of Europe after the 2nd World War would have been very different had he not succeeded, but you condemn him for attempting to revive the ailing Spanish economy with tourism.
If I may charitably suggest that before you criticise the behaviour of Catholics in the past, you make sure that you actually believe and profess the Catholic faith so that you are not misled by the false pharaisical, puritanical heretical sects that deceive the unaware and try to pass off their beliefs as traditional Catholicism these days as an alternative to the openly heretical Vatican II Church. Believe me, I am a pre- Vatican II Catholic and I know what I am talking about.


Northsider said...

JMR: "If I may charitably suggest that before you criticise the behaviour of Catholics in the past, you make sure that you actually believe and profess the Catholic faith..."

If I may charitably suggest that you refrain from wading into debates on matters about which you clearly have only the scantest knowledge. You exhibit great confidence in your schooling in Catholic dogma and your infallible ability to identify heresy; yet rather strangely, elsewhere in this exchange you admit that you know next to nothing about Catholic doctrine on war, and where the duty to obey legitimate authority begins and ends. Likewise your knowledge of modern Catholic history seems rather sparse - to put it charitably. So which is it? Are you an old school pre-Vatican II stalwart who can infallibly spot heresy at a hundred yards, or are you something else entirely...?

By they way, I always find it difficult to take seriously the arguments of folk who falsely attribute statements to others. Not only did I not condemn Catholics who supported the two world wars: I expressly stated that I did not condemn them. Speaking of condemnation: perhaps you'd be so kind as to tell me where you got the idea that the Church ever condemned praising the actions (as opposed to the beliefs) of heretics? By the same token you might also like to divulge your definition of the term "religious indifferentism" and where you imbibed it.

JMR said...

I questioned the veracity of your statement that many orthodox Catholics gave 'enthusiastic support ' to the crazed bloodletting of World wars I and 2 and the implication that this somehow negatively reflected on the necessity of Catholics to know, understand and profess the Catholic faith. Both world wars were initiated by the jewish anglo- protestant alliance on the pretext of limiting German expansionism but with the underlying agenda of destroying the European and Russian monarchies thus facilitating the establishment of central banks, supra-national organisations, and the growth of Communism. If you can cite instances of orthodox Catholics giving enthusiastic support to the initiation of both these wars, and not simply doing their duty to defend their countries once war was declared, I will stand corrected.
All pre- Vatican II Catholics were required to learn their catechisms by the age of seven when they made their First Communion. And all Catholics (except, apparently, those who were catechised by the heretical Baltimore Catechism) learnt the dogmas of the faith that to be saved baptism with water was necessary, explicit Faith in the teachings of the Catholic Church was necessary and being a member of the Catholic Church was necessary.
These dogmas are denied, not only by the post- Vatican II Church, but every single so- called traditional sect. Dom Lefebvre wrote in 'An Open Letter to Confused Catholics' that not only protestants, but muslims and hindus could be saved by the desire to do God's will. Dom Lefebvre not only denied the dogmas of the faith but also the 1st.commandment. Fifty years ago, any well catechised child of seven could have told you that these teachings were heretical. No Catholic was ever required to understand the Church's complex philosophical decisions regarding war in order to be saved. Your attempt to equate the two things is, quite frankly, ridiculous.
The pharaisical puritanism of the these sects is also heretical in its denial of the dogma of the faith, that God made a good world. Puritanism can be considered to be a Gnostic or, according to Belloc, a Manichean heresy, because it implies that the material world created by God is a source of evil and not man's disordered will.
I consider myself to have been exceedingly blessed to have been catechised before Vatican II and I regard it as a duty to correct errors of belief whenever I can. I am sad that this has irritated you.

Maurice Pinay said...

Thanks gentlemen, but I don't want to host this kind of snowballing, off-topic debate. There are many traditionalist forums for that kind of thing.

Maurice Pinay said...

Anonymous said...
This talk best encapsulates why I -a long time reader of both your blog as well as Revisionist Review- decided to walk away from the Roman Church six years ago:

http://jaysanalysis.com/2015/05/26/jaysanalysis-deconstructing-vatican-2-the-papacy


---

Jay Dyer, I presume? i took the time to listen. The very strong suggestion that the state of the Catholic Church (apparitions, ecumenism, clown masses, Vatican II, etc) is the outcome of the alleged theological and philosophical errors enumerated, by necessity or otherwise, was not substantiated. To present the case in such a way (entirely neglecting to mention subversion and infiltration) is dishonest and would be so even if the theological and philosophical points are conceded.

The Catholic Church is in the state it is in today because it has more use to the bankers and their rabbis who run 'the Atlanticist establishment' than the Eastern Orthodox churches and has therefore suffered more of their attention. This is elementary. This is not to agree with the euphemistic summary of Orthodox churches; that they merely 'have their [unspecified] problems too.' If Eastern Orthodoxy was my milieu, I would have a blog documenting its manifold problems rivaling this one in scope.

Please, consider lending your analytical talents to deconstructing the false 'Noahide' errors, Holocaustianity, et al, that are overtaking every nominal Christian sect, including your own, and the savage tribalists behind it. It would do more good than corralling the sheep from one corrupt church to another.

Northsider said...

JMR: You amuse me sir. I'm not "irritated". I just know a disinfo divide and conquer shill when I see one - especially one who doesn't even take the time to swot up on basic facts about the faith he claims to espouse.

Maurice Pinay said...

Jay Dyer wrote: This talk [at his site] best encapsulates why I -a long time reader of both your blog as well as Revisionist Review- decided to walk away from the Roman Church six years ago ...

---

This fellow has resorted to liberal selective editing ad hominem attacks and finally shutting down discussion entirely on this topic at his website with the philosophically sophisticated [Orthodox?] proclamation "Take your bullshit elsewhere. You’re lame." This, from a self-admitted long time reader (see the quote above). He's apparently unwilling to critically analyze the Holocaustianity, superstition and other errors of his own Eastern Orthodox community as is done here.

My work here is not an invitation to pile on Catholicism but rather an example and template for critical analysis of everything that the bankers and rabbis work to co-opt, and that most certainly includes the Eastern Orthodox churches.

irish eyes said...

Much honour to you and glory to Our Father. You are correct. I live in Ireland. The fith column is on the march and most of our shepherds have joined their ranks. Carry on. ..........Henry makow and red
ice radio air some solid catholic voices. Our Father wins in the end

Anonymous said...

When Christ walked the earth ,I'm sure there were many laws in the Roman Empire that he did not approve of,yet He never spoke of politics,except to say "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars,and render unto God the things that are Gods".The fact is civil laws can change ,The Word of God can never change .when Christ spoke he did not just speak to the people of that time ,but to the people of all times.Christ is King of Kings ,he needs no nation to bestow that title on Him ,its His by Divine Right ,he will rule all Nations ,and He does not need a Referendum to do it.

Northsider said...

A couple of additional observations on the role of foreign crooks in rigging the "gay marriage" referendum in Ireland. Chuck Feeney the oligarch behind Atlantic philanthropies was also one of the crucial figures behind the transformation of Sinn Fein into obedient Rothschild/Soros poodles. Likewise the Irish Labour Party, one of the two partners in Ireland's coalition government, is dominated by former members of the Irish Workers Party - a notorious Stalinist outfit that for decades ran a huge criminal empire on both sides of the Irish border, and conducted surveillance and terrorism against Catholic groups, Irish nationalists and even environmentalist activists. The Workers Party seems to have been all along essentially a British intelligence black op - and many of its luminaries still hold key positions in Irish public life and the media - where they avidly support the Anglo interventionist alliance - and of course the state of Israel.

By the way, Ireland is almost unique in the western world in delaying the counting of votes in elections and referendums until the day after voting has ended. This is rather mysterious to put it mildly. Anyone who lives in Ireland knows how pathetically eager the Irish state class is to present an image of Ireland abroad that is "forward looking and "progressive." Yet very strangely, for referendums and elections - occasions when far more international attention than usual is focused on Ireland - this Masonic state class choose to employ completely outmoded methods and schedules for counting votes - methods and schedules completely out of kilter with modern 24 hour news and social media cycles. Why? The obvious answer is that the 12 or so hours between the end of voting and the start of counting allows them to nobble the results with laughable ease.

Another point I neglected to mention in relation to the 3,000 stolen votes in the European parliament elections of 2009: Castelbar, the town where the count was held is the Irish Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Enda Kenny's home patch. Kenny's rise to power is deeply mysterious; until he got the job of Fine Gael leader, he was an obscure journey-man member of parliament, whose only claim to fame was his inheritance of his father's seat after the latter died in the mid-1970s. Significantly Kenny is a great favourite with the CIA/Mossad/MI6 assets in the Irish media - to say nothing of their counterparts in the New York Times, the BBC and the Murdoch rags. Another great unremarked upon modern Irish mystery is the manner in which, at the last Irish general election, the largest party in Ireland, Fianna Fail, was almost completely wiped out - to be replaced by an alliance of various hard-left cultural Marxist factions, such as the NWO front group Socialist Workers Party. Again, anyone who knows the deeply-embedded tribal culture of Irish politics, should find the idea of a party being well-nigh destroyed overnight highly implausible - and the rise of the "Feeneyite" Trots even more so.

Northsider said...

Anonymous: "When Christ walked the earth I'm sure there were many laws in the Roman Empire, he did not approve of..."

How precisely are you sure of this? Answer: from the words of Christ himself, from Scripture, and from the Church's teaching. "Politics" is just short hand for the various methods by which power and authority are exercised in the world. I don't wish to attribute views to you that you haven't expressed, and I'm genuinely not sure if you're making a quietist case against Catholic involvement in politics per se, or merely quite correctly pointing out that we should never regard man made laws or democratic votes (real or alleged) as the last word on morality. Leaving the question of your own views to one side, the one thing we can be certain of is that the Church has never advocated a withdrawal from political action by Catholics - as to do so would be tantamount to saying that there are areas of life where God's laws do not apply. This has been the stated view of secularists for many years - although in recent times they've hardened their position and seem intent on driving Christianity out of EVERY sphere of human activity - thus taking off the table completely the option of purely private religious practice. That is why exposing the huge role oligarch front companies like Atlantic Philanthropies play in subverting the political process - as our host's article above does - is not only very laudable in itself, but arguably essential for the survival of any semblance of freedom to practice Christianity - even in private.

Anonymous said...

@ Northstar: Thank you for that perspective and information.

By the way, and off topic somewhat, but if you haven't seen this yet, it is interesting. And one must assume this is what the powers behind Israel don't mind if you hear/know about. All part of the revelation of the method, as Mr. Hoffman has said.

An interview from the program titled, Booknotes (which I believe was a C-Span broadcast) in 1990 regarding the book, "Every Spy a Prince: the Complete History of Israel's Intelligence Community".

This link is a snippet from the longer interview wherein the acronym ISIS is mentioned (again, this is A.D. 1990):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OF5Gr086kw

This is the entire interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqByZjhDL_8&feature=youtu.be