‘These three elements – heresy, sodomy, and corruption – are so recurrent that they are almost a trademark of the deep state and of the deep church’
uly 25, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has pointed out three elements that have become what he calls the trademark of the deep Church: “heresy, sodomy, and corruption.”
In a new wide-ranging interview with Vatican expert Marco Tosatti (read full interview below), the Vatican whistleblower speaks about the deeper significance of the case of former Cardinal McCarrick in relation to the “doctrinal crisis” the Church is facing.
“There is a very strict relationship between the doctrinal crisis of the Church and the immorality of the clergy, that scandalously reaches up to the highest levels of the hierarchy. But it is also apparent that this crisis is being used by the ultra-progressive wing not only to impose a false morality together with a false doctrine, but also to irremediably discredit the Holy Church and the Papacy before the faithful and the world, through the action of its own leaders,” stated the Archbishop.
Viganò says that a “gay lobby” has “infiltrated into the Church and that is literally terrified that good pastors will shed light on the influence that it exercises in the Secretariat of State, in the Congregations of the Roman Curia, in the Dioceses, and over the entire Church.”
“Bergoglio has surrounded himself with compromised and thus blackmailed personalities, whom he has no qualms about getting rid of as soon as they risk compromising him in his media image,” he said.
Viganò said that “these three elements – heresy, sodomy, and corruption – are so recurrent that they are almost a trademark of the deep state and of the deep church.”
***
Marco Tosatti’s introduction: The commitment of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America, to denounce the veil of silence and cover-ups in the management of abuse cases by members of the clergy, is well known. The spicy and annoyed response by the Vatican authorities – and in particular of various prelates – to the well-argued refutations of the combative prelate is also well known. In this interview, we investigate with His Excellency the developments in the case of former Cardinal McCarrick, also in light of a recent article at Church Militant entitled The McCarrick Bombshell. (1)
But before we get into the content of this article, let’s make a brief review. From February 21 to 24, 2019, a meeting was held in Rome of all of the Presidents of the Bishops’ Conferences on the topic of The Protection of Minors in the Church. (2) A few days earlier, on February 16, 2019, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith announced the dismissal from the clerical state of Theodore McCarrick, who was accused of other serious crimes, and added: “The Holy Father has recognized the definitive nature of this decision made in accord with law, rendering it a res iudicata (i.e., admitting of no further recourse).” (3)
Marco Tosatti: Your Excellency, can you tell us what the news is on the McCarrick case?
Abp. C.M. Viganò: I fear that there is no news, and this is precisely the news. With the reduction of McCarrick to the lay state, it was hoped to put an end to an age-old affair that came to light with my testimony only in 2018, but everything possible has been done so that the details and results of the process did not emerge. The deception perpetrated through the strategy of proceeding administratively rather than judicially, as well as the decision of Bergoglio to authoritatively confirm the sentence [so that there was no further recourse], prevented not only McCarrick’s objective crimes from coming to light, but also the responsibility of those who for years contributed to hiding the nature and extent of the crimes he committed, protecting his accomplices and those who, with their silence, have covered up his crimes. In this way the conviction of the culprit did not clarify the obscure details. As a simple layman, Mr. McCarrick now enjoys a total freedom of movement and action, and he is still capable of intervening at every level: on the ecclesial level – even with those who covered up for him and supported him, in the Vatican and elsewhere; on the political, social and financial level, by means of the people who remained in contact with him and who received favors from him. The reduction to the lay state does not constitute in any way a medicinal punishment (this is only the necessary premise, because of the proven indignity of the offender), it does not include any form of reparative penance, nor does it render justice to the victims, but rather it grants to Mr. McCarrick the ability to continue undisturbed in his criminal activity, including sexual predation.
The administrative procedure also prevented the victims from being heard, while the testimonies gathered only recently by the lawyer Jeffrey Lena, the legal representative of the Holy See, seem to have been written under dictation: those who have suffered harassment give excuses for the delay in the publication of the Report, attributing it to the large volume of testimonies, (4) with indulgent and justifying tones that are difficult to reconcile with the extreme gravity of the crimes contested by the accused. (5) It seems that some victims, protected by a pseudonym, have lent themselves to an operation aimed at lightening the responsibility of the Holy See and validating the narrative that it maintains before public opinion. There is also the suspicion that these anonymous testimonies are pure fiction. In any case, this is a deception that must be denounced forcefully, because if the corruption of an individual prelate is a scandal, the guilty silence of the one who represents the Church is even more so. If these episodes had been verified under the Pontificate of Benedict XVI, they would have unleashed the fury of the media: their demure attitude of understanding towards Jorge Mario reveals the complicit attitude of mainstream information.
Marco Tosatti: The convocation of the summit at the Vatican was announced as the occasion of giving a firm and determined response to the clergy sexual scandals. In his introductory address, Pope Francis had declared: “In this meeting, we sense the weight of the pastoral and ecclesial responsibility that obliges us to discuss together, in a synodal, frank and in-depth manner, how to confront this evil afflicting the Church and humanity. The holy People of God looks to us, and expects from us not simple and predictable condemnations, but concrete and effective measures to be undertaken. We need to be concrete.” (6)
Abp. Viganò: The solemn proclamations which preceded, accompanied, and followed this meeting absolutely did not lead to any concrete practical action, as was hoped for. (7) Just as during the meeting no answer was given to the legitimate and insistent demands made by journalists to Bergoglio on August 26, 2018, after my denunciation. (8)
With regard to the content of the interventions at the summit, it seems that even the clergy sexual scandals, instead of toughening the penalties and making the interventions more incisive, have only led to almost obsessive repetition about the new “synodal” aspect of the Church, which corresponds to a precise intention to change her constitution in a democratic key. The Archbishop of Chicago Blase Cupich – a friend of Theodore McCarrick and the president of the Vatican summit – focused his own intervention at the summit on “synodality” as a necessary passage of “structural, legal and institutional reform” (9) of action only nominally intended to stem abuse.
Marco Tosatti: In what way can “synodality” help the bishops to resolve the problem of clergy abuse?
Abp. Viganò: The proposal to establish a commission of independent lay persons who would have overseen the work of the bishops, formulated during the plenary assembly of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in November 2018, was blocked by Cardinal Marc Ouellet, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops. (10) This intervention by the Vatican disavowed the proclamations of “synodality” as soon as the decisions of the Bishops’ Conferences did not coincide with what Rome wanted. However, I consider His Eminence Cardinal Ouellet to have been merely the executor of maneuvers that were imposed on him from higher up.
Marco Tosatti: Isn’t it a good thing that the Vatican is keeping decisions that involve doctrinal and moral questions to itself?
Abp. Viganò: The authority of the Roman Pontiff, which expresses itself also through the Roman Congregations, cannot obviously be delegated to merely consultative organs that do not have any jurisdiction and that are not a part of the hierarchical structure of the Church as Christ instituted it: on this point we need to be clear. However, it is significant that the “synodal path” hoped for by the highest authorities in Rome does not encounter any obstacle, except for the moments in which it risks becoming embarrassing in the media, as in the case of a special commission appointed to receive denunciations against the bishops.
This call for “synodality” is a theme that is dear to the progressive theological current that wants to strip away the hierarchical structure of the Church. In this regard, the recent articles of Massimo Fagggioli are very clarifying. He is a professor at Villanova University, where on October 11, 2013 then-Cardinal McCarrick affirmed that he had supported the election of Cardinal Bergoglio during the General Congregations prior to the Conclave that had been held just a few months earlier, and that he had spoken with “a very influential Italian gentleman” (11) who had confided to him that within the span of five years the new pope would reform the Church.
It ought to arouse alarm that the same school today is giving disturbing signs of dissatisfaction with the work of Bergoglio, whose pontificate is defined as being “in crisis” by “deluded people” (12) – perhaps because the five years that McCarrick alluded to have not yielded the results they hoped for.
Marco Tosatti: In the address Cardinal Reinhard Marx gave about the Vatican summit, he said: “Proper legal proceedings serve to establish the truth, and form the basis for imposing a punishment which is appropriate for the relevant offence. People in the Church also need to see how this judge comes to the sentence and what the sentence is; nearly all are secret, we cannot see this. I think that in our situation it is not good. In addition, they establish trust in the organization and its leadership. Lingering doubts about the proper conduct of court proceedings only harm the reputation and the functioning of an institution. This principle also applies to the Church.” (13)
Abp. Viganò: The publication of the procedural acts should be one of the cornerstones of the operation of transparency and honesty towards the victims of abuse by members of the clergy. It appears evident to me that the words of Cardinal Marx have been disregarded, beginning with the McCarrick case, precisely through Bergoglio’s initiative.
I further recall that Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, the President of the United States Bishops’ Conference, was disavowed with little regard by the Vatican intervention, which replaced him at the meeting in Rome the following February with Cardinals Blase Cupich and Joseph William Tobin, who are also not exempt from suspicions on their own account. These interferences, clearly desired from on high, have created a media image that does not correspond to reality, in which Bergoglio is presented as the architect of a non-existent reform, for mere propaganda purposes. Even the request made by Francis for the resignation of the entire Chilean Episcopate is part of a facade operation that is clearly denied by the facts.
I think that the two-fold measure reserved for the American and French Bishops’ Conferences is emblematic: on the U.S. side, Bergoglian interventionism prevented an operation of transparency by authority; while on the French side, it allowed clear violations of canon and civil law, permitting the investigations of the ecclesiastical forum to be entrusted to a Masonic judge who is also in favor of euthanasia. The Jacobin spirit in pursuing French clerics accused of child molestation fails however to recognize the responsibility of the Ordinaries and religious Superiors, who are guilty of those same cover-ups that are consolidating in practice also in Rome.
Marco Tosatti: And yet we have also heard the Pontiff recall, in his final address, the words he had already spoken to the Roman Curia in 2018: “The Church will never try to cover up or underestimate any case.”
Abp. Viganò: This solemn affirmation is disavowed by the most emblematic case, the very case of Theodore McCarrick, and makes us think that other interests may have led to the decision to liquidate the matter through the administrative path, and, even more gravely, without the publication of the judicial acts.
Marco Tosatti: What are those other interests, in your opinion?
Abp. Viganò: They want to focus attention on the abuse of minors, moving it away from the clear and dutiful condemnation of the homosexual behaviors which are often the cause of these abuses. For Bergoglio and his entourage sodomy is not a sin that cries out for vengeance in the presence of God, as the Catechism teaches. Bergoglio’s words on this topic – and even more the actions and words of those who surround him – unfortunately confirm that an operation of legitimization of homosexuality is currently underway, and that prelates and theologians are carrying this discussion forward who have manifested without equivocation that they are unfaithful to Catholic teaching.
Cardinal Tobin himself – whose embarrassing messages on his cell phone speak for themselves (14) – has clearly stated that he does not agree with the condemnation of sodomy present in the Catechism, refusing to define homosexual acts as “intrinsically disordered.” (15) And these statements follow Cardinal Tobin’s support for the book Building a Bridge by Father James Martin, S.J., that has the same content. Thus we find a cardinal who is a friend of McCarrick lined up in favor of the LGBT movements and the Jesuit whom Bergoglio appointed as a Consultor of the Secretariat for Communications of the Holy See, even inviting him to speak at the World Encounter of Families in Dublin in 2018 and receiving him in audience. (16)
Cardinal Cupich has expressed himself many times in favor of homosexuals, and during the Synod on Youth – to which he was sent to participate by direct appointment of the Pope without having been elected to represent the American bishops – the controversial theme of homosexual relations was inserted into the Instrumentum Laboris even though no group of young people had requested it. I recall, en passant, that Cupich was imposed on the See of Chicago by Bergoglio, against the opinion of the Nunciature.
The interests are therefore clearly those of the “gay lobby” that has infiltrated into the Church and that is literally terrified that good pastors will shed light on the influence that it exercises in the Secretariat of State, in the Congregations of the Roman Curia, in the Dioceses, and over the entire Church. The obscene, even sacrilegious homoerotic fresco that Archbishop Paglia commissioned for the cathedral of Terni (17) is an arrogant ideological manifesto that no Authority has ever censured or deplored; the excessive financial affairs of the Substitute of the Secretariat of State Archbishop Edgar Peña Parra (18) – tied to Cardinal Maradiaga (involved in the scandal of homosexual abuse by his auxiliary bishop, Juan José Pineda, without there being news of any ecclesiastical initiative against him) – and the very grave accusations de Sexto that weigh on him (19) and that I have amply denounced, (20) have not in any way interrupted his cursus honorum in the Vatican; the same holds for Bishop Gustavo Óscar Zanchetta, (21) whom Bergoglio has promoted and, while a criminal trial is still pending, has recently reappointed as Assessor of the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See. (22) After the order to bring all the current accounts of the dioceses and religious congregations of the world to APSA, Zanchetta finds himself managing the finances of the Church (being able to boast in his own curriculum of having the authoritative diploma of an electrician) and being at the same time easily the object of internal and external blackmail. (23) And let’s not forget the work of Archbishop Ilson de Jesus Montanari, Secretary of the Congregation of Bishops, Secretary of the Sacred College and vice-Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church, in the name of and on behalf of those who elevated him to the highest ranks of the Roman Curia as a reward for his fidelity.
I believe it is essential to clarify once and for all the close link between sodomy and pedophilia, which is also confirmed by the statistics themselves: a link that the Vatican summit scrupulously kept silent about in order not to offend the current mentality that is widespread even among many prelates. But it would be hypocritical and culpable to condemn pedophilia in the wake of current civil legislation without equally condemning sodomy, which today’s aligned thought does not consider to be criminally relevant but which the Church identifies among the sins that cry out for vengeance in the presence of God.
But there is also another interest, of a political nature, that should not be underestimated…
Marco Tosatti: What are you referring to?
Abp. Viganò: I am speaking of the political role of McCarrick, which the latest article by Church Militant also mentions: “It was McCarrick who worked out the Vatican-China accord, a mission given to him personally by Pope Francis. Francis unshackled him from Benedict-imposed restrictions just weeks after becoming pope — a fact confirmed by Abp. Viganò. Likewise, sources in China […] show that McCarrick may have been instrumental in working out the ongoing secret payments of billions of dollars from the Chinese communists to Francis’ Vatican. If that’s true (and it looks plausible given McCarrick’s communist ties and friendliness with Beijing) that could go a long way in explaining why the report remains sitting on the pope’s desk, unpublished.”
Just in the last few days the news has been divulged on Christian Today according to which “China has ordered Christian villagers to renounce their faith and worship the nation’s Communist Party leaders instead.” (24) In the face of this persecution of Christians – and of those Catholics faithful to the Holy See – by the communist dictatorship, the silence of Santa Marta is literally deafening, as it was a few days ago when at his Angelus message Bergoglio omitted the appeal on behalf of Hong Kong that had been given to the press. (25) The secret agreement made between the Holy See and Beijing that has been denounced publicly by Cardinal Zen, demonstrates the subjection of the Bergoglian church to the diktats of the communist dictatorship, handing over the local Hierarchy into the hands of its persecutors and keeping silent on the human rights violations perpetrated by the regime.
I recall that in the spring of 2014 I wrote to the Secretary of State Cardinal Parolin, asking him if the provisions taken by Benedict XVI towards McCarrick were still valid or not, following an article that appeared in the Washington Times which reported about his trip to the Central African Republic on behalf of the U.S. Department of State. (26) Cardinal Parolin never responded, but the news that is coming out in recent days seems to clarify these aspects too. The freedom of movement given to McCarrick was also known, (27) and he himself wrote in 2012: “I was in Doha last week and go to Ireland… and following that… I begin one of my longest trips – Beirut, Jordan, Egypt, Thailand, Myanmar, Cambodia and Hong Kong… before I start again in the Holy Land and Belarus.” (28) And in 2014: “I leave for China on Thursday the 27th… I am sure that [Secretary of State] Cardinal Parolin would see me since he is involved with my China trip.” (29)
Among other things, the cooperation of the Society of Jesus in the diplomatic moves of the Vatican with the dictatorship of Beijing – beginning with the special Chinese edition of Civiltà Cattolica – confirms the willingness of the Holy See to give an endorsement to China, just as suspicions materialize about its responsibility for the spread of the Covid virus in order to destabilize the international geo-political balance. The role of Antonio Spadaro and other Jesuits – all frequent visitors to Villanova University – is emblematic and demonstrates the red thread that links doctrinal progressivism to moral perversion and political corruption. On the other hand, these three elements – heresy, sodomy, and corruption – are so recurrent that they are almost a trademark of the deep state and of the deep church.
Speaking of the deep state, it is not surprising that the World Health Organization has made itself complicit in this operation of social engineering in order to please China, nor that President Trump has decided to withdraw the funding that has benefited it to date. What surprises and scandalizes is rather the complicit silence of the Vatican, faced with a sort of coup d’état that makes the Bergoglian church the spiritual arm of the World Government, under the aegis of communist tyranny and with the complicity of globalist parties. Italy, with its unelected government and the majority in a most serious political crisis, seems to be following the agenda and does not seem to want to review its positions towards Beijing: the constant threats of a return to the Covid emergency and to a lockdown are clearly instrumental in maintaining a power which in the presence of democratically convened elections would demonstrate its inconsistency. What is certain is that a slightly more incisive and less-aligned opposition to the mainstream narrative could be seen positively by both the electorate and the international partners of Italy.
Marco Tosatti: Let’s return to the question of the clergy scandals. On February 19, 2019, two days before the beginning of the summit presided over by Cardinal Cupich, an Open Letter was published by Cardinals Raymond Burke and Walter Brandmüller to the Presidents of the Bishops’ Conferences: “Before the drift in process, it seems that the difficulty is reduced to that of the abuse of minors…which is, however, only part of a much greater crisis…. Sexual abuse is blamed on clericalism. But the first and primary fault of the clergy does not rest in the abuse of power but in having gone away from the truth of the Gospel… In the face of this situation, Cardinals and Bishops are silent. Will you also be silent?… Today, [our] dubia have not only not had any response [from the Holy Father] but are part of a more general crisis of the Faith. Therefore, we encourage you to raise your voice to safeguard and proclaim the integrity of the doctrine of the Church.” (30) What result came from this appeal of the eminent Prelates?
Abp. C.M. Viganò: Cardinals Burke and Brandmüller, like other Prelates, have done nothing but laudably reaffirm Catholic doctrine: the unheard of thing is that they are the ones who are considered “strange” in the ecclesial structure, while a voice is given to those personalities who for their acquaintances, their endorsements of the LGBT agenda, and in some cases even for the shadows that hang over their conduct ought to be removed from the Church and severely censured.
In April 2019, Benedict XVI published a strong intervention in Klerusblatt, which was then reprinted in Italy by Corriere della Sera (31) and was fiercely censored by Marco Politi at Il Fatto Quotidiano. (32) This article was in reality intended for the summit in Rome through the Secretariat of State, but it was boycotted, confirming the intervention of the “lavender mafia” to impede the Holy Father from making his position on the subject known to the Bishops.
Marco Tosatti: Can you remind us of what this intervention of Benedict XVI consisted of?
Abp. Viganò: The focal point of the article of Ratzinger that infuriated the supporters of Bergoglio was precisely that it pointed out the connection between homosexuality and pedophilia and also between the relaxing of morality following the Council and the spreading of the plague of abuse.
Obstinately closing his eyes in the face of the evidence, the progressive Marco Politi wrote: “What does the abandonment by the Church of an ethic based on natural law have to do with pedophilia? What do changes in Catholic moral theology have to do with it, what do gay cliques in seminaries have to do with it, what do porn films have to do with it, what does the relativization of values and moral judgment have to do with it?” (33) And yet it is evident that where the formation of candidates for the priesthood and religious life cancel discipline and the interior life, vices and sins multiply that degenerate even into the most grave crimes against minors, and not only that.
The cause of this change resides precisely in the “spirit of the Council,” which Benedict XVI wanted only to mention but which did not fail to be immediately grasped by those who saw the superdogma that was being questioned: “Truly grotesque [sic] is the attempt by the ex-pontiff to attach to the “conciliar” spirit the position of extreme guarantism of ecclesiastical processes, aimed at the protection of the accused to the bitter end “to the point of practically excluding the condemnation of the guilty,” the essay says. Thus would it be the fault of the advocates of the Council, said more plainly the fault of the reformers, if the network of cover-up artists and pettifoggers, which in any case tried and still tries to impede the trial and condemnation of clerical predators, was revealed to have always been so overbearing and powerful?” (34)
Marco Tosatti: Do you think that Marco Politi is right?
Abp. Viganò: I believe that the answer to this rhetorical question of the vaticanist Politi can be indisputably affirmative: there is a very strict relationship between the doctrinal crisis of the Church and the immorality of the clergy, that scandalously reaches up to the highest levels of the hierarchy. But it is also apparent that this crisis is being used by the ultra-progressive wing not only to impose a false morality together with a false doctrine, but also to irremediably discredit the Holy Church and the Papacy before the faithful and the world, through the action of its own leaders.
Marco Tosatti: Don’t you think that in the end the Report that everyone is waiting for will be published?
Abp. Viganò: If it is possible to shed light on this affair, this will happen despite the Vatican: the interests at stake are enormous and directly affect the very top of the Church, and not only for questions of a doctrinal, moral, or canonical nature, but also for political and diplomatic aspects that have seen the Holy See become the object of a coup d’état with the complicity of those who should have defended it in its sovereignty and independence. What did not succeed during the pontificate of Benedict XVI was brought to fruition after his resignation. How can we hope that the one who is indebted for his own election to McCarrick – who was one of the main proponents of the secret agreement with China – will be able to clarify a series of events that involve him personally, demonstrating the connivances with the Chinese dictatorship against Catholics faithful to the Holy See and perhaps also the responsibility of that regime for the resignation of Pope Benedict? How can we imagine that the murky events of Saint Gallen will become clear, when it was there that the conspirators organized the election of Bergoglio? And how can we believe that the Church will purify herself of the corruption and vice of her clerics and prelates, when they are the ones who have taken power and who are promoted to the highest levels in a web of complicity between heretics, perverts, and traitors?
The one who ought to investigate the scandals is heavily involved in the appointment, promotion, and protection of those who are guilty: Bergoglio has surrounded himself with compromised and thus blackmailed personalities, whom he has no qualms about getting rid of as soon as they risk compromising him in his media image.
Let’s not forget that the legitimization of homosexuality is part of the agenda of the New World Order – to which the Bergoglian church adheres openly and unconditionally – not only for its destabilizing value in the social body, but also because sodomy is the principal instrument with which the Enemy intends to destroy the Catholic priesthood, corrupting the souls of the Ministers of God.
For this reason, at least as far as what seems possible, the entire truth about McCarrick will never officially come to light.
Marco Tosatti: How can we respond to this corruption?
Abp. Viganò: Today what cannot be deferred is a joint action of those who are good – those who in my Open Letter to President Trump I defined Biblically as “the sons of Light” – in order to bring to light the complicities and crimes of those who make war on the Good so as to establish the New World Order. In this operation of truth and transparency, the role of the United States may be decisive, above all when those who should and could contribute from the Vatican practice a code of silence. As the Lord said, “I tell you that if they keep silent, the very stones will cry out.” (35)
But there is a more important aspect, of a spiritual nature. We must understand that the ecclesial crisis was caused by having wanted to remove the crown from the Church’s King, Our Lord: He must return to reign not only in our hearts and families but also in civil society and most of all in the Church. Oportet illum regnare. And along with the King of Kings, Our Lady must also reign, the Queen and Mother of the Church, which has culpably disobeyed her by not consecrating Russia to Her Immaculate Heart. This is my most sincere wish, to which I ask all people of good will to unite themselves.
Nikola Tesla was obsessed with time travel. He worked on a time machine and reportedly succeeded, saying: ‘I could see the past, present and future all at the same time.’
The idea that humans are able to travel in time has captured the imagination of millions around the globe. If we look back at history, we will find numerous texts that can be interpreted as evidence of time travel.
When Albert Einstein published his theory of relativity in 1905, it created a buzz in the scientific community, opening the page for many questions such as: “time travel, a possibility?”
There is also evidence of time travel in the Bible according to Erick von Daniken:
“In the Bible, the prophet Jeremiah was sitting together with a few of his friends, and there was a young boy. His name was Abimelech, and Jeremiah said to Abimelech, “Go out of Jerusalem, there is a hill and collect some figs for us.” The boy went out and collected the fresh figs. All of a sudden, Abimelech hears some noise and wind in the air, and he becomes unconscious, he had a blackout. After a time, he wakes up again, and he saw it was nearly the evening. So when he runs back to the society and the city was full of strange soldiers. And he says, “What’s going on here? Where are Jeremiah and all the others?” And an old man said, “That was 62 years ago.” It’s a time travel story written in the Bible. – Von Däniken.
According to reports, in 1895 Tesla made a shocking discovery suggesting that time and space could be influenced by magnetic fields.
Disclose.tv reports: A part of the admission had come from Tesla experimenting with radio frequencies along with power transmission through the Earth’s atmosphere. The discovery would many years later lead to the Philadelphia experiment along with time travel programs. However, a long time before the top-secret military programs were even thought about Tesla had already made some discoveries that were fascinating in regards to nature of time and the possibilities of being able to travel through time.
The experiments of Tesla in high voltage electricity along with magnetic fields led to him discovering that time and space may be deformed to essentially create a door that may lead to another time. With the discovery, Tesla then went on to discover, through his own personal experiences, that traveling through time came with some real dangers.
TESLA WAS SAID TO BE HIT BY 3.5 MILLION VOLTS OF ELECTRICITY
The very first experience that Tesla had with traveling in time occurred in March 1895. A New York Herald reporter wrote that he found the inventor sitting in a café after he had just been hit by 3.5 million volts of electricity. The reporter said that Tesla had told him that he would not be very pleasant company to be around due to the fact that he had almost died. He went on to say that a three-foot spark had jumped into the air and hit him on the shoulder.
Tesla went on to tell the reporter that if it had not been for his assistant turning the power off straight away he would have been killed. Tesla went on to tell the reporter that when he was in contact with the resonance from the electromagnetic charge he had found that he went out of his space and time window. He said that he had been able to see the past, the present and the future at the very same time. He admitted that he had been paralyzed in the electromagnetic field and so he had been unable to help himself. Thankfully his assistant had been beside him and had been able to turn off the power before any severe and permanent damage had been done.
INCIDENT SAID TO BE REPEATED IN PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT BY US NAVY
Many years later the repetition of the exact same incident occurred during the Philadelphia Experiment. However, this led to sailors being left outside of the window space reference for a long time and this, of course, had results that were disastrous.
The Philadelphia Experiment was the alleged military experiment which was said to have been carried out by the US Navy in 1943. It was said that the escort the USS Eldridge had become invisible to enemies. However, the US Navy has always said that no such experiment happened and the claims of the ship becoming invisible did not conform to physical laws.
On the possibility of a war with China in the future, Cruz says, ‘I hope not but it might. I think there’s a strong analogy to the Cold War and to the United States and the Soviet Union.’
Sen. Ted Cruz said Tuesday that the Chinese government is “fighting a thousand year war” for “complete global domination” and predicted that their actions “might” lead the U.S. into a war in the future.
“I hope not but it might. I think there’s a strong analogy to the Cold War and to the United States and the Soviet Union,” he said during an appearance at the Falkirk Center’s Freedom Summit in Washington on Tuesday.
Cruz, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, referred to China as the “single greatest geo-political threat to the United States” over the next century.
“China, their objectives are not short term. They are fighting a thousand year war and their objectives are nothing short of complete global domination,” he said.
During his speech at the summit, the Texas Republican slammed the Chinese Communist Party for appearing to spread propaganda, censor medical data and not immediately alerting the world about COVID-19.
Cruz said China’s government should have acted upon the information brought forth by whistleblowers in China about the coronavirus. The whistleblowers were reportedly arrested.
“Any responsible government, when those whistleblowers pointed out this new and dangerous respiratory disease, would have gone in with public health officials, would have found the people who were infected, would have quarantined them at the outset,” he said.
“Had China done that, there’s a very real possibility this could have remained a regional outbreak instead of a global pandemic that has cost the lives of 600,000 people worldwide,” he also said.
Cruz was asked if he thinks there could be an actual war with China.
“Look, I hope not but it might. I think there’s a strong analogy to the Cold War and to the United States and the Soviet Union and I would say the period we have been in for the last 20 years, is analogous to the period we were in the Cold War in the 1970s where you had a lot of people denying it was going on,” he said. “You had a lot of politicians, Democratic politicians, a lot of people in the media who said, ‘Oh, the Soviet Union is unstoppable.’ We can’t keep up.’”
Cruz said President Ronald Reagan’s approach to the Cold War was “we win, they lose” and that Reagan described the Soviet Union as an evil empire.
“That clarity was profoundly important,” he said.
Cruz added that the former president didn’t want a “shooting war” with the Soviet Union.
“No one wants to see two massive militaries, firing missiles and killing millions. That is a very bad outcome,” he said.
Wei Jingsheng was recognized in Mike Pompeo’s historic speech on China
For 18 years, Wei Jingsheng was imprisoned in China. His crime? An essay posted on a wall in China’s capital.
As a young man, he authored a piece titled “The Fifth Modernization,” vocally critiquing the Chinese Communist Party’s authoritarian governance. His essay emphasized the need for democracy to achieve a true modernization of China.
In the essay, he boldly decried Deng Xiaoping as a dictator, who at the time was the most powerful figure in Communist China. Regardless, Wei boldly signed his essay with his real name and address, publicly posting it onto the 1978 Democracy Wall in Beijing. During China’s Democracy movement, that wall served as a quasi-Twitter of the times. People from all over China plastered opinions and poetry and thoughts on the Democracy Wall.
The essay soon became famous.
For his words, he was arrested at 29, spending a total of 18 years of his life in China’s labor prisons until the age of 47. In 1997, he was deported to the United States under the pretense of seeking medical help. Once in the United States, he immediately continued his advocacy for Chinese democracy by starting the Wei Jingsheng Foundation to promote the democratization of China.
On July 23, Secretary of Mike State Pompeo delivered a historic address calling for the free world to confront the CCP. Wei, who was present at the address, was commended and recognized as the “father of the Chinese democracy movement” by Pompeo.
At 70 years old, Wei has dedicated 40 years of his life advocating for Chinese democracy.
“We’ve been working so hard for so long, trying to convince the U.S. government to see the face of the Chinese Communist Party. Finally, they see the truth. Finally, they are acting. So many are saying, ‘finally, China has hope again.’ It feels really good,” Wei said with a smile in an exclusive interview with the Chinese-language edition of The Epoch Times.
The original interview has been translated from Mandarin to English. Here, Wei shares his thoughts on key issues surrounding the U.S.-China standoff:
Q: What are the key points of Pompeo’s speech?
Wei: The main point. The first is that the administration’s mindset has shifted. They emphasized the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese people are not the same thing. He repeatedly emphasized that we are very supportive of the Chinese people and support them in fighting for democracy and freedom. Therefore, Wang Dan and I were invited to emphasize this truth—the Chinese Communist Party is different from the people who resist its tyranny.
The second point is the need to protect the various American properties: intellectual property and freedom of its people. The concept that values are higher than the draw for businesses to make money.
Business still has to continue, but business is not the most important thing anymore. Why did the previous administrations always kneel down to China? It was because it put pressure on American businesses. In order to do business, they were willing to give up anything. Many American values were abandoned.
One of the main points of Pompeo’s speech is that we must defend freedom, not only for the United States, but for the whole world. He said that if we don’t end the CCP’s tyranny, the CCP will end us.
This is a very important point. It shows that U.S. foreign policy has completely adjusted.
Q: In response to Pompeo’s speech, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that 93 percent of Chinese support the Chinese Communist Party. What do you think about that figure?
Wei: It must be said that they were forced to support the Communist Party.
It means 93 percent of Chinese dare not speak. Even so, there are still 7 percent who oppose the CCP. Seven percent dare to speak? Not a small number, it means nearly 100 million Chinese people dare to resist. This is very important information. Those who dare not speak are those who do not dare to be angry. It’s not really supporting the Communist Party.
Q: Why do you think the United States only now realizes that the Chinese Communist Party does not represent Chinese people?
Wei: We have been talking about it for decades, but politicians in Western countries deliberately ignore our statement in order to maintain friendly relations with China to do business with China. In fact, they must understand in their hearts: how can Chinese people like the CCP?
In truth, they need the Communist Party to oppress Chinese people so they can access cheap labor. This is their interest. Under this interest, they gave up their values.
But now, they have discovered that if you sacrifice your values to make money, you soon lose your own freedom. So Pompeo also addressed the issue of saving the free world. This is a serious struggle of life and death.
Q: What do you think about the consulate closings between the United States and China?
Wei: Actually, due to the policy of tolerance of the previous U.S. administrations towards the CCP, the CCP has been getting away with committing crimes in America.
In fact, American society, including police forces in the U.S., such as many FBI officials, kept these matters private. They also said that it could not be tolerated but were helpless to act.
There was pressure from above not to offend China. Therefore, the CCP became more and more unscrupulous and reckless under the United State’s laissez-faire policy. The backlog has accumulated for years.
The first step in US policy is not only the State Department’s diplomacy, but many other aspects. This is what the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, and Department of Justice are all working on now. The grievances of the Communist Party are too rampant.
This rebound is a rebound of pressure that has accumulated for a long time.
Q: Do you think it’s likely that all Chinese consulates in the United States will be closed? Or vice versa?
Wei: I don’t think it’s possible. The Chinese Communist Party doesn’t want to fight. For the sake of face, it also has to close a consulate in response to the U.S. shutting down the Chinese consulate in Houston.
Originally, the pro-communist trade union in Hong Kong still signed a request to close the Hong Kong U.S. consulate, and then some people asked to close Shanghai. Yet, the CCP closed one of the most remote U.S. consulates in Chengdu. The CCP said this will make the United States suffer, a lot.
What is the loss for the United States? Now, the entire southwest region has to travel a long way away to apply for visas to the United States. The Chinese suffer.
Q: Did you personally give Pompeo any other suggestions?
Wei: After the speech, a few of us individually talked to Pompeo.
I asked whether the Consulate closures will impact U.S. foreign policy. Secretary Pompeo explained to me that even if there were no US embassies or consulates left in China, these policies would not be changed. He was absolutely resolute.
For suggestions, I mentioned one of the most important issues that everyone is most concerned about. I said that the Chinese people cheered on the Internet and support the U.S. policy. But some Chinese people are worried about whether the U.S. will uphold these policies.
He explained repeatedly that the U.S. policy is very firm.
Q: In Hong Kong, many are worried that if the Democratic Party wins the presidential election, the United States will change its China policy and stop supporting Hong Kong. Can you elaborate on this?
Wei: Many people in the United States also raised this question. At the scene, Pompeo first explained in detail that this policy was not formulated by him alone, nor solely by the State Department, but by several major departments that took their time in finalization.
Secondly, this policy has received firm support from both political parties, unanimous support. In his explanation, he re-emphasized that previous sanctions on Xinjiang and Hong Kong all passed unanimously. This China policy has unanimous support from both parties!
The meaning is to imply that even if the ruling party changes in the United States, the policy will not change anymore.
Q: Do you have any thoughts on the situation in Hong Kong?
Wei: There was no direct mention of issues such as Hong Kong, Xinjiang, and Tibet during Pompeo’s speech. Even a Xinjiang leader who was present at the speech did not mention very specific issues in Xinjiang.
We are talking about the general situation of the Chinese Communist Party, and to what extent U.S. policy will stabilize. Everyone has noticed that the consulate in Houston has been closed. This shows that the United States is resolute.
The question now is, “will China gradually escalate?”
The current performance of the Chinese government is relatively contracted and restrained. The CCP knows that if you remain stubborn and break relations with the United States, will you be able to inevitably fight a war? Even the renowned anti-American Chinese generals said that they absolutely cannot fight the United States, or even Taiwan.
In this situation, many in the Chinese Communist Party are not stupid. They often say that the Communist Party is evil, but not stupid.
In the past, many politicians turned to the Communist Party when under threat. Under the pressure of political donations, U.S. policy has consistently made concessions to the CCP.
Now at the point where even the United States’ own legal system cannot be enforced in its own country, the United States has awakened. The CCP is very afraid. If the relationship can’t be managed, it is very dangerous to the CCP.
Therefore, the CCP is not only more restrained on the issue of consulates, but also on the issue of Hong Kong. No one has quashed the opposition and people in Hong Kong. This is great for the people of Hong Kong. Everyone has to keep fighting and not give in. You have to have the right attitude so that people can help you. If you don’t work hard, how can others help you, right?
I have repeatedly said this to my friends in Hong Kong. You have to fight for yourself. How can it be possible to get good things without paying the price? You have to be prepared to pay a price.
Q: As a veteran pro-democracy activist who has struggled with the Communist Party for decades, how should Hong Kong fight for its freedom?
Wei: I think there are various ways to fight. Not only with the street protests, but of course, the street protests are good.
It is very important to protect the existing rule of law in Hong Kong, because not all people in the judiciary have been completely taken over by the Communist Party.
Many people still have a conscience. How to support and protect them is to protect the people of Hong Kong themselves. This is very important. Freedom of speech and individual rights in Hong Kong must be protected through the courts, through the judiciary, through the protection of conscientious judges of the judiciary, etc.
This is a very important direction of the struggle. Remind everyone that they are all important. Without these basic guarantees of individual freedom, all so-called democratic elections are fake.
Hong Kong people should also think about how to protect inalienable rights, protect their friends who have been arrested, and protect friends who have been punished for speaking out.
The load of Hong Kong people is still very heavy.
Hong Kong is today’s Berlin. The Chinese Communist Party wants to maintain a Berlin wall between China and Hong Kong. But they need to find a way to tear down that wall. Hong Kong’s fight will tear down that Berlin wall.
Fourteen years ago, the Bill and Melinda Gates and Rockefeller foundations launched the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) with the goal of bringing Africa its own Green Revolution in agricultural productivity. Armed with high-yield commercial seeds, fertilizers and pesticides, AGRA eventually set the goal to double productivity and incomes by 2020 for 30 million small-scale farming households while reducing food insecurity by half in 20 countries.
According to a new report from a broad-based civil society alliance, based partly on my new background paper, AGRA is “failing on its own terms.” There has been no productivity surge. Many climate-resilient, nutritious crops have been displaced by the expansion in supported crops such as maize. Even where maize production has increased, incomes and food security have scarcely improved for AGRA’s supposed beneficiaries, small-scale farming households. The number of undernourished in AGRA’s 13 focus countries has increased 30% during the organization’s well-funded Green Revolution campaign.
“The results of the study are devastating for AGRA and the prophets of the Green Revolution,” says Jan Urhahn, agricultural expert at the Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung, which funded the research and on July 10 published “False Promises: The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA).”
A Record of Failure
As I document in my background paper, “Failing Africa’s Farmers: An Impact Assessment of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa,” AGRA has received nearly $1 billion in contributions, the vast majority from the Gates Foundation but with significant contributions from donor governments, including from the United States, United Kingdom, Germany and other countries. AGRA has made over $500 million in grants to promote its vision of a “modernized” African agriculture freed from its limited technology and low yields. The campaign has been fortified with large financial outlays by African governments, much of it in the form of subsidies to farmers to buy the seeds and fertilizers AGRA promotes. These subsidy programs have been estimated to provide as much as $1 billion per year in direct support for such technology adoption.
AGRA has been controversial from the start. Many farmers’ groups on the continent actively opposed the initiative, pointing to negative environmental and social impacts of the first Green Revolution in Asia and Latin America. Since AGRA’s founding, scientists and world leaders have gained growing awareness of the limitations of input-intensive agricultural systems, particularly to mitigate and adapt to climate change. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2019 documented the many ways industrialized agriculture contributes to climate change, calling for profound changes to both mitigate and help farmers adapt to climate disruptions.
Surprisingly, as AGRA reaches its self-declared deadline of 2020, the organization has published no overall evaluation of the impacts of its programs on the number of smallholder households reached, the improvements in their yields and household incomes or their food security, nor does it make reference to its goals or progress in achieving them. Neither has the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has provided two-thirds of AGRA’s funding. This lack of accountability represents a serious oversight problem for a program that has both consumed so much in the way of resources and driven the region’s agricultural development policies with its narrative of technology-driven, input-intensive agricultural development.
Our research seeks to fill that accountability gap. Unfortunately, AGRA declined our request to provide data from its own internal monitoring and evaluation of progress. In the absence of data on AGRA’s direct beneficiaries, we use national-level data from 13 AGRA countries through 2018 on production, yield and area harvested for most of the region’s important food crops to assess the extent to which Green Revolution programs are significantly raising productivity. We also examine data on poverty and hunger to gauge whether there are signs that smallholder farmers’ incomes and food security are improving across the region at levels commensurate with AGRA’s goals of improved farmer welfare.
We found no evidence that productivity, incomes or food security were increasing significantly for smallholder households. Specifically, we found:
* Little evidence AGRA was reaching a significant number of farmers. Its last progress report says only that AGRA had trained 5.3 million farmers in modern practices with “1.86 million farmers using” such practices. This is vague and far short of the stated goal of doubling productivity and incomes for seven million farmers directly and another 21 million indirectly.
* No evidence of significant increases in smallholder incomes or food security. For AGRA countries as a whole, there has been a 30% increase in the number of people suffering extreme hunger since AGRA began, a condition affecting 130 million people in AGRA countries. Kenya, home to AGRA’s headquarters, saw an increase in the share of its people suffering undernourishment in the AGRA years.
* No evidence of large productivity increases. For staple crops as a whole, yields are up only 18% over 12 years for AGRA’s 13 countries. Even maize, heavily promoted by Green Revolution programs, showed just 29% yield growth, well short of AGRA’s goal of doubling productivity, which would be a 100% increase.
* Where technology adoption has taken place, input subsidies provided by African governments seem far more influential than AGRA’s programs. It is difficult to find evidence that AGRA’s programs would have any significant impacts in the absence of such large subsidies from African governments.
* Even where production increased, as in Zambia, a near-tripling of maize production did not result in reductions in rural poverty or hunger. Small-scale farmers were not benefiting; poverty and hunger remained staggeringly high with 78% of rural Zambians in extreme poverty.
* Green Revolution incentives for priority crops such as maize drove land into maize and out of more nutritious and climate-resilient traditional crops such as millet and sorghum, eroding food security and nutrition for poor farmers. Millet production declined 24% with yields falling 21% in the AGRA years.
* No signs of “sustainable intensification,” the goal of sustainably increasing production on existing farmland. Environmental impacts are negative, including acidification of soils under monoculture cultivation with fossil-fuel-based fertilizers. Production increases have come more from farmers bringing new land under cultivation — “extensification” — than from productivity increases. Both trends have implications for climate change mitigation and adaptation.
Rwanda: “Africa’s Hungry Poster Child”
Rwanda, widely considered an AGRA success story thanks to rising maize production and yields, illustrates AGRA’s failings. Overall productivity improvements across staple crops have been weak, while the number of undernourished has increased 15% in the AGRA years. Rwanda’s former Agriculture Minister, Agnes Kalibata, now heads AGRA and was recently named to lead a planned U.N. World Food Summit in 2021.
“AGRA’s questionable approach cannot provide the necessary impetus for the U.N. Summit on Food Systems,” says Stig Tanzmann, agricultural expert at Bread for the World and one of the report’s authors.
That summit should instead actively consider agroecology and other low-cost, low-input approaches, which have shown far better short and long-term prospects than high-input Green Revolution practices. One University of Essex study surveyed nearly 300 large ecological agriculture projects across more than 50 poor countries and documented an average 79% increase in productivity with decreasing costs and rising incomes. Such results far surpass AGRA’s.
“In view of the results of the study, the German government must change course consistently and use agroecology and the human right to food as a compass for its policy,” according to Lena Bassermann, agricultural expert from the development organization INKOTA, a co-author of the report and one of the organizations asking the German government to withdraw from AGRA.
“AGRA is a vicious circle that drives small-scale food producers further and further into poverty, destroying their natural resources,” says Mutinta Nketani, an agricultural specialist from PELUM Zambia and author of the report’s case study on Zambia.
As the report makes clear, as AGRA reaches its 2020 deadline, it is time for African governments and the donor community to change course. The report recommends that:
* Donor governments withdraw their funding from AGRA and shift it to programs that help smallholder farmers, particularly women, develop climate-resilient ecologically sustainable farming practices such as agroecology, which is increasingly recognized and supported by FAO and the international donor community.
* African governments withdraw from AGRA and other Green Revolution programs, including input-subsidy programs, and transition their agricultural development programs toward a more robust array of policies that respond to smallholder farmers’ expressed needs.
As former FAO Director General Jose Graziano da Silva indicated, “We need to promote a transformative change in the way that we produce and consume food. We need to put forward sustainable food systems that offer healthy and nutritious food, and also preserve the environment. Agroecology can offer several contributions to this process.”
The study “False Promises: The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA)” can be downloaded here. It is published by: Biba (Kenya), Bread for the World (Germany), FIAN Germany, Forum on the Environment and Development (Germany), INKOTA (Germany), IRPAD (Mali), PELUM Zambia, Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung (Germany and South Africa), Tabio (Tanzania) and TOAM (Tanzania). Timothy A. Wise’s working paper, published by Tufts University’s Global Development and Environment Institute, is available here.
Washington D.C — Donald Trump, accompanied by select members of his cabinet, toured a chemtrail-outfitted dispersal airplane at Andrews Air Force Base yesterday afternoon, according to an NBC news report today.
The President is fulfilling a promise to end the controversial program and redirect government funding away from geoengineering operations and towards other programs like roads, the aging electrical grid infrastructure, and of course, his proposed wall between the United States and Mexico.
“Today marks a great day for our country where we turn our backs on the secret poisoning of our skies and look to a new future with better roads, a secure electrical grid, and a great wall to protect us from Mexico,” said President Trump reading prepared comments out in front of a Boeing 767 which had been retrofitted for chemtrail spraying. “And hear me you, we are not going to let scientists and other elite eggheads tell us about how to control the environment anymore. It’s America first, not the skies first.”
He then thrust his index finger into the air like it was a little bitty rocket.
According to a White House insider, Vice President Pence who’s shown an interest in dismantling the public/private chemtrail partnership which includes The Gates Foundation, Monsanto, the EPA, several branches of the military and a man known in the Pentagon as “the Colonel” before he went tits-up, will assume control of the program with the sole goal of turning it off.
“It’s going to be an uphill battle for Pence,” commented NBC News reporter Sharon McDonnell who was covering the event. “The Deep State is ‘hell-bent,’ according to one insider, on keeping the program up and running. So Vice President Pence will have to strategically defund parts of the program until it collapses in on itself. The process could take years.”
Anti-chemtrail activists across the country celebrated the decision. Some, including area anti-chemtrail activist Saihra Ramun, believe this is a reason to be hopeful.
“I had warned activists that the Trump Administration had a great deal of enthusiasm for geoengineering projects,” said Ms. Ramun reached via telephone. “However, I’m encouraged that the President has come out against it. I’m going to be keeping an eye on him to make sure he follows through with this. I think Pence is the perfect choice to lead this effort.”
“Geoengineering has radiation in it with the alum. That’s not good in case you don’t know or care since you lefties want death anyway,” cried one anonymous Facebook commenter, seemingly out of nowhere. “You people support pedophiles like Clinton. Fine, folks, you are!! Haha!”
The President will not be able to redirect funding to other projects without involving Congress. He faces a basic rubber stamp of his plan in the House of Representatives, but a steep climb in the Senate, where many Senators favor large-scale geoengineering and population control efforts.