De Mattei’s article also contains the insinuation that I can be counted among those who see conspiracies everywhere, following the established practice of delegitimizing the interlocutor by means of his psychiatrization. At least Weigel limited himself to presenting me as an eccentric conspiracy theorist, borrowing a character from Evelyn Waugh’s trilogy, Sword of Honor, while De Mattei also mentioned, in addition to the psychiatric délire d’intérpretation, the hypothesis of diabolical possession.
In the face of a series of facts agreed on both by doctors and scientists and by political scientists and experts in international strategy, De Mattei and Weigel are undertaking a joint action against me, simply deciding ex cathedra that since I do not share their positions on the pandemic or theUkrainian conflict, I must be silenced without appeal, because of an alleged duty of respect towards “their” truth.
I wonder if seeing a certain ratio in the coordinated action of Weigel and De Mattei represents a “connecting dots that no rational person would imagine connecting or even think connectable” (quoting from the First Things article) or rather if it is not readily noticeable to anyone. It seems simplistic to dismiss everything with the accusation of “conspiracy theory” against those who denounce the plots instead of those who plot them, especially when the conspiracy is admitted by its own architects, starting with Soros’ involvement in the Euromaidan color revolution. But if we see that a member of Pravij Sektor, Serhiy Dybynyn, was immortalized during the farce of the assault on the Capitol on January 6, 2021 (here and here), the idea that something is not exactly as they tell us starts to dawn even on people less inclined to “connect the dots.”
Of course it is very strange that, in the face of a series of facts agreed on both by doctors and scientists (with regard to criticism of the experimental serum) and by political scientists and experts in international strategy (with regard to the present Russian-Ukrainian crisis), these two friends and colleagues – De Mattei and Weigel – are undertaking a joint action against me, not because of what I say – they are careful not to refute anything I have said by debating the facts or producing clear evidence – but simply deciding ex cathedra that since I do not share their positions on the pandemic or theUkrainian conflict, I must be silenced without appeal, because of an alleged duty of respect towards “their” truth.
Weigel has made his ruling: Supposedly I have crossed the uncrossable “red line” which he has drawn with his own hand by his own motu proprio. In listing the alleged “lies, slander and propaganda of the Kremlin” in my statement, Weigel does not realize that his statements are disproven by the documented facts, beginning with the bombing of the Mariupol children’s hospital (which had long been evacuated and used as a military barracks), as well as with what happened with the supposed “thousands of victims” of Russian bombs that destroyed the theater in the same city, a story which has been denied by the Ukrainian local authorities.
Those who reproach me for “repeating the Kremlin propaganda point by point” should explain what in my analysis does not correspond to the reality of the facts, and why they do not consider the propaganda of the deep state to be such.
With regard to my statement on the Russian-Ukrainian crisis, which George Weigel calls an “encyclical” with debatable irony, a list of “manifestly false claims” has been drafted, evidently assuming that the readers of First Things have not read my statement. And one wonders if Weigel himself even read it, since everything that is disputed as false has actually been documented by me in my article, with sources and references to official news. Those who reproach me for “repeating the Kremlin propaganda point by point” should explain what in my analysis does not correspond to the reality of the facts, and why they do not consider the propaganda of the deep state to be such, which thus far has proven to falsify reality in a way that borders on the grotesque, beginning with the case of American biolabs on Ukrainian territory, whose existence has been denied by the White House but affirmed by the WHO (here), which asked that the pathogens be destroyed.
The Biden family’s involvement in Burisma and other corruption in Ukraine was even acknowledged by Joe Biden in a video, as was the media propaganda operation to cover up the evidence of collusion with the Ukrainian regime – and more – that was recovered on Hunter’s laptop (here).
The deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure blamed on the Russians is proving – based on multiple testimonies of Ukrainian citizens – to have been caused largely by Zelensky’s militias, including neo-Nazi paramilitary formations, which have been denounced as guilty of war crimes by the UN and Amnesty International since the Euromaidan revolution. The sending of arms to Ukraine is causing very serious cases of summary justice, settling of scores and lynchings that have no legitimacy and that put the population in serious danger. A few days ago, a load of weapons was intercepted on a plane that officially was supposed to be bringing “humanitarian aid” from the Italian government to Ukraine.
I believe that the political and ideological position of George Weigel does not give rise to doubts, considering that his name appears, along with that of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and others, among the signatories of the PNAC, the Project for the New American Century.
The censorship in Europe of the broadcasters Russia Today and Sputnik is right in line with the unification of all the information platforms that Zelensky has ordered in recent days, and also the suppression of the eleven opposition parties (here): a strange way of implementing “Western values,” “democracy” and “freedom of the press.”
Soros’ role in the Maidan revolution was declared by the “philanthropist” himself (here), who took credit for financing the insurgency that led to the deposing of the democratically elected pro-Russian President Yanukovych and replacing him with Poroshenko, who was approved by the US and NATO.
The presence of neo-Nazi forces was declared by the US Congress, which in 2015 suspended the training of neo-Nazis of the Azov battalion in the US with an amendment that was later canceled due to pressure from the CIA (here).
The violations of the Kiev agreements and the persecution of the Russian-speaking minority in Donbass has been extensively documented by international organizations and the media that today censor their own news stories (here): more than 14,000 victims of this ethnic cleansing against Russian-speaking citizens are estimated. The Zelensky government not only did not oppose this violence by neo-Nazi groups, but deliberately denied it and regularized the Azov battalion as an official military force.
The ideological continuity between the pandemic farce and the Russian-Ukrainian crisis continues to emerge, in the fact that the ultimate perpetrators of both are the same, all attributable to the globalist cabal of the World Economic Forum.
The ideological continuity between the pandemic farce and the Russian-Ukrainian crisis continues to emerge, beyond the evidence of the events and statements of the subjects involved, in the fact that the ultimate perpetrators of both are the same, all attributable to the globalist cabal of the World Economic Forum. By way of example, Secretary of State Tony Blinken is the founder of the strategic consulting firm WestExec Advisors, connected to the Davos Forum, which has over 20 of its people in the Biden Administration (here, here and here). Many WestExec employees have been or still are in very close relationship with the World Economic Forum, starting with Michelle Flournoy and Jamie Smith, as Politico has denounced (here).
These are not “conspiracy theories, but facts. Period!
Finally, with regard to my reference to the “Third Rome,” I am surprised that, in the presence of an imminent danger of escalation of the conflict, Weigel criticizes me for having used in a political sense an argument of the Russian role as opposing party, with the aim of demonstrating readiness for dialogue with a view to peace. From what I have written it is clear that I had no intention of giving a doctrinal basis or legitimization to a pan-Slavic or pan-Orthodox vision that, as a Roman Catholic, is not part of my cultural and religious heritage. On the contrary, it is curious that it is precisely the proponents of ecumenical dialogue who are tearing their garments over a topic that, without any exaggeration, could open the way for a return of the schismatic parts of the Eastern Church to Catholic unity.
This desire to interpret whatever I say in a negative sense is an indication of insincerity and a prejudice that goes against the Truth even before it goes against Charity. But when one lies about the reality that we have right in front of our eyes in order to please one’s masters, the truth is treated as an inconvenient tinsel and no longer as an attribute of God. And it is embarrassing, to say the least, to see how positions shared up until a few weeks before the conflict, are today denied and considered forms of collaboration or support for Russia.
It is not clear why NATO and the US can be considered authorized to invade foreign nations – as in the case of Kosovo – imposing by military might their concept of democracy and respect for human rights, while the Russian Federation cannot intervene in Ukraine to defend the citizens of Donbass after eight years of ethnic cleansing by neo-Nazi militias against the Russian-speaking minority.
I wish to strongly reiterate that my words must not be interpreted as a legitimization of the war, the primary victims of which are the Ukrainian people because of their government’s collusion with the deep state. My words are intended to be, as they were on the occasion of the pandemic farce, a call to the truth, a denunciation of the lies and falsifications of reality, an appeal to the use of critical judgment in front of the media narrative. Perhaps the fact that I have no superiors to whom I must respond, makes me an inconvenient person, and my position turns out to be incomprehensible to anyone who proves not to be intellectually independent.
Weigel’s article has one merit: it reveals to us the unsuspected proximity of a certain moderate conservatism with the demands of the deep church, and at the same time the subordination of the American neo-con world with the deep state and their Democratic accomplices.
On the other hand, I believe that the political and ideological position of George Weigel does not give rise to doubts, considering that his name appears, along with that of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and others, among the signatories of the PNAC, the Project for the New American Century, a research institute in which members of the Republican Party and neoconservatives find themselves significantly unanimous in supporting the arms race and in fueling hotbeds of war and terrorism everywhere, beginning with the war in Iraq (here).
The idea of American world leadership promoted by the PNAC is clearly at the basis of NATO’s eastward expansion and Ukraine's deliberate provocation of Russia, which sees itself practically under siege right up to its borders, in violation of the 1991 agreements. I do not want to imagine what would have happened if, reversing the story, a South American nation had allied itself with Moscow and installed military bases near the borders of the United States.
And it is not clear why NATO and the US can be considered authorized to invade foreign nations – as in the case of Kosovo – imposing by military might their concept of democracy and respect for human rights, while the Russian Federation cannot intervene in Ukraine to defend the citizens of Donbass after eight years of ethnic cleansing by neo-Nazi militias against the Russian-speaking minority, in violation of the stipulated agreements and in the presence of a report on these crimes by humanitarian associations.
I imagine that for those who lend themselves to these propaganda operations – which I do not know to what extent are devoid of personal interests – it is embarrassing to find themselves exposed by a retired Archbishop and Nuncio, because their enslavement to the narrative is extremely eloquent. It confirms, if ever there was a need, the shadows that in the past have surrounded their positions on other more strictly Catholic issues.
The action of these exponents of Catholic conservatism, who professed to be my friends until two years ago, writes the definitive and embarrassing obituary of what remained of their authority as Catholic thinkers and their independence as journalists – after their funeral has already taken place.
+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop, Apostolic Nuncio
Michael Matt on the Ukraine Crisis
PUTIN'S WAR: Biden, Soros, and the Ghost of John McCain