- The Facts:
Darwin's Theory of Evolution has, for a great many scientists, become relatively obsolete in the face of new research into the creation and generation of life.
- Reflect On:
Can we see that the belief in the randomness of the creation and evolution of life, as posited by Darwin's Theory of Evolution, is a limitation on human progress and no longer serving us in our collective evolution?
Science never ceases to question. When a theory is taught as an unquestionable fact, it should be quite obvious that something is wrong. Today, science isn’t really science, and this is not only true for topics such as evolution, it’s true in many areas where science is used for an agenda by powerful and corrupt forces.
Health sciences are a great example. As Bud Relman, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine said, “The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.”
Today, some scientific publications are silenced and others are pushed forward, depending on how they affect corporate and political agendas. It’s not actually about the science. What the mainstream media preaches as “settled science” is not actually settled. In fact it is often highly dubious. Why don’t more people see this? The answer is simple, it’s because we rely on outside sources to tell us ‘what is,’ instead of taking the time, as individual researchers, to really look into something.
The Theory Of Evolution
The ‘Theory of Evolution’ falls into this category. Scientists who have rejected the basic premises of Darwin’s theory continue to be condemned and shunned by the mainstream community and powerful people. This is because their paradigm-shifting thoughts and ideas on the subject, though more grounded in fact, threaten the goal of the global elite, which NSA whistleblower William Binney says, is “total population control.” The average person who gets a bachelor’s degree in science is trained to simply repeat the same old textbook rhetoric as to why evolution is the be all and end all of human existence, without actually looking into why the theory is highly questionable.
One of the latest dissenters is David Gelernter, a prominent scientist and distinguished professor of computer science at Yale University. He recently published an essay in the Claremont Review of Books explaining his objections to a premise behind Darwin’s theory.
He first points to the famous “Cambrian Explosion” which occurred half a billion years ago, in which a number of new organisms, including the first ever known animals, pop up suddenly in the fossil record over a period of approximately 70 million years. Apparently, this giant explosion of spontaneous life was followed by evolution, slow growth and “scanty fossils, mainly of single celled organisms, dating back to the origins of life roughly three and a half billions years ago.”
From here, he explains how Darwin’s theory predicts that new life forms evolve gradually from preceding ones. but if this is applied to the Cambrian creatures as well, it doesn’t work. The predecessors to the Cambrian creatures are missing, something that Darwin himself was disturbed by as well. Furthermore, even without this fact, many scientists have already used other aspects of the fossil record to demonstrate that Darwin’s theory is clearly wrong.
The Cambrian explosion had been unearthed, and beneath those Cambrian creatures their Precambrian predecessors should have been waiting – and weren’t. In fact, the fossil record as a whole lacked the upward-branching structure Darwin predicted….the ever-expanding fossil archives don’t look good for Darwin, who made clear and concrete predictions that have (so far) been falsified—according to many reputable paleontologists, anyway. When does the clock run out on those predictions? Never. But any thoughtful person must ask himself whether scientists today are looking for evidence that bears on Darwin, or looking to explain away evidence that contradicts him. There are some of each. Scientists are only human, and their thinking (like everyone else’s) is colored by emotion. (source)
The Genesis Of New Life Forms
His next point goes a little deeper. Many people point to the fact that variation occurs naturally among individuals and different traits are past on, this is something observable and something that we all know. Many scientists actually use this point as a proof for evolution, which doesn’t make much sense. According to proponents of the theory of evolution, natural variation is the consequence of random change or mutation to cells, to the genetic information within our cells that deal with reproduction. These cells pass on genetic change to the next generation, which, according to Darwinians, changes the future of the species and not just the individual.
The engine behind this thought, as Gelernter explains, is ‘change’ driven by the survival of the fittest and, obviously, lots and lots of time. He then goes on to ask a very crucial question: What exactly does generating new forms of life entail? Many within the field agree that generating a new shape of protein is the key to it. But does Darwinian evolution even purport to be able to do that? For Chris Williams, A Ph.D., Biochemistry Ohio State University, the full scope of Darwinian Evolution barely touches upon this important matter:
As a biochemist and software developer who works in genetic and metabolic screening, I am continually amazed by the incredible complexity of life. For example, each of us has a vast ‘computer program’ of six billion DNA bases in every cell that guided our development from a fertilized egg, specifies how to make more than 200 tissue types, and ties all this together in numerous highly functional organ systems. Few people outside of genetics or biochemistry realize that evolutionists still can provide no substantive details at all about the origin of life, and particularly the origin of genetic information in the first self-replicating organism. What genes did it require — or did it even have genes? How much DNA and RNA did it have — or did it even have nucleic acids? How did huge information-rich molecules arise before natural selection? Exactly how did the genetic code linking nucleic acids to amino acid sequence originate? Clearly the origin of life — the foundation of evolution – is still virtually all speculation, and little if no fact.
More and more, the evidence points to the great intelligence apparent in the system of life-creation. The reason that Darwinian Evolution is being left behind, and for many is obsolete, is because it is completely based on random, non-intelligent processes. Edward Peltzer Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute), Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry, uses a clear real-life laboratory example to explain the need to posit the existence of an overriding ‘intelligence’ in order for things to make any sense:
As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry — and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.
Gelernter brings this conversation specifically to the generation of proteins:
Proteins are the special ops forces (or maybe the Marines) of living cells, except that they are common instead of rare; they do all the heavy lifting, all the tricky and critical assignments, in a dazzling range of roles. Proteins called enzymes catalyze all sorts of reactions and drive cellular metabolism. Other proteins (such as collagen) give cells shape and structure, like tent poles but in far more shapes. Nerve function, muscle function, and photosynthesis are all driven by proteins. And in doing these jobs and many others, the actual, 3-D shape of the protein molecule is important.
So, is the simple neo-Darwinian mechanism up to this task? Are random mutation plus natural selection sufficient to create new protein shapes?
Diving Into Proteins
Gelernter goes on to answer that question in great detail, and after going through the entire explanation he comes to what seems to be an inarguable conclusion. That the Theory of Evolution cannot, in any way, be a possible explanation for the generation of new proteins and mutations that are required for evolution to occur at all. This explanation is complex, but well worth it if you really want to understand how the ‘Theory of Evolution’ is refuted by the science of proteins:
How to make proteins is our first question. Proteins are chains: linear sequences of atom-groups, each bonded to the next. A protein molecule is based on a chain of amino acids; 150 elements is a “modest-sized” chain; the average is 250. Each link is chosen, ordinarily, from one of 20 amino acids. A chain of amino acids is a polypeptide—“peptide” being the type of chemical bond that joins one amino acid to the next. But this chain is only the starting point: chemical forces among the links make parts of the chain twist themselves into helices; others straighten out, and then, sometimes, jackknife repeatedly, like a carpenter’s rule, into flat sheets. Then the whole assemblage folds itself up like a complex sheet of origami paper. And the actual 3-D shape of the resulting molecule is (as I have said) important.
Imagine a 150-element protein as a chain of 150 beads, each bead chosen from 20 varieties. But: only certain chains will work. Only certain bead combinations will form themselves into stable, useful, well-shaped proteins.
So how hard is it to build a useful, well-shaped protein? Can you throw a bunch of amino acids together and assume that you will get something good? Or must you choose each element of the chain with painstaking care? It happens to be very hard to choose the right beads.
Inventing a new protein means inventing a new gene. (Enter, finally, genes, DNA etc., with suitable fanfare.) Genes spell out the links of a protein chain, amino acid by amino acid. Each gene is a segment of DNA, the world’s most admired macromolecule. DNA, of course, is the famous double helix or spiral staircase, where each step is a pair of nucleotides. As you read the nucleotides along one edge of the staircase (sitting on one step and bumping your way downwards to the next and the next), each group of three nucleotides along the way specifies an amino acid. Each three-nucleotide group is a codon, and the correspondence between codons and amino acids is the genetic code. (The four nucleotides in DNA are abbreviated T, A, C and G, and you can look up the code in a high school textbook: TTA and TTC stand for phenylalanine, TCT for serine, and so on.)
Your task is to invent a new gene by mutation—by the accidental change of one codon to a different codon. You have two possible starting points for this attempt. You could mutate an existing gene, or mutate gibberish. You have a choice because DNA actually consists of valid genes separated by long sequences of nonsense. Most biologists think that the nonsense sequences are the main source of new genes. If you tinker with a valid gene, you will almost certainly make it worse—to the point where its protein misfires and endangers (or kills) its organism—long before you start making it better. The gibberish sequences, on the other hand, sit on the sidelines without making proteins, and you can mutate them, so far as we know, without endangering anything. The mutated sequence can then be passed on to the next generation, where it can be mutated again. Thus mutations can accumulate on the sidelines without affecting the organism. But if you mutate your way to an actual, valid new gene, your new gene can create a new protein and thereby, potentially, play a role in evolution.
Mutations themselves enter the picture when DNA splits in half down the center of the staircase, thereby allowing the enclosing cell to split in half, and the encompassing organism to grow. Each half-staircase summons a matching set of nucleotides from the surrounding chemical soup; two complete new DNA molecules emerge. A mistake in this elegant replication process—the wrong nucleotide answering the call, a nucleotide typo—yields a mutation, either to a valid blueprint or a stretch of gibberish.
Building a Better Protein
Now at last we are ready to take Darwin out for a test drive. Starting with 150 links of gibberish, what are the chances that we can mutate our way to a useful new shape of protein? We can ask basically the same question in a more manageable way: what are the chances that a random 150-link sequence will create such a protein? Nonsense sequences are essentially random. Mutations are random. Make random changes to a random sequence and you get another random sequence. So, close your eyes, make 150 random choices from your 20 bead boxes and string up your beads in the order in which you chose them. What are the odds that you will come up with a useful new protein?
It’s easy to see that the total number of possible sequences is immense. It’s easy to believe (although non-chemists must take their colleagues’ word for it) that the subset of useful sequences—sequences that create real, usable proteins—is, in comparison, tiny. But we must know how immense and how tiny.
The total count of possible 150-link chains, where each link is chosen separately from 20 amino acids, is 20150. In other words, many. 20150 roughly equals 10195, and there are only 1080 atoms in the universe.
What proportion of these many polypeptides are useful proteins? Douglas Axe did a series of experiments to estimate how many 150-long chains are capable of stable folds—of reaching the final step in the protein-creation process (the folding) and of holding their shapes long enough to be useful. (Axe is a distinguished biologist with five-star breeding: he was a graduate student at Caltech, then joined the Centre for Protein Engineering at Cambridge. The biologists whose work Meyer discusses are mainly first-rate Establishment scientists.) He estimated that, of all 150-link amino acid sequences, 1 in 1074 will be capable of folding into a stable protein. To say that your chances are 1 in 1074 is no different, in practice, from saying that they are zero. It’s not surprising that your chances of hitting a stable protein that performs some useful function, and might therefore play a part in evolution, are even smaller. Axe puts them at 1 in 1077.
In other words: immense is so big, and tiny is so small, that neo-Darwinian evolution is—so far—a dead loss. Try to mutate your way from 150 links of gibberish to a working, useful protein and you are guaranteed to fail. Try it with ten mutations, a thousand, a million—you fail. The odds bury you. It can’t be done.
Proteins/Mutations Are One of Several Issues
Despite all of the scientific dogma that plagues this issue, proteins/mutations and lack of fossil evidence are simply the tip of the iceberg when it comes to finding faults found within the Theory of Evolution. There are many facts, information, science and new discoveries that would make one wonder how it’s even still being taught.
Furthermore, despite the fact that we get pounded with the idea that random mutation is ultimate truth within the mainstream, and that one is wrong for questioning it, there are a number of prominent scientists, who are actually getting together in large numbers to collectively refute Darwinism. A group of 500 scientists from several fields came together a few years to create “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism,” as one examples. The issue is that these scientists are never getting any mainstream attention. But clearly there are some very intelligent people here.
The theory will be with us for a long time, exerting enormous cultural force. Darwin is no Newton. Newton’s physics survived Einstein and will always survive, because it explains the cases that dominate all of space-time except for the extreme ends of the spectrum, at the very smallest and largest scales. It’s just these most important cases, the ones we see all around us, that Darwin cannot explain. Yet his theory does explain cases of real significance. And Darwin’s intellectual daring will always be inspiring. The man will always be admired.
He now poses a final challenge. Whether biology will rise to this last one as well as it did to the first, when his theory upset every apple cart, remains to be seen. How cleanly and quickly can the field get over Darwin, and move on?—with due allowance for every Darwinist’s having to study all the evidence for himself? There is one of most important questions facing science in the 21st century.
Other Examples That Throw Off The Theory Of Evolution
Not long ago I wrote about a recent paper published by 33 scientists in the Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology journal suggesting that the flourishing of life during the Cambrian era (Cambrian Explosion) originates from the stars is so fascinating.
“With the rapidly increasing number of exoplanets that have been discovered in the habitable zones of long-lived red dwarf stars (Gillon et al., 2016), the prospects for genetic exchanges between life-bearing Earth-like planets cannot be ignored. ” (The study)
There is a great little blurb from Cosmos Magazine, one of the few outlets who are talking about the study:
With 33 authors from a wide range of reputable universities and research institutes, the paper makes a seemingly incredible claim. A claim that if true, would have the most profound consequences for our understanding of the universe. Life, the paper argues, did not originate on the planet Earth.
The reasons for this are as fascinating as the evidence and claims advanced by the paper itself. Entitled “Cause of the Cambrian Explosion – Terrestrial or Cosmic?”, the publication revives a controversial idea concerning the origin of life, an idea stretching back to Ancient Greece, known as ‘panspermia.a’.
Academics like Francis Crick, an English scientist who co-discovered the structure of the DNA molecule (alongside James D. Watson), argues that there is no possible way that the DNA molecule could have originated on Earth. The generally accepted theory in this field, as explained above, is that we are the result of a bunch of molecules accidentally bumping into each other, creating life. However, according to Crick, we are the result of what is now known as Directed Panspermia. Crick and British chemist Leslie Orgel published their paper on it in July of 1973, hinting that we were brought here by chance, or by some sort of intelligence from somewhere else in the universe.
This is interesting, because then you can get into the lore of creation stories that exists within ancient cultures from around the world, one would be our relation to, for example, what many indigenous culture refer to as the ‘Star People.’
I’m not even going to go into all of the strange skeletal remains that have been completely left out of the record, like the remains of giants, for example.
The agenda for the maintenance of the neo-Darwinian version of the ‘Theory of Evolution’ was nothing less than to move people away from the notion of an intelligent creator and towards a perception founded in scientific materialism. In this way, those who funded and controlled scientific activity on the planet would have tremendous power.
Darwin’s theory may have served humanity for a certain phase of our own evolution, but now it is holding us back. It’s time for all of us to pierce more deeply into an understanding of the nature of the creation of life if we are to become creators ourselves by studying the current evidence. As the group of 500 scientists asked, ‘How cleanly and quickly can the field get over Darwin, and move on?—with due allowance for every Darwinist’s having to study all the evidence for himself?’
US Coronavirus Model Drops Predicted Deaths Down To Approximately 60,000 People
- The Facts:
The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, a research organization at the University of Washington, have revised their prediction based on updated data to approximately 60,000 deaths in the United States as a result of the new coronavirus.
- Reflect On:
Were the measures that governments took necessary? Should they have the ability and power to take away our rights and freedoms, and in some cases, our ability to go outside?
Special Note To Our Readers: We are concerned that our Facebook Page will be deleted, so we are encouraging all those who want to continue to receive and be able to find our content to sign up for our email list.
You can also join our Telegram account here as we move away from Facebook.
According the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there were approximately 45 million cases of the flu in the United States during the 2017-2018 influenza season, which resulted in nearly one million flu-associated hospitalizations and an estimated total of 61,000 deaths associated with the flu. It begs the question, did this overwhelm our hospitals that year? When it comes to the new coronavirus, the White House recently expressed that the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), a research organization at the University of Washington, have revised their prediction based on updated data to approximately 60,000 deaths in the United States as a result of the new corona virus, out of 327,000,000 Americans.
Keep in mind, this is not a comparison to the flu, at all, this is simply a prediction of numbers. If the coronavirus ends up killing just as many people as the flu in the United States, that still doesn’t mean it’s the same.
This is encouraging, given that just last week, the White House was suggesting that up to 200,000 American citizens will die from the new coronavirus. The briefing included projections between 100,000 and 200,000 as a possible best-case scenario but obviously, this isn’t the case anymore. It’s also a dramatic drop from predictions that were ranging in the millions when the virus first started to make its way around the globe, causing fear, panic and hysteria, something many people are still experiencing today as a result of, I would say, media.
Another common theme that’s floating around right now is when people can take antibody tests, for those who desire to do so, because as you probably already know, the new coronavirus can still be present in someone who is asymptomatic. This has many experts suggesting that the total infection rate in the United States and globally is most probably significantly higher than what the numbers are showing. This means that the final death rate will most likely be much lower than what is and will be reported.
Experts in the field have suggested that an accurate death rate will most likely match that of the common seasonal flu. As soon as the World Health Organization put out a case fatality rate of 3.4% for the new coronavirus, multiple academics jumped in and criticized the projection. Three medical professors from Stanford University were among the first to do so. According to an article recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine by Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, Dr. H. Clifford Lane, and Dr. Robert R. Redfield, the case fatality rate may be less than one percent, and the clinical consequences of Covid-19 may be more similar to that of a severe seasonal influenza. You can read more about that and access that specific article, here.
Not only has the infection rate come under scrutiny, but so has the death rate. There is ample evidence suggesting that the number of deaths attributed to the new coronavirus have not actually come as a direct result of the coronavirus, that coronavirus deaths may actually be miscalculated. I recently published an article about going into the evidence and providing more detail on that, you can read it here if interested.
So, at the end of the day, we may be looking at a higher infection rate, and a lower death rate than what the numbers show. This begs the question, are the actions multiple governments have taken at all justified? Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, a specialist in microbiology and one of the most cited research scientists in German history recently shared his thoughts on the measures that are being taken to combat the new coronavirus. He called them “draconian” and unnecessary, and explained why, to him, they don’t make any sense at all. You can read more about that and watch his video here.
It does make you think, doesn’t it? It’s even more of a head scratcher when people are being censored and deemed as ‘false news’ for simply sharing their opinion, like Dr. Ron Paul, who recently stated,
People should ask themselves whether this coronavirus “pandemic” could be a big hoax, with the actual danger of the disease massively exaggerated by those who seek to profit – financially or politically – from the ensuing panic.
That is not to say the disease is harmless. Without question people will die from coronavirus. Those in vulnerable categories should take precautions to limit their risk of exposure. But we have seen this movie before. Government over-hypes a threat as an excuse to grab more of our freedoms. When the “threat” is over, however, they never give us our freedoms back. (source)
One more thing that I must mention is with regards to the treatment. Events like the coronavirus are a great way to see what governments really care about. This was even more evident not only by the information above, but by the fact that successful treatments were not, and are not receiving much attention from the mainstream media. We have written about that in depth as well, you can see a few examples here, as well as here if you desire more information about that and what specific treatments we are talking about.
Meanwhile, Bill Gates can come on television and state that things won’t go back to normal until a vaccine has reached the entire world. But is this even true?
It begs the question, do our authorities and health care system/pharmaceutical companies actually prioritize our health? Or are they simply in it to turn a profit, among other things? Are our systems that surround us actually designed with the intention to protect us, and treat us? Or is something else going on here?
Are events like these simply used, created, heightened and capitalized on to usher in ‘bigger brother?’ A heightened national security state, one where our rights and freedoms are continually stripped from us, while many agree with the justification to do so as a result of massive propaganda? Similar to what we’ve seen with “the war on terror?”
These are just questions, and as time continues to pass they become more and more relevant, which is why asking these questions has now come under intense scrutiny.
The Bigger Picture
I believe events like this coronavirus pandemic, and others like 9/11 for example, are part of humanities natural evolution. I believe they are happening more frequently now in order to ‘wake up’ even more people, because that’s just what they do. At the end of the day, this pandemic will serve humanity more so than it hurts it, because when it comes down to it, the number of deaths and infections as a result of the new coronavirus won’t be to different from all of the other coronaviruses in circulation, which in itself will make people question just what has happened here. Scientists were able to see it early on, and there will be more publications like the paper recently published in The International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents titled “SARS-CoV-2: fear versus data which stated “that the problem of SARS-CoV-2 is probably being overestimated.” (source) The next question is, was the problem being over-estimated purposefully so a powerful group of people could propose the solution? This kind of thinking is far from a conspiracy theory.
At the end of the day, events like this make us question whether this is really the type of human experience we want to participate in? Why do we continue electing people? Why do we believe that powerful corporations will take care of our health? Why do we believe that one person or group of people can change the world? Why do we keep putting our power in the hands of the few and expecting them to make some sort of significant change on the planet? Why do we believe that electing a certain president will ever solve the real problems humanity faces today? Why are we all still participating and agreeing? Why do we constantly look to our governments for answers and solutions? Why do we continue to believe them? And why are we so easily manipulated and controlled to the point where mainstream media can control our thoughts, perception and emotions about certain events over, and over and over? Is it getting to a point where it’s a “do what we say” or else, type of existence, under the guise that those instructions are necessary for the greater good?
Manipulation and deception can only continue as long as we allow it, and the manipulation and deception we’ve faced with regards to this ‘pandemic’ again, will only serve and help more people question our current paradigm.
The Vatican’s Cardinal George Pell Is Freed From Jail & His Child Sex Abuse Convictions Are Overturned
- The Facts:
Cardinal George Pell, a high ranking Vatican official who was convicted of child sexual abuse has been set free, and all charges have been dropped.
- Reflect On:
How many people in powerful places are involved in such activity?
You can also join our Telegram account here as we move away from Facebook.
Cardinal George Pell, who a couple of years ago became the highest ranking Vatican official to ever be convicted of child sexual abuse, has now been freed from jail after Australia’s highest court overturned his conviction. The 78 year old senior Catholic figure was facing a six-year jail sentence after a jury found he was guilty of sexually abusing two boys in Melbourne in the 1990s. Seven judges ruled unanimously in Pell’s favour, stating that the jury who found him guilty had “not properly considered all the evidence presented at the trial.” Throughout the entire time, Pell maintained his innocence from the moment he was charged in June of 2017, and despite what’s happened since, regardless of whether he’s actually innocent or not, his case has brought even more attention to the on-going problem of pedophilia and sexual abuse in high level places, like the Vatican.
Although the conviction against Pell has been dropped, people will forever ponder if this man is actually guilty of what he was accused of, and perhaps much more. Unfortunately, sexual abuse within the Vatican, and other places of power has been an issue for quite some time. It begs the question, how is this type of activity able to persist and sustain itself? The answer may be simple, it could be that those involved are simply some of the most powerful people in the world. A retired police detective of 25 years, John Wedger, spent a lot of his time investigating child abuse and how it operates continually without being taken down. People are threatened, and in some cases those whom one goes to in order to solve the problem, a ‘higher up,’ is actually involved in it, and the investigation gets shut down You can watch the full testimony of Wedger, here.
It’s disturbing to contemplate the idea that Cardinal George Pell is or would be involved in such things, after all, he himself established The Diocesan Commission Into Sexual Abuse in 1996. If he is in fact guilty, this leads to the point above made by Wedger, that the people responsible for tackling this issue are actually involved and part of the problem. That being said, Pell is innocent under the law.
It’s no secret that sexual abuse scandals have plagued the Catholic Church for decades, and it seems almost every single year. For example, prior to the accusations against Pell, in 2015 a lawyer by the name of Ulrich Weber uncovered that for the the thirty year reign of boys choir run by Benedicts XVI’s elder brother, approximately 600 boys with a “high degree of plausibility” were victims of sexual and physical abuse, or both. The report identified 500 cases of physical abuse, and 67 cases of sexual abused committed by a total of 49 people in a position of power within the church. (source)
Furthermore, it was only a few months ago when Carlo Maria Vigano, former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States and Secretary-General of the Governor of Vatican City, implicated multiple church officials, including Pope Francis, in sexual abuse. You can read more about that here.
With everything that’s emerged with regards to Jeffrey Epstein and child sex trafficking over the past couple of years alone, it really makes one wonder, Especially the fact that it seems Epstein was involved in a blackmail operation and working for some powerful people.
A couple of years ago, Pope Francis compared child abuse within the Catholic Church to a “satanic mass.”
The Reverend Gabriele Amorth is another example, he was an Italian Roman Catholic Priest, and an exorcist of the Diocese of Rome, which is an administrative branch of the Catholic Church of Rome. He claimed to have performed tens of thousands of exorcisms over his half a dozen plus decades as a Catholic Priest, and has mentioned a number of times how Satanism is practiced within the Vatican. He has also claimed that girls are commonly kidnapped by a gang of Vatican police and foreign diplomats. He claimed that these girls are recruited for Vatican parties, and crimes with a sexual motive.
Malachi Martin, an Irish Catholic priest and writer on the Catholic Church who published many books exposing the Vatican was originally ordained as a Jesuit priest, he eventually became Professor of Palaeography at the Vatican’s Pontifical Biblical Institute and was one of many who exposed the practice of Satanism within the Vatican.
These are just a few examples of why so many people believe something fishy is going on, regardless of whether or not Pell is innocent or guilty. Is something beyond the abuse of children happening here? Some sort of ‘ritual’ abuse? How has this been ongoing for so long? How are these people and places still able to operate with such power? It seems that they are quite untouchable.
If you’re curious and want to go a little deeper into this kind of thing, beyond the Vatican and into high ranking politicians, possible Royal Family pedophilia and more, you can refer to this article as it goes into much more detail and provides more information.
Our Interview With A Survivor of Elite Level Child Sex Trafficking
Anneke Lucas is an author, speaker, advocate for child sex trafficking victims, founder of the non-profit organization Liberation Prison Yoga, and creator of the Unconditional Model.
Her work is based off her 30-year journey to restore her mental and physical wellbeing after surviving some of the worst atrocities known to humankind before the age of 12. Sold as a young child into a murderous pedophile network by her family, she was rescued after nearly six years of abuse and torture.
We recently conducted an interview with her. Below is a clip from the four part series, as it was a very long and detailed interview. You can access the full interview and start your free trial HERE on CETV, a platform we created to help combat internet censorship and allow us to continue to do our work and get the word out about various issues and topics.
New Documentary Explores How Humans Can Make Contact With Extraterrestrials
- The Facts:
Dr. Steven Greer's new film Close Encounters of The Fifth Kind teaches people how they can peacefully make contact with ETs. As of April 7th, you can watch it on major movie rental platforms.
- Reflect On:
Is it time humanity makes contact with ETs ourselves as opposed to having government control that process? Are we being made to think ETs are a threat to us?
When the world learned of a fact UFOlogists have known for decades, that UFOs have been visiting earth for many years, suddenly the UFO question went from “are UFOs real?” to “who is manning them?” Now, the public has a choice: either we continue to listen to mainstream media and government to inform us about the issue or we start listening to the UFOlogists who have been accurately talking about this for decades. Which one we choose will have a huge impact on where this goes.
In 2018, footage obtained by the To The Stars Academy from the US Navy showed unidentified flying objects being tracked on a military jet radar and camera. The footage revealed quality images of an incredibly fast-moving object that the Navy knew nothing about. This footage hit mainstream news everywhere, disclosing to the public that UFOs have in fact ben filmed by a credible source. Fast forward 1 year, the US Navy confirms that the video footage was, in fact, authentic and did show a UFO flying by, and once again mainstream media was all over it.
But along with the admission of UFOs came a threat narrative. The idea that these crafts could be dangerous, our enemies and that we should be careful about how we respond and prepare. Of course, this narrative was coming from the same organizations that had lied to the public about UFOs for decades, and now that they were admitting this reality, they also intend on controlling the narrative that goes along with it.
Dr. Carol Rosin was the first female corporate manager of Fairchild Industries and the spokesperson for Wernher Von Braun in the last years of his life. She founded the Institute for Security and Cooperation in Outer Space in Washington DC and has testified before Congress on many occasions about space-based weapons. In testimony with Dr. Steven Greer, Rosin claims that in the later years of his life, Wernher von Braun was trying to warn humanity about an emerging narrative that aliens were a threat to humanity.
Dr. Wernher von Braun was a top-ranking SS officer who headed the Nazi rocket program during WWII. He was brought to the US via Operation Paperclip where the US seized Nazi scientists to come work for them after the war. During testimony, Dr. Carol Rosin stated the following about what Von Braun told her:
“The enemy at first he said, the enemy against whom we’re going to build a space based weapons system . . . First the Russians are going to be considered the enemy . . . then terrorists would be identified and that was soon to follow . . . then we were going to identify third world crazies, we now call them nations of concern. . . . The next enemy was asteroids . . . [and] against asteroids we’re going to build space based weapons.
And the funniest one of all, was against what he called aliens, or extraterrestrials, that would be the final card. And over, and over, and over during the four years that I knew him and was giving his speeches for him, he would bring up that last card.
‘And remember Carol, the last card is the alien card. We’re going to have to build space based weapons against aliens,’ and all of it, he said, is a lie.” (source)
According to Rosin, Von Braun knew that it was the interest of intelligence agencies to lie to the public about aliens in order to push forth a space weaponization agenda. And right now, here in 2020, this is precisely the agenda we are seeing play out as UFOs are disclosed to the public.
This is why I stated at the beginning of this article, that who we decide to listen to when it comes to the ET story that is emerging is very important. Leaving it to those posing a threat narrative may lead us to destructive ends, whereas listening to those with a different message, who have been proven to be correct over the years, might lead us to peace.
The bottom line is, up to this point, human governments have been the face of how humans contact and engage with ETs – is it time the people take this task on by themselves? And send a different message to ETs?
Enter Dr. Steven Greer’s new film Close Encounters of The Fifth Kind. The film not only discusses quite clearly exactly what this threat narrative looks like and how it’s being used to keep humanity in the dark about what’s really going on with ETs, but it also explores how humans can make contact with ETs themselves.
The first aspect of what this film covers will truly give viewers a much better understanding of how to navigate ongoing ET disclosure narratives as they come from the government. It will help viewers unlock a sense of discernment within themselves and begin to see through many narratives coming from popular voices and institutions who may be knowingly or unknowingly spreading a false threat narrative.
The next aspect of this film is where we dig into solutions from a point of consciousness. Information spreading around the world to wake people up to the reality o ETs is one thing, but affecting global consciousness and creating unity is something else. And this film lays out a plan to make that happen.
Personally, I have been practicing contact with ETs for about 11 years, and the content shared in this film does align with the experiences I have had and methods I’ve used. Never had I had a “bad” or “threatening” contact experience, and thus I do not resonate with the general narrative coming from government on this.
I truly believe people should check out this film so regular citizens can be the face of extraterrestrial contact on behalf of humanity – not governments. Now is the time, not next year or the year after, now. Especially with us all being on lockdown, what better time than to go out at night and choose to connect?
In the movie you will also learn:
- CE-5 contact techniques and show the amazing evidence of Contact as never before!
- the consistent results that people doing CE-5 experience.
- the connection between consciousness and space, time and matter.
- the nature of consciousness as an unbounded field of awareness that transcends the limits of space, time and matter — and yet is fully present in every point of space and time. This infinite field of consciousness is present within every awake, sentient being — human and ET.
- how ET electromagnetic communications systems interface with our consciousness and coherent thought in such a way that any human with a peaceful, sincere intent can make Contact. NOW!
- remote viewing — a way to view non-local events.
- scientific evidence that proves that Mind-Consciousness is not limited to your body or brain but is a seamless field of awareness that connects all times, places and matter.
- how 1% of the population meditating and making peaceful contact can cause a “phase transition” shift that transforms the entire planet and moves humanity onto a peaceful future that is Interstellar.
- and take you behind the “Alien Mask” of deceptive events and phenomena.
- how deceptive events are created by shadowy Unacknowledged Special Access Projects in the military and intelligence community that are designed to sow fear and division among humans regarding the ET presence.
You can watch Dr. Steven Greer’s brand new documentary here.