Globalist and population control climate change activist @TonyAnnett doesn’t like it when we pray for protection against Satan

Who is Tony Annett?

I’ve mentioned him before. For example HERE.

Anthony Annett worked for many years in the communications office of the International Monetary Fund and is big into “climate change” stuff even with the UN.

Take a look at this.  HERE (It’s a real trip.)

He is thick with the modernist Jesuits.  HERE

He is involved with Columbia University’s Earth Institute where he is “Climate Change and Sustainable Development Advisor”.   A former director of the Earth Institute is Jeffrey Sachs.

Tony Annett is a globalist with Soros ties.    As such, he is no doubt also an advocate of population control and, more than likely, population reduction, along with the Jeffrey Sachs types and others who have insinuated themselves into Catholic corners.

As such, he wants any one whom he fears to be silenced.

In the Illustrated Dictionary of Lefty catholics his photo will appear at the entry for “bully”.

So, Annett is pretty much wrong about everything and he is likely aligned with globalist agendas that are, frankly, evil.

I have been reciting the Ch. 3 Title 11 “Exorcism Against Satan and Fallen Angels” on a regular basis and, lately, asking God to multiply its effect for all things, places and people involved in the certification of the vote for President of the United States.  I’ve been asking God to drive away all demonic influence from the Enemy, who would perhaps tempt people to lie and who can, de exorcists, really screw around with electronics.  I’ve been asking Mary, Queen of Angels, to bid countless Holy Angels to protect all those people, etc., from the attacks of the enemy and to prompt anyone who has lied or cheated to admit it openly.

Ever since I started praying for an end to demonic influence Tony has been a little agitated.

He has attacked me a few times on Twitter and has provoked some others to do the same.

Here is his latest.

Everything Tony wrote in that Tweet is a lie.

I am hardly a renegade.  It is crystal clear that there has been serious election fraud in some key places.  I have permission from the bishop to recite the Ch. 3 exorcism and I do so also at his request for the diocese itself.

And my appreciation of what an exorcism is outstrips little Tony’s foggy notions by orders of magnitude.

Again, I’ll point out that HE is the one who is upset about my praying the exorcism to protect people from demonic influence, to ward off temptations to lie and to cheat.

Tony Annett doesn’t want me to pray that people not be tempted by the Devil to lie.

If that seems backwards to you, you would be right.   His mind is producing scrambled, erroneous results, which veers close to the definition of insane.

A few of his recent tweets, so you have a sense of how this guy’s mind works.

And… apologies for this dreadful image, which I realize you won’t be able to un-see…

Go take a look at his Twitter feed for a while. Scroll down and get a really good look.  It is a workshop in extremism.  It’ll give you a quick view of a lot of the players in the globalist religion and how they are intertwined.


About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. WVC says:

    Okay . . . after that Greta pic I changed my mind. Masks are definitely a good thing for some people.

  2. majuscule says:

    If you want to read some of this guy’s tweets on twitter, I’d advise not clicking through from this blog. I have never engaged this person on twitter. I don’t know if I’ve even read anything he’s tweeted. I thought I’d click on over and check out his tweets…

    But I’m already blocked!

  3. Gab says:

    Not interested in reading anything he ”tweets”. That he is annoyed by Father Z is a good thing.
    I feel sorry for this Annett person, after all our fight is with the devil.

  4. Ellen says:

    One of the few good things that came from the wu-flu was that it pushed Greta off the world stage.

  5. Elly says:

    When I read the Catechism of the Catholic Church I have a hard time understanding how “globalists” are not right about certain ideas they promote.

    Anthony Annett’s article says-

    “All of this gives rise to a highly distorted vision of Christianity in the public square. It exalts a libertarian ethos predicated on the belief that free market outcomes are just and virtuous, and that people who lose out have only themselves to blame. It exalts individualism and personal responsibility over solidarity and communal obligation…..It fails to appreciate that the American approach to rights is rooted more in liberal individualism than in the Catholic conception of rights twinned with duties – encompassing rights to the preconditions of human flourishing, such as a living wage, housing, medical care, education, and necessary social services.”

    The Catechism of the Catholic Church says-

    “Political authority has the right and duty to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good.”

    “She (the Church) has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor”

    “There must be solidarity among nations which are already politically interdependent.”

    “Rich nations have a grave moral responsibility toward those which are unable to ensure the means of their development by themselves or have been prevented from doing so by tragic historical events.”

    It appears to me that what he is saying about economics, global affairs is not very different from what the Catechism and other documents teach. Please help me understand. Please don’t be angry with me or I will be sad.

  6. sjoseph371 says:

    You know you’re doing the right thing not by who praises you, but by who you pi$$ off. It is sad that one who desires to do the right thing is labelled a renegade.
    BTW – if Fr Z prays fervently for a TRUTHFUL election outcome, why would Tony be opposed? If, hopefully, it is discovered that Trump wins due to fraudulent votes cast by Biden, then the God has helped reveal the truth. However, heaven help us, Biden is shown to be the legitimate victor, then God may have also revealed that truth and Tony is made happy. And if Biden still wins by fraud, then maybe that is what God willed, too – and maybe he wants to teach all of us to “not let our hearts be troubled” and that He, and no mere man, is ultimately in charge and that the Kingdom of Heaven is more important than any earthly kingdoms.

  7. CasaSanBruno says:

    If he finds the exorcisms irksome, it seems they’re working.

  8. Sandy says:

    The more I read and see day after day, the more I learn how evil a plan these people have. If the average person knew what was underway, they would be more than horrified. Without the internet I would never have learned so much, a good thing and a bad thing at the same time. Now I can’t “unlearn” it, as you would say Father, but only pray like mad.

  9. WVC says:

    @Elly – You’re looking at two different extremes, both of which are wrong. The concept of radical individualism is wrong, but so is the globalist idea of obligations and duties towards an abstract “community” of all mankind. The Catholic doctrine you are searching for is called Subsidiarity. Yes, we exist in communities, and those are called families. Those families are the focus of one’s obligations and charity. That extends out to those other families with which we form relationships in our immediate communities (i.e. parish, village, town, and, eventually, county, state, and nation), but with each expansion of that sphere of community one’s obligations grows lesser and lesser. We do not owe any kind of obligation to the abstract concept of “humanity” – and this is the chief cornerstone of the entire Liberal/Globalist mindset. They preach and believe that one should sacrifice one’s obligations to one’s more immediate community on behalf of abstract concepts, like “the poor” or “the underprivileged” or “mankind” or “the oppressed” or “Liberty” or “Democracy.” This is a lie and turns the proper order on its head.

    Counterpoints to the globalist mindset can be found in God’s plan for salvation where He very clearly chose a specific people, and when God was born He was born in a very specific family amongst a very specific people, and His ministry was to those He was with. He preached to love one’s neighbor, and that neighbor was someone you actually interacted with, even if it was just a guy lying on the road who had been mugged – never some magical abstract like “the Poor.” The one time Judas accuses Jesus of not caring for the abstract “the Poor”, in the midst of Mary washing His feet, a personal act of charity if there ever was one, Christ gave quite a sharp rebuke. You find this also in the subsequent writings of Paul, especially in his advice to new bishops like Timothy on how to treat charity cases, including widows (a far cry from “just give folks handouts whenever they ask for them.”) This is the a part of human nature and precedes Christ, as this is the structure of live in the ancient civilized world, and it is even the structure of life amongst the barbarians.

    Why is this so important? Because of the doctrine of Original Sin, which is mostly forgotten by many in these modern times (thanks to the fools of the Enlightenment and the absurd philosophy that has dominated the Western World ever since). Man has the natural tendency towards selfishness and evil. Subsidiarity restricts the sphere within which that evil can operate. Yes, it might be unfortunate if a man chooses to be a bad husband or a bad father, but it is much worse if that same man is allowed to be a bad emperor with total control over thousands or millions rather than just his own family. The idea that bureaucratic entities lessen the evil is done is an error that has been proven catastrophic time after time after time over the last hundred years. All that happens when vast power is consolidated amongst an organization is that there is even less a feeling of personal responsibility and evils that are normally unimaginable are allowed to flourish. For reference you can see pretty much any Communist nation, but especially the USSR and Mao’s China, but you can also look at things such as the USCCB and the subsequent abuse scandal that continues to rock the Church to this very day.

    So the idea of globalists that more and more power, including the power to determine who is allowed to own private property, should be consolidated in larger and larger and more powerful governments is absolutely wrong and will lead to nothing other than misery on a hitherto unimaginable scale.

    To be fair, many “conservatives,” especially Pro-Life folks, fall into this same trap. They would gladly destroy parents rights over their children in order to enforce Pro-Life legislation. The understanding that once one gives a power to the government it will always be abused still hasn’t dawned on many. Here in the USA we let the government define what a marriage was (thanks to the Defense of Marriage Act) and what do we have today? The government has now chosen to define it as including homosexual unions. Can folks seriously not see what would happen if the government were allowed to define “personhood”?

    You can find this preaching of the doctrine of Subsidiarity in the writings of Chesterton (I recommend “What’s Wrong with the World” and “Napoleon of Notting Hill”) and also in more modern brilliant Catholic minds such as Flanner O’Connor (I recommend “The Lame Shall Enter First”). It’s also one of the obvious allusions in Lord of the Rings – the temptation to use the One Ring to Rule Them All. I also recommend “The Morality of Everyday Life” by Tom Fleming.

    Regarding the most recent Catechism (Big Green Book) – it’s best used as a side reference, especially now-a-days (thanks Pope Francis). It cannot be understood properly on its own and must be read within the context of the existing teaching of the Church.

    I know this wasn’t the simple response you were likely looking for, but I summed up as best as I could.

  10. Elly says:

    WVC, thank you for your response. I have read it over carefully. I have learned a lot from Father Z and several commenters here. I homeschool and my children are starting to ask me questions about government, the differences between republicans and democrats, etc. and I’m not always sure how to answer them.

  11. WVC says:

    @Elly – I’m happy to of any help to a fellow homeschooler. It’s tough when they start asking tough questions. Many of us were raised on an education system that was 3 parts memorization and propaganda to 1 part actual learning. I’ve worked hard to try to teach my children the things that are true, important, and how to understand and survive in the world they live in. I’ve taught them how the branches of the American government were established and how they function, according to law, but I’ve also explained to them how things really work including lobbyists, corruption, pork bills, and quid-pro-quo arrangements. Watching “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” and explaining that it’s fairly accurate except for the part where the Senator actually repents of wrongdoing was instructive. As far as the difference between the Republican Party and the Democrat Party – there’s not nearly as much difference as most folks think. Neither one, in the long run (or even short run) is really on the side of the American Citizen. But that’s political commentary for another place and time.

    I don’t think it pays to prop up our children as Polyannas. The future they face will be far more difficult than the world we grew up in. So I strive to give my kids the truth in every answer, but I have given a “we’ll discuss it in more details when you’re older” on multiple topics. Walking that balance between educating one’s child and not harming the innocence of childhood is tricky but important. Some things they honestly don’t need to be invested in, and I’ve told my own that politics is not worth their time. It’s barely worth mine.

  12. The Masked Chicken says:

    Dear Elly (and WVC),

    Some of the quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church that you cite have to be read in the correct historical context to really understand them. I believe that WVC is correct in citing subsidiarity as being part of the foundational teaching regarding Catholic social doctrine. That being said, the quotes you cite from the CCC do not always refer to subsidiarity, per se, but sometimes on the proper relationship between those who govern and the governed. For instance, the first quote you have:

    “Political authority has the right and duty to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good.”

    comes from CCC 2406 (it is a good habit to cite the article number), which is under the broader topic of: I. The Universal Destination and the Private Ownership of Goods, which, itself, is under the title article for the Seventh Commandment. It is a broad statement that is derived (see footnotes) from the Vatican II document, Gaudium et specs (GA), 71 no. 4, and Pope John Paul II’s document, Sollicitudo rei socialis (SRS), 42, which was written for the twentieth commemoration of Populorum progressio of Pope Paul VI. It simply allocates certain aspects of ownership of certain things for the common good to those in charge of the common good. An example would be that political authority has the right to determine when books enter the public domain, since the public domain is part of the common good. The first part of GA, 71 says:

    71. Since property and other forms of private ownership of external goods contribute to the expression of the personality, and since, moreover, they furnish one an occasion to exercise his function in society and in the economy, it is very important that the access of both individuals and communities to some ownership of external goods be fostered

    Private property or some ownership of external goods confers on everyone a sphere wholly necessary for the autonomy of the person and the family, and it should be regarded as an extension of human freedom. Lastly, since it adds incentives for carrying on one’s function and charge, it constitutes one of the conditions for civil liberties.(13)

    The forms of such ownership or property are varied today and are becoming increasingly diversified. They all remain, however, a cause of security not to be underestimated, in spite of social funds, rights, and services provided by society. This is true not only of material property but also of immaterial things such as professional capacities.

    The right of private ownership, however, is not opposed to the right inherent in various forms of public property. Goods can be transferred to the public domain only by the competent authority, according to the demands and within the limits of the common good, and with fair compensation. Furthermore, it is the right of public authority to prevent anyone from abusing his private property to the detriment of the common good.(14)

    By its very nature private property has a social quality which is based on the law of the common destination of earthly goods.(15) If this social quality is overlooked, property often becomes an occasion of passionate desires for wealth and serious disturbances, so that a pretext is given to the attackers for calling the right itself into question.

    It is important not to extend this fairly limited statement of the CCC to give it a larger political sphere than it is intended. The same has to be said for the other quotes you cited. The second quote, in context, says:

    2425 “The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor.206Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.”207 Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.”

    This, simply calls for a proper hierarchy of values so that neither individualism nor central planning are made absolute. Each has their respective and proper place. In fact, this notion of letting each social order do what it does best is explicitly made in the papal document that defines subsidiarity, Quadragesimo anno (QA, no. 46), by Pope Prius XI, in 1931. I leave the researching and putting in context of the other quotes to you.

    The notion of subsidiarity in QA is spelled out in no. 79, which reads, in part”

    79. As history abundantly proves, it is true that on account of changed conditions many things which were done by small associations in former times cannot be done now save by large associations. Still, that most weighty principle, which cannot be set aside or changed, remains fixed and unshaken in social philosophy: Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them.

    80. The supreme authority of the State ought, therefore, to let subordinate groups handle matters and concerns of lesser importance, which would otherwise dissipate its efforts greatly. Thereby the State will more freely, powerfully, and effectively do all those things that belong to it alone because it alone can do them: directing, watching, urging, restraining, as occasion requires and necessity demands. Therefore, those in power should be sure that the more perfectly a graduated order is kept among the various associations, in observance of the principle of “subsidiary function,” the stronger social authority and effectiveness will be the happier and more prosperous the condition of the State.
    A useful summary of the terms, human dignity, solidarity, subsidiarity, and common good, may be found, here (the Summa Theological also has several article on the relationship between law and the common good):

    The CCC does talk, obliquely, about subsidiarity:

    2431 The responsibility of the state. “Economic activity, especially the activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical, or political vacuum. On the contrary, it presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services. Hence the principal task of the state is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labors and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly…. Another task of the state is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the state but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society.”216

    The outward sphere of responsibility does not vanish to zero to some nebulous, “humanity,” but, nevertheless, there is an overarching principle of human dignity such that it is not wrong to consider the needs of the whole of humanity or else the Great Commision (Matt 28: 18 – 20) would not make sense:

    [18] And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
    [19] Go therefore and make disciples of all nations[my emphasis], baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
    [20] teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

    Likewise, St Paul, far from restricting salvation to his family or even Israel, in Ephesians 3: 1 – 6 says, in regards to the stewardship that he had been given:

    “[1]For this reason I, Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus on behalf of you Gentiles —
    [2] assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace that was given to me for you,
    [3] how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly.
    [4] When you read this you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ,
    [5] which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
    [6] that is, how the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.”

    Sorry, for the length of this comment. I am by no means an expert in these matters. All I want to point out is that documents have to be read in context and terms properly defined. Subsidiary is a governing aspect of Catholic social teaching, but it is not the only one and it must be presented in its proper place. I am merely asking that people who are interested should do some reading, because there is a lot of teaching to dig into.

    The Chicken

  13. WVC says:

    @The Chicken – and yet, one cannot baptize a nation. One can only baptize a person. One cannot preach to generations. One can only preach to people who are listening (and I would argue that the effectiveness of that preaching, barring a very special grace from God, is directly in proportion to the strength of the personal relationship one has with that person or those people). There’s a reason St. Paul would go and live amongst the people he was preaching to.

    Regarding obligations to the “whole of humanity” they may not be absolute zero, but they are fairly low. One could say that among those obligations would be to not do something rash and experimental that has the potential to dramatically harm all mankind like, oh, I don’t know, trying to dim the rays of the Sun. I wonder if we’ve heard of anyone trying to do something like that . . .

    Regarding the CCC – it’s honestly a very difficult primary document. I would never recommend anyone use it as the primary source to learn, understand, and teach the faith. Without a Denzinger or Ott’s by his side, one can get quickly lost in the flood of words while trying to parse out what’s doctrinal, what’s pastoral, what’s mere supposition or practical judgment, what’s important but only scantly referenced, and what has to be more clearly understood within pre-existing teaching. It is, ultimately, not a very useful book all by itself. But, given the age, authors, and manner in which it was written, it’s amazing that it’s as coherent as it is.

  14. Pingback: TVESDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit

  15. Semper Gumby says:

    Tony Annett could use a detox from Modernity, a thirty-day retreat at the St. Joseph Terror of Demons Monastery ought to do it: Gregorian chant, chopping wood, chow free of soy products, and a library filled with Catholic classics and Cornelius Ryan books.

    Greta “We will make sure we put world leaders against the wall” Thuneberg is known for her scowl, perhaps her parents can discuss smiling with her. Then again, someone should inform her parents about the concept of smiling.

    Global Warmists often indulge in rampant hypocrisy, political zealotry, Gaia worship and violent threats, so their claims of “science” and apocalyptic rising temperatures should be met with skepticism. In the foreseeable future penguins are unlikely to explode like popcorn.

    Perhaps Miss Thuneberg is permanently aggrieved because her acting career has not taken off. Well, she should rein in her youthful enthusiasm and start slow, maybe audition for a Wendy’s commercial:

  16. Phil B says:

    Props to Elly, WVC, the Masked Chicken, and Semper Gumby (I love those handles) for a modest, respectful, and (dare I say it) thoroughly Christian exchange. A faithful demonstration of what St. Paul’s letters call us to – living together in charity.

  17. Elly says:

    Thank you WVC and Chicken for your time and extensive responses. There is a lot to learn and I appreciate help and direction.

  18. GregB says:

    From what I’ve seen Greta Thunberg’s manner bears a striking resemblance to Veruca Salt (I Want It Now!) in the 1971 movie “Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory.”

  19. Pingback: Father Zuhlsdorf Says Mass and Performs Exorcism Over Election Officials Responsible for the Steal -

Comments are closed.