I have often wondered why - despite three decades of the internet; "global leaders" have so many in-person, face-to-face conferences.
The answer, I believe, is that the public aspects - speeches, lectures, symposia, workshops, seminars etc. are insufficient to account for the conference phenomena - acting as an only slightly relevant camouflage.
The Real Reason so many (often) ancient/ unhealthy/ unfit individuals, go to such extreme lengths to be mutually-present in such numbers in particular places at specific times at a high frequency; is participation in black ritual magic, of various kinds.
Magical Ritual serves a dual function, directed both inward and outward:
The inward function is generating and enforcing group cohesion and loyalty - something which is otherwise difficult to achieve among such extremely self-seeking individuals.
The outward function is attempting to influence (subvert, destroy, invert) institutional, national and world affairs by direct spiritual interventions.
Does it work?
Well... They believe it works - so it probably works sometimes, and for enough people to make it worth the enormous effort.
(And after all; They also use a multitude of material methods of control and chaos, as well as dark magical ceremonial.)
Note added: If you think what I am saying is false, then consider first whether you actually know what methods are used in ritual magic, and why.
Once you do understand the nature of ritual magic, then you simply need to pay attention to what is being done To You. You may also discover that this is what They are telling us and showing us, over and again, all over the place.
The trouble is that we are also being trained not to notice, and glibly to explain-away the obvious; being simultaneously distracted, confused, and gaslighted with dis-information; and inculcated via multiple official channels with a numbskull atheistic materialism that keeps us wilfully ignorant of fundamental spiritual matters that we were all born innately-knowing.
8 comments:
I assumed they met because they're attracted to certain individuals and want to spend more time with them which makes them feel better about themselves. It enables them to grow in evil which would otherwise feel unpleasantly bad, especially as they get older and less able to rationalise. They have to keep their consciences at bay somehow.
I was thinking along the lines of meme transmission. By living with and observing their friend(s) behaviour and body language over long enough periods of time their minds are able to guess the advanced evil ideas responsible: largely inexplicit Ideas which are too horrible for the bearers to contemplate let alone understand.
What they actually say to each other is only a part of it; the language, emotions and behaviour may all be apparently at odds with each other. So physical proximity is required.
Or to sum up more simply: the demons need a conference and to make that happen they provide in-person fun and games for their human hosts!
@Ron - You have a higher opinion of Them than I do!
I think They are literally compelled to attend these things, want to or not - as well as being bribed and flattered.
If They declined to attend when required, They fear what would ensue.
They don't need to guess about upcoming evil - because They are following instructions as part of a plan - and this plan is seldom even secret, just as the black magic is not secret - although of course (gas lighting) they laugh at and mock any direct attempt to describe what they want and do.
They have told us all about Agenda 2030, or the Great Reset, or the Great Replacement - told us explicitly, repeatedly, and in detail - from major officials and in strategy official documents from institutions like the UN...
Yet anyone who assumes and states that these Actually Are major motivations for the actual policies, laws and regulations of Western governments/ bureaucracies/ mass media; is instantly labelled as a paranoid-crazy conspiracist, evil reactionary, and/or a pathetic idiot!
Bruce, this is a great question, which I had never before thought of. Two things occur to me. First, the insistence of the Church that Christians participate the Mass *in person* at least once per week. That orders the rest of the week, willy nilly. And when I have partaken Christian liturgy daily for more than a few days, the salutary effect on me has been subtle, but also massive, and deep. Which tells us something about the reason of the Daily Office, and of the monastic hours.
But also, second, there is something that happens when people get together in large numbers to do something. I’ve seen this with square dancing, with dancing at night clubs back when I was a kid, with protests in Washington, DC, big sporting events, corporate conventions, and such. A spirit of the event itself becomes manifestly apparent to participants, and they like it; it feels fun, and good to be part of it. Outside of Church, I doubt that any such spirit can be quite wholesome and good.
My surmise then is that these bigwigs get together in person so often first and simply as a way of reinforcing with each other the common project to which they are all committed, but also to reinforce in each of them the influence of the spirit of that project.
@Kristor - Yes, that's pretty much the kind of thing I mean: "spirit of the event itself becomes manifest"
That's what I'm getting at, and with a literal emphasis on "spirit".
We all need, I think, to guard against our cultural habit of accepting as complete, a materialist-reductionist explanation of all the phenomena you describe - as if it was All about bodies and emotions.
What I am saying on top of this - is that there is an aspect of all such phenomena that is both "objective" and spiritual: there is a kind of "science" of these phenomena (although, like all *real* science) I believe it requires particular attitudes and abilities from its participants).
I also find an asymmetry in the world, where an evil event (e.g. the "conferences" of totalitarian leaders) *will* do harm to those present; unless a participant spiritually opts-out, by an inward and active rejection.
But that does not apply in the same way to good. I do not believe the "ritual" of Mass does good of itself, to all, or necessarily; but does good when the participants in the ritual (on both sides) are sufficiently well motivated, are desiring to be in harmony with God and divine creation, oriented toward salvation.
I certainly agree that frequent Mass can have the salutary effect you describe, and I have experienced this.
But I also believe (which you would not share, I expect) that malign intent from the priest can make the Mass *as a whole* spiritually harmful; and that this actually happens, and apparently happens a good deal - probably as the norm (in the West).
If the "spirit of the event" is malign; then, Mass communicants would need inwardly to opt-out while participating, or apply some kind of filter of discernment and correction while participating - it would be spiritually harmful to open oneself (one's soul) to malign-intended church rituals.
And I would add that such discernments are built-into us - that (as children of God) we have sufficient innate good sense when combined with direct divine guidance - that we can detect and resist it, when we are being ritually manipulated towards our spiritual detriment.
Or, at least, we Can detect and resist, If we acknowledge as real the possibility that we are indeed being magically manipulated (or, that is the *intent* anyway) - and that this is afoot not just during large group gatherings when we are personally present and the effects are most powerful, but for much of the time.
And that is the problem, because it seems that few people acknowledge the possibility; therefore few people use discernment and their innate capacity spiritually to resist and choose otherwise.
Well, you are right to suppose that I don’t think the mostly malign intent of a priest at Mass might at all ruin the whole shooting match … which, to be clear, is God himself. Priests cannot ruin God.
Creaturely wants & intents cannot after all be entirely dispositive (such is the first lesson of Job), if there be any remnant disjunction whatever between creature and creator – if, that is to say, the creator is anywise anymore authoritative than any other; than any creature. If such disjunction there be - if, i.e., there is a true ontological disjunction between the Creator of all things, and those things - then the Mass can be efficacious on account of the intent of the Creator and author thereof, aye and the celebrant, the victim, and the fellow communicant, as president of the feast - regardless of the defects of his agents therein.
Indeed, it is hard to see how there could be such a thing as a Mass in the first place (or, for that matter, any other liturgy) – such a thing as, i.e., a fit sacrifice, of just the sort as has ever always been offered (howsoever here or there wrongly, or now and then improperly) by *all human cultures* – other than under the presupposition that the first and ultimate author thereof had in his Incarnation instituted it. On any other interpretation, the Mass – and, to boot, all human motions whatever (especially those of the ubiquitous sacrifice) – are just and no more than smoke in the wind of the Democritean clinamen.
Now, none of that should be taken to suggest that malign intent of a priest cannot corrupt a sacrament. It should be taken to suggest rather that no such malign intent could possibly corrupt a sacrament absolutely. For, in the final analysis, the sacrament is an operation, not of the priest, but of the One in whom he stands as local agent. The priest is just a guy. To hell with him, then, unless he repent. Otherwise, he is in himself but a sinner, like the rest of us.
But here’s the thing. The personal peccadilloes of the priest notwithstanding, the rite he enacts has a beauty and power of its own. Augustine was all over this, but it is apparent to any communicant at any Mass: the personal character of the priest thereof is important, but is not dispositive.
God alone is dispositive.
If you can’t obtain an efficacious liturgy by imperfect agents, then – in our cosmos – you can’t obtain an efficacious liturgy. And that is to say that you cannot undertake liturgy, at all.
NB: to suppose that you cannot undertake liturgy at all is to suppose that you cannot undertake the spiritual life, and cannot therefore pursue salvation; which is to say, theosis.
All of which is to say that the manifest defects of the Church are not dispositive – do not dispose – of the acts of her author and head.
@Kristor - Your assumption (which you have inherited, obviously!) is that liturgy is necessary, church is necessary to salvation etc. therefore it *must* be efficacious despite whatever, and your only task is explaining how this works.
As you presumably know, I do not accept that God would be making creation such that liturgy of whatever right sort was necessary to salvation, or that any particular church - or group of churches - was necessary everywhere and for all time.
I regard church, liturgy etc as been having very valuable for most people in the past and certain places (although not necessary for Jesus and his disciples according to my reading of the IV Gospel). And that is all it ever was.
I believe that God has made creation such that salvation is available to everybody, and attainable by those who want it and make the needful commitments - and our task is to explain how That works!
Neither I nor the Church think that liturgy is necessary to salvation. On the contrary, I think with the Church that God is nowise limited in his action to sacraments or the Church; that, indeed, salvation is possible via the Baptism of Desire. NB: there are lots and lots of OT saints – prophets, patriarchs, even Adam and Eve – who were saved, not because they went to church, or even to the Temple, but in virtue of their direct encounters with God and his angels, and their faithfulness. Most of them built their own altars.
My argument was only that defective participants cannot ruin sacraments. That said, sacraments partaken dishonestly can of course be spiritually disastrous; not because the dishonest participant can ruin the sacrament itself, but rather because the sacrament – like the light of the Face of the Most High, whose act it is, and which shines through it – burns up what is opposed to it.
So, a faithless or malicious priest can confect a valid, efficacious eucharist, that can salve and heal honest faithful communicants, even as his sin in so doing sickens and weakens him, spiritually.
I grant that most moderns are not partaking the sacraments to good spiritual effect. But this is due, not to some loss of sacramental efficacy – to the efficacy of God, i.e. – but to their faithlessness: they don’t believe that the sacrament really is what it is, instead believing it to be something it is not. The problem is not in the sacrament, but in the atheist, nominalist culture of modernity, which doesn’t believe that God exists, that he is God, that the sacraments are True, and so forth.
If a man doesn’t believe the Faith, why then, the Faith cannot be for him soteriologically efficacious. It cannot but appear to him rather as empty, meaningless, even vicious.
@Kristor - As I should have learned by now, it is hopeless trying to debate anything substantive with you. You don't ever stick to the point at issue, but slide off to adjacent questions and doctrinal hair-splitting/ casuistry. I want to clarify metaphysical assumptions, but you just keep things on the surface, repeating your doctrine. Frustrating.
Post a Comment