brekin » Wed Aug 24, 2016 11:06 pm wrote:Burnt Hill wrote:semper occultus wrote:.....if you perform a "fake" ritual but ensure it is disseminated out to a sufficiently large number of people such that there is implanted consciouly and / or subconsciously the idea of a sacrifice being performed does this generate any worthwhile magickal ripples in the ether...?
The magickal ripples emanating from this act are so weak as to effect only the naïve, weak-willed and corrupt.
We ritually sacrifice our soldiers, our incarcerated-some innocent, our food, our time and our will so mindlessly,
that to empower this act with our attention is a betrayal to our very souls.
I can only bow to this in awe of its sharp brevity and deep insight, sublime.
Lay off on the unction a bit, will ya? It's dripping all over the floor.
I disagree vehemently that Burnt Hill's solemn-silly dictum is in any way sharper, deeper, more insightful, wiser or truer than Barbara Bush's:

Burnt Hill wrote:The magickal ripples emanating from this act are so weak as to effect [sic] only the naïve, weak-willed and corrupt.
You speak, as usual, like an expert. But I do not believe that you are any more of an expert in magic(k) than in the inner workings of the Orlando Police Dept. I do not believe that you are especially qualified to tell us anything at all about the effects of "magickal ripples", real or fictional. Are you? If so, how, exactly? - For the time being and for the sake of argument, let's grant you your premise.
So we should just
ignore whatever happened at CERN? Or we should
empower with our attention only the corporate media's docile stenography of CERN's belated, reluctant, perfunctory, evasive and (in short) insultingly poor "explanation"? We should accept the hacks' immediate and unanimous reassurance that there's
nothing to see here and just obediently
move on? We should
bestow our attention only on HuffPo's, VICE's and The Guardian's predictably vacuous accounts, nod our heads sagely, snigger along with them, fall into lockstep, and ask no further questions?
I don't think so. I'd say we "betray our souls" far more whenever we do just that. Because we make ourselves progressively more
weak-willed and
corrupt every time we do so. And faux-naivety is much worse than naivety, because it's a pretence. (Infants are charming. Infantile adults are not.)
Burnt Hill wrote:We ritually sacrifice our soldiers, our incarcerated-some innocent, our food, our time and our will so mindlessly,
that to empower this act with our attention is a betrayal to our very souls
1. That is a complete non-sequitur!
2. The sacrifice of soldiers, prisoners, food, time and will is ongoing and shows no signs of ceasing or even slowing down. It's taking place in a world (and especially: a nation) ruled and populated by people who have been following Burnt Hill's prescription (and his example) for decades of adulthood, if not all their lives. We do nothing to alter and improve that state of affairs by accepting a piss-poor explanation of
anything, by CERN or by any other powerful institution. On the contrary.
And we do not "empower this act with our attention" (!) any more than Mandela or Steve Biko
empowered apartheid by paying very close and sustained attention to it (in order to oppose it), rather than merely ignoring it and hoping it would go away. Or any more than
Ignaz Semmelweis empowered puerperal fever by paying very close and sustained attention to it (in order to discover its actual cause [i.e., dirty doctors' hands]), rather than accepting the lazy and self-serving conventional
wisdom of the medical establishment of his time and place.
Or any more than Jeff Wells
empowered ritual abuse by paying close and sustained attention to survivors' accounts, rather than just dismissing them instantly as ridiculous and obviously fake.
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966
TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC