PELIGROS DEL REIKI

PELIGROS DEL REIKI – SATANÁS TIENE INTERÉS EN HACER “CURACIONES”

Santa Catalina de Bolonia, un ejemplo que da un experto.

El profesor Tarcisio Mezzetti, padre de familia, ya abuelo, es un químico prestigioso por sus trabajos en Italia y Estados Unidos. Fue profesor de Química y Toxicología en la Universidad de Perugia. En 1976 experimentó una profunda conversión a la fe cristiana con una especial sensibilidad y capacidad de discernimiento en lo que se refiere a las espiritualidades oscuras y el trato con lo demoníaco. Sobre estos temas ocultos es popular su libro "Como un león rugiente” (Ediciones Elledici).

 

Mezzetti (en la foto bajo estas líneas) fundó hace 30 años la Comunidad Magníficat (ComunitaMagnificat.org) con 24 fraternidades en Italia y presencia en Rumanía, Argentina y Turquía. La espiritualidad de esta comunidad, con unos estatutos aprobados por el arzobispo de Perugia, se centra en 4 conceptos: pobreza, perdón constante, construcción del amor y servicio.

El 14 de octubre de 2012, Mezzetti fue entrevistado por Sor Emmanuel Maillard, de la Comunidad de las Bienaventuranzas, respecto a la práctica del Reiki, que se presenta como una disciplina "espiritual" y "sanadora", pero que en la experiencia de muchos sacerdotes exorcistas es algo que va ligado al ocultismo y el trato con demonios, aunque sus usuarios no se den cuenta en una primera fase.

Se necesita un exorcismo

Mezzetti, que ha estudiado estos temas y tratado con los afectados, es contundente: "El Reiki es una cosa muy peligrosa, quizás la peor de todas en nuestra época, porque se presenta como un medio casi milagroso de curación. Yo he encontrado mucha gente que había hecho Reiki, el primer curso, el segundo curso, y los que después han necesitado un exorcismo para poder ser liberados".

La gente, explica, entra en el reiki de forma gradual... y la doctrina sobre espíritus y "guías" (de otro mundo o plano) se les enseña a partir del tercer nivel. 

"En el tercer nivel de reiki es cuando los maestros dicen claramente que ese poder ´sanador´ que han recibido les viene de los espíritus de la montaña sagrada del monje Usui. Y a partir de Usui esos poderes han sido transmitidos de una persona a otra hasta hoy. Si en efecto se trata de espíritus, sabemos bien que el espiritismo no se admite en la Iglesia, es un adulterio espiritual. Así que cuando se habla de la práctica de Reiki, habría que subrayar que la razón por la que se tienen poderes, es que se actúa con los espíritus de la montaña sagrada que Usui recibió. Dicho de otra manera, cada vez que alguien pasa por la iniciación del Reiki, esos espíritus de la montaña sagrada le son transmitidos".

(Usui con su montaña, en una imagen que se usa
mucho en ámbitos reikistas)

Los símbolos invocan los espíritus

"Un día, en la ciudad de Cortona, participaba en un Seminario de Vida en el Espíritu Santo. Hablé de las desviaciones actuales y en particular del reiki. Con toda claridad dije que el poder sanador del reiki venía de esos espíritus que se transmitían de una persona a otra. Un hombre se levantó y declaró: “Ah, no, ¡no es cierto! Yo he seguido el segundo nivel del Reiki!” Pero no le dejé ninguna posibilidad de continuar hablando. Dos o tres meses después, recibí una llamada telefónica de este hombre. Me dijo que al seguir el tercer nivel de Reiki, el maestro le había dicho que el poder de sanar venía de los espíritus de la montaña sagrada. Los símbolos que él dibujaba eran precisamente esos espíritus.

Mezzetti recuerda que en Estados Unidos la Conferencia Episcopal ha difundido un documento muy claro contra el Reiki, afirmando que un católico no puede ni practicarlo personalmente, ni recibirlo de otros.

Y los obispos de EEUU especifican: “Ya que la terapia Reiki no es compatible con las enseñanzas cristianas y no tiene ninguna evidencia científica, sería absolutamente inoportuno para las instituciones católicas - como por ejemplo los centros de salud, las casas de retiros espirituales- o personas que representan a la Iglesia, como los capellanes, promover o sostener la terapia Reiki”.

Tarcisio Mezzetti recomienda a quien haya participado en cualquier actividad de reiki que acuda a un exorcista católico, ya desde el primer nivel.

Sí, el demonio hace curaciones 

Mezzetti sabe que muchos practicantes de reiki aseguran haberse curado (o haber curado) mediante las prácticas de reiki. Él no niega que se produzcan algunas curaciones pero considera que a medio o largo plazo se verá que son falsas. Algunas por razones "naturales" como el efecto placebo: se creen sanados, y mejoran sus síntomas. Otras por razones sobrenaturales malignas: la brujería, el trato con el demonio, puede curar algo -al menos temporalmente- para lograr él beneficios más adelante. Mezzetti cita a Santo Tomás de Aquino: "Él dice en la Suma Teológica: ´Satanás, el que hace el mal, ¡también a veces hace el bien para preparar un mal mayor!´" 

Mezzetti va clara la relación: alguien que se cure mediante el reiki, tendrá deseo de practicar el reiki... y al demonio le interesa que esa persona practique el reiki para tenerlo "enganchado" a él, invocándole, tratándole, etc... Aunque la persona no sepa que se trata del demonio o los demonios de los que previene la Biblia y la Iglesia. "Por eso", afirma, "Satanás tiene mucho interés en producir curaciones".

Mezzetti considera, de todas formas, que hay curaciones muy asombrosas, que desafían a la física, que el demonio no podría hacer, pero Dios sí.

"Si voy a Lourdes, veo a un hombre cuya tibia está rota que entra en el agua de la piscina y cuando le veo salir del agua su hueso se ha soldado…¡eso el reiki no lo podría hacer jamás! Los milagros que llegan por la acción de Dios son de verdad milagros auténticos. Satanás no puede hacer cosas parecidas", apunta.

El demonio da enseñanzas ortodoxas

Otro ejemplo de engaño lo tenemos en la vida de la mística italiana Catalina Vigri, Santa Catalina de Bolonia, del siglo XV.

"Santa Catalina de Bolonia durante cinco años fue guiada por Satanás que se le aparecía. Tomaba la forma de Jesús en la cruz, o de la Virgen Santa teniendo en sus brazos al Niño Jesús. Y Santa Catalina sometía todo a su padre espiritual. Pero lo que el demonio le decía eran todo cosas normales, que estaban de acuerdo con el cristianismo. Imaginemos un poco eso.. ¡cinco años! Pero luego se dio cuenta de que en cierta aparición de Jesús (¡una verdadera!) ella sintió una gran emoción, una gran unción que ella no sentía durante las otras apariciones. Ella supuso que las otras apariciones no eran de Dios. Y cuando comprendió eso, Satanás no se le volvió a aparecer. ¡Habian acabado! Pero no se confundan, ¡Satanás le enseñaba cosas cristianas! Enseñaba cosas bellas para que nadie pudiera descubrir que era él. ¿Qué significa eso? Si una gran santa, que hoy es la protectora de los exorcistas, ha sido guiada por Satanás durante cinco años, no es sorprendente entonces que puedan aparecer nuestros ojos cosas que parecen venir de Dios ¡y que no lo son!"

Brujos con estampitas de santos

 Mezzetti previene por lo tanto contra los trucos de magos, brujos y supuestos videntes que se hacen pasar por cristianos.

 "En Italia, en la región de Umbría, siempre ha habido grandes brujos y brujas que practicaban ese tipo de cosas. Y ellos incluso tienen imágenes del Padre Pío en la pared, crucifijos, estatuas de Lourdes… ¡para hacer creer a la gente que son santos! Se hacen pasar por santos. Pero son todo lo contrario. A veces, he oído decir: ´¡He ido a ver a una señora que dice que ella habla con la Virgen Santísima!´ Pero yo siempre los pongo en guardia. ´Tened cuidado. Entre lo que dicen y la verdad, puede haber una diferencia, usted no lo sabe´. Ante todo debemos tomar tiempo para examinar los hechos".

Mezzetti anima a la prudencia.

 "Piénselo: ¿Por qué espera tanto la Iglesia para decir sí o no. ¿Por qué? Porque se conoce el árbol por sus frutos. Cuando se ven los frutos, se puede establecer un juicio. Pero para ello, hace falta una formación cristiana. ¡El pueblo cristiano no ha sido preparado para hacer ese discernimiento y se equivoca gravemente por ignorancia! ¡Eso me causa una pena inmensa!", concluye en su entrevista con Sor Emmanuel.

Fuente: http://www.religionenlibertad.com/articulo.asp?idarticulo=33376

Federal Reserve – History and Conspiracy

Federal Reserve – History and Conspiracy

Of all the conspiracy theories that may come up in American political discourse, there is one that requires nothing that is supernatural, or even particularly out of the ordinary.  The players may only be vaguely familiar:  Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Morgans, Warburgs - and the Federal Reserve (whose part tonight will be played by Ben Bernanke, a PhD economist with education from Harvard and M.I.T.)

The scope is nothing short of a total underground or shadow government that directs hundreds of billions of dollars a year.  But the cost of funding the operation would only be a few pennies on the dollar (quite literally).

Other conspiracies have come and gone, but the distrust of central banks has been with us for hundreds of years - and the actual verifiable history is murky at best.  The individuals involved are known to posses incalculable wealth, and they entertain themselves with controversial social causes & international political activity - but they value their privacy and make their conclusions away from scrutiny.  The totality of the plot is so pervasive, so totalitarian, that it encompasses a massive international network.  If you've been reading a while, you may have heard me brush on a few of these topics.

The Promises of a Central Bank

The fundamental promise of a central bank like the Federal Reserve is economic stability.  The theory is that manipulating the value of the currency allows financial booms to go higher, and crashes to be more mild.  If growth becomes speculative and unsustainable, the central bank can make the price of money go up and force some deleveraging of risky investments - again, promising to make the crashes more mild.

In reality?  The results are mixed.  No doubt, America has experienced rapid growth since the institution of the central bank.  Then again, we did pretty darn good before the Fed, too.  Does it bring stability?  Again, this is mixed.  It must be noted that the Fed was established prior to the Great Depression, but it must also be noted that we have experienced many periods of rapid economic growth.

A Revolutionary History

The period leading up to the American Revolution was characterized by increasingly authoritarian legislation from England.  Acts passed in 1764 had a particularly harsh effect on the previously robust colonial economy.  The Sugar Act was in effect a tax cut on easily smuggled molasses, and a new tax on commodities that England more directly controlled trade over.  The navy would be used in increased capacity to enforce trade laws and collect duties.

Perhaps even more significant than the militarization and expansion of taxes was the Currency Act passed later in the year 1764.

"The colonies suffered a constant shortage of currency with which to conduct trade. There were no gold or silver mines and currency could only be obtained through trade as regulated by Great Britain. Many of the colonies felt no alternative to printing their own paper money in the form of Bills of Credit."  [1]

The result was a true free market of currency - each bank competed, exchange rates fluctuated wildly, and merchants were hesitant to accept these notes as payment.  Of course, they didn't have 24-hour digital Forex markets, but I'll hold off opinions on the viability of unregulated currency for another time.

England's response was to seize control of the colonial money supply - forbidding banks, cities, and colony governments from printing their own.  This law, passed so soon after the Sugar Act, started to really bring revolutionary tension inside the colonies to a higher level.  American bankers had learned early on that debasing a currency through inflation is a helpful way to pay off perpetual trade deficits - but Britain proved that the buyer of the currency would only take the deal for so long...

Establishing and Abolishing Central Banks

Following the (first) American Revolution, the "First Bank of the United States" was chartered to pay off collective war debts, and effectively distribute the cost of the revolution proportionately throughout all of the states.  Although the bank had vocal and harsh skeptics, it only controlled about 20% of the nation's money supply.  Compared to today's central bank, it was nothing.

Thomas Jefferson argued vocally against the institution of the bank, mostly citing constitutional concerns and the limitations of government found in the 10th amendment.  There was one additional quote that hints at the deeper structural flaw of a central bank in a supposedly free capitalist economy:

"the existing banks will, without a doubt, enter into arrangements for lending their agency, and the more favorable, as there will be a competition among them for it; whereas the bill delivers us up bound to the national bank, who are free to refuse all arrangement, but on their own terms, and the public not free, on such refusal, to employ any other bank" [2]

Basically, the existing banks will fight over gaining favor with the central bank - rather than improving their performance relative to a free market.  The profit margins associated with collusion would obviously outweigh the potential profits gained from legitimate business.

The Second Bank of the United States was passed five years after the first bank's charter expired.  An early enemy of central banking, President James Madison, was looking for a way to stabilize the currency in 1816.  This bank was also quite temporary - it would only stay in operation until 1833 when President Andrew Jackson would end federal deposits at the institution.  The charter expired in 1836 and the private corporation was bankrupt and liquidated by 1841.

1863 & 1864::  National Bank Act(s)

While the South had been the major opponent of central banking systems, the end of the Civil War allowed for (and also made necessary) the system of national banks that would dominate the next fifty years.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) says that this post-war period of a unified national currency and system of national banks "worked well." [3]  Taxes on state banks were imposed to encourage people to use the national banks - but liquidity problems persisted as the money supply did not match the economic cycles.

Overall, the American economy continued to grow faster than Europe, but the period did not bring economic stability by any stretch of the imagination.  Several panics and runs on the bank - and it became a fact of life under this system of competing nationalized banks.  In 1873, 1893, 1901, and 1907 significant panics caused a series of bank failures.  The new system wasn't stable at all, in fact, many suspected it was wrought with fraud and manipulation.

1907-1913:  Triumph of the Robber Barons

"The most notable robber barons were J.P. Morgan (banking), John D. Rockefeller (oil), and Andrew Carnegie (steel)" [5]

Panic of 1907

The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis is not shy about attributing the causes of the Panic of 1907 to financial manipulation from the existing banking establishment.  "If Knickerbocker Trust would falter, then Congress and the public would lose faith in all trust companies and banks would stand to gain, the bankers reasoned." [4]

In timing with natural economic cycles, major banks including J.P. Morgan and Chase launched an all-out assault on Heinze's Knickerbocker Trust.  Financial institutions on the inside started silently selling off assets in the competitor, and headlines about a few bad loans started making top spots in the newspapers.  The run on Knickerbocker turned into a general panic - and the Federal Government would come to the rescue of its privately owned "National Banks."

During the Panic of 1907,

"Depositors 'run' on the Knickerbocker Bank. J.P. Morgan and James Stillman of First National City Bank (Citibank) act as a "central bank," providing liquidity ... [to stop the bank run]

President Theodore Roosevelt provides J.P. Morgan with $25 million in government funds ... to control the panic. Morgan, acting as a one-man central bank, decides which firms will fail and which firms will survive."  [5]

Interlocking Directorates

How did JP Morgan get so powerful that the government would provide them with funding to increase their power?  This question will come up again in 2008.

As Congressman Arsène Pujo would discover in his Congressional investigation of the "robber barons" or "money trusts," the key to expanding wealth beyond typical monopolies is the practice of interlocking directorates.  Railroad and oil monopolists could still expand their power and wealth by creating series of banks, and sponsoring directors at the institutions.  Alliances across the insiders would be cemented with cross-institution investment.  Tycoon A would found banks 1, 2, and 3 - Tycoon B would found 4, 5, and 6 - and each bank would be heavily invested in the various banks and monopolies they represented.

The result is a sort of conglomeration of monopolies - a place where each industry's dominant corporation merges into a larger entity, a goal short of nothing but monopolization of everything.

But such a entity could not be expected to exist or thrive in a purely efficient (competitive) market.  It is important then to remember that the private national banks of this "Robber baron" period were effectively subsidized by a tax on their state-based competition.  This is of course in addition to the interest gained from public deposits, and the fees that the government paid for the printing of currency.

No, from the onset, the National Bank System was little more than a federally subsidized profit opportunity.

The resulting outrage and scandal would result in a chorus of calls all demanding the same thing:  More government action, a stronger central bank.  What few but the bankers understood is that the government action and stronger central bank subsidies allowed the creation the things the people feared the most:  corruption, monopoly, and central planning of mundane activity and commerce.

1913 The Federal Reserve

Government interventionists got their wish in 1913 with the Federal Reserve (and income tax amendment).  Just in time, too, because the nation needed a new source of unlimited cash to finance both sides of WW1 and eventually our own entry to the war.  After the war, with both sides owing us debt through the Federal Reserve backed banks, the center of finance moved from London to New York.

But did the Federal Reserve reign in the money trusts and interlocking directorates?  Not by a long shot.  If anything, the Federal Reserve granted new powers to the National Banks by permitting overseas branches and new types of banking services.  The greatest gift to the bankers, was a virtually unlimited supply of loans when they experience liquidity problems. [5]

From the early 1920s to 1929, the monetary supply expanded at a rapid pace and the nation experienced wild economic growth.  Curiously, however, the number of banks started to decline for the first time in American history.  [6]

Toward the end of the period, speculation and lose money had propelled asset and equity prices to unreal levels.  The stock market crashed, and as the banks struggled with liquidity problems, the Federal Reserve actually cut the money supply.  Without a doubt, this is the greatest financial panic and economic collapse in American history - and it never could have happened  on this scale without the Fed's intervention.  The number of banks crashed and a few of the old robber barons' banks managed to swoop in and grab up thousands of competitors for pennies on the dollar.

[1]  The Currency Act, 1764 -  http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/currencyact.htm

[2]  Jefferson's Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank, 1791 - http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/amerdoc/bank-tj.htm

[3]  National Bank Notes:  A Uniform Curency (1865-1914) - http://www.occ.treas.gov/exhibits/histor4.htm

[4]  F. Augustus Heinze of Montana and the Panic of 1907 - http://minneapolisfed.org/pubs/region/89-08/REG898C.cfm

[5]  FDIC Learning Bank:  1900-1919 - http://www.fdic.gov/about/learn/learning/when/19-1919.html

[6] Depression-era bank failures: the great contagion or the great shakeout? - http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-132680382.html

Source: http://www.undergroundpolitics.com/economy/federal-reserve-history/