If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties‚ subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The European Union has announced that it has started putting together what it calls “guidelines for election integrity” – but what critics will describe in plain language as censorship guidelines that Big Tech is supposed to follow. The process of drafting these instructions‚ a part of the Digital Services Act (DSA)‚ was initiated with a public consultation that will last until March 7‚ and the EU said these will be the first guidelines under the DSA. Social media and services covered by it are referred to as Very Large Online Platforms and Search Engines‚ and they are the ones who will be expected to implement what the EU thinks are “best practices and possible measures to mitigate systemic risks” related to elections. The concept of free and fair elections is long-standing‚ but the EU has managed to work the term “resilient elections” in there as well‚ as the ultimate goal of the new guidelines. The draft also gives examples of what the bloc considers to be good ways to censor unwanted content – where censorship is referred to as “mitigating measures.” Particular attention is paid to generative AI‚ i.e‚ deepfakes. The platforms are supposed to stick to the guidelines before‚ as well as after the voting‚ and for once‚ “billions of people all around the world going to the polls this year” are not mentioned as the justification for the “measures.” At least the EU does not do it while announcing the drafting of the guidelines‚ although legacy media do‚ while reporting about it. Executive Vice-President for a Europe Fit for the Digital Age Margrethe Vestager is quoted as saying that the concern here are elections at various levels in EU nation-states‚ as well as those for the European Parliament. According to Vestager‚ voters must discuss issues online “in a safe way.” Meanwhile‚ the DSA is already there as the base for EU’s interference in the way social media manage content on their platforms. EU Commissioner for Internal Market Thierry Breton made a point of DSA’s usefulness here‚ reminding everyone in his comments that the act is the first to “address systemic risks on online platforms that can have real-world negative effects on our democratic societies” and enables things like the guidelines that are being drafted. And‚ the DSA currently applies its rules to 19 platforms. The post EU Officials Start Crafting Censorship Guidelines for Big Tech Companies Ahead of 2024 Elections appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties‚ subscribe to Reclaim The Net. With a move that could be seen as limiting the spread of diverse political views‚ Meta‚ the parent company of popular social media platforms‚ has revealed a strategy that aims to diminish the circulation of political content on its apps. Primarily‚ Meta’s recently-developed app Threads and Instagram‚ its more established platform‚ will reduce the recommendation of political posts. Meta had previously imposed a similar policy on Facebook‚ aiming to decrease the prominence of political material in various features including the main feed‚ as well as recommended groups and pages. This decision to refrain from actively promoting political content will soon be integrated into Instagram and Reels as well‚ especially with the 2024 US elections on the horizon. Newly introduced updates concerning the functioning of Instagram’s algorithms‚ as disclosed through the Instagram blog and Meta Transparency Center‚ will affect several key areas on the platform – Instagram Reels‚ Instagram Explore‚ and the In-Feed Recommendations. Meta’s impending amendments will majorly affect how Instagram suggests content‚ but curiously‚ they will not tamper with posts by accounts that users are already following. This implies that posts by non-recommendable accounts – including those of political nature such as election news or social issues – will continue to be visible to their followers through various channels like Feed and Stories. However‚ these will not be proactively recommended to users who do not follow the accounts‚ suppressing the growth of political accounts on the platform. The post Instagram and Threads To Restrict All Political Speech By Default appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Passengers riding the Orange &; Alexandria Railroad in early 1864 witnessed a bleak landscape disfigured by nearly three years of war. “Dilapidated‚ fenceless‚ and trodden with War Virginia is‚” Walt Whitman recorded on a trip from Washington‚ D.C.‚ to Culpeper‚ Va.‚ that February. “Virginia wears an air of gloom and desolation; no fences‚ no homes—nothing but the debris of destroyed property and continuous camps of soldiers‚” seconded a U.S. Christian Commission representative. “There was nothing‚” opined a newspaper correspondent‚ “absolutely nothing but the abomination of desolation.” The Union Army of the Potomac’s winter camps surrounding Culpeper depended on the railroad for provisions‚ munitions‚ and forage. Keeping the army supplied required 40 locomotives running daily along the 70-mile stretch of tracks that were vulnerable to floods‚ prone to accidents‚ and often attacked by Confederate cavalry raiders. Yet such was the efficiency of the U.S. Military Rail Road’s management that when 22 miles had been destroyed by retreating Confederates the previous fall‚ the line was restored within days‚ and the high bridge over the Rappahannock River was rebuilt in 19 hours. A derailed locomotive along the Union’s busy Orange &; Alexandria Railroad supply line. On March 10‚ a special train comprised of a locomotive and two cars chugged its way south. Aboard the first car was a detachment of soldiers‚ but riding in the other was the United States’ new general-in-chief‚ Lt. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant‚ and a small party that included staff officers‚ his son Fred‚ and his principal political sponsor‚ Congressman Elihu B. Washburne. Grant had formally received his promotion the day before from President Abraham Lincoln in a ceremony attended by the Cabinet. There was awkwardness—Grant was unfamiliar with Washington and nearly all its officials‚ including Lincoln‚ whom he had only just met‚ and the general-in-chief was a stranger to them. More discomfiture lay ahead at his destination—the winter camps of the U.S. Army of the Potomac. No one recorded details of that six-hour trip aboard a vulnerable train traversing a terrain rendered even sadder by heavy‚ cold rain‚ but the trip’s significance could hardly have been lost on Grant. The man who less than three years before had worked as a clerk in his father’s dry goods store in Galena‚ Ill.‚ now commanded more than 800‚000 soldiers in 19 departments in all Union states and several in the Confederacy. Over the last two years‚ Grant had won victories at Fort Donelson‚ Shiloh‚ Vicksburg‚ and Chattanooga and demonstrated tenacity‚ audacity‚ ingenuity‚ and adroitness. But his character was what most impressed his closest friend‚ Maj. Gen. William T. Sherman‚ who had recently told him that he was “as unselfish‚ kind-hearted and as honest as a man should be.” Sherman added that Grant’s most outstanding quality was his “simple faith in success you have always manifested‚ which I can liken to nothing else than the faith a Christian has in a Savior.” Grant would call on those strengths as he faced a more complex challenge than any he had yet faced. He knew he would be directing armies in a year that would see a wartime presidential election that could itself determine the war’s outcome. The new general-in-chief also recognized that winning victories in the coming campaigns would be key to winning at the polls in November. Rolling Toward Brandy Station Grant had been promoted to provide a more vigorous prosecution of the war. That Grant‚ on his first full day as general-in-chief‚ left Washington to meet the principals of the Army of the Potomac underscored how closely was its success tied to the Union cause. Moreover‚ Grant’s plans had changed. Whereas he had intended to exercise his new overall command while headquartered in the West‚ he now understood that he needed to be near Washington to shield the Army of the Potomac from political intrigue and that Lincoln specifically intended that he provide close command oversight. He knew he would soon deliver a mixed message to the army’s leadership. Illinois Rep. Elihu B. Washburne‚ one of Abraham Lincoln’s most trusted political confidantes‚ was an early supporter of Grant in Galena‚ Ill. In March 1869‚ during Grant’s first presidential term‚ Washburne would serve as secretary of state for 11 days. Grant fully recognized the risks his promotion posed. After his victory at Vicksburg‚ newspapers had reported that Grant would replace Maj. Gen. George G. Meade as the Army of the Potomac’s commander. The report first appeared in a little-known New York paper‚ the Express‚ and might have originated with Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. In addition‚ some‚ perhaps Congressman Washburne among them‚ advocated Grant transporting his army to the Eastern Theater and superseding Meade. Talking Stanton out of it was then General-in-Chief Maj. Gen. Henry Halleck‚ Grant’s departmental commander earlier in the war‚ and Assistant Secretary of War Charles A. Dana‚ who had observed Grant at Vicksburg. Once it became clear he would not be transferred‚ Grant expressed relief. It was “a matter of no small importance‚” he wrote Washburne‚ that the change not take place. In that letter and in an earlier missive to Dana‚ Grant explained the reassignment “could do no possible good.” Noting that the Army of the Potomac was led by “able officers who have been brought up with that army‚” the general anticipated that they would resent having an outsider placed over them. Commanding the Army of the Potomac‚ he continued‚ meant‚ “I would have all to learn.” Even in mid-February 1864‚ with his promotion to general-in-chief all but certain‚ Grant remained reluctant‚ telling a West Point classmate that he was “thankful” that he had not been transferred. Commenting to his wife‚ Julia‚ that same week‚ the general intimated that were he to receive the top command‚ he would not be confined to Washington. Grant mused they might see more of each other as he would be traveling regularly between his Western headquarters and the Eastern Theater and could stop to see her wherever she elected to live. But now Grant was about to begin his acquaintance with the most prominent‚ and unlucky‚ of U.S. armies. The Army of Potomac was quite unlike the usually victorious forces Grant had led in the West. Still looming over the army that winter was the shadow of its creator‚ Maj. Gen. George B. McClellan. Though dismissed 17 months before‚ McClellan’s influence endured‚ most notably among the army’s senior generals‚ nearly all of whom had received their first promotions while under McClellan’s command. To many of these men‚ McClellan bequeathed his caution and lack of urgency that hampered its operations. He also left an army culture of political engagement with Washington that undermined its effectiveness. Grant’s suspicions were correct—he was bringing a new style‚ and he and those he brought with him would be regarded as outsiders. Since McClellan’s dismissal‚ three men had commanded the army—Ambrose Burnside‚ Joseph Hooker‚ and Meade. Burnside and Hooker were dismissed for their battlefield and command failures and‚ partly‚ because their subordinates had lost faith in their leadership. The army had won but one clear-cut victory‚ and it on the home ground of Gettysburg‚ and had repeatedly been manhandled by the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia led by General Robert E. Lee. For his part‚ Meade had been so criticized after his victory at Gettysburg that he had repeatedly offered to resign. Five days before Grant arrived‚ Meade had testified before Congress refuting false allegations made by several generals and an array of political opponents who sought to have him replaced. His hold on command was tenuous‚ and Meade would not have been surprised if Grant was bringing word that he would be sacked.In short‚ Grant was about to engage an army that was‚ in the words of Bruce Catton‚ “badly clique-ridden‚ obsessed by the memory of the departed McClellan‚ so deeply impressed by Lee’s superior abilities that its talk at times almost had a defeatist quality.” At 3 p.m.‚ Grant’s train pulled into rain-soaked Brandy Station‚ Va.‚ the army’s principal supply depot‚ described as a “vast domain of smoke‚ guns‚ and mud-stained soldiers.” There‚ on the platform surrounded by barrels of beef piled high around the tracks‚ were two of the army’s principal staff officers‚ chief of staff Maj. Gen. Andrew A. Humphreys‚ and quartermaster Brig. Gen. Rufus Ingalls. Humphreys was substituting for Meade‚ his “slightly indisposed” superior‚ while Ingalls was presumably along to greet his old friend and West Point roommate. Meade’s absence might have appeared to a more protocol-conscious general like a slight‚ but there is no record of Grant taking offense. After the train rolled to a stop‚ guards disembarked from the first car while officers and civilians detrained from the second. Among them was Grant. The only thing remarkable about him‚ thought Dr. E.W. Locke‚ was that he was smoking. “His dress is very plain‚ eyes half closed‚ he takes little or no notice of anything‚” Locke continued‚ observing that a “very few officers‚ and as many men‚ came‚ took a hasty glance‚ and have now gone back to their quarters‚ most of them shaking their heads‚ and some saying‚ ‘Big thing.’” This photo‚ “Gen. Meade’s Headquarters–Fall of 1863‚” was part of Alexander Gardner’s “Brandy Station” series. Although Meade is not shown here‚ his chief of staff‚ Maj. Gen. Andrew A. Humphreys (standing center‚ hatless) is. The party rode a four-horse spring wagon to Meade’s headquarters three miles away‚ where they were greeted by the camp guard consisting of details from four regiments. One of the army’s finest bands struck up “Hail to the Chief” and other tunes‚ but rain prevented a more elaborate ceremony‚ which was just as well. The new general-in-chief never learned how to make an entrance‚ and if he took note of the welcome‚ no one noticed. Worse‚ his hosts could not have known that their new commander was tone-deaf and sometimes found the sound of music excruciating. Grant once confessed—or joked‚ we know not which—he knew but two tunes‚ one that was “Yankee Doodle” and one that was not. Meade‚ clad in a common soldier’s jacket‚ opened his tent door to greet his new chief. Exactly what occurred during that meeting is muddled. Most historians have accepted Grant’s account in his Memoirs that Meade offered to step aside in favor of someone Grant knew better‚ suggesting specifically Sherman. Grant wrote that he was so impressed by Meade’s selflessness that he immediately assured Meade that he had “no thought of substituting anyone for him.” Meade’s more immediate account‚ written the evening of the meeting‚ is cryptic‚ mentioning only that Grant had been “very civil‚ and said nothing about superseding me.” But Grant had considered sacking Meade. One of Grant’s aides recorded in his diary on March 10 that Grant had considered replacing Meade with Maj. Gen. William F. “Baldy” Smith‚ who had impressed the new general-in-chief in Chattanooga‚ but that there was now to be “no change.” Many published rumors had predicted that Meade would be fired‚ mentioning several different generals‚ and Smith was listed as among the leading candidates. Meade‚ who knew and disliked Smith from their time serving together earlier in the war‚ could not have been comforted by knowing that Smith had accompanied Grant on his visit to the army. In Smith’s telling‚ Grant had found that the War Department preferred to keep Meade in command and that he accompanied Grant to Brandy Station only at the latter’s insistence. He discreetly spent the night not with Grant’s entourage but with old Army friends. Grant had lobbied for Smith’s promotion to major general and would later assign him to lead a corps in the Army of the James. Grant recalled that there was “prejudice” against Smith in the Senate and that only after he persisted had the promotion gone through. As he ruefully recorded in his Memoirs‚ however‚ “I was not long in finding out that the objections to Smith’s promotion were well founded.” Meade continued to fret; as late as March 17‚ he was still worried that Smith would take his place. First Impressions Just when and how Grant decided to retain Meade is elusive. Grant was apparently surprised to learn in their initial meetings that Lincoln and Stanton were not looking for a change. Meade hailed from a politically important state‚ Pennsylvania‚ and was the only army commander who had bested Lee‚ making him difficult to fire. Given the infighting that had raged for months among many in the Army of the Potomac‚ the administration must have noted that most Army generals continued to support Meade. Moreover‚ Grant knew he was an outsider in an army that did not treat outsiders well‚ and replacing Meade would only compound that problem. Finally‚ both Lincoln and Grant recognized that much of the effort to oust Meade came from those whose bad-faith motives ought not to be rewarded. With Grant now general-in-chief of the whole U.S. Army‚ rumors were rampant that he would replace Maj. Gen. George Meade (pictured) as the Army of the Potomac’s commander with Maj. Gen. William F. “Baldy” Smith‚ a key figure in Grant’s success at Chattanooga‚ Tenn.‚ the previous October and November. Because Meade’s frequent letters to his wife survive‚ we know much about his frame of mind during the months preceding Grant’s arrival. Replying to his wife’s late-1863 question‚ Meade wrote that he knew Grant slightly from the Mexican War‚ where he was considered a “clever young officer‚ but nothing extraordinary.” Judging from the then-common usage of the adjective “clever‚” the army commander apparently thought of Grant as amiable or well-mannered rather than intelligent. After explaining that Grant had been compelled to resign his commission because of his “irregular habits”—a reference to Grant’s drinking—he listed Grant’s strength as his energy and “great tenacity of purpose.” Still‚ he could not resist observing that there was little basis for comparison between the U.S. armies in the East with those in the West‚ claiming that his army had faced an adversary that was better led and composed of better troops. Meade followed up his brief March 10 letter four days later. In that missive‚ Meade gave a longer description‚ saying he was “much pleased with General Grant‚” and that he had shown “much more capacity and character than I had expected.” He told his wife that he had offered to step aside as army commander if Grant wished to replace him with a general he knew better. Meade related that Grant replied with a “complimentary speech‚” and disavowed any intention to replace him. Then Grant delivered the less welcome news: He intended to accompany the army during the spring campaign. “So that you may look now for the Army of the Potomac putting laurels on the brows of another rather than your husband‚” Meade concluded‚ a strikingly prescient prediction. Meade returned to his impression of Grant in a March 16 letter‚ saying that he was “most agreeably disappointed in his evidence of mind and character. You may rest assured he is not an ordinary man.” If Meade’s words are condescending‚ hinting at being pleasantly surprised by Grant’s abilities‚ that view was shared by top subordinates. “Agreeably disappointed‚” although a curious phrase‚ seems to have reflected a consensus. The army’s senior corps commander‚ Maj. Gen. John Sedgwick‚ wrote to his sister that he had “spent an evening with [Grant]‚ and was most agreeably disappointed‚ both in his personal appearance and his straightforward‚ common-sense view of matters.” Despite news that Grant might command the army directly‚ Sedgwick noted‚ “[G]ood feeling seemed to exist between him and General Meade.” General Humphreys agreed‚ telling his wife in a March 10 letter that he was “agreeably disappointed in Genl. Grant’s appearance‚” describing the new general-in-chief as having “an intellectual face and head which at the same time expresses a good deal of determination.” Striking a discordant note was Maj. Gen. Gouverneur Warren. Grant‚ he said‚ “seems much more vivacious than I supposed and did not look at me with any apparent eye to discerning my qualities in my face.” Warren perhaps did not mean it this way‚ but he seemed to fault Grant for failing to perceive his brilliance‚ an early sign of a personal conflict to come. The president warmly welcomes his new general-in-chief at the Executive Mansion in March 1864‚ optimistic that Grant would finally be the commander who capitalized on the Union Army’s military strength and end the war. The weather having not improved‚ Grant abandoned plans to visit the various corps‚ and returned to Washington on March 11. He spent much of that afternoon conferring with Halleck‚ now his Washington-based chief of staff‚ and then with Lincoln and Stanton. When Grant said he intended to depart for Nashville that evening‚ Lincoln implored him to stay for dinner at the White House. Grant declined‚ citing the urgency of returning to the West‚ adding that he had “enough of the show business.” Besides‚ he added‚ “a dinner to me means a million dollars a day lost to the country.” Lincoln ruefully told the gathering of senior generals and Cabinet officials arriving for dinner that Grant had to leave unexpectedly‚ and therefore‚ the evening was “the play of Hamlet with Hamlet left out.” Grant had earlier promised to stay the night‚ so there was something precipitous in Grant’s immediate departure for the West. It may be that after a stressful 48 hours‚ and now knowing he would soon return to the Army of the Potomac’s camps‚ Grant urgently wished to see familiar surroundings and subordinates. Ahead‚ he now knew‚ lay a complex relocation for his staff and family and the transfer of his departmental command to Sherman. He now had a firmer sense of how much there was yet to learn and do. Nevertheless‚ he had achieved a favorable first impression‚ demonstrating that he was a quick study who had quietly impressed strangers with his intelligence‚ determination‚ humility‚ common sense‚ and what Secretary of the Navy Gideon Wells noted was a “latent power.” In adjusting to Lincoln’s preferences to base his command in the East and accompany the Army of the Potomac still led by Meade‚ Grant showed a quick willingness to follow without complaint his civilian superior’s priorities. That augured well for their future partnership. Official Washington seemed not to mind that Grant’s visit was brief‚ with several observing approvingly that Grant was “all business.” Still‚ as the train chugged away‚ Grant‚ again alone with his thoughts and cigars‚ could not know that he had taken his first sure steps on a momentous road that would‚ less than 400 days later‚ end in a stillness at Appomattox. William W. Bergen‚ an independent historian based in Charlottesville‚ Va.‚ has had essays published in the University of North Carolina’s Military Campaigns of the Civil War series. He also has worked as a paid guide at Monticello. This article originally appeared in the Spring 2024 issue of America’s Civil War magazine.

An Amazon driver in Georgia gets fired after allegedly trying to drive off with a customer's dog.

Diagnosing Whiteness

Border Chiefs Warned Homeland Security Committee About CCP Spies Crossing the Border

For the Earth to become as cold as it was during the “Snowball Earth” era‚ and stay there‚ required a combination of a reorganization of the Earth’s continents and the weathering of a vast volcanic province‚ scientists have argued. Another team‚ coincidentally publishing simultaneously‚ blames an asteroid instead. However‚ at this stage‚ they have less evidence to point to.The periods known as Snowball Earth made our recent ice ages look like a minor chill. Not only were there massive glaciers at the equator‚ but in one case the cold lasted an estimated 57 million years. It’s still a puzzle how life survived.While some scientists work on that question‚  others want to know how such an event could have occurred. Changes to the Earth’s orbit‚ such as those that caused recent cold periods‚ are not remotely sufficient. There’s at least one common feature between the big event and its pale imitations‚ however – low levels of carbon dioxide.As the primary driver of changes in Earth’s temperature‚ there is no doubt carbon dioxide levels were very low during the Snowball Earth periods‚ but that leaves the question of why.“We now think we have cracked the mystery‚” said Dr Adriana Dutkiewicz of the University of Sydney in a statement. “Historically low volcanic carbon dioxide emission‚ aided by weathering of a large pile of volcanic rocks in what is now Canada.”“At this time‚ there were no multicellular animals or land plants on Earth‚” Dutkiewicz noted. “The greenhouse gas concentration of the atmosphere was almost entirely dictated by CO2 outgassing from volcanoes and by silicate rock weathering processes‚ which consume CO2.”Evidence of the Sturtian Snowball Earth is found in rocks worldwide. Here‚ Dr Adriana Dutkiewicz studies examples in the Flinders Range not far from the original discovery site.Image Credit: Professor Dietmar Müller/University of SydneyEvidence for the weathering part is easy to find. The Franklin Igneous Province was by far the largest volcanic province on Earth at the time. Once its growth‚ and the accompanying carbon release‚ stopped‚ exposure to air and water inevitably led to chemical changes that would have absorbed carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.That would not be enough on its own‚ however. Once the Earth became covered in ice it reflected more sunlight back to space‚ temporarily maintaining low temperatures. On the other hand‚ all that ice would also have slowed the rate of weathering. In normal circumstances‚ this would have caused carbon dioxide levels to rebound‚ warming the planet again. The fact this didn’t happen‚ Dutkiewicz and co-authors argue‚ indicates for tens of millions of years the release of CO2 must have been as slow as its removal.They blame this on continental movements at the time. The longest Snowball Earth‚ known as the Sturtian after the gorge where evidence first emerged‚ coincided with a period where just 9 megatonnes of carbon were released each year. At that low rate‚ even the minimal weathering beneath thick sheets of ice would have been sufficient to keep atmospheric carbon low. This low release rate reflects a relative dearth of underwater volcanoes at mid-oceanic ridges‚ in turn a consequence of the break-up of Rodinia‚ the supercontinent before Pangaea.   Looking one step further back in the chain‚ Dutkiewicz told IFLScience‚ that responsibility lies with mantle convection processes‚ but “the problem [of what causes them] is not well understood. This is an area of intense study and has been for a long time.”Almost the entire Earth froze over at least once more‚ in the Marinoan glaciation. Although Dutkiewicz believes there is some commonality to the two glaciations’ causes‚ she told IFLScience: “Marinoan was much shorter and happened a lot later. The Sturtian is the one that requires explanation.”At the same time as Dutkiewicz and colleagues were publishing their work‚ another paper reported that an asteroid strike of similar size to the “dinosaur-killer” could have tipped the world into a similar frozen state. The authors of that paper conclude that such an event during a warm period‚ such as the Cretaceous‚ would have much more temporary effects. When carbon dioxide levels were already low‚ however‚ it could trigger something much bigger.Dutkiewicz acknowledged to IFLScience that there could have been factors beyond the ones her team identified‚ but added the other paper “is purely a climate modelling study hypothesizing whether an asteroid impact of comparable size to the Chicxulub impact could have triggered a global glaciation. There is no evidence that such an asteroid impact actually triggered 'Snowball Earth.' It’s a highly speculative scenario. In any case‚ even if such an impact had occurred‚ it is unlikely to sustain a glaciation for very long (geologically speaking).”Dutkiewicz’s work is open access in Geology. The asteroid hypothesis is open access in Science Advances.

Exorcist calls for ‘spiritual warfare’ as ‘rising evil’ means exorcisms take twice as long as they did 50 years ago. Father Chad Ripperger‚ a longtime Catholic priest and exorcist‚ is sounding the alarm about a growing “demonic onslaught‚” urging believers to fight dark forces. Father Ripperger warned of the rise of demonic forces last week during an hour-long talk at the famous St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York. The reason for the sharp increase in demonic activity‚ according to Father Rippinger‚ lies in the large number of people committing “evil deeds” and a decrease in holiness among believers. “Before 1963‚ the average time to liberate someone from full possession was one to two days. Maybe a week on the outside‚” he explained. “After 1963‚ what used to take one to two days went to eight months to two years to liberate the average person. Then it’s now‚ on average‚ four years to liberate somebody. There’s two reasons for that. “One is because the world is much more evil‚ and the demons are a lot more powerful. The second component is [how] exorcisms work‚ what they call ex opere operantis Ecclesiae. “What does that mean? It means how holy the people are in the Catholic Church determines how effective my prayers are when I walk into session. “That tells us that there’s a fundamental problem with the members of the Church. They’re not as holy as their counterparts were in the past‚” he asserted. Though Fr. Ripperger cites mortal sin‚ an increase in the number of people doing evil in the world‚ and a decrease in holiness as primary factors for the increased activity among dark elements‚ he reminds us that God Himself will allow for demonic influence to sanctify the faithful. “One of the principal reasons that God allows demons in our lives is to sanctify us‚ because when we combat them and become instruments of justice to them… that is meritorious in the eyes of God‚ and it actually raises our place in heaven. St. Paul said it: ‘Engage the ancient serpent and win the crown of glory.’” The post Exorcist calls for ‘spiritual warfare’ against ‘growing evil’ appeared first on Anomalien.com.