lundi 1 octobre 2012

BISHOP WILLIAMSON CONFERENCES – conference n° 11


BISHOP WILLIAMSON CONFERENCES – conference n° 11

Vidéo en anglais :

TradCatBat Youtube

Conférence à traduire en français s'il vous plaît, en vue de la publication d'un article puis d'un DVD sous-titré, gratuit ou très peu cher (au prix des fournitures). Nous recherchons des bonnes volontés. Même si vous n'êtes pas spécialiste, ce n'est pas grave, vous pouvez quand même traduire. Cela nous aide. Nous vérifierons tout après. Si vous êtes volontaire, inscrivez-vous en cliquant dans une ou des cases du questionnaire à droite de la page et envoyez nous un mail pour nous le dire (Cf. onglet contact). D'avance, nous vous remercions pour votre aide précieuse.



I was on the phone last night.  Fr Joe Pfeiffer from the United States rang me up, the one who gave a blockbusting sermon that’s all over the internet, like Fr Chazal’s, and he said that Fr Laisney, who is a Bishop Fellay man, was really trying to put the pressure on Fr Chazal, and one of the things that Fr Laisney blurted out in the middle of his pressure-putting was that after the General Chapter there will be a purge.  I think he was quoting Fr Pfluger.  Fr Pfluger is a real - how can I say?  A strong man.  I wanted to use the word “thug” but I can’t use the word “thug”.  It’s not quite correct.  Fr Pfluger is not nearly as smart as Bishop Fellay.  Bishop Fellay is smart, but Fr Pfluger is not smart but he is absolutely fanaticised.  These people are now fanaticised, and they are driving for their goal, and their goal is to take over the Society and to get rid of the opposition.  Fr Chazal quoted Fr Pfluger, who said, “Wait until the General Chapter and then there will be a big purge.”  So they’re going to get to the General Chapter, and they’re going to sail through the General Chapter with a majority, as they hope.  They undoubtedly count on having a majority in their pocket, and then if they win the vote then there will be a great purge.  Heads will roll afterwards.  Anybody who’s in opposition will be eliminated, crushed, smashed, driven out. 

 

God, in any case, surely wants the purification of the resistance to the apostasy of the Church, which was set up by Archbishop Lefebvre 40 years ago and which he carried forward for 20 years in heroic fashion, and it was carried on for a while by his successors, but it’s normal that without him the Society should not stay on track, just like Campos.  Once Bishop de Castro Mayer was gone, Campos didn’t take long before it came off the rails, and the Society is now coming off the rails, one would say.  There is just a hope that at the General Chapter the good guys will have enough possibility to lay out enough good arguments to sway some voters at the General Chapter and to take the majority away from Bishop Fellay.  There’s just a hope.  If they do that at the Chapter, I don't know how, they have got to get rid of Bishop Fellay.  It’s a hope.  It’s a dream.  If there’s no agreement now and Bishop Fellay stays in power then heads will roll more quietly then if he had the majority of the General Chapter, but if he’s still the recognised head and has the authority he will make heads roll.  He will get rid of Fr Morgan.  He will get rid of Fr Cacqueray.  He will put in his own men like he’s already been putting in here and there, and then the next time the General Chapter is held he will be sure of having a majority and he will rejoin Rome as he wants and means to.  So he’s got to be got rid of.  If there’s a crucial vote that goes against him, he’s got to be got rid of.  

 

Bishop Fellay is cunning.  He’s very, very cunning.  The good guys will surely force the issue, and there will have to be a discussion and there will have to be a vote, I think.  There are about 30 superiors of various kinds and ten veterans make up the 40 - the ten oldest old-timers, the ten priests ordained furthest back in the history of the Society.  Of course, normally experience is wiser, so those experienced ten, a number of whom knew the Archbishop and knew what he was about, it’s to be hoped that there’ll be enough of them to swing a vote. 

 

It’s all in God’s hands.  In any case, God is going to purify His resistance.  He’s going to purify the followers of His cause, which is the resistance to the apostasy of the modern world, and He’s going to clean it out.  With or without the Society, He will clean out the resistance, I’m sure.  From a human point of view Rome wins either way.  Rome has succeeded in dividing the Society, and Rome has smashed Humpty Dumpty, and Humpty Dumpty won’t be put together again, I don’t think.  If the good guys stay in charge then the bad guys will have to take themselves off.  One can hope that they will take themselves off.  If the bad guys stay in charge and take over the Society, take over the mechanism, take over the structure, then I don’t think what they do will survive.  I don’t think it can hang together.  It cannot be blessed of God, as I see it.  I don’t see how it can be blessed of God, even though some of them will be of goodwill.  Some of them will think that rejoining Rome is the best thing, but then reality will catch up, and if St Peter’s is anything to go by, there will be very few that jump ship and quit.  Most of them, having once decided to go with Rome, they will stay with the decision to go with Rome, and they will drift, and then at best they will depart individually and set up on their own and have an individual ministry like priests have been doing for the last 40 years, but most of them will go along. 

 

Eventually a number of them will, just like Bishop Rifan now, finish up saying the New Mass.  Having convinced themselves that there’s nothing so wrong with Conciliar Rome, they will next convince themselves there’s nothing so wrong with the Council.  They will next convince themselves there’s nothing so wrong with the New Mass, and they’ll be saying the New Mass before they know where they are. 

 

St Peter’s was founded on going with Conciliar Rome.  Therefore going with Conciliar Rome is part of its charter.  Going with Conciliar Rome is not the charter of the SSPX, and that’s why there are going to be tensions inside.  If the bad guys take over there’s going to be such tensions as I don’t think it can thrive.  I just don’t think it can possibly thrive.  I’m not sure it will positively come apart but it will dilute and soften and then just disappear into the Conciliar woodwork.  That’s the Devil. 

 

I can remember back in 1977, the Devil was working over Econe big time.  There was a left-wing revolt in 1973.  There was another left-wing revolt in 1975 when a number of good, decent professors quit the Archbishop, and that’s a favourite story of mine.  I remember in 1975, the year before I was ordained, I was a seminarian, and the crisis, I think, was in the summer.  It was because Rome had pretended to claim to dissolve the Society of St Pius X, and it was another apparently just move on the part of the official Church, which took away the legitimacy of these decent priests that came along to the seminary to help the Archbishop.  So a number of these decent priests, I think there were at least four of them, having lost their respectability, told the Archbishop they were quitting him and they went back, so it looked like there would be a lack of professors for the following year.  They agreed to teach until the end of the school year, the summer of 1975, but then they let the Archbishop know that they would be going, so the seminarians knew they were going. 

 

I went to see the Archbishop and I said, “What about it?  We’re going to lose our professors.”  I remember very quietly he said, “Well, if we have no professors the seminarians will have to teach themselves.”  Very quietly.  “We’re not going to change path.  They will do it with the manuals.  They’ll have to look after themselves.”  No question of changing track.  That was him - no fuss, no noise, no brass band, no shouting.  Just - “Well, if we don’t have professors the seminarians will have to look after themselves.”  But he wouldn't abandon the seminarians, and he wouldn't let them become Modernist.  He wouldn’t give them Modernist professors, so if there are no professors, better none than Modernists.  That was the Archbishop.  That was his style. 

 

So St Peter’s have got in their charter to go with Conciliar Rome.  What I might call the Bishop Fellay Society, the Fellayite Society, let’s say that, the Fellayite Society, the Society which Fellay has Fellay-ised has not got in its charter to go with the Conciliar Church.  That’s why there are going to be serious internal tensions, and I don’t think it can hold together. 

 

I remember in 1977, that was two years after the crisis I’ve just spoken about in 1975, but there was one crisis after another at the seminary, and then the next one, 1977, was on the right-wing, but that was when sedevacantism was beginning, and so the Archbishop had to balance the other direction.  He had to shift to the right, shift to the right, shift to the right.  This time he had to shift a bit to the left.  As a donkey with a pack on its back, the pack slides off to the left, you have to push it to the right, and then it slides off to the right, you have to push it to the left, so to keep the pack on the middle of the donkey you have to keep adjusting it.  So the Archbishop was adjusting the pack on the back of the donkey.  In 1977 he had to push to the right, because soon after the beginning of the school year there was another batch of professors and seminarians that went, including [inaudible 12:47] very regrettably, persuaded that if they went off to France they could start a seminary of their own which would be approved by the Church and which would not have all the faults of the Archbishop’s operation.  I think it was about 20 seminarians and another three or four professors, they went off again into the leftfield, and that dissolved quite soon.  It really didn’t last very long, and some of the seminarians went into official seminaries, approved seminaries and so on, but it didn’t last very long.  The Devil achieved what he wanted.  He had got 20 seminarians away from Econe, and he got professors away from Econe, and the Archbishop had to scratch around to fill the gaps with professors.  That’s when they pulled me into Econe to begin teaching.  I was there for five years, and Father Tissier, as he then was, became the rector of the seminary and I became one of the teachers, and we were there for five years, so Bishop Tissier and I have known one another for quite a long time.  Then I was shipped to the United States and so on.  It’s all history.

 

Humanly speaking, the Devil wins either way because either way the Society is severely diminished.  At best it’s diminished in numbers but at worst it’s just broken completely because the structure falls into the hands of the Conciliarists and then the Society of the Archbishop is virtually over, but his work is not over.  His Society may be crippled but his work will not be crippled because the resistance, I’m quite sure, will carry on.  The resistance will reform, regroup and continue.  I think it will need to continue in a different form but it will continue.

 

Interestingly, Fr Joe Pfeiffer was telling me last night that he had a call from Fr Gruner, who many of you know of, from the United States, and Fr Gruner was giving his take on the situation, and Fr Gruner was saying that he sees the resistance continuing in a slightly different form - not a strict congregation but a looser federation.  If the vote goes the wrong way in the General Chapter, which there’s a good chance of it doing, maybe the Mother of God can prevent that, but if it goes the wrong way then it will be vital to put together some safety net so that the priests falling off the treacherous SSPX trapeze will have somewhere to go and that they won’t feel that they’ve got nowhere to go.  The danger is that a number of good priests who don’t want to go with the Conciliarists, because they’re not Conciliarists themselves and they don’t want to be, the danger is that they will stay with the Conciliarised Society - I think that’s the best way to put it - because they’ve got nowhere else to go, but if they had somewhere else to go then I think a number will not just drift along with the Conciliarised Society, which is otherwise a risk for them.  If they quit the Conciliarised Society, and I think there will be a good number of priests that will quit, I do think there would be, if it came to a Conciliarised Society there are a number that would quit, and if they quit then it’s back to garage Masses and scratching to get the vestments, but there will be benefactors, I bet you any you like.

 

The point is that, humanly speaking, the Devil wins either way, but, divinely speaking, God wins either way because if the Society continues, having, by a miracle, got rid of Bishop Fellay and his gang, because I think it will take a miracle, if a miracle is obtained then a number of the Conciliarist priests will just on their own rejoin the mainstream Church.  If they can’t carry the Society with them they will rejoin the mainstream Church one by one.  And it will be, quite honestly, good riddance to bad rubbish, and the Society will be very much purified, which is what God is after.  I’m quite sure God is after that, because with what’s coming, with globalism, with the ongoing collapse of the mainstream Church, with the purge of the Society - the purge is necessary to get the resistance in shape for a possible persecution, a very severe persecution coming with the triumph of the globalists just before the chastisement.  I think the chastisement is on its way.  So the Lord God is purging.  If the good guys hold on to the Society it will be very much purged and cleansed until the next corruption.  If the bad guys hold on to the Society then the resistance will reform outside, and again God will win because the resistance will attract, I am sure, many of the best priests, not all but many, humanly judged, of the best priests.  How God judges is different, of course, and God knows.

 

So, humanly speaking, the Devil wins either way.  Divinely speaking, God wins either way, so it’s this tremendous battle between the Devil and God, which God allows for the benefit of the elect.  It’s mysterious, but St Augustine says, “God allows bad men either in order that they convert or in order that they put to the trial the good guys,” so again either way God wins. 

 

Given this dramarama going on right now, it may seem antiquated to be going into these 19th-century documents, but they’re not out of date, and notice we’ve already seen how often the Archbishop refers to them because this was the Archbishop’s anchorage.  This is why the Archbishop didn’t shift, because he’d understood what the popes think of the whole modern world.  He understood that the Council was the modern world penetrating into the Church.  He never had any doubts about the wrongness and wretchedness of the Council.  Today the Devil will be after us, and we’ve got to have no doubts about the wrongness of the Conciliarisation of the Archbishop’s Society, but this was the Archbishop’s mental anchorage and not just a provisional anchorage for the Archbishop.  He saw this as a permanent anchorage.

 

Let us go on with Quanta Cura.  The family, parents’ rights, children’s education all depend on the State, and the State moving in on the family - that, of course, is what’s happening today.  I said in fairness that today the State is partly obliged to close in on the family because the family is so destroyed.  Judeo-Masonry is the hyphenated name for that combination of all the Jews working with the Freemasons, and all the Freemasons working with the Jews, to bring on a complete New World Order, a complete godless New World Order to bring on the Antichrist.  Not all Jews work with the Freemasons and for the New World Order.  Not all Freemasons are consciously working with the Jews for the New World Order, but the most important Masons and the most important Jews are those that are working, unfortunately, for the New World Order.  In every government where Freemasonry has an influence, they’ve been deliberately working to dissolve and break down the family because the family comes from God.  The family of one man, one woman, the biological mother and the biological father, until death do them part, of as many children as God sends, without artificial means of birth control - that is an institution of God, and so that’s got to be got rid of. 

 

The abusers find a vulnerability, and that vulnerability is undoubtedly a need of love, a need of something which Mum and Dad should have given them.  Single-parent homes, the father is lacking or the mother is lacking - they haven’t got what they need.  All of us need/needed from our Mum what Mum could give, what a woman can give, and what a woman alone can give, and from Dad what a man can give, what a man alone can give – biological Mum, biological Dad until death do them part.  That’s God’s idea.  It’s the right idea.  That’s what Freemasonry took care to attack, as we will see, also, in the Syllabus - Freemasonry heavily attacking the family.

 

“Against The Church In Particular” - the Church under the State, the Church in the temporal order and a straightjacket being put on the Church.  “Other errors put the Church under the State, and seek to deny to the Church any rights in the temporal order.”  Temporal means worldly.  It’s from the Latin tempus.  Time as opposed to eternity.  Tempus means time, so temporal is opposed to eternal.  The temporal order is in this world.  The eternal order is in the next world.  “Church laws bind only if they’re promulgated by the State.”  So the Church can’t make laws for the Church without the State improving.  The State is closing in on the Church and controlling its laws.  “Laws coming from the Pope on Church and religion must be approved of by the State.”  Again the State being put above the Church – monstrous error.  “The Church can condemn no Freemasonry tolerated by the State.”  So you can see the Freemasons are behind all of these errors.  Freemasonry is insisting on itself being given rights by the State which the Church cannot then condemn. 

 

“Popes and councils defending Church property have only an earthly motive” – monstrous error.  This is worth thinking about because it’s on television all the time - the vile media are all the time onto the churchmen want property, the churchmen are looking for money, the churchmen want possessions, the churchmen want wealth.  Hey, poor old human nature - obviously it is true.  In practice there are churchmen who just want wealth, money, riches and comfort, but in principle there is nothing wrong with the Church owning property.  In fact, the Church needs to own property in order to keep its independence.  Heaven knows, in the SSPX in the last 40 years often when the laity control the property, the laity are liable to try to tell the priests what to do because they own the property, and they say to the priest, “If you don’t do what we want you to do then you won’t be able to come here to say Mass.”  So the priest is up a creek without a paddle.  That’s if the property belongs to the laity.  The property should belong to the Church.  The SSPX has needed to own its own properties to ensure that it’s the priest who calls the shots, not because the priest wants to be a dictator, God forbid, but because the Church, and never forget this, the Church marches to a different drum from the world, and the laity often have worldly ideas.  God bless them - that’s their business.  They’re in the world, they have worldly ideas, but the Church doesn’t always operate like the world.  In fact, often it doesn’t, and therefore the laity cannot always understand why churchmen operate as they do and why they make the decision they do.  So the priests must be able to make their own decisions. 

 

The Pontifical States were a whole belt across the middle of Italy, a substantial belt, which was politically controlled by the Vatican, and it was not a bad thing that the Church did control politically properties like that.  It guaranteed the independence of the Papacy.  Otherwise if the Vatican came under a State, the State could exert severe pressure upon the Vatican.  In 1870, a few years after Quanta Cura, actually you had the revolution in Italy and the Pontifical States were taken over by the Italian State.  The Vatican was stripped of its political possessions, its political kingdom, and the Pope was limited to the Vatican.  In God’s providence it was a very good pope, Pius IX, and he didn’t lose any of his spiritual prestige and power.  He lost his temporal power.  The State was now right round the Vatican, but he didn’t give way to it.  There was a final settlement, the Lateran Agreement in 1929, when Mussolini set up the Vatican as a State of its own, and that’s what we have still today.  The Vatican is a State.  It’s only a tiny, little enclave in Rome with not really very much property or territory at all, but it is, strictly speaking, a State of its own.  Therefore Mussolini was handing back a little bit, just enough political independence and political property and political statehood to ensure that it would not be too crowded by the Italian state.  Mussolini was half in favour of the Catholic Church.  He was not the complete horrible villain that our vile media present him to be, so don’t believe what you read about Mussolini in the vile media.  Go to the Internet and then get both sides of the issue.

 

So it’s just not true that popes and councils defending Church property have only an earthly motive.  No, they have a divine motive.  They have an unearthly motive because the Church must be able to be independent.

 

“The Church can bind no conscience in the temporal order.”  The Church can tell people what to do and tell them they’ll go to hell if they don’t do it in the eternal order, the things of God, but not in the temporal order - always this separation of the temporal order from the eternal order, the separation of this world from the next.  It’s the Devil’s divide and rule.  You divide the interests of this world from the interests of the next world and that way you’re then controlling the interests of this world, and by controlling the interests of this world you cut off the interests of the next world.  By taking over politics you then surround, stifle and suffocate religion.  That’s exactly what we have today.  It’s a very important point.  “The Church can bind no conscience in the temporal order” – in other words, the Church is limited to Churchy things.  It’s no religion outside of the sacristy and the Church, no religion outside the limits of the Church.  That’s the importance for the Catholic Church of these processions in the streets of a city, where the Church is back out in public and on the streets, where the manifestations of the politicians go.  The Church belongs in the street as well as in the church. 

 

“The Church cannot temporarily punish anyone breaking her laws.”  Again the Church can say, “Oh, you’ve got to say a Rosary” and “No communion for a year” - that was the ancient Church.  If in the primitive Church, in the very early Church, you committed a grave sin, you were not allowed to come to Communion for a year or something like that - so that kind of Churchy punishment, OK.  Worldly punishment by the Church - not OK.  Once again the same separation - Church is here and the world is here.  It is a separation of grace and nature, a separation of the supernatural and the natural, in order to control the natural and by controlling the natural choke off the supernatural, because, of course, the supernatural is meant to be meshed like that together with the natural.  If the natural is completely skewed, the supernatural has got nowhere to land.  So you separate the two, you skew the natural and then the supernatural just can’t get in any longer.  That’s the idea.

 

Would the State normally impose the punishment on behalf of the Church?

 

If you’ve got union of State and Church, that’s the ideal.  That’s when the State is Catholic, and the State says to the Church, “OK, we don’t need you priests to tell us how to lay the drains or how to fight the State next door which is threatening us.  The Ministry of Defence is our business, the soldiers, the guns, that’s our business, but please tell us how to look after marriages, how to look after the family and how to look after the people’s morals.  If our people have got morals they’re going to make much better soldiers than if they are all drugged to the nines and so on.”  So that’s the proper union of Church and State.  The State looks after its own affairs.  The Church looks after its own affairs.  Neither interferes in what is the proper domain of each, but the State and the Church are united so that the Church will help the State, and the State will help the Church. 

 

I’ll give you a classic example of that.  Take a village - the warring couple ring up the police, they’re killing one another, and the policeman knows that it’s not his business.  He rings up the priest, “Father, look, do you mind if you get in contact with this family because they’re calling me and I know I can’t do much but you can?”  So this priest says, “Yeah, sure, OK, officer, no problem.”  The priest goes in.  There’s a natural co-ordination possible between the policeman and the priest, and that’s a small-scale image of the co-operation that there can be and should be between the State and the Church.  If, on the other hand, the priest has got some troublemaker in his church on Sunday, the priest is not going to take off his chasuble, go down there and punch him out.  It’s not exactly fitting, but he can ring up the policeman and say, “Would you mind coming in and looking after this disordered person in the congregation?”  “Father, no problem, gladly.”  So the policeman does what he does best, the priest does what he does best, and the two of them co-operate for the salvation of all souls.  That’s the natural co-operation of the higher and the lower interests, of the eternal and temporal interests. 

 

The Church can punish temporarily.  For instance, the Church in the Middle Ages used to have prisons in which to shut away priests who’d been naughty boys, and it’s better if the priests did not appear in front of the civil courts because that’s beneath their dignity, but you can only allow for the priests not coming in front of the temporal courts if the Church has her own courts which really do work, really do punish the priests that misbehave.  If the State can rely upon the Church to look after naughty priests then it’s best if the State does so, because then in the State the priests don’t suffer the public indignity of being thrown into a State prison with thugs and all the rest of it.  You can see there’s a natural order there, and that’s how it used to be in the Middle Ages.

 

Is that one of the reasons Henry II tried to get rid of St Thomas à Becket, because Henry II wanted to try a priest in the civil court and St Thomas refused?

 

Very possible.  Obviously Becket was standing up to the King for the Church’s rights, and he was absolutely right.  I don't know the details.  The King wanted to control, and in that time there was enough faith amongst the people.  He killed Becket.  He sent in the four knights and Becket was killed, but there arose a tremendous devotion to Becket as a result, because the English people had the Faith.  It rebounded on Henry, just like on the Continent with Emperor Henry IV having to go to Hildebrand, Gregory VII, and beg for forgiveness, so it’s the same clash, basically.

 

“The State may lawfully take over any Church properties” – monstrous error.  “The Church is neither distinct from nor independent of the State” – monstrous error.  “The Church is merely a department of the State” – horror.  “Papal decisions need not be heeded except on faith and morals.”  So it’s this separation of supernature and nature.  It’s this separation of the temporal order and the eternal order, of the natural order and the supernatural order, the tearing apart of nature and supernature, and once nature is no longer integrated with supernature, and protected by supernature, nature is much more vulnerable.  The bad guys come in and twist nature by, for instance, saying that marriage is not a sacrament.  Imagine a seam of 20 stitches, and in a seam if you undo the first stitch all the other stitches come apart.  If there’s any tension all of the other stitches come apart.  To hold the seam together you need to do up that twentieth stitch, and the twentieth stitch needs to be held.  Then nothing comes apart.  Similarly, the sacramentality of marriage is in the natural order.  It’s the twentieth stitch.  The Masons attacked in the 19th century the sacramentality of marriage, because if they could undo that stitch they would arrive at divorce, contraception, abortion, euthanasia, all the horrors that we’ve seen in our own day, and it’s all because marriage has not been defended, because the Catholic sacramentality of marriage has been undone and therefore the whole seam is coming apart, the family’s coming apart, society’s coming apart, and that fight was fought between the Freemasons and the Church in the 19th century.  You might say the Freemasons won, and that’s why we’ve got the mess we’ve got today. 

 

“Papal decisions need not be heeded except on faith and morals” – same difference.  The Pope’s business is eternity, the supernatural, the sacraments, all of that Churchy stuff, but the world is absolutely not his business – nonsense.  If the world is left to the Devil the Church will have little to no material to work with.  The Church will be absolutely in difficulties, which is exactly what we see today.

 

This next section is too important - “All of these errors contradict the fullness of power given by Jesus Christ to His one Church.”  Our Lord gave full powers to His Church, meaning power not only in the supernatural order but also in the natural order as much as is necessary to ensure that the supernatural order can work.  It’s not that Our Lord wants his priests into politics.  On the contrary, He does not want them getting into politics.  Priests have got something much more valuable and more important to do than to get into politics, but the politicians do need to obey the eternal law and the natural law, and they do need to be told by the priests what is the eternal law and the natural law, and they do need to heed what the priests tell them of the eternal law and the natural law.  Therefore the politicians must listen to the priests without the priests getting into politics.  That’s distinct but not separate.  Our Lord wants State and Church distinct but He doesn’t want them separate.  Distinct so that the priest will not get into politics and so that the politics will not get into Church affairs.  Each has to look after his own affairs, but they must also look after one another, and they must not be separate. 

 

The Masons work for not only distinction but also separation.  Separation means once again that without the protection of the Church they will be able to do what they like with nature.  They will bend it all out of shape, and then the Church will have great difficulties, exactly like today, working with souls that are worked over by the vile media, by pornography, by abortion, by all of those horrors.  The Church will have huge difficulty in saving souls contaminated by all these things.

 

END OF CONFERENCE