Billy Graham--Evangelist/Satanist? (the Oxnam connection)

by **Dreams End** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 3:50 pm

what chiggerbit said...... Oxnam says he was abused by relatives not his parents and this created the DID. I don't know who Fritz's source was. I could tell you that a source has informed me that Roth is really Pamela Anderson. We need a bit more than that...

by **dude h homeslice ix** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 3:59 pm

i study symbols. closest thing to a belief system for me is "gnostic" although no label really fits. strip the spiritualism away and what i am at my core is fascinated by symbols. i am not an expert per se, but as a layperson, i would say i have a pretty high vocabulary symbolically speaking. and that is why it means something to me when someone gets it wrong. they lose credibility with me when they say that any god, even hades, is a "demon." if christians are caught up in an eithor/or dichotomy that prevents them from seeing these things in their proper context, then they show up for their "spritual warfare" with arms poorly constructed. as for saying that these old gods are merely fallen angels who were defeated... 6:1 It happened, when men began to multiply on the surface of the ground, and daughters were born to them, 6:2 that God's sons saw that men's daughters were beautiful, and they took for themselves wives of all that they chose. 6:3 Yahweh said, "My Spirit will not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; yet will his days be one hundred twenty years." 6:4 The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when God's sons came to men's daughters. They bore children to them: the same were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. no mention whatever of these being old gods, nor of a leader, nor of them being specifically defeated. the book of enoch has of course greatly elaborated on this small passage, but even then they are angels, not gods (as evinced by the "el" suffix most have, =angel). in fact those gods were not defeated then according to the bible, but one by one as moses with the pharoah, dagon, etc, until christ came and ultimately defeated all of paganism, etc. i dont beleive they are the same as these nephilim. look you guys beleive what you want, but there are more than three sides to every story, not just two. if you wanna make these relics duke it out with other relics, you should learn to ID them properly, thats all im saying.

by **johnny nemo** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 6:06 pm

<img src="http://www.mazeministry.com/incorrect/Pix/billygraham.gif"/>

by **rothbardian** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 4:00 am

<img src="http://www.geocities.com/endtimedeception/tom.jpg" style="border:0;"/>

by **Dreams End** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:54 am

Who is Jim?

by **snowlion2** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:13 am

Based on a combination of the contents of the above note and a little research on the <a href="http://www.wordsforlivingmin.org/">www.wordsforlivingmin.org/</a> site, the "Jim" is the note is Jim Shaw, a claimed ex-Mason. An excerpt from his book, The Deadly Deception, can be found <a href="http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/33rd_Initiation.htm">here.</a> Just more petulant screeching about BG like <a href="http://www.geocities.com/endtimedeception/billy.htm">this</a> which, frankly, I've never understood. There are other targets much more worthy of vitriol. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=snowlion2>snowlion2</A> at: 8/30/06 8:33 am

by **rothbardian** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 3:18 am

yathrib-- I was interested in your comment-- "Remember in Illuminatus how "Satan" appeared as Billy Graham at a black mass? Doesn't mean anything of course, just interesting... " What were you referring to? Is "Illuminatus" a movie or something? In that letter I posted above, the guy said Graham was witnessed at a 'black mass'.

by **rothbardian** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 5:37 am

I'd like to go back and comment on some of the responses to my post, as this seems to be good example of the way things seem to go around here sometimes. I simply posted this startling item about Robert Oxnam showing up as a multiple personality disordered individual and being interviewed on TV about his book on the subject...and the extremely interesting fact that this Fritz Springmeier guy had identified Oxnam's grandfather 13 years earlier, as someone who was involved in satanic ritual abuse a half century earlier.  That is legitimately interesting stuff, therefore I see the reactions from a couple of people to my little post as very strange, very odd. Flabbergasting. A normal response (IMO) would be: "Wow, that IS interesting. I don't know that I would derive the same theories you would, from this grandfather/grandson thing but...it bears looking at closely." I'm concerned that there may be other people here who would weigh in on a topic like this...but that the net effect of somebody's response such as DreamsEnd's would, inadvertently at least, drive people off. That overly aggressive 'smack down' response I initially got from DE which (no offense ) I saw as completely unwarranted and deliberately misdirected, tends to create a kind of 'enforcer' atmosphere...a kind of political correctness regimen ("We simply DO NOT discover evidence for satanic Masonic counterfeit 'Christians' at this site. That's not how it's done at RI.") DE-- you came out of the gate with this huge upbraiding thing- "...nothing is sourced in all of those allegations. Impress us, roth...provide some substance to any of it." Good grief. You were precisely wrong. I wasn't trying to impress anyone with documentation. The lack of official documentation was part of the point of my post: Here we have this 'voice in the wilderness', if you will (Springmeier) who for years has claimed that anonymous sources point to Oxnam Sr. as a Satanist ritual abuser and lo and behold...there comes along this spectacular correlation. But the response is a very strange aggressive disinterest. Makes no sense to me. I'm going to go down the line and point out some of these erroneous comments from DE: "And evidence of WHAT is hard to say. Elite machinations...likely. Direct proof that it's specifically a group called the "Illuminati". Nope." First of all, who said anything about the Illuminati? I was pointing out this Oxnam connection. You're setting up straw men and then knocking them down. Secondly-- Your statement is contradictory. If you don't know what this information signifies...then you can't rule out any possibilities...except, you are doing so. It's this classic fallacy of being dogmatically certain that nothing can be known for certain. Doesn't make sense "...read Larouche on this stuff at your peril" A strangely superfluous advisory. I had just got through saying that his information is, in fact, flawed. The redundancy is odd. "As I said, WCC = Illuminati is an a priori assumption...that gets me nowhere." Here again, you are rushing past the topic I introduced in this thread (about this startling Oxnam correlation). Who claims that they hold to "a priori assumptions"? Who are you arguing with? "So now I must even make the assertion for you that you didn't even make explicit that Jesuits = Satanic. It's just not that neat and tidy." First of all, if you don't know the full story on the Jesuits...then how do you know it's "not that neat and tidy" ?? Makes no sense. And now you're making an assertion for me?? Talk about erecting a straw man. I don't know what exactly to think of the Jesuits. You're telling me what my own 'opinions' are now? And not everything is an "assertion". Sometimes I am 'surmising' or theorizing, or simply bouncing ideas. Declaring everything to be a dogmatic "assertion" is to run roughshod over a conversation. I think this goes back to the complaint I have had with a number of people here who somehow think that 'not knowing anything for sure' is a great virtue. They think you can tell who the smartest guy in the room is--he's the one who doesn't 'know' anything. I don't get it. Sometimes in 'real world' scenarios, you need to form working conclusions before scientific proof and officially documented evidence becomes available. You've got the story from Jeff's archives about murderous Masonic activities (among many stories). You have Pat Robertson flashing the Masonic "Lion's Paw" on the cover of Time magazine. (His father was a publicized Freemason.) We have LilyPatToo right here on this board talking about ominous memory flashes regarding Masonic halls. You've got Jim Shaw reporting Billy Graham's membership and attendance at Masonic meetings. By the way, Shaw had no 'conspiracy' agenda--he just thought it odd and disconcerting that Graham would do this. It's crediting to me, that he didn't have any knowledge or theories about covert Satanists. You have the strange covert occultism of Michael W. Smith. You have a guy like "prosperity gospel" proponent Kenneth Copeland, whose writings, tapes and lectures are so loaded with Masonic-speak, it's just ridiculous. And a couple of publications with Masonic symbolism clearly depicted. You have Springmeier, many years back, claiming his sources indicate G. Bromley Oxnam is a satanic ritual abuser...and then sure enough, his grandson shows up with MPD. Brice Taylor, Cathy O'Brien, Svali...all routinely confirm having witnessed the Masons involvement in all kinds of evil, occultic or otherwise. And the much respected (here at RI) Kathleen Sullivan makes this comment: " He [Sullivan's father] and some other men who he was close to called themselves Knights Templar. As far as I know Dad was never in the Masons although most of the other people were pretty high level. Their meaning for Knights Templar was "germanic assassin". How many dots do we have to have, before we start connecting the dots? Frankly, I don't have the first clue what the controversy is about, in the first place. So what if we find some secret societies that are doing evil deeds? What's so taboo about discovering there are creepy, secretive people who do creepy, evil things? I'm missing something here.

by **Dreams End** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:51 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>First of all, who said anything about the Illuminati?<hr></blockquote> Some guy named Rothbard posted this: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Under the prayer tower is one of the programming sites. Billy Graham, a handler himself, helped launch Oral Roberts University , and is a friend of Oral Roberts. From the Illuminati's point of view Tulsa is the Guardian City of Apollo. The City of Faith is to be the center for healing from AEsculapius, a demon related to Apollo.<hr></blockquote> I guess I confused him with you. Sorry about that. Roth...somewhere in your brain, there is a switch. When it's flipped back on you will be dangerous (in a good way.) Please go find it and flip it on. It's the one that says: "Criticism of aspects of a theory is a different beast from total disbelief/debunking." I said quite clearly and repeatedly that the Oxnam thing is something I myself had been interested in since long before you posted this. I really did say that. Go look! I also said I'd read his book (have you?) Perhaps this proves my interest? I also said I tried to get info on his family. It's there in my post...really. Why would I do such a thing? Because Oxnam is a blueblood coming out about DID and that is interesting in a parapolitical (i.e. R.I.) way. I said I hadn't found much. Then I critiqued some of the information that Fritz included because I don't think it's well sourced and depends on some a priori assumptions, such as wcc = satanic. For example, you included this in your post: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>G. Bromley Oxnam has a long history to him of working for the elite.....Christian churches were organized by the FCC and WCC for the Illuminati." <hr></blockquote> Now please stop posting things and then saying you didn't post them. I think we all agree there is one and only one Roth around here. What's fascinating on a personal level is that I was maybe the only one who took interest and looked further into the Pat Robertson thing you posted. I even posted a second photograph that seemed to suggest the strange "lion's paw" pose was used at least twice (though it could have been an unretouched version of the original we saw from Time Mag. Hard to tell.) I also supported at least the idea that Michael w.'s use of runes, given the subculture he appeals to, was at least "odd." And I gave information about Michael W. that I knew about since he lives here in Nashville. As far as I know, I was the only person to look with serious interest into either of those ideas you put out. Yet you continue to see me as a total debunker or something. Suggesting that the evidence provided for various assertions in that post is weak is different from suggesting that all of it is wrong. Some of us actually care if this stuff is really true and would prefer not to pull in alot of misinformation along with it. Anyway, if you want to deny that "Illuminati" was a big part of your original post, go right ahead. But when you hit that switch in your head, go revisit this stuff and started tossing out the chaff from the wheat. I don't think the picture you get will be a whole lot less scary than the one you've already got, but it will be a bit more accurate and freer of those frustrating and unsupported generalizations that so many in this area toss out so nonchalantly THEREBY TURNING OFF POTENTIAL ALLIES IN THE QUEST FOR TRUTH. Now enough of that. I don't know why, Roth, but despite our very different starting points, I really always want to end up with us on the same side (well, I mean with this stuff...not with your libertarian politics). It's sort of like two people who speak two different languages...very different languages...looking at the same stuff and trying to communicate. Here's the crux of your post that really is the point you were trying to make: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> "Tulsa is one of, if the main center for the campaign to infiltrate Christianity via the Charismatic/Pentecostal movement with programmed multiples. G. Bromiey Oxnam, 33° Freemason, was head of the FCC churches, supportive friend of Billy Graham, G. Bromley Oxnam has a long history to him of working for the elite.....Christian churches were organized by the FCC and WCC for the Illuminati." <hr></blockquote> Let me take it apart piece by piece and agree you have a diamond in the rough...but the rough is misleading and perhaps intentionally so. The idea that Fritz put this out 13 years ago really is impressive and I did miss that reference to the timeframe. We can't argue with the fact that Oxnam is claiming to be, and for all that I can see really is, just such a multiple. I also suggested in my original responses that his book is of more interest for what it doesn't say, for it's clear to me that whatever happened to him that he feels he's got closure on (as portrayed in the book, anyway) he seems to be either getting or telling only part of the story. I also suggested that he was very careful to make it clear that none of his blue blood relatives were involved in the bad stuff...and the way he went about it led me to be particularly suspicious that they were, in fact, involved. But within that statement, we have the idea that it's the Pentacostal/Charismatic movements that are targeted. Could be....I've been around these folks and it is a little odd...definitely an altered state (I think maybe like a light, mass hypnotic trance?). But I simply read that statement as an unsupported a priori statement. I want the "next" Fritz to avoid such...to evaluate the witness statements, to inform us where this info comes from (such as you can without jeopardizing lives) not to be a prick, but because the unsupported stuff is often just plain wrong. In any event, Oxnam is not part of that movement...and I'm pretty sure it's not associated with WCC either so it's not even consistent. Back to that paragraph. None of that is sourced. Part of it I wish was and is probably easy to verify...and that's Oxnam's friendship with Graham. But then the statement about how FCC and WCC organized churches "for the Illuminati"...see that's what frustrates me. Is there some evidence out there that these organizations were controlled by elites? Or is it that they are too liberal and the conspiracy right simply assumes this? Anytime a church movement of any kind is too active on behalf of social justice and taking the part of the poor, they have historically been labelled "communist" and Illuminati is simply another way of saying that in these circles. To me, it's clear that when some element opposes the power structure and is given a negative label, this is the reason. I don't know much about WCC and I don't even know what FCC is. And when I'm told that they organize churches on behalf of the Illuminati, I know exactly 0% more than I did before I read that statement. And here's the harm in it from what I imagine might be your perspective. As a potentially interested person, when I see ill-sourced, a priori assumptions like "the Illuminati is behind WCC" I not only tune out the current statements, I will (not intentionally, but it happens) tune out even perhaps more substantive discussion as simply being of the same sort. I assume I'm not alone in this tendency. I am learning not to do that. You can thank Dave McGowan for that. When I started reading his stuff about Satanic cults, etc, it was most effective because he is NOT religious and had no religious point to make or souls to win. He just tried to follow evidence. And though his perspective, from what I know of him, really is that there's a very longlived conspiracy here (and he gets some stuff really wrong in my view about, for example, the witch trials) i.e. basically something similar to "Illuminati" theory, he is VERY aware of the genesis of much of that theory, the uses to which it has been put and how it clutters up current discussion. I'm not saying religious people can't write about this effectively, so you can get your finger off the "christian oppression" button. I'm saying that anyone, religious or non, must be very careful about how they research this stuff...because I happen to be very certain that much of the extraneous stuff is there not just because of mythologizing of this material (and that has happened to a certain degree) but because of intentional efforts to muddy the waters. Go and research "Ted Gunderson" to get the idea. No SRA case of importance has not featured this man. Portrayed in a negative light by all who have worked closely with him, the question becomes is he just a slighly paranoid, overzealous and socially unskilled man, drifting from one crimescene to another, or is it possible that this "former" FBI agent, this man who once supervised 750 field officers (getting that from memory...maybe wrong) didn't suddenly get "kooky" but is just doing his job? Think about it. If he's still working for the FBI, why would he be "exposing" these things? Why would he be pushing people well BEYOND what the evidence supports? Simple answer...check out the results in nearly every case he's been involved in. Witnesses discredited, legal case shattered. In other words, Roth, in a way too longwinded post, I don't criticize because I think the core of this is false...I criticize because I think the core of it is true. And if it is, it's important.

by **rothbardian** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 1:55 pm

I say this goodnaturedly but...I'm trying to figure out if you've lost your mind temporarily or...all of this is what I originally thought-- deliberate misdirection: I quoted that snippet from Springmeier (which mentioned the Illuminati and the WCC) in order to put his Oxnam remarks in a tiny bit of context. The whole thrust of my post was the Oxnam connection. It was in the title of my thread. You seize on the mention of the words "Illuminati" and "WCC" in this snippet from Springmeier and then credit me with promoting the idea of the "Illuminati" etc. and thus wrench the discussion off in some far flung direction. You're 'sawed off' interpretation of my post is just crazy. As a matter of fact, I bet if I looked long enough, I'd find that you have quoted the Bible in some of your posts. Would that mean you believe in the Bible? No, but that's what you're doing here, and it's patently ridiculous. What I found rather disturbing in your recent post is how you subtly tried to make Springmeier's quotes to be my direct quotes. What's that all about? You stated "Here's the crux of your post that really is the point you were trying to make"...and then you quoted Springmeier. And again, in telling me what the "crux" of my post was, there is this strange presumption on your part. How about I tell you what my "crux" is? That seems fair. I was trying to have a very carefully limited discussion about the Oxnams...and you have just barged right past that and created a misdirecting 'flap' about...the Illuminati, the WCC, Gunderson, some guy named Chaitkin (sp?), Bonnacci, the Franklin cover-up. I was surprised you didn't mention the Magna Carta or the Boxer Rebellion. You're apparently having extreme difficulty directly addressing the very simple, very clear main point of my post which is this (at the very least) very remarkable coincidence of Springmeier's claim about Oxnam Sr. and then Oxnam Jr.'s emergence with his MPD condition. It's radioactive for you. P.S. You make the comment--"...so you can get your finger off the "christian oppression" button" Huh? Who was complaining about oppression? Sometimes you libs are funny with your double standards, by the way. I'll be waiting to see you make a crack like that with say....a black guy ("get your finger of the 'black oppression' button, buddy"). I'll be waiting a looong time.

by **Dreams End** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 2:41 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> I say this goodnaturedly but...I'm trying to figure out if you've lost your mind temporarily or...all of this is what I originally thought-- deliberate misdirection:<hr></blockquote> Careful with that. It's frowned on around here. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I quoted that snippet from Springmeier (which mentioned the Illuminati and the WCC) in order to put his Oxnam remarks in a tiny bit of context. The whole thrust of my post was the Oxnam connection. It was in the title of my thread. You seize on the mention of the words "Illuminati" and "WCC" in this snippet from Springmeier and then credit me with promoting the idea of the "Illuminati" etc. and thus wrench the discussion off in some far flung direction.<hr></blockquote> Well, first off, the whole point of my post was that oxnam is of interest but I don't think Fritzy has it right, or if he does, there's not enough evidence to tell. I then analyzed his statements from that perspective. But it's not like I went out and found other things he had said and brought them in, I simply analyzed what you posted. Secondly, stop playing that game. You have pushed the Illuminati theme before...telling me at one point that Marx was paid by the Illuminati to invent communism or something silly like that. I'll go and get the quote if you require...but don't...you'll look silly. So don't act like that's just something that happened to be in the same piece of writing you needed to quote from. It's like herding cats, trying to talk with you. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>You're 'sawed off' interpretation of my post is just crazy. As a matter of fact, I bet if I looked long enough, I'd find that you have quoted the Bible in some of your posts. Would that mean you believe in the Bible? No, but that's what you're doing here, and it's patently ridiculous. What I found rather disturbing in your recent post is how you subtly tried to make Springmeier's quotes to be my direct quotes. What's that all about? You stated "Here's the crux of your post that really is the point you were trying to make"...and then you quoted Springmeier. And again, in telling me what the "crux" of my post was, there is this strange presumption on your part. How about I tell you what my "crux" is? That seems fair. I was trying to have a very carefully limited discussion about the Oxnams...and you have just barged right past that and created a misdirecting 'flap' about...the Illuminati, the WCC, Gunderson, some guy named Chaitkin (sp?), Bonnacci, the Franklin cover-up. I was surprised you didn't mention the Magna Carta or the Boxer Rebellion.<hr></blockquote> By crux, I meant, what part of that seemed to be what you were trying to get across about the statement about Oxnam. It was the part I found most important and, despite the criticisms, to have the most "meat." So I withdraw the "crux" word...and if had it to do again would replace with: seems to me the most important part. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> You're apparently having extreme difficulty directly addressing the very simple, very clear main point of my post which is this (at the very least) very remarkable coincidence of Springmeier's claim about Oxnam Sr. and then Oxnam Jr.'s emergence with his MPD condition. It's radioactive for you. <hr></blockquote> I have made it very, very clear that number one, I do find the Oxnam thing suspicious and number two, that is the part of the Fritzmeier passage that I found impressive. Here, I'll help you find that passage I wrote: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> The idea that Fritz put this out 13 years ago really is impressive and I did miss that reference to the timeframe. We can't argue with the fact that Oxnam is claiming to be, and for all that I can see really is, just such a multiple. I also suggested in my original responses that his book is of more interest for what it doesn't say, for it's clear to me that whatever happened to him that he feels he's got closure on (as portrayed in the book, anyway) he seems to be either getting or telling only part of the story. I also suggested that he was very careful to make it clear that none of his blue blood relatives were involved in the bad stuff...and the way he went about it led me to be particularly suspicious that they were, in fact, involved.<hr></blockquote> That was me talking...saying that the statement about Oxnam 13 years before Jr.'s book was "impressive." Print it out and underline it if that will help. Or maybe read my posts before you respond to them. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>P.S. You make the comment--"...so you can get your finger off the "christian oppression" button" Huh? Who was complaining about oppression? Sometimes you libs are funny with your double standards, by the way. I'll be waiting to see you make a crack like that with say....a black guy ("get your finger of the 'black oppression' button, buddy"<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> . I'll be waiting a looong time. <hr></blockquote> Can I get a witness? Has Roth not claimed, repeatedly, that this very board is rife with oppressive statements against Christians? The sweet irony that the harshest criticisms of Jesuits and Christian bigwigs like Graham and Robertson comes from ROTH HIMSELF. Don't get me wrong....I'm no fan of Graham and Robertson, but that's not the point. Beyond that you've never produced one example of this alleged movement to stifle Christian thought at RI. As far as I can tell, if we disbelieve someone you authenticate as a "true Christian" then this is somehow anti-Christian prejudice. The only one who I think can make the claim reasonably is "mother" who hasn't posted in awhile. While she and I and most of the rest of us acknowledge parapolitically important conspiracies within the Catholic church, I'd say that blanket statements indicting Catholics have crossed the line here before. In addition, Roth, in case you haven't noticed, Christians of all types, but most vocally of the conservative, fundamentalist kind, have inserted themselves into politics in a major way. Most of the criticisms are of these politics and particularly concentrate on the same self appointed Christian leaders that you, yourself, criticize. I see now the roots of your libertarian philosophy of individualism...you simply can't play nice with others. </sarcasm> Oh, side note on the Chaitkin, Bonnaci stuff. I thought you were one of the ones familiar with the "Franklin Coverup." All of those names were in reference to that. the point was that cases which clearly have substance attract disinformation artists who muddy the waters. If you aren't familiar with that, I think you would find it very interesting.

by **rothbardian** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 4:15 pm

Somehow you are misunderstanding something about my thread...and I think you're misunderstanding the fundamental realities of how people of varying worldviews and opinions go about having a discussion or debate: Whatever 'working conclusions' or hypotheses about the "Illuminati" etc. that I might adhere to...in this thread I was carefully limiting the conversation to the Oxnam connection and whether this should be crediting to Springmeier. Out of respect for, or acknowledgement of, the varying views at this board, I am here, tucking away many of my beliefs/theories/what-have-you.... and focusing strictly on whether something like this should cause us to say: "Wow, maybe we should pay closer attention to Springmeier." I have had many moments like that with Springmeier. I've had a few moments where I thought the opposite. What you are doing is a kind of 'mind-reading' thing. You're using your Power Rangers Laservision to read inside my brain-- "Hey, I know what you're doing here, Roth. You believe in the 'Illuminati and you're trying to convert us. The Illuminati is baloney." I wasn't talking about the Iluminati for the time being. I was carefully limiting the discussion and you run roughshod over it, then rush to the end of a discussion that isn't happening, and announce your conclusion. That sabotages the whole discussion. How about from now on, every time you post something, no matter what it is, I respond with: "Hey DE, you're just trying to convert me to atheistic left-wing socialism. I'm not buying it." That would be crazy, but that's what you've done here. You state: "Can I get a witness? Has Roth not claimed, repeatedly, that this very board is rife with oppressive statements against Christians?"  Again, what ARE you talking about? Where on this thread have I talked about oppression? Why not stick to the thread we're on? And again, the "you can take your finger off the button" slap is a blatant double-standard.. Why not afford me the same quivering, trembling deference that stereotypical liberalism affords 'politically correct' sanctioned sub-groups? Like I said, I'll be waiting for you to make a verbal jab like that with say...a black guy. In fact, if I made a crack like that with the black guy....there would be an ensuing firestorm here at RI. So...are you not therefore, violating your own hair-trigger principles about prejudice? And I didn't say you didn't finally address my main point. I said you seem to be having great difficulty doing so. You completely bulldozed my main point in your first response post, and finally mention it, sort of in passing later on. I would love to have a nice little discussion about the Springmeier credibility issue that I have tried to introduce on this thread. But as usual, whenever a 'politically incorrect' topic is introduced, certain 'guardians' step in and make sure the topic is changed to address the 'appropriateness' and/or the 'controversy' of the topic...instead of the topic itself. (That doesn't always happen, thankfully. But it happens a lot.) You say you're "interested' in these things but I noticed when the topic of "covert Satanists posing as Christians" came up at another thread recently, you jumped in to direct people over to the Pan blog, but were silent on the Smith and Roberston phenomena. Anyway...I introduced a bunch of puzzle pieces a couple of posts ago (about the various indicators regarding the Masons) if anybody wants to get to the actual subject matter.

by **Dreams End** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 8:29 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Whatever 'working conclusions' or hypotheses about the "Illuminati" etc. that I might adhere to...in this thread I was carefully limiting the conversation to the Oxnam connection and whether this should be crediting to Springmeier. <hr></blockquote> By posting something with all sorts of Illuminati references. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> How about from now on, every time you post something, no matter what it is, I respond with: "Hey DE, you're just trying to convert me to atheistic left-wing socialism. I'm not buying it." That would be crazy, but that's what you've done here.<hr></blockquote> I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about Fitz. And why his information is fairly suspect to me. You posted information by Fitz. I said that part of it was credible to me and yet the sum total of his theory about Oxnam was not proven. Really not sure why that's hard for you to get? <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Where on this thread have I talked about oppression?<hr></blockquote> It was a pre-emptive comment...since you do bring that up when things aren't going your way. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>In fact, if I made a crack like that with the black guy....there would be an ensuing firestorm here at RI. So...are you not therefore, violating your own hair-trigger principles about prejudice?<hr></blockquote> Being black, last I checked, is not a belief system that someone expects someone else to adhere to. If you don't want your beliefs examined critically, then this may be the wrong place to post. I won't scream "anti-atheist oppression" if you want to talk about God (especially since I'm not even atheist). Deal? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>You say you're "interested' in these things but I noticed when the topic of "covert Satanists posing as Christians" came up at another thread recently, you jumped in to direct people over to the Pan blog, but were silent on the Smith and Roberston phenomena.<hr></blockquote> I don't even know what thread you're talking about...but now if I don't post YOUR theories on Smith and Robertson this means I'm not really interested? Carry your own water on that one. I did more research on the Robertson thing than you on the very thread you started. I found the second pic of Robertson. I found the "lion's paw" illustration from a masonic handbook. I even argued with Pan a bit about whether it was significant. (I have searched and can't find that original thread. ) I found it all interesting and inconclusive...and I, unlike you, do not post something inconclusive as if it's fact. And if an article has some bullshit in it, even if part of the article supports something I find important, I won't use it or I will at least edit it out. Seriously, do you just like trying to piss people off by saying stuff like that? Let's see if you can get this. You posted Fritz's take on Oxnam. I suggested that the general connection of Oxnam to MC was, indeed, of interest. I also said that the rest of the interpretation was unsound. here's the excerpt you posted and I'm bolding the stuff that is referring to Oxnam. So why did you post the rest of it if you don't think it's relevant to the discussion? <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Oral Roberts, 33° Freemason, helped into ministry by his Masonic brother Billy Graham. Oral Roberts has been seen by witnesses participating in SRA and Mind-control. Oral Roberts University and the charismatic movement is another important religious front. The Charismatic movement has been infiltrated by multiples since day-one. The history of the infiltration is extensive. Under the prayer tower is one of the programming sites. Billy Graham, a handler himself, helped launch Oral Roberts University , and is a friend of Oral Roberts. From the Illuminati's point of view Tulsa is the Guardian City of Apollo. The City of Faith is to be the center for healing from AEsculapius, a demon related to Apollo. "While portraying themselves as Christians, infiltrators within the charismatic movement are carrying out satanic rituals..." "Tulsa is one of, if the main center for the campaign to infiltrate Christianity via the Charismatic/Pentecostal movement with programmed multiples. G. Bromiey Oxnam, 33° Freemason, was head of the FCC churches, supportive friend of Billy Graham, G. Bromley Oxnam has a long history to him of working for the elite.....Christian churches were organized by the FCC and WCC for the Illuminati." <hr></blockquote> And what does it say? It says Oxnam was a Freemason and that he worked for the Illuminati. That's it. Over 75% of that post is supporting the general Illuminatis ate my church line of thinking. IF you don't believe that was integral to this discussion then why on earth did you even quote it?

by **NewKid** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 1:42 am

<a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm18.showMessageRange?topicID=41.topic&start=1&stop=20" target="top">Is this the right thread?</a> I think we get into the handsignal stuff around page 4 or 5. edit: sounds like it might not be on reread. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=newkid@rigorousintuition>NewKid</A> at: 9/1/06 12:10 am

by **Dreams End** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 2:10 am

No...I am fairly sure Roth started it. there was one about Michael W. smith but I thought the one about Robertson was a separate thread. Maybe Roth will remember...I didn't see the Robertson pic. Did I miss it?

Billy Graham--Evangelist/Satanist? (the Oxnam connection)

Re: Billy Graham, etc.

Re: Billy Graham, etc.

Re: Billy Graham, etc.

Re: Billy Graham, etc.

Re: Billy Graham, etc.

Re: Billy Graham, etc.

Re: Billy Graham, etc.

Re: Billy Graham, etc.

Re: Billy Graham, etc.

Re: Billy Graham, etc.

Re: Billy Graham, etc.

Re: Billy Graham, etc.

Re: Billy Graham, etc.

Re: Billy Graham, etc.

Re: Billy Graham, etc.

Who is online