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

by **rothbardian** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 3:10 am

I noticed a couple of threads recently-- One that raised the issue of Satanists who masquerade as Christians. Strangely, RI posters who know about the Michael W.Smith story and Pat Robertson story, failed to mention those two as possible examples. What's the hang-up about a free and wide-ranging discussion that puts ALL the information on the table?? At another thread, just a day or so ago, some smirking comments about the alleged Jesuit (satanic?) control of Billy Graham. Fritz Springmeier makes many statements about Billy Graham's involvement and participation in Satanism. His stuff is corroborated OVER AND OVER. Even though I don't see eye-to-eye with a lot of his comments, Springmeier cannot be ignored. For example, here are a few brief excerpts from his online book "The Illuminati Formula..." in chapter 5: ( <a href="http://educate-yourself.org/mc/illumformula5Bchap.shtml">educate-yourself.org/mc/i...chap.shtml</a> ) 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."  Thirteen years later, I'm sitting in front of my computer muttering: "Oxnam...hmmm, where have we heard that name recently?" How about on CBS 60 Minutes. Oxnam's grandson, Robert Oxnam, happens to be probably the most mainstreamed MPD/DID victim on the American scene. He has written a best-selling book "The Fractured Mind" He appeared on 60 Minutes in October '05 to talk about it. Here is the CBS.com article: <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/30/60minutes/main892181.shtml">www.cbsnews.com/stories/2...2181.shtml</a> Thirteen years ago, when Springmeier was writing about Oral Roberts and Billy Graham's participation in SRA, and the deliberate insertion of DID victims into the Charismatic churches...and G. Bromley Oxnam's status as a 33rd degree Mason, and his intimate association and participation in all of this...what would he have known about Robert Oxnam? What are the odds here? Springmeier is making mind-boggling claims about highranking Christians who are covertly satanic...and the grandson of one of them turns up as a MPD/DID victim. That qualifies as corroboration, don't you think? Below is a photo of G. Bromley Oxnam, and Robert Oxnam. <img src="http://www.depauw.edu/univ/president/Images/presidents/Oxnam.jpg" style="border:0;"/> <img src="http://www.cbsnews.com/images/2005/09/29/image890392g.jpg" style="border:0;"/> Edit-- Here's a quote from the CBS article: "Oxnam grew up under great pressure to succeed. His father was a university president, his grandfather a Methodist bishop and president of the World Council of Churches." Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=rothbardian>rothbardian</A> at: 8/29/06 1:17 am

by **FourthBase** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 3:27 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The Charismatic movement<hr></blockquote> Just curious... Was there a Catholic version of the charismatic movement? Anyway, very interesting stuff about Oxnam.

by **Dreams End** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 3:28 am

Nothing...I mean nothing is sourced in all of those allegations. Impress us, roth...provide some substance to any of it. ON THE OTHER HAND, I've been scratching my head over the oxnam thing since the original interview on 60 minutes. Unlike Fritzy, I don't assume WCC = Satan, so I need a little more to chew on there. But I read Oxnam's book and I don't know what to make of it. He wants to blame all his troubles on one set of relatives...won't identify them but goes out of his way to make sure we don't think it's the ones on his father's more blueblood side. What I found weird about the book was how much was NOT covered. His first wife and kid are mentioned maybe once. (for those interested, there is only one potentially triggering section...he resolves all of his DID into having begun due to abuse as a baby, briefly described in the chapter "Baby's Terror." ) I had already looked up his family history because the interview and the book and his status really had me wondering what game was being played. As I said, WCC = Illuminati is an a priori assumption...that gets me nowhere. But an elite pedigree like Oxnam's and this seeming limited hangout of even his own life..I don't know. I saw the footage of his alter, a teenage part...sure looked genuine to me. But I haven't ruled out that the whole thing is some elaborate disinfo thing...hell, I really don't know. And I think it's important to admit what we don't know rather than to fill in with details that make the connections more concrete and the bad guys more apparent. I was the one who sneered about the Jesuits controlling Graham...and your own link said Graham was a Satanist (unsupported assertion). 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.

by **rothbardian** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 3:52 am

FourthBase-- I haven't looked closely at that subject. But you're right-- somehow the Charismatics infiltrated the Catholic church. I now see it all as part of a deliberate plan of the PTB. That's my 'working conclusion' anyway. I realize, of course, that the PTB's fixation with infiltrating the Christian community might be baffling to those who are emphatically secular...and it raises a good question. It is an interesting subject indeed. I would say that those who track down the answer to that question might arrive at some startling conclusions about the world in which we live. Just my opinion. LaRouche (another flawed and yet valuable source of info) has an interesting lengthy article which purports to analyze the historic infiltration of the Christian community, going back 100-150 years. I think some of it is off...but a lot of it I could corroborate personally. <a href="http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/3205fundamentalism.html">www.larouchepub.com/other...alism.html</a> DE-- I just saw your comments. I'll have a few words in a bit.

by **FourthBase** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 4:01 am

Disclaimer: as a toddler, my mother took me to charismatic masses at a local Catholic church. I vaguely remember, but from what I remember it was a lot of fun. Just a bunch of singing and smiling and hand-shaking. I hope.

by **rothbardian** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 4:16 am

DE-- I guess I'm baffled at what you're point is. Springmeier stated many years ago that there was this obscure church leader (Oxnam) who was secretly a 33rd degree Mason/Satanist who was involved in SRA and mind control stuff. Thirteen years later, the guy's grandson [edit] shows up testifying to being MPD/DID. That is very interesting stuff, to say the very least. How is that NOT interesting? You're doing this weird thing where you try to portray me as a dogmatist. My views on much of this stuff, are a work-in-progress. And also, you are doing this thing where you hold out for DNA testing, fingerprint evidence and lab results...when possibly it's time to form at least some limited 'working conclusion' i.e. that there may be a connection between grandpa Oxnam's Masonic activities and his grandson's DID status. We've seen and heard enough about such connections here at RI. Again. I'm not sure what your concern is here. Instead of concern, why not have interest in this connection? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=rothbardian>rothbardian</A> at: 8/29/06 4:05 am

by **Gouda** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 8:10 am

Billy Graham's racism, his pro-war stance, his tacit approval of and fraternity with various un-christian american presidents signal to me a profound perversion of christian understanding - and thus his misleading of millions about the Christian ethos put him quite firmly in the "satanist" category for me. I have more respect for a satanist acting like a satanist. Oh, but they say the soul is large and can contain multitudes. But I prefer an avowed christian who sticks to the beatitudes. If he's also a 33rd degree mason who condones or participates in elite rituals of power and abuse, then I am not surprised. Of course, I'd want to know if he is or not, as I am a curious sort and it adds to a greater picture of the human condition we have constructed. I'd like to see the robes and masks to know, in part, "what the hell is going on up there?!" And not least: to have this information as a lead to trace the patterns in the wider system of crime and corruption and sickness. But I don't necessarily need to see him in robe and mask to know he's a fraud; a bad, hypocritical dude. Now, who here is Christian enough to remove the boulder from their eye long enough to give him the benefit of the doubt, that there is hope for his "soul", that he can be forgiven if he would so earnestly wish it? Of course you can't just ask for redemption and have it land on your head like a dove - you've got to go out and make some amends big time. That includes a little public confessin' for starts. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=gouda@rigorousintuition>Gouda</A> at: 8/29/06 6:15 am

by **yathrib** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 10:59 am

Fourthbase: Yes, there very definitely is/was a Catholic Charismatic movement: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Charismatic_Renewal">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat...ic_Renewal</a> Re Billy Graham: Remember in Illuminatus how "Satan" appeared as Billy Graham at a black mass? Doesn't mean anything of course, just interesting...

by **yathrib** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 11:03 am

Anyone who is simultaneously as unprincipled and as influential w/ the powers that be as BG is must be a criminal or sociopath of some sort. Sorry to be so judgmental, but there it is.

by **heyjt** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 11:12 am

I think sometimes too much is related between Masonry and Satanism. I am not convinced that Luciferian aspects or rituals in Masonic practice equates Masonry with SRA. The Catholic church is the largest practioner of magic ritual of any religion; does that make them satanic also? Mind you, I am certainly not a Mason or a Christian, but apparantly many of our founding fathers were Masons. Were they satanic also? Deists, yes. Luciferian maybe. Satanic, I doubt it. For what it's worth, I heard Billy Graham on a radio interview commenting on the state of todays politics. He said he had been a lifelong Democrat. I wish that message was heard by more "Christian" voters.

by **Dreams End** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 11:13 am

Roth...the only thing I counted as any kind of "evidence" WAS the wierd disclosure of Robert. But that's it...the rest is simply unsupported statements by Fritz. And evidence of WHAT is hard to say. Elite machinations...likely. Direct proof that it's specifically a group called the "Illuminati". Nope. On some levels, the exact "who" is not always important...but for pure research into elite power, much of this Illuminati stuff is poorly researched, misinformed and perhaps even disinformational. You read Larouche on this stuff at your peril. There is no major SRA case out there for which either Ted Gunderson or Larouchites won't immediately flock (Well, I guess Gunderson can't "flock" but anyway....) There is always tons of truth in their reports of these things and always just enough misinfo to either support THEIR a priori assumptions about British/royal control of the world or perhaps even to muddy the waters so genuine investigations get muddied. For example, during the Franklin case there were complaints that they left their newspapers (with coverage of the case) out in areas the jury would have access....(not sure which case this was exactly) thus risking the declaration of a mistrial. Meanwhile, de Camp credits Anton Chaitkin as a co-researcher...and it all stinks to high heaven. That's not saying Franklin didn't happen...but they serve more often to muddy the waters rather than clarify. I believe that Bonnaci may have been manipulated to say more than he knew about to make bigger connections. In fact, at the trial when they sued King (who didn't show so a summary judgment was issued against him) it was allegedly an alter of Bonnaci's who testified...but it was deCamp controlling the whole testimony. Not saying that Bonnaci wasn't a victim...that much is clear, but Gunderson and Larouche both manipulate the victims and their stories. It taints investigations and leaves well meaning seekers of the truth chasing false leads. In any event...as I said, I was interested in oxnam and his family history long before you even posted this, so obviously I don't dismiss it. I never got much on the family...but it has been on my radar screen. However, the fact that Robert is DID, is not PROOF that his grandfather was a mason or a satanist. That's just silly. Could end up being true...but it's not proof.

by **dude h homeslice ix** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 11:38 am

aesclepius is a demon? wtf ever. and whenever i see "mason/satanist" used like that, with the slash, as though they are interchangeable, its bunko mcstunko. sorry to zoom in on these little details, but they say a lot about the POV of the writer. if he mistakes the greek god of healing as a "demon," he probably screws up somewhere else too. if all that stuff about tulsa is true, then that would make these guys apollonian pagans, not "satanists." there are those who might mistake the sheep slaughter over at prince charlies place the other day as "satanic," but it looks like elite paganism to me. so i think sometimes that paganism is what we are seeing here misidentified as satanism. not all, but i think a non discerning christian, a symbol-illeterate person, would not deign to find the difference between the two. maybe its like the nazis and fascist homosexuality: one for the elite, and one for the masses. a dominating, hyper masculine swastika wearing brand for the masters, and a queeny preeny pink triangle for the "lesser men." theres more than one type of pagan expression. some people like me even have pined for xtianity to go away and leave us with the "old time religion," but face it, some of those old customs were quite severe and pitiless.

by **meekster** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 1:50 pm

"sorry to zoom in on these little details, but they say a lot about the POV of the writer. if he mistakes the greek god of healing as a "demon," he probably screws up somewhere else too." Some Christians believe that any "belief system" that does not place Jesus at the head of God's creation is, knowingly or not, placing Satan there instead. The gods of ancient myth were (according to Genesis) fallen angels that were cast out of heaven along with their King (Lucifer, now Satan). The ancient heros (men of renown) were the offspring of these angels who had mated with human women. It's a fascinating study, google for the Book of Enoch for more info. You are correct to say that to a Christian, Paganism is a form of Satanism - though not openly - or directly. Even so, I've been studying the symbols, and even though I'm a Christian, I'm learning to discern the differences between the various gods.

by **rothbardian** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 2:38 pm

Mr. Homeslice-- There seem to be three major groups that weigh in on this subject of 'the gods'-- secularists (like yourself?), Bible-believers, and the various groups who take seriously their allegiance to whatever entity they favor. The particular entity mentioned here was AEsculapius (sp?). Bible-thumpers (like myself) and the pagans/Satanists/ Luciferians and whatever other groups (John Alexander and other CIA Satanists?) believe in the literal existence of superhuman entities that have moved upon the human family. The Thumpers understand these so-called 'pagan gods' to be the cosmic bad guys (demons, if you will), and the pagans etc. believe them to be legit 'gods'. What I have found to be odd and interesting is how the secularists (and others who are supposedly impartial) are so quick to 'correct' the Christian crowd who view "Moloch", "AEsculapius", "Tyr" et al...as demonic or satanic. I have been told: "That's not a 'demon'...that's a pagan god, silly." If it is all 'fantasy' to the non-believer anyway...then why the scrambling to 'correct' the Thumpers? It's a little confusing. Just my opinion. DE-- I confess, I don't have the first clue as to your point is here-- Years ago, Springmeier's sources told him this guy (G. Bromley Oxnam) was involved in SRA and mind control. Supposedly, Springmeier is full of baloney and just makes up a lot of stuff...but then Oxnam's grandson pops up years later, as a mind control victim. The first thing that comes into my mind is-- maybe there is something to Springmeier's reports. I see Robert Oxnam's emergence as an MC victim as pretty spectacular corroboration of Springmeier's reports. The only other real alternative is that it's a spectacularly convenient coincidence for Springmeier.

by **chiggerbit** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 3:20 pm

I see Robert Oxnam's emergence as an MC victim as pretty spectacular corroboration of Springmeier's reports. That's a pretty circumstantial conclusion to draw from the man's revelation that he's DID, roth. It could just indicate the possibility that he had been severly abused. Or it could be any of a number of other possible causes. Let's face it, science doesn't know a whole bunch about DID. I need to go back and read this to see if Oxnam claimed to be MC, or just DID. Wasn't this discussed on an RI thread a few months ago? Anybody got a link to it? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chiggerbit@rigorousintuition>chiggerbit</A> at: 8/29/06 1:27 pm

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

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

Re: Billy Graham--Evangelist/Satanist? (the Oxnam connection

Re: Billy Graham--Evangelist/Satanist? (the Oxnam connection

Re: Billy Graham--Evangelist/Satanist? (the Oxnam connection

Re: Billy Graham--Evangelist/Satanist? (the Oxnam connection

Re: Billy Graham--Evangelist/Satanist? (the Oxnam connection

Re: Billy Graham--Evangelist/Satanist? (the Oxnam connection

Billy Graham, etc.

Billy Graham

Re: 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.

Who is online