Michael W. Smith--Christian Pop Star/Satanist?

by **havanagilla** » Thu May 25, 2006 5:12 pm

Just read this thread, very interesting because at the same time I am running into the same religious conspiracist, here. Witout getting too deep into what the Jewish orthodoxy is now doing with same materials coming up, I will say that there is possibly now a joint effort by the three religions to figure out what is going on with the RA/MC situation. The way I heard it here, now, it might point to an attempt on the person now perceived as a "fake" christian, who heads the masonic spiritual chain, that guy...you know, who everyone jokes about. (GW..). Putting Marx in, certainly fits the Jewish orthodoxy as well, and everything else RothB is saying. It is just like I heard a similar messate in two places at the same hour... -- The Jewish version is that some "masonic" network has been "vampiring" the true spiritual powers of prophecy (holy ghost or what not), and now there is a "nagative" hierarchy by you know who the devil, with the plan to blow up half the world and build their underground city in Jerusalem. With this in mind, the guys here are in a general draft to save the world. I think they are being led to it, by people who for more mundane reasons want the asshole in DC OUT. The notion of masonic inflitration into the orthodoxy was prominent as well.The equivalent of the co opted evangelical pop religion here is the settlers version. (the are jestfully called "jesuits" here). So, i feel there is a trend, and although it promises efficient uncovering of a lot of cults, SRA and MC in the intel, I think they are being led into mistake. Certainly, they see it a diabolic plan in the old religious sense, etc. I am, regretfully, past that stage. I think this is all in all for the better, because this is a group of capable, hardworking, people with ties in the Mainstream, who can blow the whistle, once they think they were cheated by masons who stole their religious orgs and turned them to cover shells. I have been conversing with one such person, and I made it clear that I have no intention of becoming religious or consulting Rabbis, point. But, since they do know A LOT about Mc and SrA and are now taking action with regards, and they are NOT so afraid of the intel as lefties are, there is more in common than conflict of interest. Once the boundaries are clear, the rest is very good. -- I don't think Marx was evil in any way, he died pennyless and a handful of people attended his funeral. He was a very very typical secular Jew, and so naturally the rabbis here see him as working for the devil, but that is more figuratively. -- My main point of disagreemnet with those people, who are nice and intelligent and knowledgable, is re the validity of ANY extra sensory "messages". and so their hope that in taking back their powers from the masons, they will restore prophecy etc., I find disturbing. but so far , this is not on the plate. -- It appears that the orthodox people here have a lot in common with Icke, re the Jewish involvement in masonry (illuminati or what not). they think that too many jews are joining those orders and therefore "hitler had no alternative than to annihilate the whole nation". Anyway, I stated my reservations, quoting major debunker DE, that masonry had a positive role in opposing monarchy and other abusive social structures, and that saying someone had no alternative rather than do what hitler did, means they are dead wrong somewhere...along the way (mainly, blaming the victims, and also being a bit too eager to hate their fellow Jews, who just don't like religion, but stil want to do some voodoo).\- But I was convinced these people are seriously worried about pagan/cult practices in Israel, and their inflitration into the intel/military.

by **yathrib** » Fri May 26, 2006 12:22 am

Havanagilla, I was interested to read that these conspiracy theories have gained some traction among Orthodox Jews. No reason they shouldn't, I suppose, but I was surprised--and a little amused--at the spin they put on theories that are overtly or covertly antisemitic in the hands of CHristians and Muslims. What is the "RA/MC situation" BTW? Is this something I should know already? I am aware that some anti-Catholic theories have currency among some religious Jews, for obvious reasons. I knew a number of Israelis on IRC back in the mid 90s, and hung out on the Israel channel some. There was one guy who was always ranting about how Shimon Peres and Leah Rabin were plotting with the Pope and Arafat to destroy the Jewish people. Leah Rabin was supposed to secretly be the Pope's lover, BTW. Most people ignored him... The picture of Marx in this thread appears to me to be obviously and crudely doctored, rather like the more outrageous photos in the Weekly World News or--to go back further in history--Der Stuermer.<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes"> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=yathrib>yathrib</A> at: 5/25/06 10:23 pm

by **Pah** » Fri May 26, 2006 1:02 am

Dreamsend, Hello. I`d like to quote you from the end of your previous lengthy post and then highlight my point, I hope you don`t mind: "So, to sum up, if you want to suggest things like "Marx worked for the illuminati" you'll not get a sympathetic hearing from me without something approaching evidence. You can call that a "refusal to believe." in fact, that's what it is..my BELIEFS do not determine what is true or not. I try very hard to OVERCOME my beliefs to see if they are blinding me". Re: Evidence. Therein lies, for me, the breach. There have been billions of examples throughout history where no evidence existed until `after the fact`. I don`t need to list them all do I?! Just a couple should do for now: JFK/Diana/9/11 - all the way back to Jesus` miracles and the pharisees demanding signs that he was who he claimed to be - "Except ye see signs ye will not believe"). Evidence is by its very nature subjective and often deceiving. What I find happens often on forums such as this is that people spend a lot of time debating `facts`. People chose a side, select or `cherry-pick` facts that validate their own opinions and off they all go down to the town hall, armed with `beliefs` and a mind to weed out the truth. It will never happen. Truth cannot be learned from mere facts, as the veracity of those facts can never truly be measured. Indeed, facts can be said to be in a permanent state of flux, depending on where you`re standing at any given time. There will always be doubts. For example, someone recently asked me, `Do you believe in God?`. `Yes, of course`, I replied enthusiastically. `But how can you be so sure when there`s no PROOF`. It is my belief that all TRUTH can only be intuited if one is ready for/open to IT. Facts are read, as is the Gospel, and an intellectual discernment takes place automatically. Yet, the next stage, often overlooked, is THE most important stage in the process, and that is intuition. The SPIRIT knows TRUTH. Truth does not reside in facts alone. If I gave my Granny a million facts regarding JFK or 9/11, would she then come to `believe`, as you put it, in this truth? My point is then this: Regardless of how many facts exist, Truth cannot be apprehended, rather it reveals itself, it simply IS. You choose to believe what you believe. That is Nature. Discussing fact after fact after fact is about as likely to arrive at any semblance of truth as are a prosecuter and defense attorney debating facts of a case; there will always be doubts in intellectual analysis. Truth = Faith = Wisdom. "And the truth shall set you free". Faith may be blind, but it may one day open all our eyes. Best wishes. P. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=pah@rigorousintuition>Pah</A> at: 5/26/06 3:24 am

by **havanagilla** » Fri May 26, 2006 2:11 am

Yathrib, yes, these are antisemitic theories, editted forin house use. basically, the religious-right conspirarices believe that major socialist zionists (labor) have joined an "international agenda" (such as the masonry). there might be something to it, on the deeper analysis of zionism, because it is an attempt to re intertret judaism, in terms acceptable by european nationalism, etc. etc. so, the threat on the traditional concepts is obvious and this is no news. The holocaust has not yet found a religious cannonized explanation, and it will have to follow the rules of "god punishes the transgressors", so you can take it from there... -- What i mean but knowing the ra/mc situation is that they are the only organized, visible, political group that continuously suggests there is a use of MC in Israel, and recently have been campaigning to prove there is a lot of satanism (cult, paganism) spreading among the elite. that's what I means. -- I think they are generally pointing to the correct policial figures and groups that brought "the desease here", but they are taking it with a religious twist of course, cause they are religious<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/ohwell.gif ALT=":\"> . You really have to be religious to figure out their beliefs and spirituality, prophecy, the devil etc. I don't share these ideas. They became alret, recently more so, because of the disengagement, AND because they think that their own spiritual leaders are manipulated as well. -- the guy I was talking to has a pretty sound understanding of how SRA/MC is working, in his mind, the people like Peres etc. have joined the masonry and are gradually making all the important intel units join as well, and the danger is that now, the HQ of this masonry are going to use it against israel. regretfully, they are not so concerned with the victims. Namely, if they could have it their way, they would use those same methods to further their agenda, and this si where I dissent big time. In a way they see it as a competition on who is manipulating "prophecy" better than the other, or sometihng like that. enough said. need to go.

by **rothbardian** » Fri May 26, 2006 7:55 am

JD-- Thanks for the good word. I think I'm running out of time though. blanc-- Thanks for pointing out yet another "evangelical christian organisation which is being used as a cover for very organised ra". That certainly would seem to be yet another hint as to what this Smith thing is about, wouldn't it? yathrib-- "me and my shotgun against the world libertarians" ? I beg to differ. It's the liberal-backed and neocon-backed Orwellian government that has all the firepower. Maybe we can discuss that sometime. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=rothbardian>rothbardian</A> at: 5/26/06 6:06 am

by **rothbardian** » Fri May 26, 2006 8:05 am

DreamsEnd-- I read through your post. I noticed you express a lot of things in terms of left or right. I fit nowhere on that political spectrum, which is another reminder to me that the entire left/right thing is artificial and illogical (IMO). Sorry. Had to get in that blurb. In response to your thoughts, it sounds to me as though your central interest is identical to mine, which is...how do we go about 'thinking' and reasoning. What is the process...and what are the mechanics? I certainly don't understand the thought processes of a number of people here. I think Pan is a more extreme example, so you may see me picking on him more. Sometimes I'm not sure what the antagonism is about, among some of the people posting. The main thing is we all (or almost all) agree that 9/11 was an inside job, and that evil people are apparently trying to gain world domination...and really, my main objective in regards to that, is to try to get about a hundred of my friends to wake up to that fact. This other stuff is just about getting into the deeper details, and I find it interesting but it's sort of all academic. The only other concern I have had is...that people here are only pushing for regime change instead of regime removal, which I consider to be a tragic mistake. Let's get rid of regimes, period. Other than that, I am stumped at this point as to why or how people refuse to (even theoretically) put pieces of the puzzle together in this whole PTB thing. Since we are rarely (if ever) going to get DNA evidence, fingerprints or blood samples, the only way I know of to get some insights is to choose/develop a theoretical model and then see if the puzzle pieces begin to fit. If they don't fit...try another model. I have just such a theoretical model that I utilize, and if the pieces ever stop fitting I'll back away and try a different model. This thing that goes on here on the part of many (but not all) of eternally postponing any working conclusions or even so much as a working hypothesis, until such time as hardcore DNA evidence or blood samples appear, is baffling to me. As to this whole Smith thing, I got the impression that you're not nearly as dismissive of this as some of the others have been. Let me just say this to anyone else: The biggest mistake all of the skeptics/debunkers are making here is that this is NOT about their perception of whether Smith's 'runing' is significant or not. It's about whether it is significant to his chosen audience, his chosen subculture...conservative evangelical Christians. In an earlier post I used the analogy of a subculture that actually exists (although I forget where this is located-- Africa possibly?) where people are greatly offended and greatly alarmed at anyone who knocks on their front door, as opposed to just walking straight in the house. In their thinking, only someone who means to harm or to thieve, knocks on doors. Smith has 'knocked on the door' of the conservative Christian subculture. It's not about whether Evangelicals are right or wrong to be alarmed at this. It's about the fact that there is virtually no chance that Smith wouldn't know this would be extremely alarming and troubling to have any association whatsoever with occultism. He has grown up and lived for nearly fifty years in a culture where it is the most extreme violation to...'knock on the door' as it were. I am testifying to anyone reading this (from my lifetime of participation in conservative Christianity) that according to the values and the norms of my subculture, Smith has done the equivalent of giving his fellow Christians the finger, in a very sinister and creepy way. You could argue that we are wrong to be alarmed...but you would be missing the point. You could say (as a number of folks have)- "Big deal...another religious hypocrite. So what?" OK, that's fine. I just brought this to RI because there is talk of "mind control"...there are possible related puzzle pieces, with Michael Aquino and John Alexander (Satanists who have been involved in the CIA), reports of churches that have been infiltrated by occultists, the 'evangelical Christian' Bush family's connections to Skull and Bones and the Bohemian Grove, on and on. As I stated earlier, this is absolutely bizarre behavior. I have observed this individual for years-- he has been nothing but gracious, mildmannered, charitable, kindly...and here he is 'knocking on the door'. I am telling you that I am observing a split. It looks like a split personality, given what I know about the cultural context. It is certainly something worth discussing. But there are those who, in a demonstration of double-standard dogmatism, have slapped the theory down. These might be some interesting conversations to have but there are any number of people who very aggressively and very strangely overshoot that entire objective, then rush all the way to the end of a discussion that has never even had the chance to take place...and then authoritatively declare that any conclusion...that's right, any conclusion...would be absolutely absurd. ? It's what I refer to as (I'm copyrighting this) Prematurely Conclusive Inconclusivity. I noticed, for example, Mr. Pan had a short post where he was essentially expressing thankfulness over what he had "learned" from me in this particular thread. I found that odd, because just before that he had a sharply rebuking post where he had disparaged every single major element of my original post about Smith. What was he thanking me for then? What had he learned? Smith's name? I don't really know. There are no hard feelings, there is no anger, but it's just unfathomable. According to him I have actually contributed nothing-- we have ascertained nothing-- we can determine nothing from this material-- we are looking at nothing discernable. No conclusions can be formed-- in fact, no theories are so much as even worth discussing. But he still wants to thank me. You're welcome, Mr. Pan. I think it's important to talk about this "move along--there's nothing to see here" thing. Pan had early on made the comment that these photos were "interesting". OK, then what is interesting about them? Apparently nothing, because every single specific (possible) implication is being smashed down. So...it's OK to be generally "interested", but not specifically interested. Apparently, we are allowed to gaze at the photos for a few minutes with non-specific interest and then...well, it's really time to move on, because there's nothing to see here, nothing specific anyway. What is going on here? DreamsEnd, I'll try to post a little something about Karl Marx here shortly, on a separate thread. You can make of it what you want.

by **professorpan** » Fri May 26, 2006 10:47 am

<div style="text-align:center">I noticed, for example, Mr. Pan had a short post where he was essentially expressing thankfulness over what he had "learned" from me in this particular thread. I found that odd, because just before that he had a sharply rebuking post where he had disparaged every single major element of my original post about Smith. What was he thanking me for then? What had he learned? Smith's name? I don't really know. There are no hard feelings, there is no anger, but it's just unfathomable. According to him I have actually contributed nothing-- we have ascertained nothing-- we can determine nothing from this material-- we are looking at nothing discernable. No conclusions can be formed-- in fact, no theories are so much as even worth discussing. But he still wants to thank me. You're welcome, Mr. Pan. I think it's important to talk about this "move along--there's nothing to see here" thing. Pan had early on made the comment that these photos were "interesting". OK, then what is interesting about them? Apparently nothing, because every single specific (possible) implication is being smashed down.</div> What did I learn? I learned about a Christian pop artist and his ties to GWB. I've also learned from others posting in this thread -- my comment was not aimed explicity at you. And did I ever say your theories weren't worth discussing? No. What I have done is point out why I think your theories are *speculation,* whereas you consistently state your beliefs as if they are fact. And I have disagreed with the majority of your conclusions, but hey, that's what happens on a discussion forum. I said the photos were "interesting" because they are. The composition and the Runic alphabet are not something you'd normally find on a Christian pop record. But again, that doesn't mean he is a Satanist/Luciferian. It certainly doesn't make him a mind-controlled victim of the Illuminati. Can you please get it through your head that people who disagree with your conclusions are not persecuting you?

by **yathrib** » Fri May 26, 2006 11:58 am

"Can you please get it through your head that people who disagree with your conclusions are not persecuting you?" Thank you! Thank you!

by **yathrib** » Fri May 26, 2006 12:12 pm

Rothbardian, you write: "'me and my shotgun against the world libertarians' ? I beg to differ. It's the liberal-backed and neocon-backed Orwellian government that has all the firepower. Maybe we can discuss that sometime." Perhaps I didn't express myself clearly. My phrase was meant to refer to a particular type of pseudo-frontier mentality that seems (to me) prevalent among U.S. conservatives and pseudo-conservatives that is responsible for a general neglect of--and scorn for--the general welfare. Call it unenlightened self-interest, if you will. In any case, guns weren't really the issue... But let's talk about guns. Your point about most or all of the major firepower being in the hands of the state is absolutely correct. Interestingly, this indisputable fact undermines one of the major arguments of the gun lobby. Personal ownership of guns is not insurance against tyranny. I would also add that pre-invasion Iraq was one of the best armed societiesin the world, with just about every male Iraqi owning a weapon, often fully automatic AK47s. Yet even those of us who are appalled by the invasion can agree that Saddam was at least a garden variety tyrant. And let's bring it home: who do most gun enthusiasts/owners support here in the U.S. Could it be you-know-who? Just something to think about. I find both sides of the gun debate about equally uncompelling and duplicitous.

by **rothbardian** » Fri May 26, 2006 1:57 pm

Pan-- There it is again-- that weird thing where you' turn' on the entire reasoning/argumentation process. I put out some comments, trying to reason for a certain point and you come back in bizarre fashion, announcing that I feel "persecuted"? So...when you just now have made some unhappy comments in your post...does that mean you feel "persecuted"? yathrib-- If I have the chance this morning, maybe I'll start a separate thread on that the issues you raise.

by **professorpan** » Fri May 26, 2006 2:26 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Pan-- There it is again-- that weird thing where you' turn' on the entire reasoning/argumentation process. I put out some comments, trying to reason for a certain point and you come back in bizarre fashion, announcing that I feel "persecuted"? So...when you just now have made some unhappy comments in your post...does that mean you feel "persecuted"? <hr></blockquote> Sigh. (Pan exits stage left, shaking his head)

by **rothbardian** » Fri May 26, 2006 2:52 pm

Not sure what Pan is sighing about. I hope he's OK. Anyway, Pan has complained repeatedly that I engage in "speculation" ( the horror). But then he flip-flops and now complains that I declare things to be a "fact". Which is it? The entire thread is titled by a...question-- "Is Smith a Satanist?" (in essence). Do we need to call Zoolander? He is using a technique where he, on the one hand, inaccurately assigns 'dogmatism' to someone, but then also if they only offer theory or speculation he smacks it down by saying: "Well, that's just speculation." That is an oddly usless remark. Speculation has been the intention. (?) And once again he provides this classic illustration of what I had been talking about in my post-- in delivering these annunciatory conclusions about Smith and the "Illuminati". He has rushed to the end of a conversation that has never even yet taken place...and declared his conclusion. I would argue he has many skewed definitions. If I have some strongly (or not so strongly) held opinions that I bring up for open discussion, I am therefore subjecting those things to a speculation/theorization process. For someone to step in, as Pan has numerous times, and breathlessly declare this to be 'merely speculative'...is absurdly superfluous. As far as holding to something as an absolute fact...why not let the individual describe what he holds to as utter fact, and not have someone else announce that for him. I have...very...carefully...described...having theoretical frameworks but alas....sigh. Uh-oh. I hope I'm OK.

by **yathrib** » Fri May 26, 2006 3:53 pm

Rothbardian, Here's the thing. i expressed sketicism about your specific contentions re MWS. You claimed that I was expressing "incredulity" about the core beliefs of "your" subculture, and that I wouldn't be so disrespectful toward, say, cannabalistic pygmies (paraphrasing). This sounds like a bit of a persecution complex to me, esp. in the light of claims of others about a "war on Christmas," etc.

by **snowlion2** » Fri May 26, 2006 4:26 pm

Roth... My original post just went into the ozone and I don't have time to recreate it, but believe me, you and I have a lot more in common that PP and I do...and least as it pertains to our practice of spirituality. But even so, there's nothing wrong with someone pushing back a little and getting us to dig a little deeper for some personal apologetics. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Reasonable people don't believe things just because they are possibly true. Reasonable people distinguish probable from improbable ideas and notions. Reasonable people trust impersonal testing such as control group, double-blind studies, and have learned from experience the dangers of wishful thinking, communal reinforcement, confirmation bias, cold reading, and subjective validation. One does not become irrational or an inquisitor by criticizing and challenging claims that are near zero in probability. <hr></blockquote>

by **rothbardian** » Sun May 28, 2006 2:40 am

Snowlion2-- Thanks for your comments. It takes me a while to respond sometimes. Let me comment on a couple of those statements you quoted. (I also had some comments about this over at another thread: <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=4487.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...4487.topic</a> ) The statement "Reasonable people don't believe things just because they are possibly true." That statement is not true. As I said over at the other thread, if I was walking in a dark alley and I saw three huge, menacing guys quickly headed my direction, I would not wait for scientific evidence and DNA lab analysis to form a working conclusion. Another statement-- "One does not become irrational or an inquisitor by criticizing and challenging claims that are near zero in probability." Think about the bizarre presumption of those words. Who gets to make the determination as to what has a "near zero" probability? For example, who determines there is near zero probability that Bush and Cheney are the direct perpetrators of 9/11? Fox News and the NY Times..or PropagandaMatrix and Rigorous Intuition? That kind of a statement seems to almost deliberately set up a kind of anti-intellectual 'snob contest'-- the biggest, most aggressive snobs attempt to literally smirk the opposition into compliance with their view of what does or does not have "zero probability" ("These flat-earthers with their wacky 9/11 conspiracy theories. There is zero probability that Bush/Cheney could pull off such a thing and nobody know about it.") In my view, this is the most critical flaw on the part of some posters here at RI (those who insist on remaining absolutely inconclusive about an array of issues)-- They are impractically applying scientific and/or laboratory standards to real world scenarios. There are a vast array of real world scenarios where it would be absolutely foolhardy to treat it like a laboratory. In a laboratory you have the luxury of refusing to form any conclusion unless someone provides scientific, DNA, fingerprint and blood sample evidence. Remember the example of the dark alley. Some here are pretending all the world is a huge laboratory. I use the analogy of Attila the Hun-- If a network of villages received a rumor (from passing travelers etc.) that Attila and his hordes might be sweeping through the region, the town fathers would begin to take at least some preliminary action. And they would be acting (believe it or not) on the mere wisp of a rumor. Apparently though, some RI posters would be accusing them of paranoia and unscientific 'superstition'. Then, if the forward observers came back from the outskirts and reported seeing little puffs of dust clouds about fifteen miles out to the horizon, the leaders most likely would begin to (horror of horrors) surmise a few things. No DNA evidence, no scientific 'proof', no confirmation with satellite imagery...and yet they would be moving very quickly towards some working conclusions. Some RI posters, if they were going to stick to their 'principles' (which I seriously doubt they would, in this situation) would be exclaiming: "Well, those 'puffs' could be anything. That could be a convention of dancing dwarves. It could be a swarm of bees. Who knows. We refuse to form any conclusion unless we receive verifiable scientific evidence." Can you see the colossal mistake that is being made here?

Michael W. Smith--Christian Pop Star/Satanist?

Re: unqualified to comment

unqualified

Re: Michael W. Smith--Christian Pop Star/Satanist?

Re: unqualified

JD /blanc/ yathrib

the reasoning process

Re: the reasoning process

Professor Pan

guns, etc.

Persecution?

Re: Persecution?

Dogmatism? Speculation? Which is it?

Persecution

Re: Dogmatism? Speculation? Which is it?

Re: Dogmatism? Speculation? Which is it?

Who is online