to do with Lady Gaga
kenderila
Posts: 1
What is Illuminati and what does it have to do with Lady Gaga? Im a hardcore Lady gaga fan but im hearing shes a Illuminati puppet and that shes a satanist. She is NOT a satanist and i dont even know what Illuminati is so can someone please explain what it is and what it has to do with lady gaga?
Comments
See here : <!-- l -->viewtopic.php?f=92&t=4656<!-- l -->
Here's something to start with. From here on, research illuminati in the mucis industry.
Lady Gaga IS poisoning children's minds
By BEL MOONEY
Last updated at 10:30 PM on 12th August 2010
Please don’t take it the wrong way when I tell you that it was Cliff Richard who introduced me to sex.
In 1958, Cliff’s single Move It (described as ‘Britain’s first rock ’n’ roll record’ by John Lennon) topped the charts, and he visited Liverpool on tour — wiggling like Elvis in his shocking pink suit.
I have no illusions as to precisely why that was so exciting. How my friends and I screamed! I was 12 years old.
That memory is an important reminder that the pop industry has always thrived on sexy rebellion.
The fact that my father detested Cliff for his ‘jungle music’ made it all the more thrilling for me.
Why then do I sympathise with music mogul Mike Stock’s condemnation of the pornification of pop?
Because what was once rebellious is now mainstream and inescapable; what was once suggestive is now graphically explicit — and, most worryingly of all, it’s being aimed at a fan base that is getting younger and younger.
Stock (one third of the legendary pop factory Stock, Aitken and Waterman) has publicly attacked pop culture for prematurely ‘sexualising’ today’s children.
He believes it’s all gone too far: ‘These days you can’t watch modern stars — such as Britney Spears or Lady Gaga — with a two-year-old.
'Now, 99 per cent of the charts is R&B and 99 per cent of that is pornography.’
If an ordinary person came out with a statement like that the critics would be quick to sneer about ‘moral panic’.
If you dare to challenge the ‘anything goes’ conventions of our society you get dismissed as a prude.
But Stock is the man who launched the career of Kylie Minogue and has made his fortune from the business he’s condemning.
Even then, he obviously feels he has to defend himself in advance by adding: ‘It’s not about me being old-fashioned. It’s about keeping values that are important in the modern world.’
Can it really be as bad as he claims?
People like me don’t sit around watching pop videos because there’s no time, and anyway, they’re hardly aimed at my generation.
But it’s the generation they are aimed that has caused Stock’s alarm.
I wrote an article about going to a Pussycat Dolls/Rihanna concert at Wembley in 2006, when I was amazed at the vast number of children in the audience.
They’d been taken by their parents to see an adult show full of pumping music and thrusting dancers: raunch from start to finish.
It was a Sunday night in school term time. No place for children, let alone toddlers.
With that experience in mind, I knew what to expect yesterday when — to investigate Stock’s claims — I settled down to watch a series of Lady Gaga videos on YouTube.
But even I was taken aback by the relentlessness of the imagery — not just sexual, but cruel, too.
The undertones of violence are as obvious as the sex.
Bad Romance contains bondage and grotesque sexual violence; Paparazzi is particularly tasteless with its references to death and disability; while Alejandro is full of jackboots, bondage and menace — culminating in a hideous gang-attack/rape on a nun-type figure.
I don’t deny the theatrical impact or the professionalism of the product. No matter that the choreography is repetitive — all crotch-clutching, writhing and open-mouthed suggestiveness.
No matter that the male dancers have to be tattooed to get the job — this is, after all, rough trade.
No matter that the mesmeric electro-beat is synthetic to a point of mind-numbing tedium.
No matter that the lyrics reach depths such as: ‘Let’s have some fun, this beat is sick/I wanna take a ride on your disco stick.’
The point is Lady Gaga has sold more than 15 million albums and 40 million singles worldwide. She’s a phenomenon — who knows that she must up the ante all the time in order to go on selling.
Even if it means launching yourself into a festival crowd wearing nothing but a fishnet body suit and a pair of tiny knickers, not caring who grabs you.
Sleaze and Gaga are two sides of the same coin, which wouldn’t matter if all this took place between consenting adults.
But any eight-year-old can watch this stuff on the TV or computer — and they do.
‘Mothers of young children are worried because you can’t control the TV remote control,’ says Mike Stock.
‘Before children even step into school they have all these images — the pop videos and computer games, such as Grand Theft Auto — confronting them, and the parents can’t control it.’
Pop music has always used subtle sexual innuendo, but once it wasn’t de rigueur.
Now raunchy R&B and hip-hop seem to have a stranglehold on the market, so that what used to be edgy and extreme is now the commercial mainstream.
One of the results is that female singers are happy to flog themselves as sex objects.
Cher probably started it 20 years ago with the video for If I Could Turn Back Time being briefly banned on MTV because of her outrageous outfit.
Today, a minute black leather thong, buttock tattoo, fishnets and leather jacket wouldn’t turn a hair. Cher and Madonna were the ‘mothers’ of this pop-porn chic.
But how sad that nowadays if you’re a pop star (with some honourable exceptions such as Leona Lewis) you feel you have to ape the clothes and gestures of the downmarket glamour model — the cheaper the better.
Female singers seem to think that the only way to sell their albums is to flash their gussets, while looking mean, vacant and up for it.
Even Cheryl Cole (the most sexy woman in the world, according to the men’s magazine FHM) chose to perform on The X Factor wearing boots and bizarre side-split trousers that showed her knickers. Did she need to? No. Cheryl Cole would look beautiful in a boiler suit.
But such porn-fashion infects the majority of pop videos — from Katy Perry’s wide-eyed suggestiveness to Britney Spears’s tired old sleaze.
And therefore it’s on the High Street.
The costumes familiar from pop videos have become (more or less) what every teen wants to wear on a Saturday night out.
Make no mistake, many young girls (and women) believe the only way to look attractive is to look sexy, and to look sexy you have to look trashy.
It’s a short step from that to behaving like, well, trash. That’s a word I intensely dislike (unless applied to the contents of the dustbin), but I use it deliberately.
Sadly, many young women don’t value themselves much higher.
The messages they receive through the screen as children affect their behaviour — and anyone who suggests they don’t is ignorant of the power of advertising and the market.
Last year, a survey published in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine found that teenagers who preferred pop songs with degrading sexual references were more likely to become sexually active.
Note that the emphasis was on ‘degrading’ lyrics — which is a world away from the love (and longing) traditionally associated with pop music, as well as the naughty innuendo of Chuck Berry’s complaint, ‘I couldn’t unfasten her safety belt’ in his 1964 hit No Particular Place To Go.
The research concluded that exposure to raunchy sex in the media could certainly be a risk factor, encouraging young people to experiment sexually at a young age.
I have no doubt that those who defend the ‘message’ of Lady Gaga and the raunchy pop sisterhood will say that their videos make them look ‘powerful.’
After all, a woman made tall by platform boots, dressed in a sci-fi outfit and strutting her stuff can look as if she could rule the world.
But that’s an illusion. The artistes are controlled by a powerful management who know this is all about sexuality — while Cheryl Cole, left, joins in with the over-exposure selling an image.
And the image, handed down to ordinary young girls, is that of a very easy conquest.
That message is, I’m afraid, reflected in too many statistics to bore you with here.
A shocking number of young people are so accustomed to all the varieties of porn (the real stuff as well as its fashionable pop-culture spin-off) they carry its conventions through into their own behaviour.
Boys expect certain sexual ‘services’ from their girlfriends that were once the province of prostitutes. And the girls feel they have to comply — or seem hopelessly strait-laced. It’s nasty.
If you have any doubts about the degrading message of popular pop videos you should look at the No 4 in the charts, Love The Way You Lie by Eminem with Rihanna. This song is an overt glamorisation of domestic violence.
The video shows a beautiful girl and a rough-looking guy locked into a destructive relationship, hitting each other, making up with lingering kisses, only to resort to aggression once more.
The ‘dialogue’ between the two singers is disturbing. What effect will it have on impressionable minds of both genders?
Eminem epitomises the inarticulate, violent, macho frustration of a certain kind of man who thinks he owns his woman — and will certainly show her who is boss.
He sings: ‘If she ever tries to f****** leave again/I’mma tie her to the bed and set the house on fire.’
Then Rihanna comes in with her chorus (background of flames, by the way) that responds to this aggression with: ‘That’s all right — because I like the way it hurts.’
It’s mind-boggling that a woman who was beaten up by her former boyfriend, the rapper Chris Brown, should agree to justify a woman’s victimisation. But then she does like to pose with devil’s horns on her head.
The message to girls is —– ‘Yes, he owns you and will lie to you and treat you bad, but you put up with it because you like it. Or you’ll be in trouble.’
And this is all being ‘sold’ to the fans by means of a beautifully produced video, employing the obvious talents of designers and filmmakers alike.
What a criminal waste. It’s not a message I want any girls to hear.
Nor do I want boys to admire Snoop Dogg’s revolting sexual bragging on Gangsta Luv — to name just one of many similar tracks.
Like Mike Stock, I wish we could turn back the clock to the time when Elvis’s fully-clothed wiggle changed the history of popular music for ever. But of course, that’s impossible.
Yet I applaud this one man with influence in the music business for speaking out.
For the rest — well, I wish that the producers of music videos would realise that ‘restraint’ is not a dirty word and that selling everything by means of the nastiest sexual message has a long-term corrupting effect on the next generation.
They won’t, of course. But just don’t tell me that doesn’t matter.
Source: <!-- m -->http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... minds.html<!-- m -->
She abuses his image, makes a lot of sex appeal and this sometimes gets ridiculous, obscene and very vulgar.
I saw an interview in which she herself said that she creates his show, his clothes, setting, plot the clips ... finally ... I felt that she gives the idea of everything and the others do.
I think she is not controlled, it is odd and eccentric for herself!
Mike's woe, compared to her he is a saint, a lord!
But since no one compares to Michael ... Lady Gaga and company is a matter entirely negligible here!
Sorry, just my opinion. <!-- s:( -->:(<!-- s:( --> <!-- s:? -->:?<!-- s:? -->
now as with the rest of the article i really think that its a little over exaggerated
Can anybody explain me why this picture is pornographic?
What about this one?
What is the big difference?
Let’s compare a few more pictures.
She is pointing to her…omg she is a b*tch!! <!-- s:o -->:o<!-- s:o -->
And
He is a slave of the rhythm, a genius!! <!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) -->
Another one:
She is half naked…what a shame!! <!-- s:shock: -->:shock:<!-- s:shock: -->
And…
He is so cute and sexy!!! <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
This one
What is she doing? I hope my daughter never will be like this! <!-- s:evil: -->:evil:<!-- s:evil: -->
And…
I hope my son some day will be like Beckham!!! <!-- s:D -->:D<!-- s:D -->
My point with this post is that the article is obviously sexist, the problem is that if a woman is sexually liberated ( or aggressive ) is a pervert filthy and is the end of the world!!! But if a man does the same is just provocative and... omg he is so sexy!!!
Another thing that I would like to point out from this article is about this sentence:
“Boys expect certain sexual ‘services’ from their girlfriends that were once the province of prostitutes.”, Can anybody tell me what kind of services are province of prostitutes? <!-- s:roll: -->:roll:<!-- s:roll: --> Does it means that a woman/girl can’t do whatever she wants with her boyfriend or husband because she would become a prostitute?
I can understand that parents wants to protect their children, but I think is so unfair to blame Lady Gaga, Madonna or another singer, their videos are for ADULTS. If parents goes to a Pussycat dolls concert with their kids, whose fault is it?
Anyway I can see the link between the general idea of the article and Illuminati-NWO.
<!-- m -->http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/2 ... 96842.html<!-- m -->
Lady Gaga caused a stir when she admitted to Vanity Fair that she occasionally does cocaine, and now she defends her drug use to Q magazine (via Contact Music) on the basis that it helped her creatively.
"[Using drugs] I really figured out the art I wanted to make and was inspired," she said. "Some people find inspiration in dark places. I guess I'm one of them. What always made me different is that if I was doing drugs I was also making music. I wasn't just doing drugs."
Though drugs helped her get her start, now Gaga only does cocaine "a couple of times a year," she told Vanity Fair.
"Once you open those doors they're open for ever," she said in the Q interview. "People who say they need [drugs] to be creative are full of s**t. I'm not some chick on the road getting high and f***ed up every night. I wake up, drink coffee and get on the phone to talk about the creative direction of the next video."
Janice Dickinson has slammed Gaga for glamorizing drugs to her young fans.
"As a recovering addict who knows how dangerous occasional use is, I can think of no reason for Gaga to reveal this to her young audience," she told Life & Style. "She is a fucking idiot. The way she mentioned cocaine, I think she should really get spanked. You can damage and hurt kids. I'm appalled."
I can see everyone's differing views.
She is very talented, I don't think that is what we are debating here.
The biggest difference between her and MJ, is that Mike was a child star. His fan base as a whole was growing up WITH him. So when he started doing the more "sexual" dances, his main audience was ready for that. Lady Gaga's fans are mostly very young (I'm just speaking in general, I realize both have fans of all ages). And for some reason, I find MJ's sexuality to be more tasteful and implied rather than so blatantly obvious. Some may argue with me on that, though, and perhaps it's just a matter of what I prefer and what I am comfortable with personally. I also think there's the issue of balance for me. MJ presents alot of sexuality but most of it comes from his live performance and not the actual songs themselves, whereas Gaga and Britney and Christina and whoever else, have a lot of songs that are just in-your-face about sex. Nothing is implied it's just spelled out and a lot of times very vulgar, and then their live performance matches that making it ALL about sex and nothing else. That is why I don't prefer those types of artists, it's just too much for me personally. I'm not opposed to sexuality one bit, it's a natural part of our existence and can be very beautiful.
I was just watching Michael Jackson's Dangerous tour DVD with my grandmother the other night, and there was not one time that she said anything about him being too sexual. But I remember watching the infamous Britney/Madonna kiss, and she couldn't believe it. I always use my grandma as a reference in the work I do (I sing, dance, model, and write...). If I am too embarrassed to present it to my grandma, then it's probably not something I should show to the world. <!-- s:D -->:D<!-- s:D -->
Having stated my OPINION about all that.... the Illuminati symbolism is really not a matter of opinion. Whether you like Lady Gaga or not, it's very clear that she is being manipulated. Look at her symbol/logo type thing.. I don't have a picture of it but it's a silhouette of a HEADLESS woman with a lightning bolt going through her genitals. I don't think I need to explain that <!-- s:shock: -->:shock:<!-- s:shock: -->
Sorry,
But I just think we're fans of Michael mainly because of his talent and his sensitivity to compose music with intelligent lyrics with meaning or romantic or humanitarian message of faith and hope!
Of course he also sometimes used of sensuality in their clips and shows, I give the example of the song "Give in to me" is one of my favorite and he uses a lot of sensuality in the lyric, it also has the sexual appeal, but it is mild, it is sexual and romantic at the same time ... he knows the voice balance between an aggressive tone and sentimental. The same happens in "In the closet."
Michael dancing with his hand on p. .. OK, but we never saw him in explicit sex scene, he never trivialized sex.
He was almost naked in the clip with Lisa, but for me that scene is much more romantic than sexual.
The problem with these artists that Mo told is that it is present in all the clips and lyrics .... no content, it is sometimes embarrassing to watch.
I do not think a kiss between two women in public can be compared to normal between a man and woman
And if you pay close attention not only banal they encourage sex, it's much worse!
REALLY? I consider myself a liberal and open minded person but talk about missing the point! It's almost like how dare you compare Michael Jackson's work which is tasteful and inspiring to...
nevermind....
some people.
I'm NOT attacking Michael. Remember what happened with Michael's "BOW" video, do you think it was fair?, Lady Gaga is not " he little mermaid" she doesn't perform for children.
I understand your point, but I also know that my 9 year old cousin's favorite singer is Lady Gaga, along with all her 2nd grade friends. They dress up like her and imitate her. I find that disturbing. Indeed that is where the parents should come in, but unfortunately parents can only control what children are exposed to while they are in their care... and Gaga is EVERYWHERE.
Like I said before, I'm sure she has fans of all ages. But a big portion of her fanbase consists of young girls that are far from being adults. But I do understand your point and perhaps she cannot choose who her fans are.
But (and I don't really have any tangible proof here) I do feel she is marketed towards young girls. She may not have control over that, just like she may not have full control over her image and creativity and she may not be fully aware of it... This is where the Illuminati come in.
I applaud Michael for being able to achieve such sex appeal while remaining tasteful and able to appeal to all ages without being too inappropriate or over-board. Not many (in fact hardly any) celebrities can accomplish that. Lady Gaga is not an artist for children. I just love how Michael is able to do his thing, be sensual and romantic and all that jazz while still being perfectly marketable to children 5 years old!!! And its not just because he is male and Gaga is female. a husband and wife kissing on stage is much different then two females doing it for shock-value <!-- s:P -->:P<!-- s:P --> haha.
We all know truly great, God-given talent when we see it. Someone so blessed doesn't need to resort to cheap sexuality, shocking images of violence and other gimmicks to win mass appeal - or maintain the kind of well-deserved success Michael Jackson has for nearly 50 years.
I think Gaga is just a flash in the pan. Her debut album came out two years ago and already she's known more for her outfits and the shock value of her videos than anything else. But it seems that is what the game is these days. I don't think it's by accident. If you don't buy into the Illuminati, then you probably don't believe there's some force at work to dummy down or degrade society's moral fiber. I, for one, think that is exactly what is going on, and the music industry is a huge part of that agenda...and these people also know very well that, regardless of who the "target market" is, there are plenty of impressionable, young minds soaking all of it up like sponges.
Its name Gaga is a term which immediately refers to the lack of awareness. Here some synonyms derived from the thesaurus dictionary:
•Dado to joyful stupidity: hollow head, head of Plover, capricious, frivolous, frothy, atolondrados, cheerful, disorientated, silly. Head of bird, stupid.
•Afectado or exhibit irrationality and unhealthy mental: sick brain, crazy, delayed, insane, with mental disorder, distraught, chocho, crazy, orderliness, sick mentale, lunatica, played, unbalanced, disposed, evil.
"Gaga" is probably the Word easier to say in language English, as it is often the case with the first sound emitted by infants trying to imitate speech.
In fact one song "Just Dance" is about to be completely idiotic. While young people masses mimics Gaga gestures and "style", his performance is part of a superior system that incorporates many other "stars of the music" with the same symbolism. She is creative. But at the end of the day "Lady Gaga" she's doing everything necessary to become an international star, even incorporating performances symbolism of the elite, making it one of the puppets of the Illuminati.
<!-- m -->http://www.nosotros.cl/detalle_noticia.php?cont=698<!-- m -->