Monday, May 3, 2010
Sect Symbols: Are Lady Gaga and Rihanna Puppets to the Illuminati?
There was a time when certain church groups would play every album, from The Beatle’s Revolver to Madonna’s Like a Prayer, backwards, in search of satanic messages. What they found were hours of unintelligible gibberish, and a few words that resembled the words “Satan” and “666,” of course the proximity of these words weren’t found anywhere near one another in the song.
Now with the accessibility of the internet, websites like www.vigilantcitizen.com are going even further, looking for freeze framed clues that the likes of Lady Gaga and Rihanna are a part of an underground cult, either the Illuminati or Masons. This website, along with many more recently spawned ones, claim these pop stars are “puppets” of these cults, used in order to breathe life into a “New World Order” or NWO, which would allow for a totalitarian world government. Now this is just a conspiracy, nothing proven yet, but of course, every alleged sign of these groups can be found in the music of many pop culture icons.
Claims of the website state that everything from Lady Gaga’s stage name, her lightning bolt icon, to her covering her eye, and having ram’s heads (which are supposed satanic symbols) in her videos makes her a member of Satanic cults, the Masons, and the Illuminati. Since the word “gaga” is usually the first word said by children, there tends to be an association of her name with “mindlessness,” thus making the singer the perfect contender for being a puppet for the Illuminati. That would be reasonable, but the star claims her stage name was inspired by the Queen track “Radio Gaga.” Furthermore, the lightning bolt is connected to Illuminati cults and how they use electro-shock to brainwash their victims, but followers of David Bowie will see that Lady Gaga was not the first one to use lightening bolts on the face as an image.
The website goes on to dissect every time she makes an “okay” sign with her hand in her “Telephone” video (which he interprets as “6” or “666”), and likens her behavior in “Paparazzi” to a mind-controlled specimen of the Illluminati. What it misses is the fact that these videos are fiction, and just like movies, the people in these videos are characters, not human beings, and that allow the writers/actors to let their imagination control every aspect.
It is true that Lady Gaga does cover one eye a lot, which the writer likens to the Eye of Horus, or the All-Seeing Eye according to Egyptian mythology. But the “covering one eye-effect” has been endlessly used in photography and film, with either a hand or some object; one eye is usually covered, usually for fashion/beauty effect. Lady Gaga did not invent this, but she does use it effectively for her image.
As for Rihanna, the website does go a bit lighter on her. Claiming she joined a cult right before her Good Girl Gone Bad LP. The evidence for this lies in her being “reborn” in her “Umbrella” video. That event does occur in the middle of the video where the “good” girl is douched with waves of water, and out of nowhere, another, sexier Rihanna struts on screen. Of course that’s never been done before! Never mind Madonna symbolically died and was re-born all the way back in 1983 in her “Burning Up” video. Surprisingly, the website pretty much leaves Madonna alone, but goes on further to say that videos such as “Disturbia” show how Rihanna is being controlled by her cults and how the “Umbrella” video, with its scene of a silver-coated Rihanna entrapped in a triangle, is an ode to the Illuminati. Did they ever think that perhaps these artists might have wanted to explore creative directions in their promotional videos?
Lady Gaga seems like she knows her stuff, so isn’t it possible she knows all about symbolism and is using it to her advantage? Maybe she enjoys playing around with this type of iconography and perhaps the same can be said for Rihanna. It’s difficult to blame the diva for trying something new in her art. Expressions that are remembered are those that are different from what is en vogue.
It’s doubtful that a cult has made these women famous, and if this were true, why aren’t people who are openly in cults famous at all? You might see these cult members in a History Channel documentary, but nothing more. Think about this: Rihanna and Lady Gaga all have these things in common: one hell of a work ethic, the best producers, managers and publicists on this earth, and songs that have captivated the world. Their songs may be simple, trite at times, but nonetheless people see them as infectious. And if we are talking trite, why doesn’t the author pick on the Black Eyed Peas, Paris Hilton, or Jessica Simpson?
Playing the devil’s advocate for a minute, Lady Gaga did come from (seemingly) nowhere and blew up on the charts, and Rihanna did go from relative obscurity to superstardom with the song “Umbrella.” It does make you wonder. As shown in Lady Gaga’s “Bad Romance” video, there is a price for fame. At the same time, let’s say Lady Gaga and Rihanna are a part of the Illuminati. Now what? Lady Gaga has promoted for gay rights and individualism since her debut, and Rihanna has broken down racial doors and promotes the image of an independent, yet bootylicious woman who has publicly left an abusive relationship, showing that it can be done. If there is a hidden agenda, it’s either deep, deep, deep down in there, or it’s a positive one.
Either way, the website is fascinating, though a bit creepy at times, because you cannot help but wonder if perhaps all this could be true.
In the end, we need not to worry if our pop stars belong to any cult, as long as their message is positive and their songs are well crafted and infectious. When it comes to real life music and its potential effects, we need to worry about those singers and lyricists who promote hate, misogyny, homophobia, and violence, then turn around justify these things as “art.” That music, subliminal or not, is the most dangerous of all.