Chaos: Charles Manson, the CIA, & ... the Sixties

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Chaos: Charles Manson, the CIA, & ... the Sixties

Postby Grizzly » Mon Dec 23, 2019 12:53 am

Jesus Christ, I watched the whole Dr. Brown interview above and it really hit home how real AND TERRIFYING this shit is. Aside form his stoicism, does that guy ever blink? Why are all Harvard or Ivy league school Professors so odd? What a horror-show we are locked into. Poor Sirhan Bishara Sirhan, he could have been any of us... or maybe one just has to have the kind of temperament be that suggestible. Maybe we all are?

The truth of his-Dr. Brown's, words about the power to do these kinds of things in a 'democracy' really rang true. Especially, when he talked about being harassed by the IRS for every year after and told by one agent, for the rest of his lifeby someone much higher up...; and having his luggage and research taken and copied multiple times, and him confronting one of the airport employees and the reply about the Kennedy Group. Chilling. His assistant Laurie Dusek seemed much more personable and therefore more believable. Not that I doubt anything Dr.Brown said, he just seemed so weird, super un-personable, creepy, even by his deadpan facial expressions.

None of Jason's (guruilla) work surprises me in the least. Everybody should watch that interview thou, I'm seriously blown away by it and that it hasn't been scrubbed.
“The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.”

― Joseph mengele
User avatar
Grizzly
 
Posts: 4722
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Chaos: Charles Manson, the CIA, & ... the Sixties

Postby Elvis » Mon Dec 23, 2019 1:12 am

Grizzly wrote:His assistant Laurie Dusek seemed much more personable and therefore more believable.

She's Sirhan's attorney. A valuable ally for Dr. Brown however.

Grizzly wrote:Everybody should watch that interview thou, I'm seriously blown away by it and that it hasn't been scrubbed.

Yes! The film can't be summarized properly in a Facebook meme, people need to watch it.


I think Dr. Brown's unblinking demeanor merely reflects an ability to focus, to pay attention, to communicate and mean every word he says. He's more animated when he gets angry. If you research him a bit, he's into some unorthodox spiritual stuff, which is doubtless one reason he isn't taken as seriously as he should be. (Be sure to "thumb up" the video.)
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7413
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Chaos: Charles Manson, the CIA, & ... the Sixties

Postby FourthBase » Mon Dec 23, 2019 11:52 am

Yeah, it's pretty funny how Dr. Brown's unblinking serenity made me think that he was hypnotized. But in all seriousness that's a great video. Maybe it can't be reduced to a meme, but it would help to know what it covers.

Sirhan says he wishes he had gone to play pool with a friend that night, but my assumption would be that Sirhan was surrounded by phonies, so maybe the friend's suggestion to "shoot pool" is the trigger that began the whole night.

The polka dot lady is well-known, but I didn't realize she was standing behind the bar next to the bartender, i.e., the bartender was involved. Getting "coffee" seems to be another trigger. Lord knows what's actually in the coffee. Then the pinch. I don't remember hearing about the pinch before.

The short wave radio guy, the morse code, the notebooks, the gun range master...I mean, it's almost comical how so fucking obviously Sirhan was brainwashed by a team of operators.

Then there's Dr. Brown's harassment from airports and the IRS. "Kennedy Party" the lady stealing his luggage to reroute it to a military base called him. The audits are always a giveaway. But would an IRS employee really be able to see a note in his system ordering lifelong harassment like that? Anyway, it's infuriating how bizarre harassment like that is almost immune from exposure without absolute proof, because whoever complains about it almost always discredits themselves just by complaining. No one except paranoids like us believe shit like that really happens. Because it would necessitate believing that there are very, very evil people in charge of institutions.
“Joy is a current of energy in your body, like chlorophyll or sunlight,
that fills you up and makes you naturally want to do your best.” - Bill Russell
User avatar
FourthBase
 
Posts: 7057
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 4:41 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Chaos: Charles Manson, the CIA, & ... the Sixties

Postby Belligerent Savant » Tue Dec 31, 2019 12:02 am

.

Belligerent Savant » Sun Sep 01, 2019 4:09 pm wrote:...The Manson case stomped out consensus views of the hippie movement as a relatively benevolent (and effective) means of status quo protest...


Wrong*. I need to dispense with off-hand, lazy commentary. A bit of hubris on my part.

*(actually, there may well be an element of truth to my quoted bit; 'consensus views' are subject to manipulation by influencers, after all.)

This, on the other hand, sounds far more spot-on.


What if ... the entire youth culture of the 1960s was created not as a grass-roots challenge to the status quo, but as a cynical exercise in discrediting and marginalizing the budding anti-war movement and creating a fake opposition that could be easily controlled and led astray? And what if the harassment these folks were subjected to was largely a stage-managed show designed to give the leaders of the counterculture some much-needed ‘street cred’? What if, in reality, they were pretty much all playing on the same team?

...contrary to popular opinion, the ‘hippie’/’flower child’ movement was not synonymous with the anti-war movement. As time passed, there was, to be sure, a fair amount of overlap between the two ‘movements.’ And the mass media outlets, as is their wont, did their very best to portray the flower-power generation as the torch-bearers of the anti-war movement – because, after all, a ragtag band of unwashed, drug-fueled long-hairs sporting flowers and peace symbols was far easier to marginalize than, say, a bunch of respected college professors and their concerned students. The reality, however, is that the anti-war movement was already well underway before the first aspiring ‘hippie’ arrived in Laurel Canyon. The first Vietnam War ‘teach-in’ was held on the campus of the University of Michigan in March of 1965. The first organized walk on Washington occurred just a few weeks later. Needless to say, there were no ‘hippies’ in attendance at either event. That ‘problem’ would soon be rectified. And the anti-war crowd – those who were serious about ending the bloodshed in Vietnam, anyway – would be none too appreciative.

As Barry Miles has written in his coffee-table book, Hippie, there were some hippies involved in anti-war protests, “particularly after the police riot in Chicago in 1968 when so many people got injured, but on the whole the movement activists looked on hippies with disdain.” Peter Coyote, narrating the documentary “Hippies” on The History Channel, added that “Some on the left even theorized that the hippies were the end result of a plot by the CIA to neutralize the anti-war movement with LSD, turning potential protestors into self-absorbed naval-gazers.” An exasperated Abbie Hoffman once described the scene as he remembered it thusly: “There were all these activists, you know, Berkeley radicals, White Panthers … all trying to stop the war and change things for the better. Then we got flooded with all these ‘flower children’ who were into drugs and sex. Where the hell did the hippies come from?!”

As it turns out, they came, initially at least, from a rather private, isolated, largely self-contained neighborhood in Los Angeles known as Laurel Canyon...



...

When I recently presented to a friend a truncated summary of the information contained in the first installment of this series, said friend opted to play the devil’s advocate by suggesting that there was nothing necessarily nefarious in the fact that so many of these icons of a past generation hailed from military/intelligence families. Perhaps, he suggested, they had embarked on their chosen careers as a form of rebellion against the values of their parents. And that, I suppose, might be true in a couple of cases. But what are we to conclude from the fact that such an astonishing number of these folks (along with their girlfriends, wives, managers, etc.) hail from a similar background? Are we to believe that the only kids from that era who had musical talent were the sons and daughters of Navy Admirals, chemical warfare engineers and Air Force intelligence officers? Or are they just the only ones who were signed to lucrative contracts and relentlessly promoted by their labels and the media?


https://centerforaninformedamerica.com/ ... n-part-ii/
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5215
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Chaos: Charles Manson, the CIA, & ... the Sixties

Postby Belligerent Savant » Thu Jan 02, 2020 2:27 pm

.

Hat tip to guruilla [Jasun] for the legwork on this. His transcription of the quoted bits below is markedly more accurate than what youtube offered, particularly for certain key words/phrases.

The transcription is at the tail-end of an embedded video found here:

https://auticulture.com/romans-baby-see ... elo-drive/


Here's the Manson interview in full, from what I presume to be sometime in the 80s (based on the choice of interviewer: Ron Reagan Jr.), a portion of which was included in the above-referenced embedded video.




Excerpts:

10:16 mark:

…now I'll tell you this: Leno LaBianca was killed for a black phone book with all the numbers in it, the phone numbers that control the music market. Sharon Tate and those people were killed because Terry Melcher broke a contract and sent three gory animals with hatchets over to kill somebody else. he didn't directly do that; what he did was he sent his mother's man over to put the light out in another chamber. In other words, you raised man up in the music, and everybody wants to say, “Hey man, mine is better than his!” and “What are you doing up on my stage?” and “Who controls what on this set?” and “Who is the man on this set, Clark Gable?” or “Where is your fear?” or “How does your heart beat on this altar - when you see Sharon Tate’s body laying there all naked and murdered, dead?” Do you think I had something to do with that? That was the altar [or alter?]. It had nothing to do with me. It was the turnaround of the whole world. It was the Aryan woman that was being bought up from the head for Rosemary's Baby. They was the cult. Did they tell you about all the films that they got with the dogs and chauffers, that came out of the black and white, when Yul Brynner and Peter Sellers paid $30,000 to get the videotapes back, that they had done with the pornography, where they was gobbling on each other's knobs in the closet, with Sharon, poor beautiful Sharon?



11:58 mark [partial]:

…a guy comes from the University of Southern California into the criminally insane ward and he says “I'm a doctor, I am here to help”… I said, “if you come to help me why are you asking me these questions? … and if I don't give you [the info] you send this guy in with the big syringe that drugged me down out of my head so where I can't stand up … [what do] you think's been happening to me for the last twenty years?”



Echoes of Epstein and blackmail operations...
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5215
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Chaos: Charles Manson, the CIA, & ... the Sixties

Postby redsock » Tue Jan 07, 2020 7:48 pm

guruilla » Sat Dec 21, 2019 7:05 pm wrote:By a weird chain of events (short version, someone left a weird comment at this guy's blog using my email address), I found this article recently: https://blog.banditobooks.com/this-star ... ok-review/

Thanks for this link!!!

Late in his post, he writes: "O’Neill will go on to doubt the veracity of virtually everyone he interviews or researches, but most especially Susan Atkins, who likely is the source behind the quoted passages. (That I have to speculate that it was she reminds me that the book lacks source or foot-notes, which made my work in analyzing its contents that much harder.)"

My paperback copy has 62 pages of tiny-print endnotes (pp. 443-504), many of which also feature commentary from O'Neill. They come after six pages of acknowledgements listing scores of people O'Neill interviewed or who assisted him in various capacities.

Does the hardcover have no notes?
User avatar
redsock
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 3:28 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Chaos: Charles Manson, the CIA, & ... the Sixties

Postby guruilla » Tue Jan 07, 2020 9:14 pm

I also read the paperback, in which there were notes, but not the kind referenced via number footnotes in the main text itself... Maybe Weisbecker missed them?
It is a lot easier to fool people than show them how they have been fooled.
User avatar
guruilla
 
Posts: 1460
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:13 am
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Chaos: Charles Manson, the CIA, & ... the Sixties

Postby alwyn » Sat Jan 11, 2020 4:27 am

I love all the bullshit that's been posted about Manson, and everyone making money off of it. Lots of it is just plain untrue. I used to date one of the manson cult's witness for the prosecution in this case, and our mutual teacher was Paul Crockett, who deprogrammed three of the Manson kids before walking off across death valley to turn him into the sherrif. There are really strange tales about this case that he used to tell, but none of them are in the books.
question authority?
alwyn
 
Posts: 771
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 7:25 pm
Location: Laytonville
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Chaos: Charles Manson, the CIA, & ... the Sixties

Postby Elvis » Sat Jan 11, 2020 5:09 am

alwyn wrote: There are really strange tales about this case that he used to tell, but none of them are in the books.


Share if you can!


Here's an odd mention, and maybe someone can connect it to Manson's history.

In the 1960s, long before I knew him, a good friend of mine was committed for awhile at Western State mental hospital, and he insists that he saw Charles Manson with some girls there. He says they were there for a couple of days or so. Keep in mind, my friend at the time was a mental patient, and they were doing stuff to him. But he swears he saw Manson with two or three girls at Western State. This was before Manson was notorious, to be clear.

If this is of interest to anyone, I'll ask my friend for details, the exact year and whatever else he remembers (he says new memories occasionally emerge).

https://www.dshs.wa.gov/bha/division-st ... e-hospital
History of Western State Hospital
Established - 1871

Western State Hospital is located on the site of historic Fort Steilacoom. Fort Steilacoom served as a military post from 1849 to 1868 when the federal government abandoned it. The Washington territory purchased the fort with the intent of turning it into a hospital for the insane. The new hospital, called the "Insane Asylum of Washington Territory," opened in 1871 with 15 men and 6 women patients transferred in from Monticello, Washington.

The period between 1871 and 1875 was very difficult for the new hospital. A local businessman had contracted with the legislature to look after the daily needs of the patients. At the same time, a resident physician was hired to provide psychiatric treatment and medical care. Unfortunately, patient neglect became so bad at the hands of the businessman contractor, that the Medical Society of the Washington Territory had to intervene. The Medical Society was instrumental in influencing the legislature to abandon the dual-management system and to place total care of the patients with a medical superintendent.

Statehood in 1889 brought about another change to the hospital: the name was changed to Western State Hospital. When the number of patients reached 200, a committee was selected to locate an accessible location for a second state hospital. Medical Lake in eastern Washington was chosen as the site for Eastern State Hospital, as it was only eight miles from the main line of the Northern Pacific Railroad, and was on three stage routes.

As times changed for the new State of Washington, so did methods for treating the mentally ill admitted to Western State Hospital. Hydrotherapy was the early treatment of choice. Wet packs, hot tubs and showers were used for nearly 50 years to create a calming effect for the patients. Insulin therapy was started in the mid 1930's, followed by electric shock therapy. A surgical procedure called the frontal lobotomy was used for a period of time. It was later replaced with psychotropic drugs, counseling, and behavior modification therapies which are all still used today.
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7413
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Chaos: Charles Manson, the CIA, & ... the Sixties

Postby alwyn » Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:33 am

"Share if you can! .


Well, there was the time Crockett was sharing a bunkhouse with Brooks Poston, Juan Flynn, and Paul Watkins. Crockett said he woke up in the middle of the night and, sat up out of bed, went to the front door, threw on the light, opened the door, and Manson was crawling across the floor with a knife in his teeth. Crocket said to Charlie, "lookin for somethin?" Charlie got up, mumbling about having dropped something earlier, and got up and walked off....
question authority?
alwyn
 
Posts: 771
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 7:25 pm
Location: Laytonville
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Chaos: Charles Manson, the CIA, & ... the Sixties

Postby Belligerent Savant » Mon May 25, 2020 12:08 pm

.

Placing this here. I share similar sentiment after reading it. Worthwhile reading, though -- some valuable info spread throughout the book.

Wombaticus Rex » Sat May 23, 2020 5:59 pm wrote:
CHAOS, Tom O'Neill and Dan Piepenbring. Another ambitious saga with a loaded subtitle, "Charles Manson, The CIA, and The Secret History of the Sixties" is nothing like the Williams book on Gladio. O'Neill fails, utterly, to deliver the goods. However, that was probably the point. He is far from a trustworthy narrator; full of self-serving asides and naked contempt for the intelligence of his readers. Documentary fixer & noted fabulist Errol Morris also lurks around the margins here. The most interesting leads get dropped fast, the most astounding revelations receive little commentary or explanation, and overall this does nothing but further muddy the waters of Laurel Canyon and the nationwide killing spree that was Operation CHAOS. Still, it's an important read. O'Neill is either carrying water for the perps he's ostensibly exposing (much like Barbara Honegger or John DeCamp or Peter Levenda) or he's begging you to read between the lines of what he couldn't put into print. Probably a little of both; we've all gotta serve somebody, after all.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5215
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

young girls are coming to the canyon

Postby annie aronburg » Mon May 25, 2020 7:06 pm

Best read side-by -side with Ed Sanders' The Family (FIRST edition only, please) like in bible study.

I wouldn't say O'Neill failed to deliver the goods.

There's only so much utility in employing conventional standards of proof to reveal that which is occulted.

I was surprised he was able to reveal as much as he did.
"O Oysters," said the Carpenter,
"You've had a pleasant run!
Shall we be trotting home again?'
But answer came there none--
And this was scarcely odd, because
They'd eaten every one.
User avatar
annie aronburg
 
Posts: 1406
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 8:57 pm
Location: Smokanagan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: young girls are coming to the canyon

Postby PufPuf93 » Mon May 25, 2020 7:29 pm

annie aronburg » Mon May 25, 2020 4:06 pm wrote:Best read side-by -side with Ed Sanders' The Family (FIRST edition only, please) like in bible study.

I wouldn't say O'Neill failed to deliver the goods.

There's only so much utility in employing conventional standards of proof to reveal that which is occulted.

I was surprised he was able to reveal as much as he did.


Have a The Family section in my library with:

The Family - Kitty Kelley
The Family - Jeff Sharlet
The Family - Ed Sanders

Would wager that the Sanders book documents the lightr weight killers of the three.

Bought the Sanders book as a grad student at Cal in 1980s, a hardcover first edition (and I see now from inside the front cover for $20). Pasted inside the front cover is a note about the book being re-written and the The Process Church's withdrawal of their $1.5 million lawsuit for libel because of the re-write. IMO Sanders nailed facts best in original.
User avatar
PufPuf93
 
Posts: 1884
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 12:29 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

celebrity fashion cults

Postby annie aronburg » Tue May 26, 2020 2:46 am

https://carwreckdebangs.wordpress.com/2017/11/30/charles-manson-music-myth-murder-mysticism-magick-magus-mayhem-a-look-back-at-the-untold-story-of-the-manson-family-or-more-manson-than-youd-ever-want-to-know/

Michael Caine recalls attending a party in Hollywood with Jay Sebring and Sharon Tate, where Mama Cass introduced him to a ‘scruffy little man’. His name was Charles Manson. Oh, and Mama Cass had thrown Manson girls out of her parties at her house before. Abigail Folger and Voytek Frykowski were frequent guests at Mama Cass’. Abigail Folger’s association with the Free Clinic in San Francisco put her in close contact with the Manson Family from the early days of 1967-the two circles had swirled together many times over the years. One final example would be Mrs. Charlene Cafritz, frequent friend and lavish benefactor of Manson and his brood–she was friends with Sharon Tate and Terry Melcher, likewise filmmaker Laurence Merrick was close with both Manson and Sharon Tate. Strangers these circles were not.


More than one rich benefactor-Charlene Cafritz in particular-unloaded a ton of cash on the Family through Manson. Charlie was a beneficiary of her ministrations, and she turned over close to $100,000 to various friends, including much to Manson. When Charlie visited her in Reno Nevada where she was setting up residence for a divorce for a couple of weeks, she took several motion pictures of Charlie and his girls, yet another thing that was immediately hushed up and not discussed or seen by anyone. One strong reason would be that Cafritz was a friend of Sharon Tate, Terry Melcher and other main players on the Polanski side of the tale, so there may be films of Polanski, Tate, Manson and the girls together out there still. Oh and in December 1969, right after the Family was busted, Cafritz was arrested for selling heroin to undercover police in September 1969. Was this a set up, or was this 23 year old lady just falling apart at the seams? The date of arrest is convenient in that she would be essentially silenced in the upcoming trial. (we never found out, as she died under mysterious circumstances in early September 1970). Going even further back into 1967, several sources say Abigail Folger was kicking in money towards the Family in the early days from contact with the Free Clinic.


Double initials always get my attention.

https://www.mansonblog.com/2018_10_14_archive.html

On Charlene Cafritz who - to refresh your memory - was Carter Cafritz's (the son of Morris Cafritz who was a real estate developer, one of Washington’s leading commercial and residential builders from the early 1920's to the mid-60's) wealthy ex-wife who was reported to apparently be a heroin addict and died of an overdose in 1970:

When it came to getting money Charlie went for what he knew. Her name was Charlene, a boot and whip-style girl with a curvy body. I read later that she was some kind of heiress, but he never mentioned it. He had met her at a party in Beverly Hills and invited her to The Ranch. She didn't come. She had invited him to her ranch in Nevada, and instead of going alone, he asked Sandy, Brenda, Paul, and me to go with him.

Charlene's Nevada ranch had an old-time hotel with a cowboy cafe at the front. Tired and hungry from the overnight drive, we went in for breakfast. Charlie sent one of the workers to let Charlene know that he had arrived. I almost missed seeing her. She was coming toward Charlie, but, after seeing the rest of us, she wheeled on her high heeled boots and let the screen door slam behind her. He went out to talk to her, and pretty soon an employee showed the rest of us to a bare rustic room with two beds, no telephone, and no TV. I don't know what gave me the impression that this ranch was more about women than horses, but I knew about Nevada's Mustang Ranch and I was beginning to think that Charlene might be running such an establishment. In any case, it was not an entertaining trip for us - we slept most of the time - and the next day Charlie returned to say we were leaving. As we drove away, he said that he had offered Charlene a place with us, but she didn't want it. I found out later that she had offered him a Cadillac, but he refused it. Apparently, this wasn't about stuff or money.


that name, rather unique, I wonder if there's any relation to...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Cafritz

Julia Cafritz is an American musician and guitarist who was a member of Pussy Galore and Free Kitten. She is regarded as a cult figure from the New York City noise music scene of the 1990s.
Early life
Cafritz was born in Washington, DC, the daughter of Jennifer (née Stats) and Conrad Cafritz, a real estate developer with a personal fortune of over $100 million.She has a younger sister named Daisy von Furth, and two brothers, Eric and Matthew Cafritz. Her grandfather was the multimillionaire real estate developer and philanthropist Morris Cafritz.
Cafritz has a B.A. and M.A. from New York University, having dropped out of Brown University after forming Pussy Galore.
In 1985, guitarist Julia Cafritz and fellow Brown University classmate, Jon Spencer on vocals and guitar, and John Hammill on drums, formed the punk noise band Pussy Galore. In May 1986 they moved to New York City.
In 1989, Cafritz left Pussy Galore and formed the short-lived all-girl group STP. STP released one single and toured with Nirvana and Sonic Youth. Cafritz joined fellow CBGBs Record Canteen clerk Ned Hayden's group, the Action Swingers.
In 1992, she formed Free Kitten, a musical collaboration with Sonic Youth's Kim Gordon, drummer Yoshimi from the Boredoms and Pavement bassist, Mark Ibold. They released records and toured on and off through 1997.
In 2008, Cafritz, Gordon and Yoshimi recorded and released Inherit on Ecstatic Peace Records after a ten-year hiatus.


Of course there is!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_Cafritz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw5Vy8fKpYI
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mv9e ... 171-v16n10
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Large_(clothing_brand)
https://youtu.be/ewRjZoRtu0Y
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/ce ... le9811303/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NXIVM
https://medium.com/@leahcallahansings/i ... 0694bfe045

What if ... the entire youth culture of the 1960s was created not as a grass-roots challenge to the status quo, but as a cynical exercise in discrediting and marginalizing the budding anti-war movement and creating a fake opposition that could be easily controlled and led astray? And what if the harassment these folks were subjected to was largely a stage-managed show designed to give the leaders of the counterculture some much-needed ‘street cred’? What if, in reality, they were pretty much all playing on the same team?


What if...we change that 6 to a 7, then an 8 and then a 9, and so on until all music eventually is owned by one corporation, down-loaded onto a single circuit and lost in a black hole?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Univ ... udios_fire
"O Oysters," said the Carpenter,
"You've had a pleasant run!
Shall we be trotting home again?'
But answer came there none--
And this was scarcely odd, because
They'd eaten every one.
User avatar
annie aronburg
 
Posts: 1406
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 8:57 pm
Location: Smokanagan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: celebrity fashion cults

Postby Harvey » Tue May 26, 2020 9:54 pm

annie aronburg » Tue May 26, 2020 7:46 am wrote:
What if ... the entire youth culture of the 1960s was created not as a grass-roots challenge to the status quo, but as a cynical exercise in discrediting and marginalizing the budding anti-war movement and creating a fake opposition that could be easily controlled and led astray? And what if the harassment these folks were subjected to was largely a stage-managed show designed to give the leaders of the counterculture some much-needed ‘street cred’? What if, in reality, they were pretty much all playing on the same team?


What if...we change that 6 to a 7, then an 8 and then a 9, and so on until all music eventually is owned by one corporation, down-loaded onto a single circuit and lost in a black hole?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Univ ... udios_fire


This has been my thesis for some time. The difference is that I don't ascribe it, necessarily, to conscious human planning and ingenuity. Much of the blank space in many conspiracy theories can easily be filled by the 'organising principle' as conscious/unconscious designer.

By way of example, take a random insect, an organism desperately trying to survive. Due to it's size it's easy for predators to locate and pick it off. Somehow, as a group, this insect formulates a coherent and conscious desire, "I would love to look like a dried up leaf so that things which would normally eat me just pass on by." Somehow over time this organism experiences useful birth defects which lead to an insect that looks like a leaf. How were the precise genetic changes made, including all of the intermediate changes which were neither useful nor survivable, to allow this insect to look like a leaf? The present scientific explanation is that these changes take place over unimaginable times scales wherein all possible random genetic changes occurred while only the useful ones were preserved through their usefulness, their ability to confer a reproductive advantage. But this description doesn't really fit the scale of the bill.

If we imagine that all life conveys bio-feedback to some level of a conscious thinking self, perhaps even the same self existing throughout all life but with many different faces, a vast but compartmentalised self, which has the capability to shuffle genes around, and there are indeed such examples in nature at the lowest levels of being, to create complex results through fairly minor changes. It can do this through knowing the effects beforehand, it can anticipate future effects of small changes here and now (independent of time in some specific but not impossible way). All this speculative entity would need to effect is the first strike of the billiard ball while physics + life do the rest.

Imagine an animal in a life or death situation, it has an appreciation of it's predicament, it feels anguish because it knows this predicament could have been avoided or mitigated, it has specific goals as yet undone, things it wished to do, things this independent consciousness, let's call it Consciousness X, is alerted to by the level of anguish. Perhaps Consciousness X zooms in, attracted by this anguish, to see what happened and what else needs to be done in future. It does this for all lifeforms from bacteria to human beings. The data from each animal is useful. The animal in it's moment of extremis, in it's death throes, in it's pain and suffering records those final moments or the information is somehow recorded for it, and something exists which can help future generations navigate the same peril but better. And so on. Sheldrakes Morphic field fulfils this role.

Imagine all of this going on for countless millennia. Imagine a life form develops which can hack these and other natural mechanisms. Imagine it can alter it's future forms with a higher degree of precision. Imagine it becomes fully self aware. Imagine it believes that everything it does is due to it's own cleverness, rather than to billions of years of trial and error plus this mysterious Consciousness X, as already speculated. As countless self improving iterations of self become available for analysis, self itself evolves.

This is something akin to where we are now in my view. We have godlike powers we've inherited and we have godlike powers we've created, but we don't know who, what or why we are, yet we create explanations of all of these things and pass those on to Consciousness X and to ourselves via culture, even as Consciousness X attempts to pass its view on to us. Perhaps some people exist who can create complex organisations of other organisms through asking this central intelligence, Consciousness X, to provide them. Everything from a rain dance to a complex chain of espionage have such effects. These things aren't necessarily designed by us, as much as the desire is registered by a higher consciousness and acted upon to create survival opportunities. Imagine these processes are 'bio-hacked,' and produced on demand by motivated players. God as slave to man.

The net realisation should be that we can change it all, today, by believing different things to those we currently believe, by having different goals, values, knowledge and understanding. The horror is that those who have hi-jacked these complex interactions which are comprised of all life, do not really understand that they are in fact alive. Their best scientific model was, for a time, that we and they were an illusion of conscious life, not really conscious and only apparently alive, the corollary of which is that all other life be treated accordingly, as lifeless and unconscious.

All magic, all unexplained phenomena, all experience of the spirit occurs from within these natural life systems in my view, barely understood, hardly recognised except mostly, unconsciously, and affecting us profoundly at all times in all places. The fact of consciousness is amazing enough, the fact of existence is doubly so. Consciousness + existence should spur us to better things but regularly ends up being realised as some alpha male wet dream, for obvious enough biological and social reasons, but without realising we could make those reasons less obvious and thus escape the fate we've seemingly designed for ourselves and which appears to be coming toward us in an onrushing conclusion.

When Anders Behring Breivik was blowing up his country's government and shooting the children of it's brightest and best on Utoya island, he was obeying some organising instinct none of us, nor even him could see directly. He made a stab at it in his manifesto, but his manifesto was also the clearest argument against him acting alone, it contained too many complex moving parts outside his conscious horizon, it was visionary in some senses which contradict his narrow racial narrative and his limited political perspective. He was created and in turn he created an imperative and in turn this imperative created for him the possibility of a seemingly improbable series of events becoming possible. What he was not doing was acting alone. Indeed, even if he believed he was, an organising principle was listening to or driving him on, to the degree that it's effects were not within his control or even within his conscious horizon, but they were well within the conscious horizon of Consciousness X. Likewise Manson. Likewise all the rest of them.

Human desire can warp natural systems in all sorts of ways. It should be used sparingly and with considerable maturity. Yet we live in a culture which is dedicated to eliciting desires. This is not accidental. It is the machinery of life and evolution co-opted to unnatural ends. As I have speculated before, we might well, through life and evolution, be the way nature has created for moving the seeds of life to distant pastures, farther afield than anywhere on earth. Our dreams of space may not even be ours. This does not necessitate that we shall ever consciously realise that the source of our inventiveness is entirely outside ourselves, even if it were. I do believe it is, but the majority view is fairly parochial and arranged against such a realisation. There are the glimmerings of the beginning of a dialogue with our nature, with nature herself, with Consciousness X, but perhaps it is far too late and perhaps far too little can be done. The signs are there to be followed, to be misunderstood, mocked, derided, ignored or acted upon unwisely.

Hope some of that makes sense to someone.
And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4165
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 49 guests