Why didn't the hippies get into the jfk assassination ?

[Cliff Varnell]

Hi Cliff, have you read the Sinister Forces trilogy?

Danny, have you ever read Satanic Panic: The Creation of a Contemporary Legend, by Jeffrey Victor?

http://www.amazon.com/Satanic-Panic-Crea...081269192X

I haven't, but I found the blurb interesting.

Sociologist Victor began his involvement with satanic-cult phenomena by investigating a local panic centered in southwestern New York state. After an introductory section, his book begins with a description of this research, then proceeds with an excellent general review of recent fear about satanic cults in the U.S. He concludes that there is no evidence for the actual existence of organized satanic cults.

Such a conclusion would under-cut Peter Levenda's Sinister Forces narrative, or no?

[Jan Klimkowski]

Hi Cliff, have you read the Sinister Forces trilogy?

Cliff - well, have you?

[Keith Millea]

Folks,

How in HELL did this thread transform into Satanism?

Cliff,may I suggest that you start a new thread about punk rock.I don't mean this in a hostile way,but at this point,with all the youtube videos posted,my old clunker computer can barely load this thread anymore.

Again,this is not hostile.I think it would be great to have a punk rock thread.I really enjoyed your stories about your adventures in Reno,and creating hard-core punk there,as at the same time,we were doing the same thing,only we were playing Grateful Dead songs,and improvising around poetry.We also could never find a drummer,so I can relate to your experiences.LOL

So,put something real cool together.Magda can move these punk rock videos to the new thread.They just don't belong here.

:hippy:

[Cliff Varnell]

Folks,

How in HELL did this thread transform into Satanism?

It's a natural progression from the title of the thread -- "Why didn't the hippies get into the jfk assassination?"

It has been suggested that the hippies were drugged up and their culture a creature of MK/Ultra.

It has been suggested that such notorious 60's figures as Charles Manson and Anton LaVey may have played a part in "sinister forces" controlled by elite Unspeakable interests.

I argue otherwise.

Cliff,may I suggest that you start a new thread about punk rock.I don't mean this in a hostile way,but at this point,with all the youtube videos posted,my old clunker computer can barely load this thread anymore.

Again,this is not hostile.I think it would be great to have a punk rock thread.I really enjoyed your stories about your adventures in Reno,and creating hard-core punk there,as at the same time,we were doing the same thing,only we were playing Grateful Dead songs,and improvising around poetry.We also could never find a drummer,so I can relate to your expieriences.LOL

So,put something real cool together.Magda can move these punk rock videos to the new thread.They just don't belong here.

:hippy:

I find it important to look at the long view of 60's culture and observe what followed in these various locales.

It has been suggested that there was a "drug and music movement" which emerged from Laurel Canyon in 1966.

This is false. It's important to see what music arose out of what cities to see where particular "movements" came from. This is crucial to the charge made that the USG "created" the counter-culture in Laurel Canyon.

The pyschedelic movement came out of San Francisco '65-'67. The arts scene in Laurel Canyon was already well established before the arrival of LSD, so there was no "movement" spearheaded there. They were following San Francisco.

The country-rock phenomenon emerged from Laurel Canyon later in the decade. It eventually gave us the Eagles.

In New York the Velvet Underground and Andy Warhol were influenced by psychedelics but -- get right down to brass tacks -- New York New York was more about heroin and S&M than acid and free love.

After a healthy dose of Detroit rocknoll -- MC5, the Stooges -- the Big Apple eventually gave us the New York Dolls, and then the Ramones.

It's important to keep the trajectory of these developments in mind when evaluating the claim that the USG conspired to create the "counter-culture."

Music trends seem to defy such top down models.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Cliff - congratulations.

You haven't read Levenda's Sinister Forces trilogy.

You haven't read the many threads exploring MK-ULTRA and its chosen subjects here on DPF.

You have picked the dumbest parts of McGowan's article, and used them to create a Straw Man.

You have then burnt that Straw Man down - ignoring the fact that it is has very little relevance to the hypotheses explored by Levenda or advanced in many threads here at DPF.

Good for you.

Perhaps this thread can now continue to explore the theme of the nature of the relationship between the counterculture and the JFK assassination research movement.

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff - congratulations.

You haven't read Levenda's Sinister Forces trilogy.

I watched 25:20 of this video:



The smears and lies about "Satanism" are egregious.

Anyone who claims that Satanists seek gain at the expense of others doesn't understand Satanism, hasn't done their homework

Anyone who claims that the Church of Satan has "common ground" with Klansmen and Neo-Nazis is ignorant.

You haven't read the many threads exploring MK-ULTRA and its chosen subjects here on DPF.

And your certainty that I'm unfamiliar with the subject is based on that?

You have picked the dumbest parts of McGowan's article, and used them to create a Straw Man.

Jan, I don't follow you. I picked the dumbest parts of McGowan's article to pooh-pooh the notion that Zappa, Morrison et al were sinister operatives.

What Strawman? Please explain.

You have then burnt that Straw Man down - ignoring the fact that it is has very little relevance to the hypotheses explored by Levenda or advanced in many threads here at DPF.

I addressed Levenda in separate posts. I addressed Levenda's ignorance on the subject of Satanism, and my disdain for his okey-doke bullshit about Manson.

My comments about Laurel Canyon were in reference to a different article, separate from Levenda.

What's wrong with that?

Good for you.

Perhaps this thread can now continue to explore the theme of the nature of the relationship between the counterculture and the JFK assassination research movement.

Maybe you should have a sense of how the counter-culture progressed into the 70's and beyond, what lessons others learned from "counter culture" and what values remained shared between the hippies of the 60's and the punks who followed, and what was different about them.

Then you would realize why punk rockers were more apt to take on the JFK assassination than hippies.

[Jan Klimkowski]

As far as Anton LaVey goes, I must in full disclosure say that I am a passing acquaintance of his eldest daughter Karla LaVey. She's a friend of an old friend of mine, and what I know about Satanism I got from talking about it with my old friend.

I've never discussed Satanism with Karla LaVey, but from what I've heard of her family I just don't see the Unspeakable.

The smears and lies about "Satanism" are egregious.

Anyone who claims that Satanists seek gain at the expense of others doesn't understand Satanism, hasn't done their homework

Anyone who claims that the Church of Satan has "common ground" with Klansmen and Neo-Nazis is ignorant.

Cliff - care to square the circle between these two comments of yours in this thread?

[R.K. Locke]

From article link above:

Most today assume that the CIA and the other intelligence-gathering organizations of the U.S. government are controlled by the democratic process. They therefore believe that MK-ULTRA's role in creating the psychedelic movement was accidental "blowback." Very few have even considered the possibility that the entire "counterculture" was social engineering planned to debase America's culture as the name implies. The authors believe, however, that there is compelling evidence that indicates that the psychedelic movement was deliberately created. The purpose of this plan was to establish a neo-feudalism by the debasing of the intellectual abilities of young people to make them as easy to control as the serfs of the Dark Ages. One accurate term used for the individuals who were victims of this debasing was "Deadhead," which is an equivocation for a "dead mind" or "a drugged, thoughtless person."

R K Locke wrote:

Whilst I don't necessarily subscribe to some of the more speculative assertions that the authors make, I do think that the general thrust of their argument is sound.

R K,I'd like to understand if you think these assertions above are generally sound.I'm just trying to get a read on what your position is.

My own feelings are that they are not sound.In fact,I would think they are the opposite of soundness.

1-Psychedelics to debase the intellectual abilities of young people?

It's been my view that psychedelic substances ENHANCE intellectual abilities.

2-to make them as easy to control as the serfs of the Dark Ages.

It's been my view that psychedelics lead away from control and towards free thought.

3-One accurate term used for the individuals who were victims of this debasing was "Deadhead," which is an equivocation for a "dead mind" or "a drugged, thoughtless person."

As a proud Deadhead,it's my view that this quote is totally insulting.

Thoughts R K???

Keith, thank you for the questions. Allow me to clarify.

Whilst some of the assertions in the segment that you quote unquestionably require further elaboration/justification, I think it's important to view the information provided in the aggregate.

In the essay, the authors show--quite convincingly and using primary documents--that there are clear, verifiable links between R. Gordon Wasson/Henry Luce and the popularisation of psychedelic culture in America.

Wasson's direct boss at J. P. Morgan was Henry P. Davison Jr. Davison was a senior partner and generally regarded as Morgan's personal emissary.[20] As it turns out, it was Henry P. Davison who essentially created (or at least funded) the Time-Life magazines for J.P. Morgan in 1923. After a row with Henry Luce for publishing an article against the war for Britain in Life, Davison "became the company's first investor in Time magazine and a company director."[21]

Another J.P. Morgan partner, Dwight Morrow, also helped to finance the Time-Life start-up.

Davison kept Henry Luce in charge of the company as president, as he and Luce were both members of Yale's Skull and Bones secret society, being initiated in 1920. In 1946 Davison and Luce then made C. D. Jackson, former head of U.S. Psychological Warfare, vice-president of Time-Life. It seems to me that the entire operation at Time-Life was purely for spreading propaganda to the American public for the purposes of the intelligence community, J.P. Morgan, and the elite.

And:

A New York investment banker, Wasson was well acquainted with the movers and shakers of the Establishment. Therefore, it was natural that he should turn to his friend Henry Luce, publisher of Life, when he needed a public forum in which to announce his discoveries.[25] ~ Graham Harvey

Is it possible that Wasson, the Vice President of J.P. Morgan and co., was no more than an enthusiastic amateur ethnomycologist with an interesting story to tell? It certainly is. But is it likely? I'm not so sure.

Is it likewise possible that the psychedelic movement and attendant counterculture was simply unforeseen "blowback" from MK-Ultra LSD experiments, or not in fact linked to it all? Again, it certainly is. But the alternative scenarios at the very least represent an intriguing and fertile avenue for further research.

There are many possibilities.

Perhaps the counterculture wasn't so much created as "seeded" by the establishment.

Perhaps it was promoted for reasons and purposes that are not covered in the essay.

Perhaps those reasons and purposes were never attained.

Perhaps they were.


One speculative hypothesis would be that the New Age movement that grew out of the "death" of the hippy dream was, on some level, an intended consequence thereof. If one sees the "grand narrative" that I referred to in my initial post (metaphysical connotations aside) in terms of individualism vs. collectivism, then it isn't much of a stretch to imagine how psychedelic drugs might be abused to promote that aim. Where I mostly take issue with the authors is in their depiction of psychedelics as being central to the "debasing of... intellectual abilities" rather than simply one aspect of weaponised culture. As you say yourself, they can often enhance intellectual abilities rather than debase them.

To be fair to the authors, however, they do clarify this point somewhat at the end:

The authors are in disagreement about the use of mind-altering drugs. One believes that we do should not dismiss the potential of these substances as biological tools to open doorways of the mind, and possibly spiritual dimensions; but those who consider these substances as only spiritual tools often ignore their dark side and never consider that they can be easily used as much for control. He recommends they not be used without a prior thorough study in something such as the trivium method, and suggests that, like a knife which may be used to cut your food, and also used to kill; psychedelics can be used to empower or control. It is important for people who use these substances to consider what others think of them who don't use them for spiritual purposes. The other believes that given their provenance, they should not be taken under any circumstances. We must consider: Does the predator think that these substances are tools for spiritual awakening, or for the control of others? What the reader may believe is not necessarily the whole truth.

My own beliefs would be along the lines of those expressed in the italicised section. It is becoming increasingly apparent that there are numerous potential health benefits to psilocybin mushrooms and other psychedelic drugs, above and beyond their abilities to positively alter consciousness when used responsibly. But that does not preclude them from being used as a tool of social control when combined with weaponised culture, psyops, manipulation of the education system and any number of other factors. It is not simply a case of the drugs being good or bad, and we must be wary of conflating explication with exculpation.


Of course, if you have any different theories regarding the genesis and evolution of this fascinating period of history then I would be very happy to hear them. I am always keen to learn more; enlightenment being a process rather than a destination.


Thank you again for the questions. If there's anything I haven't addressed please let me know.

Best to you.

[Cliff Varnell]

Perhaps this thread can now continue to explore the theme of the nature of the relationship between the counterculture and the JFK assassination research movement.

The 60's counter-culture was absorbed into the mainstream pop culture -- and the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community's endless digging of meaningless rabbit holes marks it as an adjunct of the official cover-up.

[Cliff Varnell]

As far as Anton LaVey goes, I must in full disclosure say that I am a passing acquaintance of his eldest daughter Karla LaVey. She's a friend of an old friend of mine, and what I know about Satanism I got from talking about it with my old friend.

I've never discussed Satanism with Karla LaVey, but from what I've heard of her family I just don't see the Unspeakable.

The smears and lies about "Satanism" are egregious.

Anyone who claims that Satanists seek gain at the expense of others doesn't understand Satanism, hasn't done their homework

Anyone who claims that the Church of Satan has "common ground" with Klansmen and Neo-Nazis is ignorant.

Cliff - care to square the circle between these two comments of yours in this thread?

How are they at odds?

I understand Satanism is a self-centric philosophy. As such, it is not given to "cults" since Satanists posit the primacy of their own free will. How can one follow a "cult leader" when one's own free will is paramount?

But this does not grant license to "gain at the expense of others." Indeed, a Satanist may feel the right to destroy someone attempting to gain at their expense.

Me, I'd just call a cop.

So yeah, I've enjoyed light social banter with Karla LaVey and I've enjoyed the shows she's put on and I've never felt the need to discuss Satanism.

I already get it.

Do you?