What was it about the 1960s?

[ronisron]

Originally Posted by martg

people connected to the Tavistock Institute mostly.

The promotion of drugs by Huxley and Leary, the adoption of The Adorno musical system by bands like the Beatles, these things came from the Tavistock Institute.

The changes in politics in the UK was Hed Heath signing away our sovereignty and in America a coup d'état by members of the military industrial complex took place. and there was the begginning of the enviromental movement, that got subverted as soon as it started.


Crowley once said that he would be remembered as the father of the twentieth century.
The sixties was his decade, the corruption and deliberate shattering of the dreams of a generation.

why didn't it happen again?

It never ended, the plan carries on

Crowley was definitely a big influence on the whole "60's revolution" and especially on pop culture. You're right, that end of it never really went away.

[lizzyking]

...speaking of Beatles (specifically Lennon in this instance), and Bowie...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waV9et1AfDo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waV9et1AfDo

¿ @4:43-44 ?

[wake_up_bomb]

Originally Posted by decode reality

Well said. It is tempting to look at that period through rose tinted lens. But all in all I think it was a valuable and creative time in many areas.
Whilst some of those changes may have been manipulated 'from the shadows', I don't think it was true of the entire era.

I think it was a very important time, a seminal time, but I think people often make the mistake of thinking that it was more aware and revolutionary than today, which simply isn't true. The main body of public opinion was still incredibly reactionary, far more so than today.

I was reminded of this video while I was thinking about this topic. This is Garry Kasparov talking about his feelings of the IBM corproration in 1997, when he played a chess match against a computer created by IBM. This is a highly intelligent person, yet his views expressed at the start of the video, seem phenomenally naive.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

It's interesting that he says the following: "I think the match (now) has to be placed into the context of general corporate ethics. Before Enron collapsed, this kind of behaviour was widely accepted by the general public. The public never questioned this trust in the corporate behaviour, because it liked the results. Now we recognise - we, as a public - that a corporation must be as responsible to the public as a government".

This is why you get people like Brzezinski saying the following:

"For the first time in human history almost all of humanity is politically activated, politically conscious and politically interactive. The resulting global political activism is generating a surge in the quest for personal dignity, cultural respect and economic opportunity in a world painfully scarred by memories of centuries-long alien colonial or imperial domination.

[The] major world powers, new and old, also face a novel reality: while the lethality of their military might is greater than ever, their capacity to impose control over the politically awakened masses of the world is at a historic low. To put it bluntly: in earlier times, it was easier to control one million people than to physically kill one million people; today, it is infinitely easier to kill one million people than to control one million people".

http://www.infowars.com/cfr-meeting-...bal-awakening/

Okay, it's not hurting the corporate system. Yet. But they know that it's a possibility, they know that all the people that have woken up to it, will never go back. That's why I think this time is far more revolutionary than the 60s. But could this time exist without the 60s; absolutely not.

[cafe beelzebub]

Everything goes around in waves, the 60's were a pre curser. The real revolution / evolution is coming up!

[cathar]

FWIW..i have been thinking lately about starting a thread about how all the 60s rockers are

almost 70 or over 70....Jagger will be 69 in august...Lennon would be 0ver 70 now...

Anyway..it wasn't a good thread idea but i just thought i't throw it out here on this thread.

All those guys ,Dylan,Townsend,Richards etc,were born during the war..pretty much..1940,41,42....Ringo is over 70...Bill Wyman is 73 or 74....

Chuck Berry is probably almost 80 by now.....

the passing of an era.......

[martg]

Originally Posted by decode reality

I think in general there was a feeling of 'let's try something different', which was positive. People in general were so receptive to that idea that inevitably there could be negative results.

Do please check out my thread on Adorno. I personally have real doubts about his influence upon The Beatles:

http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=128693

Don't get me wrong I agree the spirit of the sixties, the drive for peace and freedom was a very good thing in my opinion, but it was subverted and manipulated.

Instead of becoming a force for change it became nothing more than a generation taking drugs and using slogans, and because nothing did change despite the sincerest wishes of most people, they became even more disallusioned.

Peace, Love and Freedom became empty slogans instead of the change everyone wants.

I will read your thread on Adorno, thanks for the link.

[lizzyking]

http://forum.davidicke.com/showthrea...post1059726836

"...why hasn't there really been anything since?" Any comments/replies/thoughts since^?

~~~~~~~~~~

Search returns, 'Pentagon Co-opting':
http://bit.ly/fBjZ6j

"Each Corporate group directly controlled by the Pentagon..."

And speaking of Pentagon, Papers, and Beatles; here is Mike Gravel does the Beatles, again: http://y2u.be/bA2LgJviH9w (Gravel, who figured predominantly in the Pentagon Papers drama. See: http://bit.ly/gxJan7)


~~~~~~~

The Pentagon Triumphant on the Media Battlefield

{snip}
And that was just the beginning of the way, after years of post-Vietnam War planning, the Pentagon took control of the media battlefield and so the popular portrayal of American-style war.
{/snip}

http://www.thenation.com/article/154...ia-battlefield

On the question of whether the Pentagon maintained an illegal covert domestic propaganda program -- and on the broader question of whether the American media's political coverage is largely shaped and controlled by the U.S. Government -- I don't believe it's possible to obtain more conclusive evidence than this:





http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/gl...05/10/analysts

Flash Forward...

Bad enough that spammers are creating fake Facebook accounts that acquire connections with unsuspecting people, then inundate them with crap. Now, though, the U.S. military is looking for software and services to manage upwards of 500 fake online personas designed to interact with social media, presumably including such sites as Facebook and Twitter.

http://www.bnet.com/blog/technology-...-media-update/

And wast but not weast....FSD: http://bit.ly/ej9gNS



Does any of that perhaps factor into why there hasn't been anything since? Or has there been something since? Perhaps anything since has seemed and/or seems less visible, because of military-industrial complex efforts toward manufacturing consensus 'reality'?