Just How Astro-Turfed Were The 1960's & 70s Counter Cultures?

It seems in hindsight, that at its core, there was a premeditated psy-op at play.

Just how deep did it go?

The fact is that they were minute scenes, based around a few scenesters in London, New York, California. The amount of actual protagonists in 'swinging London', was tiny. But the entertainment, publishing, music industries all blew it all up way out of all recognition, then, and in it's wake ever since.

This article here is somewhat dubious, seems to have a lot of reach, but also no doubt some truth too. I dont buy the notion that likes of Beatles & Stones were just autonotoms, being fed music and lines, in the manner of actors. That seems absurd.

However, its clear these groups would have orbiters, management, hangers on etc that would be in-pay 'influencers'. Bohemian players that would turn up with books, art, ideas for songs, drugs, easy women etc. Somewhat like Jeffrey Epstein, grooming them to put in certain Masonic and Occultists influences to their songs. I think that is very credible, and the most likely summation of how it was subverted.

With the demographic weight of teenagers, flush with cash and living in a safe and otherwise unknowing society, there was always going to be a lot of energy in the Boomers. To influence and lead this energy into a chaotic and malign hedonistic spin would be pretty easy for those inclined.

Kick down the doors of academia, as shock troops in the 60s, then embed and subvert the whole wider institution of it at all levels in the 70s, 80s and 90s.

Never mind tear apart the social fabric, the casual sex, the destruction of old religious practise in place of 'exotic' mumbo jumbo from the Orient.

As i say, take this article with a pinch of salt, there are degrees of truth in it though, I'm sure.

 
Surprised this subject's not got any replies. Surely the 60s were the great breaking point of the cultural wars. Our enemies won and everything else since then, has by degrees, stemmed from it.

When you look into the likes of Tavistock, founded in 1947, there's a lot of red flags that the Counter Culture was anything but the organic consequence of demographics & financial freedom.
 
We'vecovered it elsewhere on this board. Yes the 60s counterculture is a deep state psyop which destroyed the Boomers and subverted western civilization, arguably the most successful social engineering project before covid.

Whats the thread?
 

Guitarman

Pelican
As a musician myself I'm quite sceptical about the blog post linked here.

While it's true that the Beatles and Stones could not write music on a treble Cleff that would not stop them writing the songs they did. And the idea that those two bands started the hippy counter- culture is simply nonsense- both bands started off as being heavily influenced by 1950's Rock n Roll, they jumped on the Psychedelic band wagon years later.

The Beatles were also influenced by US soul bands and the Stones by Blues bands for years before they both went counterculture for all of about two years. As for the Beatles if they had a secret fifth songwriter it would have been George Martin, not the German chap mentioned.
 
As a musician myself I'm quite sceptical about the blog post linked here.

While it's true that the Beatles and Stones could not write music on a treble Cleff that would not stop them writing the songs they did. And the idea that those two bands started the hippy counter- culture is simply nonsense- both bands started off as being heavily influenced by 1950's Rock n Roll, they jumped on the Psychedelic band wagon years later.

The Beatles were also influenced by US soul bands and the Stones by Blues bands for years before they both went counterculture for all of about two years. As for the Beatles if they had a secret fifth songwriter it would have been George Martin, not the German chap mentioned.

It's not a very credible article as a whole, but has some interesting angles.

The idea that they were dumb autonotom 'actors' is retarded. It's not hard to find some ambitious young lads with an ear for a tune, where i think the influence comes in is in steering them via 'new influences', eg mysticism, drugs, promiscuous sex, occultism etc, then promoting them via your (((friends))) in the media.

It really wouldn't take much to influence such a small scene as 'swinging London' of the early sixties, which was still relatively trad. Lot of bars, kids listening to soul, motown, rhythm & blues etc.

You just find who the top local musicians are, have some 'influencers' (agents who are all given large allowances, can throw lavish parties, are charming and offer novelty') and drip the poison into their ears from there.

The musicians are often flawed people, easily swayed into degeneracy and are always chasing the 'cool new thing'. It's pretty easy to see how a co-ordinated psy-op couldve happened on both sides of Atlantic around same time. Especially when you add a novelty overload 'wonderdrug' like LSD into the mix.
 

Thomas More

Hummingbird
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JVAW58K/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

This book addresses some of these points, but not directly from the viewpoint we tend to take on RVF. The book points out that the core group of musicians that led a revolution in US pop music all congregated around the Laurel Canyon area in the hills north of Hollywood. There was a US military base right in the neighborhood, that was a secret facility for making propaganda films. Many or most of the key figures in the Laurel Canyon music scene were children of important families, or children of parents with significant government positions. For example, Jim Morrison's father was an Admiral. The book also highlights a large number of murders that were connected to this scene at least tangentially, including the Manson murders.

As I said, the view around here on RVF is not directly presented. We would say that the counter cultural revolution was promoted by cultural Marxists with a very heavy level of involvement by Jews. It may have been engineered in part by the CIA. All of this is part of a general satanic effort to undermine Western Christian civilization.

I don't think the musicians thought of themselves as agents of societal destruction. They were just useful idiots. Somehow they were introduced to these countercultural ideas, then the ones who picked up these ideas and ran with them musically found doors opened for them, so that success came easily.

Even the puppet masters who pushed this thing were probably not completely self aware. They were caught up in a satanic "spirit of the age", where it just seemed natural to them to facilitate the pozz. They may have viewed themselves as consciously trying to tear down traditional society, but somehow they believed this was a good thing, which would help usher in an enlightened age. Were they evil, or were they just fools? I would say yes.
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
Dave McGowan died of cancer, he might have been targeted, here is an interview of him on the subject of his book and the 60s counterculture psyop.

half hour rundown:

longer interview:

His book and other writings, including his excellent work on the Apollo missions and 9/11 are available on his website, which is still maintained by friends and family 6 years after his death:



Another seminal work on the subject is John Atwill's "Manufacturing the Deadhead", into the psyop of the Grateful Dead, who arguably were the main vector for the propagation of the most destructive drug of the 1960s, LSD. The Greatful Dead were closely connected to the deep state, most of them were freemasons, some with intelligence backgrounds. Jerry Garcia was a hardcore kabbalist, Bob Weir was a Bohemian Grove regular.


This site also has a rundown on the deep state actors and methods in the 60s psyop.

Most of the main artists involved were actually very much aware they were tools of social engineering, including the Beatles, Stones, Bowie, Led Zep (hardcore satanists), most metal bands and especially the Grateful Dead. Many did recant and became critical of the message and example they were setting, some paying for that with their lives (Jimi Hendrix, John Lennon, Kurt Cobain, Prince, Brian Jones to name a few).
 
Last edited:

Hermetic Seal

Kingfisher
Gold Member
I've thought about this a lot. The media has been creating a Narrative for a long time, and I no longer have much confidence that what they tell us about the 60s was true. We're told that it was Free Love and hippies everywhere all the time, but it seems far more likely that the prevalence of this stuff is blown wildly out or proportion. No doubt that these movements (and the music, entertainment, etc.) was highly influential in the long term, but was somewhat underground at the time.
 

Belgrano

Ostrich
Gold Member
There's also this book, the author appeared on a Joe Rogan podcast episode. Pretty interesting.

9a6a6c19243accb80f0597ddf957fb5e.jpg


 

Grow Bag

Kingfisher
For what it's worth, I've read Dave McGowan and listened to most all the podcasts, etc., on this subject. One of the many reasons I stopped listening to Jan Irvin was because, despite the fact he advocated critical thinking, his arguments were all too often fallacious. Usually it was something like: Mr X was often seen in the same club where Mr Y and Mr Z drank, therefore he was a spook. His arguments were all too often based on tenuous associations and correlations. At least Dave McGowan was intelligent and subtle enough to allow his readers or those who interviewed him to make the inferences. He allowed his work to be left as a mystery of interesting incidents, anomalies and relationships. Conspiracies by their very nature are hard cases to crack.

My take on the Laurel Canyon thing, and the 60s and 70s in general, is that where evil flourishes, Satan is more than willing to inspire, gift and connect people. That many of these boomer musicians had fathers with military connections is hardly surprising. It would be more surprising if they hadn't. There is no need of grooming, secret meetings, handlers, etc., when the end result of the counter culture is youth throwing away their productive years in a haze of drugs and debauchery, then it makes perfect sense to me, given my current cosmological understanding, that rock star role models will be dutifully inspired and those connections facilitated. The devil writes the best tunes after all and he's always happy to hook his people up with the right people. Conceptually it's the inversion of grace, a sort of anti-grace if you like.
 

Blade Runner

Pelican
There is no need of grooming, secret meetings, handlers, etc., when the end result of the counter culture is youth throwing away their productive years in a haze of drugs and debauchery, then it makes perfect sense to me, given my current cosmological understanding, that rock star role models will be dutifully inspired and those connections facilitated.
I'm still trying to get a grasp on the generational aspect of doing the evil ones' bidding. Some have suggested that there is a weird bloodlines live forever mentality of the Rothschild types, but mostly these pathetic humans (like Gates, Schwab, etc) are clearly going to die soon, and are feeble and old, to boot. Their egos must be so big that their souls are completely clouded. They actually believe this live forever nonsense (upload your consciousness, cryogenic xyz, fountain of youth potions, etc)??? Its 2nd grade storybook materially for some of the "smartest" guys around. Bizarre, indeed.
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
I've thought about this a lot. The media has been creating a Narrative for a long time, and I no longer have much confidence that what they tell us about the 60s was true. We're told that it was Free Love and hippies everywhere all the time, but it seems far more likely that the prevalence of this stuff is blown wildly out or proportion. No doubt that these movements (and the music, entertainment, etc.) was highly influential in the long term, but was somewhat underground at the time.

That is not true, acts like the Beatles, Stones etc were hardly marginal. You look at period pictures of college campuses from the late 60s, TV shows, films and the contrast with the early 60s is incredibly stark. The 1960s were the period of greatest and fastest change in North America by a wide shot. Young people dressed, acted in a radically different way.

Later youth cultures, like the punk and new wave movements in the late 70s were indeed more underground, but the hippie culture was so big it took over youth culture, at least in the big cities and coastal areas.
 
I've thought about this a lot. The media has been creating a Narrative for a long time, and I no longer have much confidence that what they tell us about the 60s was true. We're told that it was Free Love and hippies everywhere all the time, but it seems far more likely that the prevalence of this stuff is blown wildly out or proportion. No doubt that these movements (and the music, entertainment, etc.) was highly influential in the long term, but was somewhat underground at the time.

This is it, it's really just mass exaggerated in its wake. Bit like another 'historical even't we daren't mention.

The scene in UK was literally just a bunch of art school, fashion designers & rich kid drop outs in London. All centred round Carnaby Street in the West End. It was just a fashion wave, people grew their hair out a bit, and wore big collars. Wow.

Polls show that amongst 18-35s in UK, they were overwhelmingly in favour of the Rolling Stones going to prison for cannabis, after they were busted in 1967. Then there was the famous Times Opinion Piece "Who Would Break A Butterfly On A Wheel"and it got overturned by the judge.

In 1968 Enoch Powell made his Rivers Of Blood speech, again the population was wildly in favour, around 85% across the board, of his policy of expatriation back to the colonies for the third world immigrants.

Yet watch any doc about 60s, the BBC will play jaunty Ska music and have montages of smartly dressed West Indians getting off the boat in their sunday best, while the narrator talkings about "soon Britain would be dancing to a new beat". Then play the same tired footage of a few skinheads dancing with blacks in a dancehall, and projecting a peace and love narrative between the working class and their new neighbours.

Never mind the relentless 'everyone was on drugs, it was a wild time, if you can remember it you werent there!'.

Mods used speed, LSD or pot barely touched working class people, it was for a tiny minority of middle class students (a fraction of pop back then).

Fact is that the type of people who were in that scene, have gone into film music arts fashion etc, and then projected their youth as some sort of wild halcyon time. The fact is the age was halcyon, the cheap housing, well maintained society, the fact there was approx 45m people on an island that now houses close to 70m. Lack of modern consumerist culture etc etc

The 70s was the popularisation of much of the superficial sixties styles, but by that point it was just a fashion. As Danny in the 1969 set Withnail & I says, "they're selling hippy wigs in Woolworths, man'.

Maybe there's a distinction between UK & US of this time. USA was certainly a darker place, Vietnam loomed over it all, militarising the hippies in a way that never happened in UK.

This is the West End of 67 London, the absolute epicentre of it all in UK. And even then, with a camera naturally attracted to the exotic and the peacocks of the fashinistas and hippes, you can see how normal most people look.

 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
Maybe there's a distinction between UK & US of this time. USA was certainly a darker place, Vietnam loomed over it all, militarising the hippies in a way that never happened in UK.

There was, it was more pronounced in the US, with for example higher rates of drug use in the general population. Europe has more cultural inertia being an older continent.

As well, there was less influence of the hippie movement and aesthetic on the Continent than in the UK, which is more directly influenced by US trends.

The only periods where you had a similarly drastic cultural change in such a short period might have been the French Revolution, where fashion and attitudes changed dramatically in the span of a few years, and perhaps the Russian Revolution, where they also killed off the aristocrats and clergy and imposed a new aesthetic on their people.

Here is an example with your Slick Willie, your quintessential Boomer. His presidency marks the period where his generation took over, he was the first Boomer president:

Before hippie Willie, Georgetown grad:

1621753129392.png

Two years later hippie Willie at Yale law school with his ball and chain:

XAXwZThQ_R9KCL8dqQJbc3gq9DbF6WWE_StszeuziDw.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 1621753058262.png
    1621753058262.png
    495.5 KB · Views: 6
As a musician myself I'm quite sceptical about the blog post linked here.

While it's true that the Beatles and Stones could not write music on a treble Cleff that would not stop them writing the songs they did. And the idea that those two bands started the hippy counter- culture is simply nonsense- both bands started off as being heavily influenced by 1950's Rock n Roll, they jumped on the Psychedelic band wagon years later.

The Beatles were also influenced by US soul bands and the Stones by Blues bands for years before they both went counterculture for all of about two years. As for the Beatles if they had a secret fifth songwriter it would have been George Martin, not the German chap mentioned.

It's not a very credible article as a whole, but has some interesting angles.

The idea that they were dumb autonotom 'actors' is retarded. It's not hard to find some ambitious young lads with an ear for a tune, where i think the influence comes in is in steering them via 'new influences', eg mysticism, drugs, promiscuous sex, occultism etc, then promoting them via your (((friends))) in the media.

It really wouldn't take much to influence such a small scene as 'swinging London' of the early sixties, which was still relatively trad. Lot of bars, kids listening to soul, motown, rhythm & blues etc.

You just find who the top local musicians are, have some 'influencers' (agents who are all given large allowances, can throw lavish parties, are charming and offer novelty') and drip the poison into their ears from there.

The musicians are often flawed people, easily swayed into degeneracy and are always chasing the 'cool new thing'. It's pretty easy to see how a co-ordinated psy-op couldve happened on both sides of Atlantic around same time. Especially when you add a novelty overload 'wonderdrug' like LSD into the mix.

All of modern music is degenerate because it promotes vice while love ballads have to be the stupidest of all genres because it promotes romance.

The most intellectually sophisticated genres of music are classical, military, techno, industrial, and horror because it represents the power of the White Race.

Listen to the example below, it is very powerful:

 
Last edited:

ScannerLIV

Woodpecker
Techno?

And give example of industrial music

It's funny you mention horror. It makes sense when you think about it. They can be incredibly haunting and well done.

What of pop music in the 20th century? Before 90's and minus hippie/disco crap. There were many good ones made internationally.

No love for jazz?
 
All of modern music is degenerate because it promotes vice while love ballads have to be the stupidest of all genres because it promotes romance.

What is wrong with romance, per se? Not the hijacking and consumerism of the latter decades but romance stems from intimacy and love between a man and a woman. There is absolutely nothing 'degenerate' about that.

Do you feel this way about Shakespeare's Sonnets?
 
Top