The decline of rock music

The best sources other than McGowan on the subject of pop music as a societal control tool are Joe Atwill, Jan Irvin*, Jay Dyer and Hans Utter. One seminal work is Atwill's research on the Grateful Dead, Maufacturing the Deadhead:


BTW TorontoSucks, the Beatles inspiration for their name was the Egyptian scarab, it is loaded in occult symbolism rooted in a spell to change society. Very similar to your avatar of Kek, also a symbol rooted in ancient Egyptian occultism casting a transformative spell on society...

Hans Utter has done a lot of very compelling work on symbolism and the deeper aspects of music as a social control tool, here's a good sample:


There is a good deal of recycling on 60s drug culture today, with the ayahuasca millennial cultural phenomenon that's tied in with yoga, tech, DMT etc.

There is as well a techno-tribal, transhumanist strain that is dominating silicon valley culture. Steve Outtrim, a software entrepreneur from NZ and original burner did some great research on that field, also with Jan Irvin:



*Jan Irvin is kind of a weirdo/dork who has done a lot of great work and research but veered off to the dark side a couple of years ago. His viewership collapsed after that.
Thanks so much for this. The only one I was previously aware of was Jay Dyer, who I find a bit, well... pompous and humorless. (Thanks for not including any of his vids. Frankly, I can't really stand to watch him.) I will definitely be checking these other guys out.

PS - Yes, I already knew about the "Beatles/scarab" thing. The name was always credited to John, who gave a throwaway answer at the time about a man appearing on a flaming pie and saying they were the Beatles, then later changing his story and saying he was looking for a name like Buddy Holly's "Crickets." However, I think the truth is that someone else actually chose the name for him/them, based on this occultic imagery. I didn't know about Kek/the frog, though, and will have to look into that some more.
 
Last edited:
Here's a metronome, his DVD has tougher examples to follow, like displacing a beat by a 16th, doesn't sound good, but the skill is ridiculous.

Count four in time, don't lose the pulse. Not necessarily musical, but fun.

Yeah, he's great. I'd never heard this guy before. Thanks for sharing!
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
Thanks so much for this. The only one I was previously aware of was Jay Dyer, who I find a bit, well... pompous and humorless. (Thanks for not including any of his vids. Frankly, I can't really stand to watch him.) I will definitely be checking these other guys out.

PS - Yes, I already knew about the "Beatles/scarab" thing. The name was always credited to John, who gave a throwaway answer at the time about a man appearing on a flaming pie and saying they were the Beatles, then later changing his story and saying he was looking for a name like Buddy Holly's "Crickets." However, I think the truth is that someone else actually chose the name for him/them, based on this occultic imagery. I didn't know about Kek/the frog, though, and will have to look into that some more.

Jay Dyer has his mannerisms that can rub people the wrong way, but he has two stong niches with solid content: decoding Hollywood, and the deeper aspects of modern technocratic thought.

Dr. Hans Utter is a very interesting guy, smart, well-traveled and with a great knowledge of the deeper links between music, sociology and psychology. He's gained good insights through classical music, western and Indian. The one negative aspect of his archived YT work is that is almost all with Jan Irvin, who is a whole lot more annoying that Jay Dyer, although Utter keeps him a bit in check.

Hans Utter wrote a long paper on the very subject of his thread, it's a solid thesis asserting that rock and roll's foundational doctrine is rebellion, so it was bound to consume itself eventually, and those who dived too deep into its sex-drug-rocknroll nihilistic dyonysian maelstrom, here's the intro and link:

Do What Thou Wilt: The Terminus of Rock Rebellion
Hans Utter, Ph.D.


“Do your own thing,” “It’s my life and I’ll do what I want,” and “Do what thou wilt so mete it be” echo throughout the annuals of rock history. What is the origin of this seemingly innocuous philosophy? What does it present, under the garb of self-empowerment and freedom? In order to clearly frame these questions, it is necessary to examine the origins of this philosophy, from medieval novelist Rabelais, Sabbatai Zevi, Hassan-i-Sabbah to the Hellfire Club, Aleister Crowley and a plethora of rock icons. At its core, this philosophy offers individuals a model for interacting with the world that can leave a trail of ruined lives and widespread cultural decay. The introduction of Alesiter Crowley (1875-1941) and his philosophy to a mass audience was spearheaded by two seminal figures in the counterculture—John Lennon and Tim Leary. Appearing twice on the cover of Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967), Crowley’s unmistakable pate and menacing gaze revealed the occultic predilection of rock, something that had been relatively obscured to the general public.

While increasingly shrill voices in the Christian right and anti-communist crusaders such as the John Birch Society repeatedly sounded the alarm regarding the destructive and culturally transformative influence of rock, the vast majority of the pubic viewed the antics and ethics of rock stars with amusement or full acceptance and celebration. It is important to the note positive valancing of this troubled and amoral man presented under the banner of “Peace and Love” to the willfully ignorant masses, offering the path of rebellion against social norms as the direct path to liberation of both individuals and society.

Since that time, this mantra, “do your own thing,” has been promoted in hundreds of songs, interviews, and in accompanying literature and merchandise produced and promoted by the music industry. From Kenneth Anger’s films and his association with the Rolling Stones, to Ozzy Osborne’s plaintive invocation of Crowley’s white horse, the ethos of the Black Magician is wrapped in the banner of “cool” and the philosophy of self-empowerment. Certainly, the morals of Christianity seemed both hypocritical and a central component in the oppressive machinery of late-20th century industrial capitalist societies. Variants of a bohemian lifestyle have been practiced on the margins of society for centuries, offering a life-philosophy of sexual indulgence and escape from the mind-numbing constraints of the office and factory. John Lennon’s famous claim that “The Beatles are more popular than Jesus,” and the Leary’s contention that Christianity must be destroyed to bring about the psychedelic revolution represented an exoteric expression of the often esoteric and occult war on Christianity and the traditional value system of Western culture that can be traced back at least a thousand years. Johann Adam Weishaupt (1748-1830) expressed this as one of the central aims of the Illuminati, which he founded in 1776. His underground network successfully recruited highly placed members of the nobility and society, ostensibly working for the admirable goals of freedom, justice, and moral development. Just as the hippie revolution and communism have been presented as largely benign, so to the Illuminati and its founder.

Dr. Tony Page contends that, Weishaupt’s plan was to educate Illuminnati followers in the highest levels of humanity and morality (basing his teachings on the supremacy of Reason, allied with the spirit of the Golden Rule of not doing to others what one would not wish done to oneself), so that if Illuminati alumni subsequently attained positions of significance and power (such as in the fields of education and politics), they could exert a benevolent and uplifting influence upon society at large. His project was utopian and naively optimistic, and he himself was certainly not without flaws of character – but neither he nor his plan was evil or violent in and of themselves. It is one of the deplorable and tragic ironies of history that a man who tried to inculcate virtue, philanthropy, social justice and morality has become one of the great hate-figures of 21st-century ‘conspiracy’ thinking. (Page: 1) Is this truly the case? Have I as a former adherent of critical theory and social revolution been captured by the paranoia of ‘conspiracy culture’? I would respond that simply by observing the moral decay, perpetual war, and cultural degradation that surrounds us one could conclude that the subterranean influence of secret societies and pop-culture has been an important contributor to the fragmented and unhealthy modern cultural ecology.



 

Oberrheiner

Pelican
I beg to differ.

1) "Mortality rate" ? Even assuming the claim is true (and according to anti-vaccine activists those claims are self-serving and exaggerated), thanks to abortion Whites are below the replacement rate today, so it's a small gain on one side and a huge loss on the other.

2) Literacy ? The number of printed books has exploded, sure, but so has the number of functional illiterates and the average intellectual level of best-sellers is staggeringly low, even compared to a few centuries ago.

Everybody reads, but everybody reads mostly garbage. Most of the "reading" today is really a marketing process anyway - people buy a book not because they have a strong reason to read it (they often don't read or skim through), but because it's well-marketed, because the seller was nice, because they needed to buy a gift and were unsure what to buy, etc.

Also, several analysts predict that in the near future the Internet will make most of today's printed press disappear. In France which used to be a country with a tradition of professional, "home-made" booksellers who could literally sell books by the kilo, those booksellers are quickly becoming extinct and gobbled up by Amazon.

You might want to read The Bugbear of Literacy, by perennialist author A. K. Coomaraswamy (it's a few dozens of pages at https://archive.org/details/in.gov.ignca.7230/page/n39/mode/2up)
True, however there is a big difference between the two situations : choice.

Now you have the freedom to choose, and yes you can choose to destroy yourself - but that's your own goddamn fault if you do.
Before you had to passively endure, it's hard to argue that was better even though I'm sure some will.
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
Now you have the freedom to choose, and yes you can choose to destroy yourself - but that's your own goddamn fault if you do.
So the powerful liars who sell self-destruction as empowerment and freedom have no responsability in the matter ? Beg to differ again ...

True, however there is a big difference between the two situations : choice.(...)
Before you had to passively endure, it's hard to argue that was better even though I'm sure some will.

Today, any choice that matters needs a tool called money, and to get this tool you have to enter something called the economic process, which is burneded with an ever-growing uncertainty and unstability (cancel culture, crises in the economy, covid lockdowns etc ...) which can only be passively endured, for the vast majority of the people who don't benefit from it.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
True, however there is a big difference between the two situations : choice.

Now you have the freedom to choose, and yes you can choose to destroy yourself - but that's your own goddamn fault if you do.
Before you had to passively endure, it's hard to argue that was better even though I'm sure some will.

Your two examples simply underline and confirm what I was saying, as they are two examples of technical progress (and that is the only type that can be given to say that we advanced). Yet, the advances were not even that impressive (look up the 'tall men of the middle ages'), they took a long time and sacrificed a lot even on the purely material realm. Sure, we reduced infant mortality, but at the expense of a healthy selection of genes and other undesirable effects. So even when we weight the purely material benefits with the purely material costs, it is hard to argue that it was progress at all. And of course, this is without taking into account how much was sacrificed of a non-material nature, which is a much more profound, important and vast category, which cannot be weighted in the same way as it is not quantitative, but qualitative. Something which you are incapable of even conceiving of.

The other example about literacy follows the exact same pattern. The majority of people don't need to learn to read and to write. They do nothing of value with that capacity. The only benefit of it is not to them, but to others: bureaucrats and industrialists, who can use it to exploit them, to make them slaves of a system, which they would not be otherwise, not to mention highly susceptible to propaganda and indoctrination. Every sane society knows that literacy is a privilege, to be given to those who deserve it - for everyone else it is a burden which will enslave them. But egalitarianism is inseparable from the materialist trap. This again shows your materialist blindness, for you see only the benefit, never the cost (opportunity or otherwise, you don't even see the material cost, much less the spiritual, moral, symbolic, communal cost). You don't see what is LOST by literacy - not the modes of expression which disappear, the types of culture and understanding, the capacity of memory and on and on and on.

Not that this is news. Your two examples couldn't have been more of a corroboration, precisely because you meant them as counterpoints.
 

Oberrheiner

Pelican
Sure, we reduced infant mortality, but at the expense of a healthy selection of genes and other undesirable effects.
This is a much more serious topic than it appears at first and would imho deserve a less superficial discussion than just this.
And of course, this is without taking into account how much was sacrificed of a non-material nature, which is a much more profound, important and vast category, which cannot be weighted in the same way as it is not quantitative, but qualitative. Something which you are incapable of even conceiving of.
I'm not, I'm just (still) waiting for examples :)
Every sane society knows that literacy is a privilege, to be given to those who deserve it - for everyone else it is a burden which will enslave them.
To understand this you have to see where I come from : a world of abject poverty where nothing was deemed by our masters as being deserved or even deservable by me.
Yet I rose and surpassed them, so what gives ?

To sum it up shortly who says who deserves what ?
Who has that legitimity and where did it come from exactly ?
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
Every sane society knows that literacy is a privilege, to be given to those who deserve it
In his time, Plato was already warning people against the dangers of writing.
Not to mention that our current phonetic Western alphabets are rather "primitive" compared to Chinese ideograms or Egyptian hieroglyphs.
You don't see what is LOST by literacy - not the modes of expression which disappear, the types of culture and understanding, the capacity of memory and on and on and on.

By the way, a feature of the French educational system, which is very centralized and leftist, is an active war on the young pupils' memory.
The leftist high-priests have decreed that rote memorization is dictatorial and turns pupils into mindless parrots (and of course, would obviously show that different pupils have different memorization ability, which is a sacrilege against Holy Equality). Accordingly, any teacher which uses this tool will be denounced and persecuted.

So, not only do the poor kids get a mass of useless or harmful data shoved up their brain, they are also deprived of the most natural tool to cope with it.
 
Last edited:

Oberrheiner

Pelican
So the powerful liars who sell self-destruction as empowerment and freedom have no responsability in the matter ? Beg to differ again ...
Ultimately yes, you are responsible of your own fate.
Could you have said no ? You made that choice ..

Of course you were mislead, and I'm not saying we should not punish evil, but it's an utopia to expect a world which is not ruled by evil in my experience, so you have to take that into account at all times.
The world is out to fuck you up - just don't let it :)
Today, any choice that matters needs a tool called money, and to get this tool you have to enter something called the economic process, which is burneded with an ever-growing uncertainty and unstability (cancel culture, crises in the economy, covid lockdowns etc ...) which can only be passively endured, for the vast majority of the people who don't benefit from it.
That's the same thing again.

If you want a kid just have it.
Of course you'll need money - don't worry, you'll find some when your kid's here, I promise, and you will understand when you're there.
Or you can make excuses .. but yeah pretty much anything of value in this life will require courage and willpower, I don't see a way around this.
Life was not made to be easy, I have no idea where this belief comes from ?

You are responsible for your own happiness or lack thereof - if not then who ?
The world around is just a given, an invariant if you will ..
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
To sum it up shortly who says who deserves what ?

You mean, who deserves the "right to literacy" ?
Simplest and common way is, just leave the kids alone, those with a penchant for reading will show it and start by themselves. "Hereditary" right is also a practical means of selection, if not the fairest. Leftists one-sidedly denounce its disadvantages, but there is an obvious case for it also. Like breeds like.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
This is a much more serious topic than it appears at first and would imho deserve a less superficial discussion than just this.

I'm not, I'm just (still) waiting for examples :)

To understand this you have to see where I come from : a world of abject poverty where nothing was deemed by our masters as being deserved or even deservable by me.
Yet I rose and surpassed them, so what gives ?

To sum it up shortly who says who deserves what ?
Who has that legitimity and where did it come from exactly ?

Of course you think the genetic question is 'more serious' - matter is all you are capable of understanding. But matter is meaningless without the higher order of spiritual understanding.

As to examples of non-material things that were lost and whose value is incalculable (and thus their loss as well), if you were capable of understanding you would have been able to see that I have given plenty throughout our conversations. But you are not. As they are not measurable nor quantifiable, your confused brain is not capable of registering them, apparently. Or maybe you are just trolling. Let's just throw out a few things killed by modernity, in completely disparate fields, in very clear sequential order: poetry, the family, discipline, tribe, spirituality. Of course, we still have these words, but they have lost all meaning, or their meaning was completely changed (which is the same). The list is much more vast. But there is no point. You either get it or you don't. And you don't.

As to your origins, you do not realize how your very conception of the world is what sets up horrible masters at the top. Because there will always be masters, there will always be elites, and they are always the priestly class. In traditional societies their legitimacy comes from their wisdom, which comes from God. Traditional societies had various means of identifying those who had the potential to understand the higher knowledge, as well as identifying any manner of talent and putting that talent where it was needed and could do good- this is also why the crafts of traditional societies are both useful and art, they are not indiscriminate industry which has only one, and the lowest, purpose. But this is also lost in our times (there's another example). In the modern world, this selection does not happen, as it depends on higher orders of existence, and since those are suppressed and only the quantitative can be taken as having real existence and import. So if everything is to be reduced to a quantitative question, which thing is possible of quantifying that can serve as a distinction among men? Only wealth. So the wealthy are the only elite. Despite what modern schooling has everyone believe, this has NEVER been the case among traditional societies. It is only in ours in which the rich are the top of the hierarchy.

This will be my last reply since you are not equipped to understand, nor do you want to make the effort. In part it is not your fault, because this is exactly the outlook which is, first of all, inherent in modernity itself and encrusted in the indoctrination system of general schooling. But there is a part which is, because Truth must be sought. What it cannot be is debated.
 

Oberrheiner

Pelican
Let's just throw out a few things killed by modernity, in completely disparate fields, in very clear sequential order: poetry, the family, discipline, tribe, spirituality. Of course, we still have these words, but they have lost all meaning, or their meaning was completely changed (which is the same).
I can certainly see how society at large lost those things, you would have to be blind not to.
However I don't see what is preventing you from having these things for yourself and yours, and it's certainly what the elite (real, not parasitic) is doing.

Now if the rest of the world doesn't, well I gave up on changing the world long ago - plus who am I to tell people what to do anyway ?
But yeah maybe I just don't get it.
 
I knew Jim Morrison was from a military family but was amazed at how many others there were

Yeah, Oliver Stone even mentioned this in "The Doors" but I NEVER knew it was the Gulf Of Tonkin guy! That's a pretty big thing that Stone and everyone else who's ever written about Jim, including his bandmate John Densmore, neglected to mention. And the way they just all happened to end up in the canyon, where all these new venues were waiting for them and a secret military base full of recording and film gear was right there...

Satan can arrange these things

He sure can!

the whole 60's boomer counter culture as a deliberate subversion of a great Christian nation and civilization.

Totally. They were also the most heavily propagandized group of people in history, with TV in full force for their entire lives. I really think the post-war generation inherited the high-water point of Western civilization and it all went downhill on their watch.

I will check out the youtuber you mention, sounds like my sort of thing.

Here's the thing on the Beatles not writing their own music, in case you and/or anyone else reading this has four and a half hours of free time. (I think it's worth it if you are interested in this sort of thing.)

I've gone down the rabbit hole with this stuff my friend. From this guy found the Good Vibrations podcast which is all over the occult tentacles in the music scene.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
I can certainly see how society at large lost those things, you would have to be blind not to.
However I don't see what is preventing you from having these things for yourself and yours, and it's certainly what the elite (real, not parasitic) is doing.

Now if the rest of the world doesn't, well I gave up on changing the world long ago - plus who am I to tell people what to do anyway ?
But yeah maybe I just don't get it.
This attitude is the very definition of individualism (which, of course, goes hand-in-hand with modernism, atheism, and materialism).

What happened to "you are your brother's keeper"? If you see someone else falling into evil and you can conceivably influence them away from it, you not only have a right to but a responsibility to do it.
 

Oberrheiner

Pelican
Of course - if you can, like you say.

I have often tried (when I was younger), and I can't.
The general public does not want to be helped in any way, and it brought me more negative consequences than anything else (from apathy to insults to actual physical fights ..).

I know some who can pull it off, but I can't.
The thing is that I'm big and tall and look pissed, most people's reaction is to be afraid of me.
For instance If I want to have a normal interaction which a stranger I usually have to take at least a couple of minutes to reassure them, make them understand that I'm normal and that I'm not going to harm them.
So if I try to get people to think and change their ways they are extremely suspicious of course, and it doesn't work.

So of course I do it with my own circle, family, friends, etc, but even there it does not always work.
In my experience you can only show the better alternatives to people, but whether they actually perceive that they are better is strictly up to them, and most won't.
People won't change if they don't want to, and most don't want to apparently.
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
Also please note how an exact definition of "your brother" is always conveniently left out.

Whatever the full definition may be, obviously included is anyone you have the occasion to help and and is not refusing it (see the parabola of the good Samaritan).

To clarify a very common misunderstanding due to leftists, obviously excluded would be perfidious false friends, as in Jews, Soros-funded migrants coming to lower wages and ruin your country, etc.
 

Oberrheiner

Pelican
Yeah that's why I didn't want to post this detail, because I knew it would turn into a red herring.

But basically : that's only your interpretation of the word.
Anybody can have his own, which makes the whole concept useless.
 
Top