Sexual Revolution started by pedophiles

by **Pissed Off Cabbie** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:01 am

Getting back to the original point of this post, I now realize that the hulahoop was the work of pedophiles. We actually let 9 year-olds do the bump and grind, and even took pictures to send to grandma. Elvis and the hulahoop- that's all it took to open Pandora's box (no pun intended). As for Dr. Leary and Aldous Huxley, all I would say after what has been covered here is that the power of the pedigreed intellectual ego was something to behold in the 60's. Playing God was all the rage. Ever see the movie Candy? It's all in there.

by **Dreams End** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 2:04 am

Not having much trouble confirming Isherwood was gay, since he was...you know...gay and everything. Having a bit more trouble confirming he was a pedophile. As in, no mention outside of bible believers site. Did find a reference about jilted female lover Ada Verdun Howell, who <blockquote>Quote:<hr>consoled herself with many lovers, including Christopher Isherwood, who soon fled, leaving Ada convinced he was ‘a pederast at heart’ <hr></blockquote> But...come on..isn't that like a man saying "she didn't sleep with me so she must be a lesbian"? Anyway, this article is what's wrong with using Larouche (if that's who wrote it) as a source. There will be lots of fact, informed speculation, uninformed speculation and outright lies. The issue of elite manipulation of spirituality and the "new age" phenomenon is not new to this board. Having personally switched from "new agers are just self-absorbed neo-hippies" to "there's something more sinister going on here (i.e. Maurice Strong, Rockefeller, Esalen, the Nine, State of the World Forum, Soros, etc etc)" I think we shouldn't judge the overall thrust of this info too harshly. The problem is that it's...a big problem. Really hard to unravel who the players are behind the scenes...how much they've directly influenced various movements vs. how many movements have just picked up on themes they put forward, vs. how many movements simply grew organically. So when one goes at this with a rather reductionist framework such as the homosexual/English-masonic conspiracy, it does three things. 1. It twists the available evidence into almost unrecognizable form. 2. It adds bullshit and outright lies to fill in the gaps that prove the worldview is correct. 3. And most importantly, and maybe even most deliberately, obscures what is actually a very real and very serious phenomenon, discrediting research into what I think may be the heart of darkness we all sense is there. I'm not one to go claiming I know what the "Illuminati agenda" is. If there really is an actual Illuminati, I guarantee you that anyone who really knows and exposes their agenda is doing so only from beyond the grave. Double shot to the head, don't you know. Or maybe a midnight canoe ride...whatever it takes. But I think that, too, is reductionist thinking. I've posted lots and lots about various weird connections among new age circles...Jeff and others have as well. (I guess I should put Jeff first...I just sort of follow his lead usually) And as with things like RA and population reduction/eugenics, Larouche is the only one out there really exploring these subjects. But I come not to praise Larouche, but bury him because he is the leader of an actual and dangerous cult with overt intel ties. It is the limited understanding of the traditional left in the U.S. about how elites appear (to me, from my limited vantage point) to operate in this world. Partly its because many on the left are compromised somehow. I'll bet you lots o' cash that there are pictures of Alexander Cockburn with his hand in some illegal cookie jar sitting in a scientology vault somewhere, for example. But again, that's said half in jest and is reductionist. Partly it's a limit on a "structuralist" and "materialist" worldview that itself is reductionist. I wish I really had insider knowledge. I see lots of evidence of elite machinations in spirituality, the "counter-culture" (more like "check out counter-culture"), popular media, etc. And some of it goes so deep...in fact, so deep that it seems like serious overkill...soooo much work for obscure and, to me, what seem like minimal effects. I was thinking about this on the Chip Berlet thread. If the reports about him are true and he does get money from a known CIA front (I couldn't confirm this myself, but I've heard CIA allegations from other sources) thing about all this entails...a guy spending his life engaged in a complete sham...or maybe straddling a series of compromises that would make our heads spin...creating a false dichotomy between ignoring conspiracy theory on the one hand or embracing Larouche on the other. It boggles the mind. And if we think that these elites aren't messing with all things mind altering, we are certainly naive. From wholesale manufacture of cult groups, to infiltration and manipulation of same, to use of mind altering drugs on unsuspecting victims and knocking off a few to keep it quiet, to the uses of hypnosis to create Manchurian candidates (thank GOD they stopped that after congress caught them...guess we can all rest easy now), to the elaborate, multilayered and byzantine series of foundations that pump money into all kinds of things in various attempts to control the zeitgeist if you will, to the even broader circle of elite foundations funding radical groups specifically to keep them reigned in and direct them in more "useful" directions, hell, if I keep going I'll just have to reprint Jeff's whole blog (please don't move to myspace Jeff...ick.). Add to that my belief, with some evidence but without real proof, that things like "alien abductions" are really mind control projects...implanting memes more directly than even Hugh would ever suspect into an army of apocalyptic new age warriors waiting for the right trigger to....to....who knows what the hell.... The grand plan, the final step to bring on the "new world order"...this never happens. Always, it's by degrees and always cryptic, hard to analyze and even self-contradictory. Always the big event is just around the corner. And always it never arrives. In short, I don't know what the hell they are up to. I know who SOME of THEM are, and I know in which direction to look to see their handiwork, but I don't claim to have the big picture figured out. Speaking of triggers in popular media...y'all go rent Taxi Driver for me. Nevermind the obvious parapolitics....movie==>Hinckley==>Bush etc. Watch the movie and look for a scene in which Deniro watches Jody Foster pass in front of his car. There is not one wasted camera movement in that entire film...anyone can see that. Just before the camera goes to Foster, it pans right, following a truck. The truck has an image...a sort of multi-armed spiral shapes and the word "Masters". The camera follows it very deliberately until it is revealed to actually say "Cake Masters" with "Cake" having been out of frame for most of the shot. Weirded me out and I've never seen it mentioned. Think Hinckley noticed? Something like this shape below only all in one color and inside a circle not a square (and maybe it is triggering somehow...so use caution in viewing???) <img src="http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/graphic1/tilings/logsphex.gif" style="border:0;"/> Sorry for that little diversion...but I'd been wanting to ask if anyone else had seen that.

by **blanc** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 4:59 am

I hope this thread gets back on track - or if not splits into its components, because there is much that is interesting, if we could just disentangle facts from opinions, and ditch the insults and posturing over whether x or y is homophobic.

by **Ouish** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 12:03 pm

It's interesting that the New Yorker would publish a book review that reads like a reject from the American Spectator or the Weekly Standard. I expecially liked Menard's passing attacks on evolution and the GI Bill. I'm no expert on the gamesmanship of book reviewing, but it seems like the magazine didn't want to say anything good about Leary, but didn't want to attack him from their own position either, so they stayed neutral by using a reviewer who was certain to attack him on transparently ideological grounds, a sort of political 'cut-out.' Or maybe they just wanted to get credit for being open to conservative contributions on the cheap, Leary being such an expendable target. Anyway, nothing that Menard cites as a damaging revelation wasn't mentioned in Leary's own autobiography, Flashbacks. It's inarguable that the original essay in this thread comes from LaRouche's machine. It's all there, from British conspiracies to "Dope, Inc." It's instantly recognizable. It's also misleading about everything I have independent knowledge of. Just compare its picture of Theodor Adorno to the real one, who was so bitterly opposed to popular music that he's regularly accused of elitism and even racism. (The Adorno quotes in the essay are famous public attacks, not secret blueprints.) I remember that passage from Kunen's The Strawberry Statement. Carl Olgesby, author of The Yankee and Cowboy War and a one-time president of the SDS, also mentioned having the same experience. However, both seemed to be saying that the money was being offered by a liberal, reformist segment of the elite, not a "right wing" one, in order to make themselves seem more centrist by expanding the political spectrum to their left. Both turned down the money, by the way, and judging from the subsequent history of the New Left, so did everyone else they approached. Interestingly, it looks as if the far right is being used in exactly this way today, to move the political center to the right.

by **jingofever** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 2:16 pm

I wasn't sure if the natural selection comment was scepticism or if he was just trying to be whimsical about the origin of LSD.

by **weepes silu** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 2:24 pm

I had the plesure of reading some old Berkeley Barbs, it took me back, thank you ,please dont ever stop what you do.People need to know what happen back then and whats going on now again thank you

by **johnny nemo** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 6:26 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Not having much trouble confirming Isherwood was gay, since he was...you know...gay and everything. Having a bit more trouble confirming he was a pedophile. As in, no mention outside of bible believers site.<hr></blockquote> Try here. It's a review of a biography called Isherwood by Peter Parker. <a href="http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,1226320,00.html">books.guardian.co.uk/revi...20,00.html</a> The slight peculiarity....was his taste was for teenage boys - the primary lure of Berlin. Heinz Neddermeyer..... was 16 when the 28-year-old Isherwood met him. "Vernon", whom Isherwood met on his first trip to the US and picked up with again on his permanent return, was just 17. Don Bachardy, the lover of the last three decades of his life, was 18 (but looked 15, Dodie Smith said) when he took up with Isherwood, 30 years his senior. As to the other fine point that you brought up.....I don't have time to go into it now, but the Huxley quote is pure Hegelianism, the crux of the Illuminatists agenda. It's how they always win, because they control every side of the equation. Thesis: Mention the coming of the Brave New World and describe it's exact machinations (not unlike Mein Kampf). Anti-thesis: Warn that it's horrible and won't happen until the future, so that people will consider you a prophet, but not be immediately alarmed. Synthesis: Spend the rest of your life writing books that get people interested in drugs and sex as tools of "self-trascendence", in preparation for the scientific dictatorship.

by **Dreams End** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 6:50 pm

The Isherwood thing you quoted I guess is pretty solid...though having spent the last 30 years of his life with the young man he met at 18... and then 16 and 17...I don't know, I guess that's not what I was picturing when you said pedophile. That's not even illegal in most countries...but age of consent would be another issue altogether. I'm curious, though. How is it that you (and others I've seen) can know with certainty the: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> crux of the Illuminatists agenda.<hr></blockquote> Do you have Illuminatist friends? Perhaps you have a subscription to "Illuminati weekly" (mine expired...and I had TONS of bonus points which I was saving up for an ipod. Damn.) The whole Hegelian thing is a self-fulfilling tautology, to mix my logical critiques. There are two sides to the story...therefore the Illuminati control both sides. Really no way to DISPROVE anything in that little vicious circle. No...I think that they got to be THEY by being smarter than laying out their plans in popular fiction. Plus, I typed all that stuff in myself...so I have to defend it.

by **robertdreed** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 8:26 pm

the hulahoop was the work of pedophiles. We actually let 9 year-olds do the bump and grind

by **Joe Hillshoist** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 12:52 am

There were worldwide movements of yoof in the 60s. Why not look at them all and see what happened. The cultural revolution was one. The trouble with yoof movements is they are maintained by yoof. And manipulated by someone else. Thats like all movements I spose. If you need a movement it might be best to stick with bowel movements. At least you won't be disappointed. Control of sex is a powerful cultural control device. The only control of sex that has constantly been reiterated by TPTB is that its context as sacred is determined by them, or else there is nothing sacred about it. (Perhaps the same could be said of psychedelics, or anything else even Life.) The sexual revolution seemed perhaps to touch on that, before it all disappeared in hedonism.

by **Joe Hillshoist** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 12:57 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Wells is too sane to understand the modern world.<hr></blockquote> That is orwell. From the link a page or two back. Interesting read that one. Might seem like a jump OT, but its not: So did they rave movement serve the agenda of mindcontrol or not? It was the logical extension of hippiedom after all.

by **blanc** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:05 am

The 'sexual revolution' seems to me to be rather the mediatisation of sexuality, and sensationalisation, rather than a genuine revolution in terms of freedoms or behaviour. The essence of this thread had seemed to me to be the question of whether or not paedophilia had been or is orchestrated. I shared some of the doubts about some of the arguments made in support of the thesis that via control of counter-culture movements, an acceptance of paedophilia or of the proliferation of paedophilia was orchestrated. The initial arguments hinged on interpretation of works (Huxley's) which run counter to the accepted interpretation. (But these are interpretations!). Has there been an agenda to promote paedophilia? I think so. Has the acceptance of mediatisation of sexuality aided that agenda? I think so. In that sense, and that limited sense, I'd be prepared to commit myself to the idea that counter culture ideas, as they appeared in the sixties, prepared the ground for what is an ongoing promotion of paedophilia. That is not meant to imply that those who were instrumental in promoting those ideas or were the source of them, were paedophiles. I don't know enough about the private lives of those individuals to make a judgement. I also don't mean to imply that those counter culture ideas bore no other fruit, or were bad. The question of why paedophilia is being promoted is more difficult to assess. There is evidence, not incontravertible evidence but powerful stuff just the same, that individuals in powerful positions are practising paedophiles, some of them particularly sadistic and depraved. There is no evidence that all individuals in powerful positins are paedophiles. Yet manipulation of media is the stuff of power, we weaklings cannot get our voices heard. What is going on? My instinct is that there is an agenda to weaken family ties, to destroy the basis of social cohesion, in order to reduce individuals to 'units', and to undermine the nurturing role. That those elements within the PTB who are sadistic paedophiles have no understanding of human kind or empathy capacity is obvious, but its also obvious that they depend on structures which exist only because the mass of humankind are caring and nurturing. Is it in their interests then to destroy what supports them?

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 4:46 pm

(Note to posters: Uncheck the 'use emoticons' box to get rid of those annoying smilies that replace some numbers, please.) Lots of good info here. The people and forces of history are complex and it can be difficult to sort out what is a trend and what is a deliberate conspiracy. Both dynamics are concurrent. Flour and yeast don't conspire to be bread but some people intentionally combine them and there is the bread as proof. Sometimes both things happen at once and this is where my own differences of 'opinion' with Professor Pan have resulted, I think. Several generations of a deliberately created national psyche is partly self-perpetuating and partly intentionally steered to guarantee the herd stays on the dictated paths. The techniques and institutionalization of mass psychological controls have been evolving rapidly since WWI with a huge refocusing on cultural symbols and narratives since WWII. The history and documents comprising '2+2' can be easily read and looking at the media historically and everyday logically brings us to '=4.' Don't utterly discount sources like biblebeliever.whatever or Larouche or even the John Birch Society. These people are right about more things than we might be comfortable with. It was the John Birch Society that screamed bloody murder over Prof. Carroll Quigley's bland expose of the Council on Foreign Relations in the mid-1960s and now more of us get it. Larouche was exposing the 1980 October Surprise back in the 1980s along with the historical influence of the British crown's empire and its military intelligence on the American elite and now more of us get it. People do change their beliefs and associations, especially from pre-war to war to post-war contexts.That's why historical context and biography must be taken into account to determine motives and intent of actions. An activated amygdala can give one some false readings but that is better than no readings at all except those handed to you by fascists.

by **Pissed Off Cabbie** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 6:10 pm

Yeah, 'ol Elvis showed 'em what to do with that hula hoop. Now, we're at the point where singers are virtual porn stars. What woman(girl) gets a recording contract these days without looking like Pamela Anderson? And, how old was Britney when she started her...um, act? There's not much innocence left at this point. The Pedopublicans have seen to that. The decadence of Rome is upon us, and we know how that turned out. Fellini's Satyricon has come to life, and this country is a spiritual leper colony. Run, kids, and don't look back.

by **Sweejak** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:29 pm

I think that the CIA, Illuminati, MK angle was a parallel development that eventually infiltrated what was the natural rise of the 60's which in itself is a type of movement that has risen repeatedly in the past. The Diggers, the Dutch Provos, the Arts And Crafts Movement, the German Wandervogels <a href="http://www.hippy.com/php/article-243.html">www.hippy.com/php/article-243.html</a> (later jacked by Hitler for the Hitler Jugend) In fact, for myself, this explains all the observations and is in line with what I experienced when I went back and tried to figure out if this was really all one big psyop. Holding this view will leave a lot of grey areas, like whether or not Leary was actual CIA. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>He's liberal CIA, and that's the best mafia you can deal with in the twentieth century." -- Timothy Leary, <a href="http://www.markriebling.com/leary.html">www.markriebling.com/leary.html</a><hr></blockquote> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Leary’s “drop out” advice is one of those things which give historians the illusion that mass behaviors are driven by popular ideas, when it is usually the case that ideas are made popular by mass behaviors already under way.<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/critics/books/">www.newyorker.com/critics/books/</a> <hr></blockquote> Or, whether Brave New World is a warning or pre-conditioning. Most arguments seem to fall in the cracks between the genuine and the jacked where one side will detail the hijacking while the other side posits the legitimate. The question remains however whether the 'natural rise' was pre-destined as a reaction to say, the conformity of the 50's. Or what Heimbichner claims is the OTO version of the Pillar of Severity and the Pillar of Mercy. I wonder what the reaction will be to this period of history. This isn't hard for me to believe, after all the PTB will take control and advantage of anything, natural or not, simply because they have the means. Storming Heaven <a href="http://tinyurl.com/lh3x8">tinyurl.com/lh3x8</a> More: <a href="http://tinyurl.com/jufzv">tinyurl.com/jufzv</a>

Sexual Revolution started by pedophiles

Leery Of Leary

Re: Leery Of Leary

hope

The Leary review, the title essay, Kunen and the elites

the Leary review

Re: I Wish Abbie Hoffman Were Alive

Re: I Wish Abbie Hoffman Were Alive

Re: I Wish Abbie Hoffman Were Alive

that explains everything

Re: that explains everything

Re: that explains everything

revolution?

Re: Huxley, pedophiles & The Aquarian Conspiracy

The Pedopublicans

Re: The Pedopublicans

Who is online