Dave McGowan, dying...

[Belligerent Savant]

.

One thing that always baffles me about McGowan's take: Why on earth would the American military-industrial complex intentionally seed the 60's counterculture? I can see why the spooks might try to sabotage the scene with so much acid and flower power vapidity to make it useless, once it emerged. (Only for that maneuver to backfire.) But create the whole thing? That don't make no damn sense. What are we supposed to think would've happened without the hippies? A decade of cleancut leftists playing anti-war folk? And...that would've been a bigger threat to The Man how? Let's be real. It wouldn't have. That alternate reality scene wouldn't have been cool enough to galvanize a generation. Sure, the psychedelic hippies polarized America, bred even more contempt in normal people for the anti-war side. But they energized and mythologized the anti-war movement in a way that ordinary protestors couldn't have. It's ludicrous to think that the hippies enabled the war.

I may add more to this at a later time -- caught up in end-of-year clean-up/prep, etc. -- but briefly:

Are you suggesting that COINTELPRO/Limited Hangouts/Poisoned Well/Disnfo campaigns aren't part of the ouvré of Intel Agencies (throughout history, let alone the 60s)?

'They' (Intel) needn't "create the whole thing": oftentimes, all it may require is strategically placed 'seeds', during key precarious historical moments, which in turn germinate largely on their own -- perhaps with occasional/additional 'cultivation' at certain points to keep it steered in the preferred direction. There will invariably be 'organic' outgrowths from the initial 'seed set' that would fall outside of any control mechanism, but by then the primary intent -- to disrupt, essentially -- has already succeeded.

Also, let's not forget that compartmentalization is always a factor in any of these operations. Most involved are blissfully unaware of the original brainchild/impetus for a moment/initiative/event.

The Manson 'event' is tied into the Hippie movement as well, of course; part of an over-arching agenda.

I haven't touched on the probable ancient occult element/added layer to all of this -- I'll defer to the far more learned folks on that point.

[FourthBase]

.

One thing that always baffles me about McGowan's take: Why on earth would the American military-industrial complex intentionally seed the 60's counterculture? I can see why the spooks might try to sabotage the scene with so much acid and flower power vapidity to make it useless, once it emerged. (Only for that maneuver to backfire.) But create the whole thing? That don't make no damn sense. What are we supposed to think would've happened without the hippies? A decade of cleancut leftists playing anti-war folk? And...that would've been a bigger threat to The Man how? Let's be real. It wouldn't have. That alternate reality scene wouldn't have been cool enough to galvanize a generation. Sure, the psychedelic hippies polarized America, bred even more contempt in normal people for the anti-war side. But they energized and mythologized the anti-war movement in a way that ordinary protestors couldn't have. It's ludicrous to think that the hippies enabled the war.

I may add more to this at a later time -- caught up in end-of-year clean-up/prep, etc. -- but briefly:

Are you suggesting that COINTELPRO/Limited Hangouts/Poisoned Well/Disnfo campaigns aren't part of the ouvré of Intel Agencies (throughout history, let alone the 60s)?

Of course the spooks do all that devious shit. Subvert the subversives, of course. But I'm suggesting that they would have to be extremely stupid spooks to subvert themselves to begin with. I mean, would McGowan have us believe that sometime around 1960 the spook elite went, "Well, if we want to make maximum bank off this war coming up and fight off the commies and keep our traditional status quo intact, we're going to have to control the opposition by feeding them mind-expanding drugs and launching a viral youth movement that rejects capitalism and traditional norms"? I don't get it.

'They' (Intel) needn't "create the whole thing" -- oftentimes, all it may require is strategically placed 'seeds', during key precarious historical moments, which in turn germinate largely on their own, with occasional/additional 'cultivation' at certain points to keep it steered in the preferred direction, perhaps. There will also be plenty of 'organic' outgrowths from the initial 'seed set' that would fall outside of any control mechanism, but by then the primary intent -- to disrupt, essentially -- has already succeeded.

Disrupt what? Was the left really disrupted by the hippies? No, of course it wasn't. Maybe some purist intellectuals on the left resented the hippies, but the hippies were overall a gain for the left. If there weren't hippies, the war would've supposedly ended sooner? No. The hippies added momentum to the anti-war side. What was actually disrupted? American normalcy.

Also, let's not forget that compartmentalization is always a factor in any of these operations. Most involved are blissfully unaware of the original brainchild/impetus for a moment/initiative/event.

The Manson 'event' is tied into the Hippie movement as well, of course; part of an over-arching agenda.

I haven't touched on the probable ancient occult element/added layer to all of this -- I'll defer to the far more learned folks on that point.

Manson as a saboteur still makes sense to me. But then again, would the same CIA in charge of preserving the lucrative status quo be so stupid as to introduce norm-destroying cults who commit security-shattering mass murder? Sounds more like something an enemy would do. I get the principle of a false flag, but I can't understand why a conservative national security apparatus would willfully destabilize and subvert itself. And lose, by the way, culturally. Take an average adult American from 1960 and show them America in 2020. He or she would say, "Well, I guess the Birchers were right after all."

[Belligerent Savant]

.

One thing that always baffles me about McGowan's take: Why on earth would the American military-industrial complex intentionally seed the 60's counterculture? I can see why the spooks might try to sabotage the scene with so much acid and flower power vapidity to make it useless, once it emerged. (Only for that maneuver to backfire.) But create the whole thing? That don't make no damn sense. What are we supposed to think would've happened without the hippies? A decade of cleancut leftists playing anti-war folk? And...that would've been a bigger threat to The Man how? Let's be real. It wouldn't have. That alternate reality scene wouldn't have been cool enough to galvanize a generation. Sure, the psychedelic hippies polarized America, bred even more contempt in normal people for the anti-war side. But they energized and mythologized the anti-war movement in a way that ordinary protestors couldn't have. It's ludicrous to think that the hippies enabled the war.

I may add more to this at a later time -- caught up in end-of-year clean-up/prep, etc. -- but briefly:

Are you suggesting that COINTELPRO/Limited Hangouts/Poisoned Well/Disnfo campaigns aren't part of the ouvré of Intel Agencies (throughout history, let alone the 60s)?

Of course the spooks do all that devious shit. Subvert the subversives, of course. But I'm suggesting that they would have to be extremely stupid spooks to subvert themselves to begin with. I mean, would McGowan have us believe that sometime around 1960 the spook elite went, "Well, if we want to make maximum bank off this war coming up and fight off the commies and keep our traditional status quo intact, we're going to have to control the opposition by feeding them mind-expanding drugs and launching a viral youth movement that rejects capitalism and traditional norms"? I don't get it.

Let me preface this by saying I'm no authority on any of this. A far-away observer, I am (I was born in the 70s, after all). With that in mind, while I can appreciate your perspective, you may be assuming a few things in your commentary above, primarily the 'thinking process' of the 'spook elite'. I mean, you can make a similar argument for just about every historical event with Intel fingerprints on them, no? The impetus/primary drivers for their actions will largely be occluded from our view.
(also: I know you're using the hypothetical quotes by a 'spook elite' representative as a device to make a point, but you are likely aware that your hypothetical is largely facile in nature. "fighting off the commies" is a fallacy on a number of levels -- one of myriad narratives spun for public consumption that falls outside their underlying objectives).

There have been ongoing efforts by elite factions throughout history to shape, distort, and disrupt consensus view. Analyzed within that lens, McGowan's premise seems plausible to me (not to mention the far-too-coincidental-to-be-a-series-of-mere-coincidences of the military/intelligence backgrounds of most of the key players, along with the centralized 'birth' of the movement in the Laurel Canyon/Cali region, etc..)

At a minimum, we agree that the Hippie movement, as we know it, was compromised at least to a degree. Your point, I believe, is that you're having trouble with the premise that the movement was hatched, as it were, from intel-sourced origins, as part of a larger agenda that may never be clear to us.. is that right?

[FourthBase]

.

One thing that always baffles me about McGowan's take: Why on earth would the American military-industrial complex intentionally seed the 60's counterculture? I can see why the spooks might try to sabotage the scene with so much acid and flower power vapidity to make it useless, once it emerged. (Only for that maneuver to backfire.) But create the whole thing? That don't make no damn sense. What are we supposed to think would've happened without the hippies? A decade of cleancut leftists playing anti-war folk? And...that would've been a bigger threat to The Man how? Let's be real. It wouldn't have. That alternate reality scene wouldn't have been cool enough to galvanize a generation. Sure, the psychedelic hippies polarized America, bred even more contempt in normal people for the anti-war side. But they energized and mythologized the anti-war movement in a way that ordinary protestors couldn't have. It's ludicrous to think that the hippies enabled the war.

I may add more to this at a later time -- caught up in end-of-year clean-up/prep, etc. -- but briefly:

Are you suggesting that COINTELPRO/Limited Hangouts/Poisoned Well/Disnfo campaigns aren't part of the ouvré of Intel Agencies (throughout history, let alone the 60s)?

Of course the spooks do all that devious shit. Subvert the subversives, of course. But I'm suggesting that they would have to be extremely stupid spooks to subvert themselves to begin with. I mean, would McGowan have us believe that sometime around 1960 the spook elite went, "Well, if we want to make maximum bank off this war coming up and fight off the commies and keep our traditional status quo intact, we're going to have to control the opposition by feeding them mind-expanding drugs and launching a viral youth movement that rejects capitalism and traditional norms"? I don't get it.

Let me preface this by saying I'm no authority on any of this. A far-away observer, I am (I was born in the 70s, after all). With that in mind, while I can appreciate your perspective, you may be assuming a few things in your commentary above, primarily the 'thinking process' of the 'spook elite'. I mean, you can make a similar argument for just about every historical event with Intel fingerprints on them, no? The impetus/primary drivers for their actions will largely be occluded from our view.
(also: I know you're using the hypothetical quotes by a 'spook elite' representative as a device to make a point, but you are likely aware that your hypothetical is largely facile in nature. "fighting off the commies" is a fallacy on a number of levels -- one of myriad narratives spun for public consumption that falls outside their underlying objectives).

Are you referring to Sutton's theories about how communism was actually funded and supported by capitalists?

Are we really prepared to abandon the idea that the CIA had a genuine interest in retarding the growth of communism? Were the "fever dreams" just kayfabe?

There have been ongoing efforts by elite factions throughout history to shape, distort, and disrupt consensus view. Analyzed within that lens, McGowan's premise seems plausible to me (not to mention the far-too-coincidental-to-be-a-series-of-mere-coincidences of the military/intelligence backgrounds of most of the key players, along with the centralized 'birth' of the movement in the Laurel Canyon/Cali region, etc..)

I'm suspicious of coincidences, too. But I still think it's possible that the children of high-achieving military/intel types wind up disproportionately succeeding in the arts because they're the spawn of high-achieving types, raised with the discipline necessary to master artistic craft, and highly motivated to flamboyantly rebel against their traditional upbringings.

It's also possible they were highly-prized recruits for the other side. Pretty sure the KGB would love turning the children of high-ranking officers. Also, maybe their parents were compromised themselves. My default is still to suspect what McGowan suspects, but there are more possibilities than just a military-industrial plot.

At a minimum, we agree that the Hippie movement, as we know it, was compromised at least to a degree. Your point, I believe, is that you're having trouble with the premise that the movement was hatched, as it were, from intel-sourced origins, as part of a larger agenda that may never be clear to us.. is that right?

Yes, I cannot fathom what possible agenda would've motivated the establishment to subvert itself with hippies. Unless the establishment consists of people who just get off on watching shit get fucked up?

Yes, almost certainly compromised. I suppose it's possible the hippies were just organically destined to emerge. Maybe the whole damn country is such a national security state, especially in the aftermath of WWII, that everyone is 0-1 degrees away from a prominent military/intel officer and so whatever phenomenon emerges it can always be framed McGowan-style as an op. But nah, too many coincidences.

[SonicG]

I pretty much agree with your line of skepticism FourthBase...I mean why not focus on the thousands of children of high-ranking military and intel agents who DIDN'T become musicians but rather followed in their fathers' footsteps? I wonder what kind of damage they did to progressive causes? For me, it just reeks of that school of conspiracy thought that says, "If only Kennedy hadn't been shot, if only the "white hats" would come in and magically clean up the mess of CIA et-al, we could create some pastoral peaceful capitalist system free of domination by the bad ebil guys..."

TBH, hate to shit on the guy in his RIP thread, but many moons ago, I listened to an interview with McGowan where he was immediately crowing over two insignificant and most likely very correct descriptions in the story of Buffalo Springfield as some proof of the whole "ridiculousness" of their getting together as musicians. One was a u-turn "in rush hour traffic on Sunset"...in 1965...Sorry, there was no terrible rush hour traffic in the sixties, and I did plenty of uturns on that area of Sunset in the 80s and 90s...The second was saying it was ridiculous that the band was given a weekday residency after a few practices or whatever. They were all great players and could very easily form a decent band quickly...I realize some may feel it is trivial to tune him out completely for minor points, but it seems to me a symbol of his whole misguided thinking...

And then I ran across someone later who "expanded" on McGowan's "theories" to apply them to Henry Rollins and performer/producer Kramer, and by extension Kurt Cobain...Ah yes, these guys had such a major influence on radical politics in the 90s...I noted this skepticism once to Christopher Knowles and at least he claimed, "Well maybe they are just unwitting pawns..." Knowles also tried to claim that the group Leaf Hound was some evidence of the Mandella Effect because he had never heard of them and somehow had heard of every single obscure hard rock evah...But I still more credence to his demonic possession of the Cocteau Twins singer than to McGowan.

[thrulookingglass]

What's more insane, wanting to start a hippie love & peace commune with artists, music, and psychedelia as its nucleus or a behemoth of a military beast ruling the world through violence, oppressive thought control programming, formidable weapons of mass destruction not limited to, mind control, chemical and biological warfare, and thunderous, truly apocalyptic thermo-nuclear weaponry. They (the military) sought to poison the entire world's food supply and to some end they just might have and you're worried about demonic possession?! Violence. Rule through the use of violence. The deafening blare the outside world shudders from is the realization of this atrocious war machine. Of course the PTB's performed every measure of fuckery to undermine any traction that might be found in a profound shift in society away from said forces of war and to that of peace. War is their business. That's how they control the population. Elitism born of God. The rule of fear, violence and terror. Kiss the pyramidion. The right to rule over the shiftless, doddling masses as some self pronounced superior is this creations illness. All things require care. All.

What if they have come up with mind control and the most sinister thing they could come up with was an arrogant, male, violent God who punishes those who sin eternally! Isn't that humanities greatest fear? An angry malevolent God? THINK PEOPLE! What could be more fearful than a vengeful, uncontrollable, murderous God? Isn't that what they've sold us? Evil knows no bounds. Controlling/limiting how and what people think is the ultimate form of indecent authority. We best get our shit together real soon, because the walls are closing in on this trash compactor of life. The militaries of the world have been given carte blanche yet the hands that work its levers are no larger or smaller than your own. Who would want to be king of this shit pile anymore? Rule through fear, violence, and terror is disastrous! Answer to that. Fear the demons of hell! Fear the demons of hell! Bullshit. Evil is a weakness, never a strength. Live in praise of God(s) who rules through heartless punishments. True insanity. The world is unhinged in this format. I will see my hands work more fertile soil than this...someday....when we the collective masses stand up for whats right. None that cause suffering in others is compos mentis. Jim Morrison's connections to the military industrial complex?! What about your own?! Cut that arm from your body for its ways hold only ruination.



Must be something in the water. Your only holy if you haven't been fucked yet. Let the bigotry begin.

[FourthBase]

War is evil, true. It'd be great for the whole world to culturally evolve beyond the need for war. (Literal war, the kind where people actually die; metaphorical war a la Heraclitus and Nietzsche will never cease.)

But until then, the world may sometimes include Nazis who build up an army in order to exterminate people. Putting aside any blackpill theories that any Nazi government would merely be the creation of capitalists or whatever: How do you propose beating such threats without war? Impossible. In a modern age of advanced weaponry and instant battles, how do you expect to be capable of winning such a war without perpetual readiness? Lefties love to quote Ike's warning about the military-industrial complex but they always forget the part where he said the damned thing was unfortunately necessary.

As for hippies versus the military, peace versus violence, psychedelics versus thought control...in general, I'm with you. Aside from medical advances, life was better for our primitive ancestors. (Pinker is a fraud.) Aside from the incest, I would rather be a bonobo. I hate war. But, alas, in a world where evil motherfuckers want to exterminate you, war may be necessary.

Let me present you a hypothetical. It's the early 1940's. Unless the Soviets and Americans physically destroy the Third Reich with war, Nazis will dominate the world and murder many, many, many millions of "subhumans" and subversives. You don't want that to happen, right? Well, instead of developing nukes early to win the war, let's say the Nazis chance on the deviously brilliant idea of covertly flooding the US and USSR with extremely entertaining propaganda that makes pacifism and anti-patriotism the coolest youth trend ever, as well as shipping over enough LSD to give every citizen a daily trip for a decade. Let's say, very rapidly, all Americans and Russians between the ages of 18-40 are seduced by the new "Make Love Not War" motto and so enlightened by the acid they decide to boycott WWII. The Nazis then win, with little resistance. Would you be a fan of that cultural revolution? The partisans in the forests of Europe unaffected by it sure as hell wouldn't be fans. They'd call all those seduced and drugged Americans and Russians a bunch of narcissistic degenerates, and they'd be right, sort of. Only sort of, because of course, those hippies would also be victims of a weapon of mass cultural destruction, literally victims of mind control, literally victims of chemical warfare. In that scenario, it would probably be less harmful for the Nazis to have dropped a couple of nuclear bombs on Moscow and DC.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

in short:

McGowan's theories Re: the 60s 'Hippie movement' are just that: theories. My position is simply that his theory is plausible.

As mentioned earlier, intel/CIA/MKULTRA involvement in that scene -- and in Manson-related events -- appear to be indisputable given the available material we have at our disposal (discussed and available within and outside of RI's walls). The point of contention is: how involved were these intel operations in ushering this movement into collective consciousness/awareness (and their subsequent influence/involvement, direct or tangential, in related events in the years to follow)?

[Elvis]

I grew up in the 1960s. It was a very exciting time. Maybe you had to be there.

By the mid-'70s the "Me Generation" came along and I remember wondering what the hell had happened.


McGowan's Laurel Canyon series held my fascination because when I was ten years old I was drawing hippies on my notebooks and wanted to run away to California and join them. By the time my parents let me grow my hair long, the movement was on decline. As years passed, I resented what I saw as regressions—punk music, yuppies, Zbigniew Brzezinski. No offense to punk fans but I just didn't share their brand of angst (or taste in music) and anyway by then I was "too old."

I kept hearing that it was time to rejoin "the real world."

ng 1960s real world.jpg

[thrulookingglass]

WWI started because the 'victors' sought heavy handed requital. Love heals. Violence harms.



And gold is the reason for the wars we wage