Forum / the making of sgt. pepper's lonely hearts club band
-
whatwouldbukowskidoJul 18, 12:52am -
Sam RasnakeJul 18, 12:36pmThose sessions were amazing... and a door.
-
whatwouldbukowskidoJul 18, 03:21pm
It was all "handmade" too.
No computers.
-
Sally HoutmanJul 19, 08:27amFinally got a chance to watch this.
That
was
fascinating
!!
Love the term 'sound picture' - that *is* what they created.
And the role of "Pet sounds" in driving their imaginative use of instruments.
And...like the true artists they are/were...doing and redoing and redoing the same song until they felt they *finally* found the right way to 'tell its story.'
Wonderful video. -
whatwouldbukowskidoJul 19, 05:16pm
My favorite Paul was the stoned, bearded, slightly drunk, slightly disheveled one of Let it Be.
-
whatwouldbukowskidoJul 19, 06:00pm
When he had (a) soul, had not yet become the
(forgive me...I should be so lucky...)
facile twat
he's evolved into over the last forty years.
-
Sally HoutmanJul 20, 01:30am
Paul was always at his best when he wasn't playing 'pretty boy.'
This stands out as one of those (though much later), just raw, real, from the gut. Always liked this.
-
whatwouldbukowskidoJul 21, 12:44am
A little lite Beatles reading (by Zabode):
This essay was first conceived in response to some recent postings on the Internet: AImagine There's No Lennon" by Barry Chamish (Sightings, 12-4-99) & "The Harrison Stabbing & Masonic Symbolism" by John "NewsHawk" Quinn (David Icke E-Magazine, Vol. 9, 1-15-00). Throughout this writing I intend to remain as objective as possible on a subject that seems determined to evoke emotionally charged reactions from critics pro & con; after all, within the arena of popular culture the Beatles phenomenon has arguably had one of the single greatest effects on the Western psyche in the twentieth century. What other icon of pop culture can compete with the Fab Four? Elvis Presley perhaps comes the closest. Can Elvis proponents, however, make the claim that their icon fueled such stark extremes as the chemical excesses of 60s psychedelia and the apocalyptic rampage of the Manson "family"? The burden of objectivity is made easier for this writer in that I was born in 1964, making me more of a product, culturally, of the 70s, 80s and 90s. So it was, when John Lennon got on the wrong end of a tight shot group, that I sensed the social magnitude of the event, while on a personal level it registered practically nil. And there, I suggest, is a good place to start: 12-8-80.
It happened again just the other day. A respected news source -- the BBC this time -- referred to Mark David Chapman as an "obsessed fan." This appears to be standard operating procedure for the major media any time Chapman's name comes up. But is it an accurate portrayal? Chapman, of course, is the man who shot John Lennon for some patently absurd reason; in December he will be coming up for parole after 20 years in solitary confinement at Attica State Prison; yet a fan of Lennon or the Beatles he was not -- obsessed or otherwise. His preoccupation with John Lennon did not emerge until the months before the actual murder. This fact has been established by Fenton Bresler, author of Who Killed John Lennon? As Barry Chamish notes of researcher Bresler, he does an adequate job of making the case that Chapman was a robot assassin, the victim of mind control. (If you haven't yet accepted the reality of mind control, you haven't been doing your homework. Cisco Wheeler & Fritz Springmeier have written a remarkable pair of books that can bring you up to speed with a whiplash-jolt: The Illuminati Formula Used to Create an Undetectable Total Mind-Controlled Slave and Deeper Insights into the Illuminati Formula [thanks to the webmaster at Illuminati News you can find them both online at http://mercury.spaceports.com/~persewen/illum_index.com under "Books for Free"]. For a harrowing first-person narrative turn to Trance Formation of America by Cathy O'Brien, wherein this former "presidential model" names the names (including those of four presidents) and details the torments of trauma-based mind control. In so doing O'Brien highlights the ways in which popular books and movies -- in her case it was primarily The Wizard of Oz -- are used as programming tools; in this light Chapman's ludicrous attachment to The Catcher in the Rye becomes understandable, even logical.) Getting back to Chapman the "obsessed fan," does this ubiquitous mislabeling indicate sloppy journalism, or does it mean that at some level the media are actively distorting the facts? More than likely the answer is both. Since we've all read David Icke's work, we know that a mere handful of "elite" insiders own . . . well . . . everything! As Robert Anton Wilson drolly titles one of his books: Everything Is Under Control! The corporate media, therefore, should be recognized for what they are: mere mouthpieces for the Agenda.
Whose Agenda, and why would anyone go to such great lengths to assassinate a songwriter and musician? For the moment let's just call them the "Globo-Super-Elite" (GSE for short). As an incentive to murder you may lean towards the Chamish view that, in rubbing out the former Beatle, the GSE were disposing of one of their own creations -- a high-profile asset named John Lennon -- as a test run to the upcoming attempt on President Reagan's life by robot assassin/diversion John Hinckley, Jr. (who, one could assume, was programmed to identify with Travis Bickle, the antihero from Taxi Driver, in the same way that Cathy O'Brien was programmed with Oz and Mark Chapman with Catcher); or you may be inclined towards the Bresler view that the GSE removed Lennon at a key transition point in the life of this extremely influential public figure, that is, when he appeared to be regaining artistic momentum in the context of a new-found and hard-won maturity, making his popularity, his peacenik politics and his pocketbook a direct threat to the hate- and warmongering of the Agenda. So who's closer to the truth, Chamish or Bresler? Let's withhold judgement while we examine a key player in the life (and possibly the death) of John Lennon -- his wife Yoko Ono.
It's almost impossible to overstate the influence of Yoko Ono in the life of John Lennon, though Barry Chamish goes as far as anybody, suggesting that Ono was essentially Lennon's "handler" (insider jargon for the primary contact of a mind-controlled, or otherwise manipulated, person). Okay, let's look at this objectively: As an alleged operative for the Agenda, does Ono appear to reflect the requisite ties? And Lennon: As an alleged asset of the Agenda, does he exhibit the characteristics of one susceptible to mind control? The answer in both cases would appear to be a resounding "YES!"
At this point in our enquiry it's time to hear from consultant Margie S., who knows more about Dr. Winston O. Boogie than most: "He believed strongly in extraterrestrial life, saw UFOs and was not afraid to say so . . . he wasn't afraid to say anything really. He was an extraordinarily free thinker, when not immediately under Yoko's influence." Okay, Margie, cool. What more can you tell us about Yoko Ono? Margie: "She has some royal ancestry from her mother's side, and her father was/is the head of an international Japanese banking empire (commonly an ancestral thing in that country, as well). She was highly educated in the most prestigious institutions, including one of the American Ivy League schools, Harvard or Yale . . . . [It was Harvard, briefly, until she moved on to Sarah Lawrence College, an exclusive liberal arts school in New York State.] Her influence on John came just as the Beatles' influence [on Lennon] was waning. Just when he was on the brink of finding his own political and artisitic voice, she introduced him to heroin. Mixing her activities into his earliest solo endeavors, she reduced every one to absurdity, [making them] more easily attacked by the press. 'Yes, John, let's shout for peace . . . from inside a bag!' Every step he took, she countered with yet another infusion of nonsense -- in the guise of conceptual art -- that rendered his essential points ridiculous. I used to think she just had a really big ego and simply couldn't let him have his own career and independent success, but looking back, her interference really does appear calculated and systematic; certainly it was effective. Looking at 'bagism' alone you can see how utterly destroyed John's points were: His words were ignored because his countenance was hidden; it was immediately doubted that it was even him in the bag; and with no photo opportunities the press coverage was minimized, where otherwise his face alone would have sold millions of newspapers and tabloids worldwide in which his words would have been published, read and considered . . . . In spite of [Yoko Ono, John Lennon] touched a lot of souls; but if it weren't for her, I think he really could have been quite a contender." Very interesting. Thanks, Margie.
When I first told Margie about this article and my sudden interest in the Beatles and John Lennon in particular, she responded: AI was hoping, though, that while looking at John, you'd see some strong 'reptilian' influences in Yoko." I do, Margie, I do. Whether one interprets "reptilian" literally, as do David Icke and many others, or uses it metaphorically to describe the cold-blooded villainy of the New World Order power brokers (whom I've collectively dubbed the Globo-Super-Elite in this essay -- quite arbitrarily), it makes little difference. By all informed accounts they're still out there, ruthlessly shaping the geopolitical landscape after their grasping, totalitarian vision of a "perfect" future (i.e., the Agenda). As David Icke has made abundantly clear in The Biggest Secret, genes are everything to these people. The powerful families of the world (GSE) obsessively interbreed, and none more so than the royals. Therefore when I learn from Margie that Yoko Ono's family can boast of royal lineage, her candidacy for insider and Lennon-handler gets a royal boost (strike one). Standing alone, however, it hardly constitutes culpability. For that we must rely on Yoko Ono's own words as found in two revealing, though quite disparate, documents.
The first would be The Playboy Interviews With John Lennon and Yoko Ono by Sheff and Golson. Interviewer David Sheff gathered far more material than was published in the Playboy magazine of December, 1980. This book, then, contains the transcription of twenty hours of interviews with John and Yoko, conducted but a couple of months before his death. Two facets of Yoko Ono become very clear in these almost-200 pages: (1) a keen intellect; (2) a unifying personal philosophy, part New-Age mystic, part militant feminist, that reflects in her every utterance. Ono's first slip-up came as she was making a point about thought preceding matter (p. 33), what Lennon matter-of-factly referred to as "wish fulfillment." Who should she pluck out of the ether by way of an example? None other than archinsider H. G. Wells, the prolific and seemingly prescient British writer whose lesser-known titles include The Open Conspiracy and The New World Order. Okay, any reference to Wells could be entirely innocent (as, no doubt, was that writer's usage of "Morlocks" [so close to "Moloch," the ancient god on account of whom children were sacrificed and devoured] and "Eloi" [highly evocative of "Elohim," the "gods" from Genesis] as, respectively, the subterranean cannibals of the far-distant future [who emerge nocturnally from beneath a white sphinx!] and their surface-dwelling foodsource in The Time Machine). Some seventy pages later, however, Ono is rattling on about what she perceives as Lennon's father complex (Lennon's actual father, a sailor, abandoned the family very early on), when she makes a reference to her own father as "big and strong . . . like a Billy Graham" (p. 105) (my italics). Of all people! Even if you hadn't read Fritz Springmeier's outing of Billy Graham as thirty-third-degree Mason, Illuminatus and Satanist (again, available courtesy of Illuminati News), you'd think to yourself, what an odd choice for a woman who doesn't appear to have a Christian bone in her body (Wells + Graham ' strike two). Now should a subsequent linkage of Yoko Ono to NWO/GSE ideology appear, we'd have every right to conclude something's up. Sure enough, it does.
Within an Internet article titled "The Georgia Guidestones" (at http://www.radioliberty.com/stones.htm) we find an embedded Yoko Ono quote: AI want people to know about the stones [that symbolize] all the beautiful things that are in this country." Among the ten precepts engraved in eight languages upon this huge granite monument in Georgia (which eight languages include Babylonian cuneiform, Egyptian hieroglyphics and Sanskrit -- very useful!) are those pushing for world government and drastic population reduction (okay, any volunteers?). Commissioned by a pseudonymous mystery man in 1979, the astronomically aligned Guidestones -- also called The American Stonehenge -- serve according to the article-writer as "an important link to the Occult Hierarchy that dominates the world in which we live." In other words the Georgia Guidestones are a monument to NWO/GSE ideology (strike three, Ms. Ono, you're out!).
So how was it done? How did John Lennon become programmed to believe he couldn't function apart from Yoko Ono? And when? These are variables the truth of which will probably never be known. But this I can assert with conviction: Within The Playboy Interviews for all to see is the partial-if-not-total eclipse of one personality (Lennon's) by another (Ono's). Not only does Lennon adamantly espouse Ono's "personal" philosophy at every opportunity, he at one point (p. 85) likens her to his very own Don Juan (sage/teacher/brujo of the Carlos Castaneda books) and states emphatically that she is the source of everything he knows (in fact, the song title that offends Barry Chamish so mightily, "Woman Is The Nigger of The World," was originally, according to Lennon, an Ono quote [p. 182]). That's quite an endorsement, coming as it does from the supposed intellectual standout amongst the Beatles.
And then there's the "Mother" stuff. It would be interesting to determine if Lennon called his wife "Mother" prior to the birth of their son (and I suspect he did!). Lennon's unhappy relationship to his own mother involved, in effect, losing her twice: once as a five-year-old to her emotional instability; then for good a decade later to a drunk driver, an off-duty policeman, who ploughed into her at a bus-stop (might this latter traumatic event have been "engineered"?). Perhaps this double abandonment contributed to his extreme aggressivity as a younger person (I can just see a young John Lennon leading his band of ultraviolent droogs in an alternate-reality film version of Burgess's A Clockwork Orange): In regard to his teenage peers, Lennon readily admits in the Interviews to having been a "bullyboy" (p. 136), and to women, more contritely, a "hitter" (p. 154). Where Barry Chamish is concerned, it is this irrefutable violent streak that made Lennon a choice target for mind control. As to whether he actually beat early band member Stu Sutcliffe to death as per The Lives of John Lennon, written by Albert Goldman, referred to by Chamish, I shan't speculate. I will speculate, however, that the violence could've been the result of trauma-based mind control, rather than the precursor. As Cathy O'Brien experienced (see http://www.leadingedgenews.com/cathyo.html for online interview) and David Icke documents, the shattering of vulnerable minds into separate personalities through the most heinous abuses of young children, some of them still infants, is both widespread and sytematic. If indeed a multiple (personality) from childhood, John Lennon may have had several "alters" (alternate personalities or personality fragments), and the imposition onto the correct one (Little Boy Lost) of Yoko Ono as mother figure, omniscient teacher and all-around Lennon-savior-goddess would be a snap for the right chap.
For this reader the most obvious indications within the Interviews of John Lennon having been mind-controlled -- in addition to copious lesser examples -- are the "Everything-is-the-opposite . . ." remarks, the Lewis Carroll references and the following extraordinary revelation: "Psychedelic vision is reality to me and always was. When I looked at myself in the mirror at twelve, thirteen . . . I used to, literally, trance out into alpha . . . . I would start trancing out and the eyes would get bigger and the room would vanish" (p.134) (my italics). This information is particularly noteworthy in light of our enquiry when you stop to consider that bizarre mirror imagery functions in combination with drugs, torture, hypnosis and other nefarious techniques to break the will and split the personality of a subject (frequently a child).
One such technique is a constant stream of puns, double- and triple-entendre designed to debilitate whatever critical thinking remains to the mind control victim (Cathy O'Brien's "Rite to Remain Silent" program, which from the perspective of her pedophile abusers, made her a "good Cathy-lick"). Such a device for the Lennons could be the expression, used in the Interviews by both spouses and attributed to a Harry Nilsson: "Everything is the opposite of what it is, isn't it?" Nilsson appears to have been an influential drinking buddy during Lennon's Los Angeles exile. Although I don't have any evidence to back it up, this banishment by Yoko Ono -- which saw her desperate, self-destructing husband refused return for well over a year -- would be a perfect vehicle to gauge the effectiveness of Lennon's dependency programming. Of course, a handler would've been required at the other end, say a drinking buddy or someone equally inconspicuous. As Lennon comments about this unhappy time: "LENNON: Yeah, I was just insane. . . . I really tried to drown myself in the bottle . . . . / PLAYBOY: It was all because of being apart? / LENNON: Yeah. I couldn't stand it. I absolutely couldn't stand it (p. 20)" (sounds pretty effective to me!). Conclusion: If John Lennon, one of the great free spirits and freethinkers of our time, was always a mind-controlled stooge of the GSE/Illuminati, then Harry Nilsson appears to be right and everything really is the opposite of what it is . . . isn't it?
Then there's the Reverend Charles Dodgson aka Lewis Carroll: When one learns that in addition to the Oz books (of which Frank Baum cranked out fourteen) the programmers make frequent use of Alice in Wonderland to inculcate slave ethics and blur the line between fantasy and reality, certain Lennon responses galvanize the attention. For example, in discussing "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds," the psychedelic imagery of which he readily attributes to Alice, Lennon further states: "There was also the image of the female who would someday come save me -- a 'girl with kaleidoscope eyes' . . . . It turned out to be Yoko, though I hadn't met Yoko yet" (p. 153). Though devoid of the nuances that assist spoken communication (e.g., intonation, facial expression, body language), this statement draws attention to itself linguistically by the odd, one might say clinical, use of "female" on top of the certainty and specificity attached to her -- the savior female's -- coming. Are we witnessing here one person's unique idiom ("Mother" applied to Yoko Ono would be another example) or residual programese, romantic yearning or made-to-order dependency? On its own, it's a toughie. Taken with the other anomalies we've accumulated, it fits the profile of a mind-controlled John Lennon -- bummer!
So much for John Lennon's autonomy! How extensive, one has to wonder, was Yoko Ono's own programming? (In Chapter One of their first book Springmeier & Wheeler make the distinction between "hierarchy" and "non-hierarchy" mind-controlled slaves; i.e., will the victim function as one of the Illuminati [e.g., Yoko Ono] or simply as one of their expendable "sex slaves who are used up and killed very early in life [e.g., though she survived, Cathy O'Brien], one-time-use saboteurs [and assassins], breeders, soldiers, drug couriers and so forth"?) Did she, the "real" Yoko Ono, genuinely love John Lennon (there's a strange moment in the Interviews [p. 26] when Ono forgets Lennon's name, at which point he chimes in with "John's the name"; she then peppers the next twenty-five words or two lines of text with "John" a total of five times as though reinforcing the association!)? Was the contract between the new parents that Lennon would raise Sean for the first five years while Ono adroitly handled the business end a "parting gift" to him from her (indeed, this five-year stint had just concluded and Lennon was back at work in the studio when Mark Chapman and his copy of Catcher blew in from Hawaii)? Put less euphemistically, did Yoko Ono know the hit was coming? For that matter did John Lennon (know the hit was coming)!?! He certainly made a couple of innocuous-at-the-time remarks to David Sheff that would later acquire portentous dimensions (see the foreword to the Interviews). This isn't so far-fetched actually -- that Lennon should have foreknowledge of his fate -- when one considers the same possibility has been raised quite convincingly in regard to the JFK assassination (as a shocking example of the occult ritual, The Killing of The King; see must-read article "Savage New Times" at http://www.parascope.com/articles/1196/ken3.htm). In this interpretation, achieving the heights of celebrityhood, whether in entertainment or politics, oftentimes results from/in a literal pact with the devil, aka the GSE (Courtney Love comes to mind for some reason): In return for power, fame, sex, money, drugs, the celebrity allows him- or herself to be used as a tool of deception in life and, if required, in death. Surely President Kennedy, the King of Camelot, would've noticed his security was sadly awry that day in Dallas, yet he smiled and waved till the hired guns let loose (whatever the ultimate source of the King/President's exploding head, there were shots fired, perhaps as a diversionary tactic), cutting down not only the man, but also, symbolically, his country, both of whom appeared to be in the very prime of life. (This observation is important to our investigation.)
Another celebrity whose security also failed, but who survived to talk about it, is George Harrison. When a knife-wielding intruder sliced-and-diced the former Beatle on the penultimate day of the penultimate year of the millennium, he -- the attacker -- had somehow slipped through one of the best security systems that a private citizen could hope to own. [This is wryly amusing: It just occurred to me on the final read-through of this paper that, going by each Beatle's creative contribution to the band, George Harrison occupies the next-to-last or penultimate position!] As John "NewsHawk" Quinn makes clear in his article regarding this bizarre event, the attacker presents all the "qualifications" of a Mark-Chapman-style robot assassin. While I find the work of NewsHawk, Inc. some of the most consistently compelling Internet reporting around (with the recent official verdict that the two Columbine shooters acted alone, everyone who values the truth must read the John Quinn material at the website of the Columbine Research Task Force: http://columbine.home.dhs.org), I have to disagree with a point made in this article: When NewsHawk maintains that John Lennon, in his interview with David Sheff, reveals the Beatles were basically engineered as part of a Tavistock-Institute, mass-mind-control operation, I go, "Huh, did I miss something?" Certainly at one point in the interview (p. 93) Lennon makes a sarcastic comment to the effect that anyone who values LSD should remember to thank the intelligence and military groups who introduced it as a means of control, which in Lennon's opinion totally backfired, serving to liberate people instead. This, I thought, was common knowledge. Perhaps twenty years ago it was considered revelatory? Nowhere, however, do I see the former Beatle saying anything along the lines, "Yeah, me and the lads were a part of all that too, y'know." [I only wish he had; it would've made my job a lot easier.]
It was at this critical juncture that I turned to Conspirators' Hierarchy: The Story of the Committe of 300 by Dr. John Coleman, since I knew it to discuss the Beatles as a creation of Tavistock and their CIA subsidiary. In his foreword Dr. Coleman sets himself up as a concerned ex-intelligence man; throughout his book, however, the good doctor (of what, I wonder?) comes across equally (I have to say it) as a right-wing bigot. Yet, as David Icke pointed out somewhere, one would be ill-advised to discount a body of investigative work solely on account of the source. Are all former spooks suspect? Certainly. Are all Bible-thumpers tedious? Definitely. Should they be avoided wholesale? At your peril! What then do we learn about the Fab Four from Conspirators' Hierarchy?
Well, the first thing we learn is that Dr. Coleman loathes rock music as personified in the Beatles and the Rolling Stones with a purple passion: AI hate to use these beautiful words ["lyrics," "music"] in the context of "Beatlemania"; it reminds me of how wrongly the word "lover" is used when referring to the filthy interaction between two homosexuals writhing in pigswill" (p. 90) (my italics)! Having read the foregoing tirade goggle-eyed, my subsequent thought was, "This guy just lost it!" I have to concede, however, that Dr. C. settles down and Conspirators' Hierarchy goes on to make a compelling read in spite of the author's obvious biases. Yes, but what about the Beatles as instruments of social control? On that score, despite continual assurances, I again don't see the evidence. In fact, Dr. Coleman can be proved plain wrong on a minor point and lacking in evidence on a major one. When he asserts that a whole Tavistock-created jargon was loosed on America to coincide with the trans-Atlantic plague that was Beatlemania, which included the word "teenager" (yes, Dr. Coleman insists "teenager" was unknown prior to 1964), it's a fairly simple matter to crack open the Oxford English Dictionary and trace the usage of any given word. In this case "teenager," whilst proving of recent American derivation, had still appeared in print as early as 1941. Sorry, Dr. Coleman, the facts are the facts.
Then there's this whole matter of some Tavistockian by the name of Theo Adorno (actually a German professor of philosophy who wrote about music, though Dr. C. never tells us that) having written all the Beatles' songs (both music and lyrics), which they then simply had to memorize like obedient little drones. This I'm not buying for two reasons. First, Dr. C. supplies exactly zero evidence to back up this contention (although it did come as something of a shock reading in the Interviews [p. 142] that not one of the Beatles could read or write music, though Margie has assured me this is not uncommon amongst musicians); second, the last almost-third of the Interviews involves David Sheff rattling off Beatles' tunes and Lennon firing back who originated them, who contributed and whatever background he could recall. Dr. Coleman's ranting aside, Lennon does a convincing job of accounting for scores of Beatles' songs, hits as well as more obscure tracks, and nowhere, trust me, does Theo Adorno come up. In fact, beyond Paul and "me" very few people get mentioned at all. Okay, one might counter, perhaps Lennon had been programmed (given screen memories) to account for every Beatles' song. It never once comes across that way in the Interviews -- and I was on the lookout, believe me! -- but who's to say.
And that quasi cop-out brings us to crunch time. Having sifted the foregoing material and determined that John Lennon was in all likelihood a victim of mind control, it must now be decided: Were the Beatles, by extension, a weapon in the GSE/Illuminati arsenal? That is, were the Beatles, as a musical group and a social phenomenon, used to manipulate the behavior of society at large?
Let the first item of record be this: The reality of mind control should not be in doubt. As the author of "Savage New Times" imparts: "Looking into the subject of mind control, one finds that the scope is wide and [the] methods used are sophisticated." From the ancient mystery schools through the Inquisition through the Third Reich through (?) MK-ULTRA to the present era of psyops and psywars (didn't it seem those Iraqi troops in the Gulf War couldn't surrender fast enough?), mind control has always been with us. That's the stuff of fiction, you say; show us an example in real life. Okey doke, slowpoke; turning again to "Savage New Times":
Perpetrators deliberately murdered JFK in such a way as to effect our national identity and cohesiveness -- to fracture America's soul. Even the blatancy of their conspiracy was designed to show their "superiority" and our "futility." "They" were doing to the nation what they had been doing to individuals for years. (page 6 of 7)
In the earth of your heart and the tug of your gut don't you feel that to be the truth. Surely nobody in full possession of the known facts surrounding this event can come away convinced of lone nuts and magic bullets. But on a conscious level we human beings don't want to see what makes us unsure and ashamed; instead we have fabricated/are fabricating a consensus reality that simply doesn't conform to the facts. Anyone or anything conflicting with this distorted worldview, that is, who can't easily be rationalized away, first gets ignored; if that doesn't do the trick, frightened people wield hostility and derision to defend the only reality they know. I mean, who wants to conclude that behind a facade of decency and normalcy it is Satanists and pedophiles who run the world with torture, mind control and assasination on behalf of their reptilian masters! How many are even willing to consider it ( . . . if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you --- Friedrich Nietzsche).
Two examples: Recently Sightings featured a story from Philadelphia's The Inquirer (no, not the tabloid) in which a woman walking to the store had a kitchen knife plunged into her neck by an unidentified assailant. Not realizing the extent of her injury, the woman completed her shopping and made it all the way home before someone, her daughter, thought to inform her of the knife handle protruding from her neck! No-one at the market, not even the cashier who must've come face to face with this seriously injured woman, chose to notice the knife handle -- rather they subconsciously chose to ignore it as too threatening and/or weird.
Then there's the chemtrail phenomenon. For the last year -- at least! -- we've had large jets spewing billowy streamers over our cities in grids, in parallel lines, in giants Xs, in wagon wheels . . . and 90-something percent of the sprayees are totally oblivious -- they choose to ignore it! As do the media, although there was that one article from a San Francisco paper ridiculing the whole notion. When confronted with the chemtrail phenomenon the consensus rationalists say: AIt's just a vapor trail from a passenger jet, and they've always looked like that." Oh, really, what about the four "passenger jets" I recently saw flying abreast of each other as they disgorged their noxious payloads? Since when do airliners fly in formation? Furthermore, if regular contrails have always stretched across entire cities and lingered in the sky for hours, why is it, given that air traffic is a constant, that "chemtrails" only manifest on certain days? To which the consensus rationalist replies: "It's because of changes to the atmosphere, global warming kinda stuff, y'know." Okay, so you concede that something unusual might be taking place; then let's address that issue. "Yeah, right! Like you and me are gonna stop global warming! It's for the government to figure out, man. Isn't that what our taxes are for." Speaking of which, somebody call me a cab so I can get away from this annoying person. "Hey, what about hostility? You promised us some hostility." Well, nobody's taken a swing yet, but I have personally experienced reactions bordering on hostile in sharing what I know of chemtrails with intelligent, normally affable -- albeit totally unprepared -- friends and associates. Voices have risen, lips have curled: "It's just a vapor trail . . . ."
Face it, human beings have an aversion to sinister conspiracies and inexplicable violence. With the JFK assassination Americans got both. No wonder that most people at the time bought the ridiculous verdict of the corrupt Warren Commission. Quite possibly the Beatles helped to soothe and distract an outraged collective conscience -- outraged first at the perpetrators and second at we-the-people for going along with their psychotically audacious scam! A gentleman by the name of Dave Marsh makes some fascinating connections between JFK and the Beatles, writing in Rolling Stone's edition of Feb. 24th, 1977:
There is something about the clamor for a Beatles reformation that gives me the creeps . . . . I think there is a connection with the equally persistent hunt for the assassins of John Kennedy. . . . [I]f we can only find the men on the grassy knoll the great tragedies of the Sixties might be rescinded. . . . [T]here would have been no Vietnam . . . no psychedelic and sexual culture traumas. Perhaps not even any Beatles.
And more directly:
The Beatles have always had an intimate connection to the JFK assassination. . . . Even Brian Epstein [the group's manager] believed the Kennedy assassination helped their rise -- the Beatles appeared to bind our wounds with their messages of joy and handholding. . . . replacing Camelot with Oz [did he just say "Oz"!].
Mr. Marsh calls such speculation "twaddle," but he can't leave it alone: A paragraph later a sprawling, incoherent Beatles discography is likened to the Warren Commission Report [I love it!], the latter surely qualifying as the most egregious epic of disinformation ever assembled . . . after the Bible.
In our line of enquiry the question naturally arises: If it is true that the Beatles rose in good measure on the slumped shoulders of JFK, did this occur as a natural juxtaposition of unrelated events, or was a very confident somebody with myriad left hands pulling strings all over the place? Obviously there was (nothing but) string-pulling in, around and after Dealy Plaza, so why not, too, in regard to the Beatles manic ascent! Many have noted how, in the early going, Beatlemania was a first-class con job. Riotous displays of mass-adulation were fabricated by the public relations and media people in much the same way that Richard Lester, as director, created such scenes for the Beatles' movies. One doesn't get the cooperation of major newspapers and/or TV networks -- mouthpieces for the Agenda, remember -- unless it works to the advantage of some very big, very scaly boys and girls. Sorry, folks, it looks like the lads from Liverpool were co-opted. What the GSE gained by this is hard to say. It may've been the drug thing -- "psychedelic culture trauma" in Dave Marsh's words and a miscalculation in John Lennon's opinion -- or something else entirely.
Co-opted they may have been; one thing, however, I want to stress: The talent, the wit, the joie de vivre that typified the Beatles and their music I believe were genuine. Dr. Coleman's notion of a sixty-year-old philosophy professor -- from Germany no less! -- writing "Strawberry Fields" and "Penny Lane," the stuff of John Lennon's childhood, is simply absurd. Then how is it I can still recommend Conspirators' Hierarchy? The research in this book on the world narcotics trade and on the existence of the groups advancing the Agenda of the "One World Order" (as Dr. C. prefers to call it) is thorough and credible. It's quite feasible in light of his biases that the good doctor was himself disinformed in regard to the Beatles. Such disinformation would serve to discredit his book in general and also to demoralize his readers by suggesting that the GSE are 100% behind all great creative endeavors, the implication being that we, the human herd, are unimaginative clods from whose ranks nothing exceptional springs lest it be nurtured by evil (after all, the Sumerian word for "human being" -- according to R.A. Boulay, author of Flying Serpents and Dragons: The Story of Man's Reptilian Past -- is LULU or "big sheep"). This, however, is unadulterated bullshit. Creative expression is a human trait, evident in everything we are. The Agenda must place limits on this creative potential, including our awareness of even having it, because this is our strength. The GSE have adroitly kept us pitted against each other till we've truly come to believe the lie that human nature is inherently destructive. However, if you examine the earliest written records that have yet been found, human-against-human violence was frequently instigated by "gods" such as Yahweh of the Old Testament or any one of the troublemakers comprising the Sumerian pantheon (all of whom were clearly reptilian in Boulay's estimation). It's a sad commentary that the idea of a united world has to be a red flag to the alert-minded person:
[Hu]mankind released from the pressure of population, the waste of warfare and the private monopolisation of the sources of wealth, will face the universe with a great and increasing surplus of will and energy. Change and novelty will be the order of life; each day will differ from its predecessor in its greater amplitude of interest. Life which was once routine, edurance and mischance, will become adventure and discovery. (p. 55)
I couldn't agree more. Unimaginative types perceive a world devoid of aggression and misery as some sort of grinding bore. Nothing could be further from the truth. As the foregoing passage indicates, the opportunities for inner and outer exploration would only increase exponentially. And for the committed action heroes there would always be those unfriendly denizens of inner and outer space to contend with, not to mention natural disasters. Unfortunately the euphoria sours when one learns the above forecast originated with archinsider H.G. Wells, writing in The Open Conspiracy (published 1928). For Wells to promote the New World Order in these glowing terms is akin to Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda chief, selling Auschwitz, Dachau, Treblinka etc. as package tours. Now you see how Barry Chamish can jump all over John Lennon's "Imagine," calling it "the ultimate disgrace" and "a ditty . . . which attempts to brainwash and inculcate his listeners in the full NWO agenda"! And I always thought "Imagine" to be a highly spiritual song (admittedly, long before I got my first whiff of conspiracy). Perhaps Mr. Chamish, as a god-fearing man (the gods one fears don't get a capital "G" in my book), took personal offense at the line "No religion too"? No doubt the zealous Dr. Coleman would stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the indignant Mr. Chamish on this one (at which point I would advise a hasty retreat before any disagreement around the "r"-word can ensue).
The way in which the one-world concept has become an automatic red flag reminds me of the foggy ideation obfuscating the issue of gun control. (Suffice it to say I don't own a firearm, nor have I fired one since a military stint half a lifetime ago.) A world without guns is not beyond the imagination; however, all you premature and deluded utopians, have you forgotten to look in your rearview mirror lately: The twentieth century is littered with corpses in the tens of millions whose former occupants were murdered by their own governments, which regimes invariably enacted gun control as a preliminary to mass murder. Couldn't happen here, you say. No, in America they only commit psychological genocide -- for generations to come -- by exploding in public view the youthful president/king's head! (I can't help adding here that an abundant supply of even the most sophisticated firearms won't help much should shove come to fracture since the enemies of humankind already have in their possession the psychotronic arsenal with which to turn society into an "electronic concentration camp" [for more context on this quote see important new book: Earth Rising -- The Revolution by Begich & Roderick and/or interview with Dr. Begich at http://www.leadingedgenews.com/Nonlethalwarfare.htm]. Then why haven't they done so? My hunch is they're still not fully prepared; quite possibly it all hinges on the outcome of the chemtrail campaign.)
By way of conclusion, let's turn to the world's most intrepid and cognizant opponent of the Agenda . . . perhaps ever -- and this sinister crap has been going on for millennia, ever since the reptilians went underground (figuratively and literally) sometime between the Great Flood and the advent of the so-called Christian era. His name as you probably know is David Icke. For the purposes of this essay he just happens to provide the embodiment of what I want to introduce (to some) as the "new objectivity." My college dictionary defines "objective" in several ways, including the meaning I have heretofore intended: "expressing or dealing with facts . . . without distortion by personal feelings . . . ." Personal feelings obviously belong to the subjective approach. In other words, objectivity is all about assessing something mentally/logically without becoming involved emotionally/intuitively. According to the new objectivity, "objective" and "subjective" meet halfway, combine forces and kick ass like never before. Simple enough, but is it feasible?
Despite a false sense of totality imparted by the petty tyrannical ego, the human being is a composite of many intelligences, each having its own voice. Because the ego favors the mental voice (which in most people has a distracting overlay of what Joseph Chilton Pearce calls "roof-brain chatter"), the other voices, notably that of the heart, are relegated to minor or no importance whatsoever. The attuned human being, however, has recourse to information from sources that ego-obsessed persons claim do not exist. Picture a stuffy English professor excoriating a poem in translation when he speaks not a word of the original language, nor is he a poet. Well, this is more extreme still. It's like saying: I don't understand Russian, therefore Russian literature has no value whatsoever and probably doesn't exist anyway. An absurd example for an absurd situation.
Here's a peek at the new objectivity in situ:
HEAD: This Icke guy is making some outrageous claims. What do you think, Heart, are we wasting our time here?
HEART: No, I don't think so, Head [not to be confused with a certain animated hand puppet]. I can feel that Mr. Icke is quite sincere. I suggest we continue.
[500 densely informative pages later]
HEAD: Good call, Heart. Most everything tallies up here. And -- whew! -- it's quite the intellectual rush, I must say. How are things down there?
HEART: In a word, Head, great! The heart energy [i.e, the "l"-word] surrounding this information is really resonating strongly! I say, keep it coming.
Open mind, open heart. Hmmm, seems easy enough. Shall we give it a try?
-
Sam RasnakeJul 21, 01:45pm
My favorite McCartney-post-Beatles-tune: "Three Legs" from Ram - and before Wings.
-
whatwouldbukowskidoJul 21, 02:54pm
I REALLY enjoyed Ram when it came out.
Going through some old "Let it Be" sessions clips it was interesting to see Paul working on that "Driving in the Back Seat of My Car" song that later appeared on Ram, and all of them working on John's "Just Give Me Some Truth," which wouldn't come out until a couple of solo albums later.
I wonder what John's input on "Admiral Halsey" would have been (it seems as if Paul is introducing "Lennon-esque" elements on his own).
-
whatwouldbukowskidoJul 21, 05:22pm
-
Sally HoutmanJul 22, 02:08am
The above article was intensely heavy, but very interesting.
I love this:
" the trans-Atlantic plague that was Beatlemania"
Heh.
Long time since I've listened to "Ram". I could watch 'the making of..." videos all day. Enjoy hearing the stories behind and inspirations for things.
Good thread.
-
Darryl PriceJul 23, 08:22pmJohn wrote the most interesting stuff as a Beatle, but all the Beatles were very interesting musicians to a point. They were unbelievable innovators and for the most part good people caught up in mind-boggling situations. Still if you listen to their songs, instead of what was written about them as normal people, you'll find you are still astounded and thrilled at what you hear. Over and over, it just makes sense. When Sgt. Pepper came out Paul was 21, John 24.?These were young folks creating this thing.It's amazing now, it was amazing then. There's so much good, great, music there in that body of work that generations will always seek it out and find a beautiful presence still shining there.It speaks quite clearly. At one point, it was exactly what they said, it was love.
-
whatwouldbukowskidoJul 23, 08:39pm
Paul was 25, John 27, but STILL!
Them's be chillren!
And what's bizarre, to my continuing memories, is how they always looked to be such mature individuals when, in fact, they were so very young (except for George, who did look like a child on their first American tour--and who sang the first Beatles song in an American concert).
-
whatwouldbukowskidoJul 23, 09:09pm
George (age 21) singing first Beatles song performed in America:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GpZNlfvPQY
(after already having performed for (on) The Queen:
-
Darryl PriceJul 24, 06:13pm
Yeah, I think I was thinking of A Hard Day's Night, but anyway, they were quite young for everything they ever accomplished. Just saw the TV Guide 50th anniversary special mag--pretty neat how they list how many songs were by each Beatle, together and apart, on each album.
-
whatwouldbukowskidoJul 24, 07:11pm
Paul with broken toof:
-
Sally HoutmanJul 25, 03:11am
And they *was* fab
-
Sally HoutmanJul 25, 03:14am
...but it's all over now, Baby Blue...
-
whatwouldbukowskidoJul 25, 09:50pm
Never cared for that "When We Was Fab" song, but George is the only one whose interviews I care about, respect, enjoy...honestly appreciate as a real human being (him).
-
Sam RasnakeJul 25, 11:49pm
I've spent some time this week with the Criterion edition of A Hard Day's Night. Fascinating.
-
whatwouldbukowskidoJul 26, 06:23pm
One thing I've been thinking about lately is how (100%) unlikely any of the "interesting" Beatles song would have been taken by a production company if they had arrived, unsolicited, on acetate or tape.
Strawberry Fields Forever?
Fughitaboutit. Never would have been taken.
I Am the Walrus?
Fughitaboutit. Never would have been taken.
Rain
Tomorrow Never Knows
Fixing a Hole
Baby You're a Rich Man
Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite!
Blue Jay Way
Doctor Robert
Happiness is a Warm Gunand so on and so on and so on...
NONE OF THEM
would have been taken by any self-respecting agency. -
Sam RasnakeJul 26, 06:39pm
I am the Walrus is, for me, the band's finest moment - and I think you're right, Matt.
I would add I Want You to the list.
-
whatwouldbukowskidoJul 26, 07:25pm
Basically, EVERY (original) Beatles song was weird. Never heard before.
They HAD TO (were blessed to)
start withLove Me Do.
HAD to earn their keep (so to speak)
by winning over audience after audience
through direct physical contact.Their growth was perfectly in tune with the growth of their audience (once they got their musical foot in the door through endless touring).
But still, even their early hits (I honestly believe) would not have been picked up by any American publishing company via the slush pile.
They made it by word of mouth and the public's (not corporation's) reaction to The New.
Publishing companies, esp. back then, were not open to the truly new, would only accept some variation of what has already been/sold.
-
whatwouldbukowskidoJul 26, 07:54pm
A true cri de coeur
-
Sally HoutmanJul 26, 09:37pm
Can you imagine some starched and buttoned-up music exec being approached with this by an unknown artist:
-
You must log in to reply to this thread.