For more posts on occult symbolism, click here. For an intro to the Band see the featured post to the right or check out the archive
The last few occult posts have been homing in on the psychedelic occult because it is a tightly-defined specific thing that connects to a lot of occult-friendly patterns in the modern West. We started very broadly and have been moving inwards - the last one was ready to get into some specifics. But something keeps coming up in the background that needs to be addressed. So many occult posts keep circling back to the same underlying issue - the pattern of de-moralization then inversion that replaced American culture with a mass-media phantasm that turned the values that built the society completely upside down. Click for a post on de-moralization.
Winslow Homer, Chestnutting, 1870, wood engraving, Brooklyn Museum
Nabisco Oreos ad, 1952
The more you look at how quickly and completely superficial materialism became the national culture, the harder it is to comprehend.
It is easy to identify. We can observe it historically, and live in its de-moralized aftermath. But there is no easy accounting for why the moral inversion was so quick and complete. The major issues aren't mysterious - unheroic materialist comfort, high-trust values, homogeneous culture, monolithic media, social optimism, etc. But how was it so fast and so all-pervasive? It resembles sorcery.
William Henry Margetson, "She was known to have studied magic while she was being brought up in the nunnery", from The Legends of King Arthur and His Knights, p. 104 by James Knowles, London 1914; Amanda Diaz, Glamour and Magic, photo
According to this definition, glamour derived from the medieval "grammar" which was associated with magic by the general public. In 18th century Scotland, there is 'a form of grammar, altered to glamer or glamour, that meant “a magic spell or enchantment. As glamour passed into more extended English usage, it came to mean “an elusive, mysteriously exciting attractiveness.”'
The modern concept of glamour is connected to the idea of casting an enchantment, or ensorcelling, to use a good Victorian word. Like a lot of occult imagery today it has been stripped of its supernatural dimension and redefined as psychological and/or emotional. But the effect - the fruits - are the same. Glamour makes you perceive the world as different from how it is and act in ways that you wouldn't otherwise. What changes are the reasons.
Edward Burne-Jones: The Beguiling of Merlin, 1874, oil on canvas, Lady Lever Art Gallery
The story of Merlin and Vivian is an archetypal example of magical glamour. She captivates him with her beauty, learns his art, then traps him in an enchanted prison.
There are two versions of glamour here: the supernatural magic version is the enchantment that Vivian used to imprison Merlin. The story is clear that this is actual sorcery. The modern version is the way she entraps him in the first place. Her appearance and presentation captivate him in a way that makes her irresistible, even when he knows she is an enemy.
Modern glamour is a captivation that blinds you to truth. Vivian was a beautiful young woman, so in her case it is a combination of physical allure, pleasant manner, and erotic fascination. The key is that your presence or "aura" distorts judgment through beguilement or misdirection - as if it were magic.
They call it charm for a reason.
French adverstising card produced for Liebig Company's Fleisch-extract, 1867
It is related to illusionism - a big part of the Victorian occult craze. Glamour is a sort of illusion because it clouds your senses and makes you see reality as different from what it is.
Glamour today is connected to fashion and Hollywood - places built on the idea of beguiling fascination. The Band is referring to the traditional ideas of fashion and entertainment - where the illusion was superficially appealing - and not the open embrace of degeneracy and ugliness that we see today. It's always been degenerate - we're talking about glamour, or surface appeal. What Tolkien called "fair-seeming".
Amanda Diaz is skilled fashion photographer who walks a line between glamour as style and its magical roots. The Band knows nothing about her beyond the obvious talent in her work and is not interested in looking deeper into this sort of wizardry. But this photo is a great illustration of the connection.
Amanda Diaz, Ashley, 2017, photo
It's all based on the play between attracting and withholding, revealing and concealing. A connection that demands more.
The model looks pretty, but is so made up that her actual beauty is unknowable. Heavy coloring around the eyes and mouth draw attention to the most communicative, suggestive, and potentially erotic parts of the face like a highlighter, but the thickness of the make-up makes it impossible to read her expression. Is she guarded, angry, interested? Her neckline plunges but her pose is modest. Color contrast makes her appear to come forward towards you, but the pastel dress prevents the contrast from being too aggressive. Her face is dead center, and accentuated by the hair, which shimmers like glitter. The light washes the hair out in the middle so it doesn't overpower the face and adds a mystical dimension to an otherwise very sharp shot.
Mass entertainment cloaked itself in glamour - it still does to an extent, but the culture is so degraded now that the illusion is unsustainable. The "glamour of Hollywood" made that cesspool seem appealing and enticed people to let it into their minds and homes. It is powerful because it is working on different levels at once. This lets you see through one while still remaining trapped in larger illusion.
There is the glamour presented in the movies themselves. This is what most people think of when they think of Hollywood illusion - fake scenes that look real, but because they're fiction they can carry whatever message you want. This is the principle way that entertainment media programs the masses.
But this is surface level wizardry and easy to see through. The real glamour was deeper.
The real illusion is that media is reality.
Big entertainment extended the glamour of the silver screen (!?) to real life with an illusion of spectacle. Sharp contrasts, selective lighting, big blurry crowds - something's happening! This matters! It's real.
The real spell was to extend the glamour to "the entertainment industry" itself. Not just to the spectacle but to the idea of mass media, to the point where each home had "reality" brokered by a small glowing screen.
Like hearing your whole life how the Kennedy-Nixon debate "changed" politics by grasping the rhetorical potential of television as if this was just a neutral, rational fact that no one sees a problem with. Like calculating the amount of carpet for a room. Now actually consider the claim on its own with objective eyes. Either:
A. The nation is so enchanted - the alternative is moronic - that they actually think it makes sense to choose the leader of the nation the height of the Cold War because he looked awkward under studio lights.
B. The story is nonsense and other factors were in play.
The actual answer is that it doesn't matter. What matters is that everyone accepts the lie that whatever explanation the glowing screen offers up is reality, no matter how preposterous. The story is absurd, but storyteller after storyteller with offer reassurance and encouragement to ignore what you can see to be true or false and accept the narrative. Two layers of glamour - what it tells you and what it pretends to be.
One you can see - the rhetoric of t.v. determines elections. But you can only see it because of the other - the lie that what the glowing screen says is Truth. This internet slide is typical for presenting ensorcellment in a fake cathode illusion.
Make-up before the debate.
Stage it differently and Nixon wins. But either way, whoever crafts the prettier picture rules your life. The glamour is that the t.v. can tell you that a man sweating on t.v. is a natural way to choose a president, and everyone just nods along. When you accept the deeper glamour, you make it effectively real by your own actions.
It looks utterly retarded - the voluntary surrender to pure illusion in charting the course of the nation. But it helps explain how "everything" could change overnight.
And no one seemed to care. No one even seemed to notice. They were too busy chasing the fake success or cowering from the fake perils that the fake reality served up. Literally submitting, lollipop in hand, to the glamour.
 |
Wheaties outdoor living sweepstakes, 1953
|
So what happens when everyone is in the Truman Show? For one thing, you can never really seek the truth because there in no path to consider any options outside of that the ones the media gives you. When you are entranced by shadows you don't look at the projector. If the media world is accepted as reality, it is your baseline for all further reflection. All your scenarios start with the options they give you - "none of the above" is never even entertained.
When you are trapped in an illusory game, you think the preset roles are the only options for you. Your opinions, reactions, and preconceptions are preset.
It looks a bit like this:
If you accept media as reality, it can't be discredited, no matter how dishonest or depraved the message. Those are just "bad actors" - deviants acting out within the natural order of things and not signs that the dishonesty and depravity are inherent consequences of basing your society with a manipulative, globalist illusion that hates your culture and people.
The unholy trinity of mediation, demoralization, and inversion is much too pervasive to cover in a couple of blog posts - the Band is still unsure how a fake mediated illusion could replace reality so quickly and thoroughly. They had deep roots to be sure:
De-moralization goes back to the deist "Creator" in the Constitution and the "Enlightenment values" that American civic nationalism is built on.
Thomas Nast, Uncle Sam's Thanksgiving Dinner, Harper's Weekly, 20 November 1869
Inversion goes back to the beginning too. The fake civic nationalism of t.v. world inverts the Christian morality and empirical ingenuity - the real national culture - that built the prosperity that made mass media possible.
But it's free!
New York Times, 11 November 1918
Centralized media as well.
We the People had been conditioned to accept increasingly centralized and rhetorically-potent forms of media influence - newspapers, movies, radio - like this long-running globalist shill. But nothing with the ability to pipe a constant audio-visual fake reality in the home. Entertainment news, and interests, all reflecting the same de-moralized and inverted materialist values and carried by the most aggressive mass-marketing the public had ever been subjected to.
The history can't explain the almost-universal acceptance of a fake, inverted, media-created materialist value system almost overnight. Not in the way that you can look at the background and see how immersion in a transparently unreal bubble of illusion to the point of social and moral self-immolation is the obvious next step. It really does look like like magic.
Mutual Life Insurance Ad, 1945; Oldsmobile Ad, 1953; Rich Plan Ad, Mercury Ad, 1957; America’s Independent Electric Light and Power Companies Ad, 1957; Profit makers on Parade, Coal Industry Ad, 1948
Ad Council Ad actively creating an association between the illusion of endless materialistic Progress! as the defining characteristic of the American nation.
The Advertising Council Inc. was formed by the major players in the advertising industry after World War Two to "maintain or advance a philanthropic image for both advertising and business. Its goal was to address ‘societal problems through influencing and informing public opinion’." By 1949, it was coordinating the national structure of advertising agencies and had dropped "over 500 advertisements in national magazines, newspaper supplements and business publications, 8,000 newspaper advertisements, 6,000 outdoor posters and messages carried by almost all the network radio programs resulting in more than 2 billion ‘listener impressions’."
The notion that anyone could conceive of this as either organic or reality is why it seems like a glamour. But it is free.
The Band is not arguing for a supernatural explanation. What we are looking for is a way to conceptualize a level of illusion and inversion that seems logically inexplicable at this point. Conceiving post-war culture as an enchantment better captures the power and speed of what happened than trying to explain it away with psychology.
Besides, priests in lab coats have told us magic isn't real, so there's nothing to fear. Glamour can be no more than a metaphor. And after all, dark sorcery of that magnitude would be incredibly costly. You'd need a blood sacrifice that's so big it isn't realistic to contemplate.
 |
| Jes Wihelm Schlaikjer, See Here's Your Infantry, 1943 |
Something to consider.
The best way to deal with deception on this scale is to look at specific instances then tie them back to the larger pattern. This way, the full scope of the glamour will come into view over time, and maybe even make more sense logically. The psychedelic occult is a specific instance. Psychedelia was a subset of a media-world illusion category called "social revolution that changed everything" or "the counterculture" from its creation myth as a youth-led rebellion against "mainstream" or "establishment" culture". The quotations are because these are nonsensical terms that only have meaning within the distorted fake world of media.
The Beatles, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, 1967
Time Magazine, Sep. 22, 1967
George and Patty Harrison visit Haight-Ashbury in San Francisco Monday 7 August 1967
The official narrative is that the 60s happened when enlightened Boomlings realized that their parents' culture was repressive, unfair, and stiflingly conformist - as obsolete as slavery in an era of Progress!. Of course, the histories were written by the same deceivers that brought us the creation myth in the first place.
The reality is that the rebellion was tolerated and even encouraged by institutions, marketed over the airwaves, and publicized through big entertainment.
There is often a kernel of truth in inversion. Postwar culture was soulless - the carcass of historic American culture re-imagined as self-obsessed materialism. But this wasn't really the trap. The actual spell was to make people believe that their values and identity was what the media told them they were. To make them dependent on mass culture to set their moral compasses and lifestyle options. The specific options that you are given are irrelevant - the "current style" is illusory smoke that can change with the wind.
Think how quickly the world projected by mass culture flipped from the 50s to the 70s. This is only puzzling when you accept that they are determining your values.
When everyone buys in though, they really do gain that power. It's like magic.
The real changes arose from the consequences of economics and centralized social policy - creeping socialism and cultural decay. Realities that the glamours misdirect from. Those are things that have identifiable causes and clear solutions, were they presented openly and honestly. Better to have an enchanted population remembering t.v. shows and blathering on about 'how we were' or 'how everything changed' as if these were naturally occurring processes like self-absorbed hedonism leading to socio-cultural decay.
The way to make proceed into a fog of illusion is to move out from basic truths about what we can know and how we can know it. Moral reasoning - to consider empirical facts through moral principles. This keeps us aware of the different levels that knowledge operates on and keeps us from following tendrils of mist.
The glamour - the general acceptance that a government-compliant and corporate-run media determines reality - intersects with a pattern that came up in the last occult post. What the Band as referred to as guilt vs. shame-based systems of values. We used these terms because they are relatively common, but they are terrible labels for moral perspectives. Guilt and shame create the impression that value systems are built around negatives, but these are really the consequences of immorality. The emotional penalty that you pay for wrongdoing. Breaking the rules makes you feel guilty in a guilt-based system and ashamed in a shame-based one. Neither should be the positive defining state because they assume failure. Actually follow the moral code and you feel neither.
Let's be positive and refer to them by where the incentive not to transgress comes from.
Paolo Veronese, Allegory of Virtue and Vice, around 1565, oil on canvas, The Frick Collection, New York
Internal or internally-motivated systems have guilt as the penalty. Christian moral codes - like American national values - are internally driven because they are built on an individual's personal choice to live according to logos. Only you know what you believe in your heart and whether you are telling the truth.
This painting was a popular pre-modern theme and represented life as a personal choice between virtue and vice. Vice offers the lush life on the left, but Virtue is open, modest, and honest. Virtue and Vice are personifications here - they aren't meant to be read as real figures. The man is making his choice privately - the opinions of others is irrelevant.
Andrey Mironov, The Conscience, 2015, oil on canvas
Under these conditions, immorality makes you feel guilt because you aren't living up to what you know to be right. You're failing a private covenant in a private relationship, and guilty feelings are supposed to motivate you to do better. But no one else can see this directly, and the presence of spectators is irrelevant. Only you know if you really are doing better, and whether the guilt is gone.
William Holman Hunt, The Awakening Conscience, 1853, oil on canvas, Tate Britain
Ideally, internal morality is consistent even though temptations change. Personal motivation means that your personal desire - how you want to live - is a constant standard no matter where you are. In reality power corrupts because human nature is highly corruptible, but the very possibility of corruption implies that there is a standard in the first place. Something even the corrupted can come back to...
America was a high-trust society because its traditional public morality was internally-directed Christianity. That is, the baseline world view and value set that the majority of Americans took for granted. Obviously national IQ was part of it, but other high-IQ cultures that are historically low-trust and show intelligence alone isn't sufficient.
William Sidney Mount, Bargaining for a Horse, 1835, oil on canvas, New York Historical Society
You need internal morality for the pressure to be personally virtuous in dealing, adjudicating, teaching, governing, etc. There are always cheaters, but the normative assumption is that people are inclined to do right.
Consistency.
Elizabeth Hunter, In Disgrace,
External or externally-motivated moralities have shame as the penalty. What you feel is disgrace or humiliation in the eyes of others, rather than any personal guilt over what you have done. The incentive is to not get caught, not to avoid wrongdoing, because you only feel badly when someone sees you.
Obviously these feelings aren't mutually exclusive - we can feel guilt and shame at the same time. The point is where the main internal driver of the moral system comes from. Inside or out?
Scene in a New England town A.D. 1700, from The New Eclectic History of the United States by Mary Elsie Thalheimer, Cincinnati and New York, 1890
External systems base morality on conforming to external opinion, regardless of whether those beliefs were believed. Humiliation as a punishment relies on exposure, with shame compensating for the lack of internal guilt.
You should be ashamed is something someone else tells you to feel. Obviously the relationship is different with children because they have to be taught values. The Band is referring to adult behavior - whether there is a developed internal moral direction or if the baseline assumption is transgress until you get caught.
Mouthing the words, so to speak, or not inhaling. These people corrode a high-trust system by being untrustworthy - immoral for their own advantage - whenever possible.
Your personal desires can line up with external values, but they don't have to. There is no causal connection. When the rules don't match, the pressure is to ignore them. And when enough people do, morality becomes a hollow, hypocritical shell.
When the difference between internal and external morality meets the invasion of the home by the t.v., another big pattern comes up - the distinction between public and private life. Private life is one of the great benefits of advanced civilization. The freedom to be alone with your thoughts is beneficial intellectually, creatively, and psychologically. It's a break from the formalities and pressures of society - an opportunity to put your feet up, to be unserious, or for quiet reflection. But an internally-directed person remains morally consistent.
Rudyard Kipling's study in the 17th century Bateman House in Sussex
If you are internally driven, a less self-conscious environment doesn't mean the basic values you desire to live by change.
The inexplicably creepy pool in the Vanderbilt's Biltmore Mansion and a Djurdjevic in the Podesta collection from an earlier post.
Private life for the externally-directed tends towards a second morality - what you have to do for appearances, and what you do when no one is watching. Guilt is you letting you down - there is nowhere to hide. Shame is letting others down - don't get caught and you're whistling a jig.
Mass media society brought a fake, extenally-derived value system into the private space of the home. Turn the glowing screen on and there is no place for personal reflection outside the media delusion bubble. Suddenly, all values are external and that external morality is set by media shills. At this level, it doesn't matter what particular fake value set is being pushed, but the mass conformist obedience that makes fake value sets possible at all.
And what are the value sets? We've spent a lot of time on materialism and secularism, but there is another strange value that has largely been forgotten in the 21st century, maybe because it was focused on the children. Or maybe because it seems so bizarre in hindsight, although this is all bizarre in hindsight.
Be Popular Don't Gossip - Good Manners school poster, 1959
Betty Cornell, Betty Cornell's Glamour Guide for Teens, Pocket Books, 1958
We're referring to popularity as a measure of personal worth. This is the extreme in external morality - your worth reduced to how liked you are. The problem is that popularity has no moral direction.
Popularity was a perfect fit for mass media culture, since this is a one-way form of communication. It can't do anything for or with you, and everyone gets the same program. The only way to measure success is to tot up sales or box office, or viewers, or whatever. Now consider how often the most popular is forgettable. Doesn't matter - in media bubble world, popularity is the value in itself - quality is irrelevant.
Mass media culture + popularity as a value = the outline of the counterculture.
Just a spontaneous, grass-roots youth movement...
How did "things" change so quickly? They weren't real, and the advantage of not being real is that you can appear however you want whenever you want. Even as opposites at the same time.
This is where we have to look at how the content of the glamour evolves. Once you've established the deception that media is reality, you can lead people with the illusion of choice between fake options. Up to now, the Band has been treating media-created mass monoculture and t.v. as more or less the same. This is because the impact of t.v. on society was critical for setting up an externally-driven public morality around materialism and popularity. But, counterculture values were introduced through another arm of the mass "entertainment" industry - music.
Theo van Doesburg, Composition VII (The Three Graces), oil on canvas, Mildred Lane Kemper Art Museum, St. Louis
The establishment was fake, but it was built on a de-moralized version of European traditions. The illusion seemed to have some connection to the people. All the avant-garde did was deliberately tear down the rules and standards of establishment art and society - society says art should be realistic, so we're ugly! Society needs social norms, so we're degenerate! Society is Christian, so we hate God!
William-Adolphe Bouguereau, Aurora, 1881, oil on canvas, Birmingham Museum of Art; Jean Metzinger, 1906, La Dance (Bacchante), oil on canvas, Rijksmuseum Kröller-Müller, Otterlo, Netherlands; Pablo Picasso, 1909-10, Figure dans un Fauteuil (Seated Nude), oil on canvas, Tate Modern, London
It was purely negative. Even the individual artists just did whatever they wanted - the only real connection between them was opposition to the mainstream.
Sounds familiar.
The main difference between the avant-garde and the counterculture was the level it played out on. The avant-garde was a "high" culture assault that took place in the world of galleries, collectors, and critics. It had a huge impact on the 20th-century by destroying centuries-old traditions of Western culture, but the vast majority of people weren't really aware of it as it was happening.
Michael Crawford, "It's meaningless, lady, believe me-I painted it.", New Yorker cartoon, December 3, 2007
Other than the occasional cartoon poking fun at that wacky abstract art. These really only reinforce the idea that loving nonsense is how you show that you belong to the cultural elite.
Woodstock movie poster, around 1970
The counterculture applied the same pattern to the vastly larger fake "pop" culture mainstream of postwar America. Instead of rippling out of the galleries of Europe, it was in the eyes and ears of everyone.
To make a counterculture, you need a source of non-mainstream heroes to offer up as alternatives. The avant-garde had a network of galleries, critics and limitless globalist funding to create "movements" like Cubism, Dada, and Surrealism. The 60s had the exploding music and fashion industries as incubators for an endless string of celebrities and scenes. The difference is that it is all playing out in a mass media constructed society that was unimaginable to the early 20th century modernist. The pattern looks like this:
Start with the glamour - mass-culture replaces reality with whatever illusion it claims is popular. It begins as a monoculture with no path to coherent morality, real history, or heroic achievement beyond popularity.
The monoculture splits
The glamour gives the illusion of rebellion - Prepackaged and identifiable with military precision by costume, music, and other markers.
T.v continues to play the role of "mainstream" or "establishment" reality, while other centralized media - fashion, theater, fine arts, and especially music - invert, attack, and ridicule the fake establishment.
The relationship is symbiotic: the mainstream gives the counterculture a perpetual target that makes it seem edgy and exciting. The counterculture lets the mainstream milk "conservative" outrage by clucking about the immorality while making it edgy and exciting. Meanwhile establishment media normalizes counterculture values as a rear guard by working them into the fake reality in a "family-friendly" way.
This really is an avant-garde/mainstream relationship - where the leading edge breaks "new ground" and pulls the establishment along with it. This lets the avant-garde pretend to be fighting for "freedom" and "progress" while engaging in cultural destruction. T.v and counterculture do the same thing, only in the glamour of mass monoculture.
Put it together and it looks like this:
The Partridge Family is a really good illustration of this process. The show is about a single mother with a crappy haircut and a musical family that travels around in a bus with an unattached manager on whimsical adventures. Life appears wholesome - the implicit morality is high-trust, orderly mid-century American values, only without any of the substance that held them together. The message is that broken families and alternative lifestyles have no bearing on social norms, and that show business is a fun, friendly place where young people get the same valuable life lessons that families provide.
The colorful bus was based on Further - the psychedelic bus that Ken Kesey and his Merry Pranksters drove around the US spreading their gospel of music, drugs and hedonism.
The Partridge Family just makes it fun and safe for kids to play along with.
See how it works? The counterculture gains rebellious credibility with dyscivic behavior that inverts the traditional and fake establishment American values. This makes it "cool".
The idea of rebellious cool becomes free-spiritedness to be marketed to the de-moralized masses. The inversion is normalized - the counterculture becomes something for kids to admire, and the establishment gets the fantasy that you can invert all your values and keep your high-performance society.
Piet Mondrian, Composition with Red, Yellow, Blue, and Black, 1921, oil on canvas, Gemeentemuseum Den Haag
The truth is usually in plain sight - the decoration is based on the art of Piet Mondrien, one of the avant-garde artists that had inverted and destroyed fine art.
The whole fantasy was bullshit - cover for an industry built on perversion and exploitation and reassuring pre-programming for generation divorce.
'How can you criticize single moms? Didn't you watch The Partridge Family?!?
The pathology is boiling beneath the surface.
The Dead in 1969.
The reality of a counterculture touring roadshow was a lot different.
None of this was organic. The counterculture attacks traditional society as "outsiders", then the mainstream repackages the attack as the new normal. Rock and roll was a vehicle for moral inversion, but there is a limit to how influential it can become, since its appeal is based on its outsider status. The mainstream creates a "safe" version that looks "normal" but has switched in new values. The show ran for five years, and within a year of its first season was the center of a massive marketing and merchandising blitz by the standards of the time.
Susan Dey's Secrets on Boys, Beauty, & Popularity, Scholastic Books, 1972
David Cassidy was the designated "teen heartthrob" but Susan Dey had drew her share of attention. Here's some fine moral guidance for young boomers, direct from the cathode ray.
Nothing about this is spontaneous. Media can't always predict what will be successful, but they have an idea, and they controlled all the options. In a glamour where everyone has to watch and there are only three channels, something will be the popular one. And if you doubt that, consider how quickly the whole phenomenon vanished. One of the main myths of the glamour is that popularity is driven by public opinion. In a top-down, centralized monoculture, the opposite is true.
The Byrds, John Lennon and Yoko Ono, Simon and Garfunkel, The Doors, The Rolling Stones, The Grateful Dead
The counterculture had countless faces because it was fake - entertainment companies could sign, produce, and promote whatever they thought would catch some interest. Remember, it is a negative concept - the only common element is that they all reject the fake culture of their audience's parents. And the glamour was so powerful that many of that generation still are.
One reason Boomers seem so detached from reality that they never grew up - they are still fighting a decades-old chimera that never even existed in the first place.
But at least the neighbors aren't talking...
This post was necessary to get to the point where the psychedelic occult can make sense to talk about. Over time, the media culture glamour grew deeper and more complicated - first setting up a fake mainstream, then spinning out any number of fake countercultures to lure the impressionable away from reality and drag society deeper into luciferian self-interest and materialism. The psychadelic movement is one of these fake countercultures. The next post will get into the acid tests and the Band's Grateful namesake.
Trips Festival Poster with Allen Ginsberg, The Merry Pranksters, Big Brother & The Holding Co., and The Grateful Dead, Longshoremen's Hall at Fisherman's Wharf, San Francisco, January 22, 1966.
They've got it coming.
No comments:
Post a Comment