From: aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: The Satanic Roots of Rock - Creating the Counterculture
Date: 4 Oct 1992 09:14:46 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


lindq@etek.chalmers.se (Johan Lindqvist) writes:

>In article <1a3rqrINN3pu@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker) writes:
>> 
>> To help regulate the temperature
>> of any prospective flames, let me make the following disclaimers. I
>> did not write this article. I have not independently confirmed any
>> of the assertions contained here. The rhetoric used to express the
>> position is not necessarily that which I would have chosen to make
>> the same assertions. That said, what you MAY safely assume is that
>> I consider the article worth reading and am generally supportive of
>> the overall viewpoint presented.
>> 
>> -Steve
>> 
>> <begin article>
>> 
>> THE SATANIC ROOTS OF ROCK 
>>     
>> 
>> Today, at almost any "heavy-metal'' rock concert one can
>> hear the audience being exhorted to rape and murder in the name of Satan.
>> Lyrics such as the following are typical: 
>> 
>>    "We come bursting through your bodies 
>>    Rape your helpless soul
>>    Transform you into a creature
>>    Merciless and cold
>>    We force you to kill your brother 
>>    Eat his blood and brain 
>>    Shredding flesh and sucking bone 
>>    Till everyone's insane 
>> 
>>    We are pestilent and contaminate
>>    The world Demonic legions prevail'' 
>> 
 
>Are you saying that this lyrics are genuine ?

"I did not write this article. I have not independently confirmed any
of the assertions contained here."
                   -Steve Crocker
                    Disclaimer as quoted above by this poster.

I assume they are genuine, simply because there are enough examples
of this genre extant that it would be simply stupid for the author
to invent fake ones.

>>    The so-called "rock stars'' are pathetic puppets caught in a much
>> larger scheme. From the moment they receive their first recording
>> royalties, the groups are heavily immersed in drugs.

>Rellay, that sonds interesting. All of them ????

From the context I assume the author intends to characterize rock
stars in general, not necessarily every individual rock star. This
is a common rhetorical device.

>>    The "rock stars'' are also totally artificial media creations.

>Do you (he) mean that people don't care about the music, just follow
>the media (eg the TV) and don't think for themselves? That is nearly
>a bigger threat.

Yes and Yes. There is a minority, often asppiring musicians themselves,
who are seriously concerned about musical technique and/or message. 
(This is not necessarily an improvement, considering the philosophically
corrupt basis of much serious popular music). I think most people, though,
especially (say) 14 and under, just go along with whatever they think their 
friends think is "cool". Usually because it has been promoted in the media. 
When I used to go to New Wave shows, people like this were referred to as 
"poseurs". I think that once a genre becomes popular, poseurs always tend
to outnumber serious adherents.

>>    The money of the 1960s rock groups, which in somes cases mounted to
>> hundreds of millions of dollars, was also totally under the control of
>> mob-connected promoters. 

> Proofs ?

"I did not write this article. I have not independently confirmed any
of the assertions contained here."
                   -Steve Crocker
                    Disclaimer as quoted above by this poster.



>> The rock counterculture would be used as a weapon to destroy such
>> political movements. 

>Don't you agree that the musical movement during the 60s was political ?

<All lyrics in the following segment are quoted from memory and are 
 approximate>

There WERE genuinely political musicians in this period. The late Phil
Ochs was an oustanding example. Peter, Paul and Mary sang songs of the
Civil Rights struggle along with their more traditional folk ballads. The
early Bob Dylan, and almost all of Joan Baez are also examples, as was the 
Jefferson Airplane from the San Francisco period. 

We see a shift in consciousness away from serious political music as
indicated by the convergence of trends on two fronts. Within the New Left,
a faction raised a spectrum of analyses that stating variously that the
creation of a "Counter Culture" was complimentary to the political struggle,
that it was equivalent to the political struggle, or even that it was a 
form of change of greater fundamental importance than the political. This
last tendency was expressed explicitly in the Beatles "Revolution" ("You'd
better free your mind instead) and a song I can't place the title or artist
that raises the Aquarianly Correct slogan "Seems to me, we've got to solve
it indvidually, And I'll do unto you what you're doing to me". There were 
plenty of others. And who can forget the profound anti-racist statenemnt
culminating with the organizing perspective "... We've got to change 
it girl, just you and me." 

The second trend is best typified by the infamous ad from a major record
company (Warner Brothers?) with the slogan "The Man Can't Bust Our Music".
This signalled "hip capitalism" to come out of the head shops and into
the boardrooms. The big boys finally figured out there was gold in them
thar revolutionaries. And mine it they did. (Interestingly, it was about 
five years from this ad to the point where we had a Congressman from this
district with long hair. Gee, maybe culture is political after all)
The final result was a lot more music of the sort

               "What did you do there, We got high
                What did you see there?, We touched the sky
                It's all too beautiful......"

And a lot less like this

     "Up and down the coast, The generals drink a toast
      The wheels are spinnin'
      And the cowards and the whores, are peeking through the doors
      To see whose winnin'
      But the traitors will pretend, that it's a getting near the end
      When it's beginnin'
      The Marines have landed on the shores of Santo Domingo."

Or this
      
    His name was Medgar Evers and he walked his road alone
    Like Emett Till, and hunreds more, whose names we'll never know
    They tried to burn his house and they beat him to the ground
    But deep inside they both knew what it took to bring him down

    Too many martyrs and too many dead
    Too many lies too many empty words were said
    Too many times for too many angry men
    Oh let it never be again.

Perhaps somebody would care to ponder the political significance of
these lines.

        "The killer awoke before dawn
         He put his boots on
         He took a face from the ancient gallery.
         He walked on down the hall
         Father (Yes Son?) I want to kill you.
         Mother .... I want to <incoherent scream>"

If we're going to sing about boots :) I prefer

         You've long been on the open road
         You've been sleeping in the rain
         From dirty words, and muddy cells
         Your clothes are torn and stained
         But the dirty words, the muddy cells
         Will soon be judged insane 
         So only stop and rest yourself
         And soon be off again.

         So take off your thirsty boots
         And stay for a while
         Your feet are hot and dirty
         From a dusty mile
         And maybe I can make you laugh
         Maybe I can try
         I'm just looking for the evening
         The morning
         In your eyes.


Well, I could go on. But hopefully you see the difference between the 
political music of the early sixties and the counter-culture degeneracy
of the late sixties and the seventies.

>>    Less than a half century ago, our young children studied violin and
>> piano, learning about the great classical composers such as Bach,
>> Mozart, and Beethoven.

>Are you saying that one kind of music in itself is 'evil'?

Interesting question. LaRouche believes that because of the profound
emotional impact of music, it can either help bring out our highest
potentials for human creativity, or our most primitive bestial emotions.
I would be willing to call music of the second sort evil.

>>   The Beatles first began performing in the late 1950s in jazz clubs in
>> England and West Germany. These clubs, always located in the seediest
>> part of the cities,...

>That was the only place a unknown band got to play.

>> ......a telegram from their manager, a homosexual named Brian Epstein....

>What difference does it make that he was a homosexual ?

I'm not entirely sure of the point here myself. LaRouche has said that 
although he has no animosity toward homosexual individuals, considering 
them victims, he does consider homosexuality a sickness. Perhaps the 
author intended to imply that Epstein, as exemplified by his 
homosexuality, was an emotionally sick person.

>> "It is disgraceful that long-haired louts such as these should be allowed 
>> to appear on television. Their appearance was absolutely disgusting.'' 

>So they (The Rolling Stones) were judged by their look.

The point Phau was making was that the presumed distinction between
the "clean cut" Beatles and the "long-haired louts", the Stones
was a phony charade played out for the credulous.

>> Anger then asked Mick Jagger to play Lucifer.

>He refused ?

I know nothing of this.


>> The album [ Sergant Peppers lonly Hearts Club Band] contained a fantasized
>> version of an LSD trip, called "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds,'' 
>> or L.S.D. for short.

>Who says it stans for LSD?

Who didn't? Even if the story cited below is correct, Lennon had to have
known how the initials would be taken. Hence a decision to write a song
with that title and imagery must be considered deliberate.

>The real story is this: John Lennon came home one day and his son had drawn
>a picture. A typical five year old picture, with people 'hanging' in the
>air with no contact to the ground. And John Lennon asked him what the 
>painting was called, and his son said "It's Lucy in the sky, with diamonds."

Notwithstanding, I know of nobody who seriously maintains that Sgt. Pepper,
Magical Mystert Tour, etc. were not drug albums, or "head music" as it
was called then.

>> Paul McCarteny said: "LSD opened my eyes. We only use one-tenth of our
>> brain.'' 

>It's a well known fact that very many famous artists either were mad by
>nature, or temorarily 'made' mad by using drugs. 

So much the worse for them and their work.

>Along the lines in this aricle:
>Samuel T. Colridge wrote a lot of his lyrics under the influende of
>Laudanum. Therefor all litterature, or at least all poems, will turn
>you/your kids into drug addicts.
>Vincent van Gogh drank Laudanum too, so paintings are dangerous, too. etc.

If there was a social movement where kids would take Laudanum and enjoy
the likes of Colridge and Van Gogh, damn straight it would turn a lot of 
them into druggies. I will leave the excesses in "logic" in the quoted 
statement as an exercise for the audience.

 
>> ...Aaron revealed that it was his Church that started ... Ozzy Osbourne...

>"I'm not in for the Devil, I'm just a rock'n'roll rebel"
>                                        Ozzy Osbourne


>And about the well known quote of Lohn Lennon:
>> "We are more popular than Jesus now.'' 

>I'm sure that they WAS more popular, and ment more to British young
>people of that time than Jesus did.

I remember the quote at the time, and though Lennon tried to sanitize
it as a mere statement of fact after the storm of criticism, the tone
of the original stateement as I recall it was rather smug and quite 
contemptuous of Christianity.

>_________________________________________________________________________
>Johan Lindqvist                     |Due to lack of interest, tomorrow
>Gothenburg         Mail:            |has been cancelled.
>Sweden      lindq@etek.chalmers.se  |
>_________________________________________________________________________

-Steve Crocker