Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Καπιταλισμός: Ο Τρόπος Του Πολιτισμού
 By: Nacht und Nebel    1 comment
Εκεί που υπάρχει ελευθερία, εκεί ανθεί ο πολιτισμός
Πολλοί αναρωτιούνται γιατί η σύνδεση του Καπιταλισμού με τον Πολιτισμό είναι μια ιδέα τόσο αντιδημοφιλής στις μέρες μας και, ταυτόχρονα, τι είναι εκείνο που ελκύει τόσους, γνωστούς σε όλους μας, έκφυλους και παρακμιακούς στον Φιλελεύθερο χώρο.

Δυστυχώς λίγοι Έλληνες (ενδεικτικά οι Λιναρδάτος, Χορμοβίτης και Μαραμής) έχουν αφυπνιστεί από την πνευματική σήψη του κρατικισμού που διαπνέει όλο το πολιτικό και ιδεολογικό φάσμα και, όπως και ο Ρόθμπαρντ έχει γράψει στην Ανατομία του Κράτους, το Κράτος έχει επιδείξει αξιοζήλευτη ευελιξία στην μεταστροφή υπέρ του ιδεών που σκοπό είχαν κάποτε τον περιορισμό του. Η υπονόμευση κάθε αντικρατικιστικής ιδέας είναι τακτική ρουτίνας για το Κράτος, για αυτό και η καλλιέργεια της θνησιγένειας και της διαστροφής μέσα στον χώρο του Φιλελευθερισμού είναι πασιφανής προτεραιότητα της οργανωμένης κρατικιστικής πολιτικής προπαγάνδας.

Εκείνο το οποίο παράγει τον Πολιτισμό είναι η ενασχόληση του ανθρώπου με ζητήματα που δεν αφορούν χρηστικά την επιβίωση. Είναι, στην ουσία, η απόπειρα διακόσμησης του τρόπου με τον οποίο ο άνθρωπος ζει σε αυτόν τον πλανήτη και αυτή η ανώτερη διακοσμητική που αποκαλούμε Πολιτισμό προϋποθέτει και συνεπάγεται ορισμένα πράγματα.

Ο Πολιτισμός Στοχεύει Στο Μέλλον
Η αναβάθμιση του βίου με ξεχωριστά χαρακτηριστικά ταυτοτικής κοινωνικότητας προϋποθέτει πως θα υπάρχει κάποιος αποδέκτης αυτών των προσπαθειών. Εάν μια γενιά δεν νιώθει έναν παθιασμένο σύνδεσμο στοργής με τους απογόνους της, τότε για ποιον σκοπό να αναλάβει το κόστος ενός τέτοιου σισύφειου εγχειρήματος; Ποιος μακρόπνοος στόχος θα εμπνεύσει τον καλλιτέχνη και για ποιο όραμα θα κάψει ο επιστήμονας τις καλύτερές του στιγμές στον βωμό ενός μέλλοντος παντελώς ξένου και ανοίκειου; Είναι ακριβώς εκείνη η ταυτοτική οικειότητα, ο δεσμός αλληλοκατανόησης, που ενώνει τη μητέρα με το παιδί της και κινητροδοτεί τον αγώνα για το αύριο. Έναν αγώνα πρωτίστως για την επιβίωση, μα συνεπαγόμενα δευτερευόντως, για τη διάκριση και την επικράτηση. Γιατί τι νόημα θα είχε ο Πολιτισμός μέσα στην ταραχώδη ρευστότητα της Φύσης εάν δεν αύξανε τις πιθανότητες επιβίωσης του φορέα του, εάν δεν δημιουργούσε τάξη, σιγουριά και ασφάλεια, μέσα από τους χαοτικές ριπές της τύχης; Μόνος πολιτισμός με νόημα είναι εκείνος ο οποίος διαιωνίζει τους φορείς του, γιατί, χωρίς τους (θνητούς) φορείς του, δεν υπάρχει.

Πρακτικά αυτό σημαίνει ότι πρέπει να υπάρχει αληθινή αγάπη για τα παιδιά και αυτή η αγάπη δεν μπορεί παρά να υπάρχει στο φυσικό τους περιβάλλον, στην οικογένεια. Χωρίς οικογένεια, πολιτισμός δεν υπάρχει. Είναι η αγάπη για τα παιδιά εκείνη που θα κινητροδοτήσει τις θυσίες ανοικοδόμησης του πολιτισμού. Αυτή η αγάπη όμως είναι ξεκάθαρα ιδιοτελής. Δεν είναι η αγάπη για οποιαδήποτε παιδιά, είναι η αγάπη για τα παιδιά ενός εκάστου, εκείνα τα οποία θεωρεί ο καθένας περισσότερο κοντά σε εκείνον. Ο γονέας βλέπεις ένα τεράστιο κομμάτι από τον εαυτό του στο παιδί του και έτσι μπορεί να υπερβεί τη θνητότητα. Είναι πραγματικά φαιδρό να φανταστεί κανείς τι αλλοπρόσαλλα πράγματα υπόσχονται ορισμένες θρησκείες στους πιστούς τους, από τη στιγμή που η ίδια η αναπαραγωγική λειτουργία του ανθρώπου μπορεί να του προσφέρει το πιο χειροπιαστό υπόδειγμα της μετά θάνατον ζωής, το υπόδειγμα της ζωής μέσα από την ύπαρξη των απογόνων σου. Η συνειδητοποίηση αυτής της χρονικής συνέχειας της ανθρώπινης ύπαρξης, της καθαρά ατομικά βιωνόμενης, είναι ο πιο ισχυρός χτίστης του πολιτισμού, το κίνητρο για τον Πολιτισμό.

Το κίνητρο για τη δημιουργία του πολιτισμού έχει ατομική βάση και γενετικά χαρακτηριστικά. Κάθε γονέας έχει βιολογικό κίνητρο για παραγωγή πολιτισμού μόνο υπέρ των δικών του παιδιών - πράγμα το οποίο γεννά τον χαρακτήρα της ταυτοτικότητας σε κάθε Πολιτισμό· δεν μπορείς να είσαι γνήσιος εκπρόσωπος δύο Πολιτισμών. Αν οι εξωτερικές συνθήκες του επιτρέπουν να κάνει την επιθυμία του πράξη, αν δηλαδή του επιτρέπουν να εργαστεί για τα παιδιά του, τότε θα το κάνει με κάθε προθυμία. Αν δεν του το επιτρέπουν, δεν θα το κάνει, παρά μόνο καταναγκαστικά και αναποτελεσματικά. Πρωτεύουσας σημασίας στοιχείο λοιπόν αναδεικνύεται ο έλεγχος (ιδιοκτησία) των καρπών του μόχθου ενός εκάστου. Εάν η ιδιοκτησία (δηλαδή ο έλεγχος) είναι ατομική, τότε ο μπορεί ο απόγονος να γίνει ο τελικός αποδέκτης. Αν η ιδιοκτησία δεν είναι ατομική, αλλά κολλεκτιβιστική, τότε ο γονέας θα μοχθεί για τους ξένους, τους ανοίκειους, τους μη αγαπητούς προς αυτόν.

Δεν είναι τυχαίο που η μοναδική επιστημονική θεωρία που εξηγεί την εξελικτική προέλευση της ομοφυλοφιλίας (kin selection) εξηγεί πως οι ομοφυλόφιλοι άρχισαν να υπάρχουν, όχι ως σφάλματα, αλλά ως χρήσιμα εργαλεία των κοινωνιών, ακριβώς για τον λόγο ότι ήταν καταλληλότεροι για την προστασία των κοινωνιών, τη συνειδητοποίηση της βιολογικής τους εξέλιξης μέσω του κοινού αίματος που οδηγεί στη φαινομενικά ανιδιοτελή, μα πραγματικά εγωτική, προσφορά στους γενετικά συγγενείς. Μια επένδυση του είναι τους στον βωμό της συνέχειας του αίματος. Ούτε είναι τυχαίο φυσικά πως οι πιο παθιασμένοι στρατηλάτες έχουν κατηγορηθεί - και όχι άδικα - για ομοφυλοφιλία. Το φαινόμενο του οργανωμένου εκθηλυσμού των ομοφυλόφιλων και της μεταστροφής τους σε αντικοινωνικές και μακάβρια ματαιόδοξες συμπεριφορές αποτελεί ένα πολύ σύγχρονο φαινόμενο, το οποίο αντανακλά τον φοβερό βαθμό στον οποίο έχει προχωρήσει η ηθική διάβρωση των κοινωνιών από το Κράτος και την αλλοπρόσαλλη κλεπτομανία της αναδιανομής.

Είναι ο δεσμός αίματος εκείνο το οποίο παράγει τον Πολιτισμό και είναι 100% εγωτικός και ιδιοτελής. Χωρίς την ατομική ιδιοκτησία, χωρίς τη δυνατότητα αυτή η σχέση ψυχής να μετατραπεί σε σχέση ύλης, δεν υπάρχει κίνητρο για Πολιτισμό.

Τι είναι ο Κρατικισμός λοιπόν υπό το πρίσμα όλων αυτών; Είναι ο ιός του πολιτισμικού κανιβαλισμού και της κοινωνικής αυτοκαταστροφής, που διαλύει τις οικογένειες για να αποδεκατίσει ευκολότερα τον πλούτο τους. Όπως ένα κανιβαλιστικό παράσιτο που τρυπώνει στη φωλιά του πτηνού και καταστρέφει και τρώει τα αβγά του, σπρώχνει την κοινωνία προς τα κάτω, στερεί το μέλλον από την κοινωνία για να κορέσει τις σιχαμερές του ορέξεις και να συντηρηθεί λίγο ακόμα μέσα στον θνησιγενή ζόφο που προκαλεί. Εξυψώνει έτσι τη ματαιοδοξία σε αυτοσκοπό, στερεί το νόημα από τον άνθρωπο, του στερεί τον αγώνα για τον εαυτό του, του στερεί τη ζωή.


Ο Πολιτισμός Προϋποθέτει Πλούτο
Η ζωή κάθε πλάσματος σε αυτόν τον πλανήτη περιστρέφονταν, για δισεκατομμύρια χρόνια, γύρω από τα ζητήματα της βραχυπρόθεσμης ατομικής επιβίωσης και αναπαραγωγής. Χρειάστηκε η Εξέλιξη να δημιουργήσει τον ανθρώπινο εγκέφαλο ο οποίος εφηύρε έναν καινοφανή τρόπο ζωής ο οποίος έβγαλε τον άνθρωπο από τα σπήλαια, τον απελευθέρωσε από τον αγώνα της καθημερινής επιβίωσης και του προσέφερε την ευκαιρία να ασχοληθεί με την ανώτερη διακοσμητική που είναι ο Πολιτισμός. Αυτός ο νέος τρόπος είναι η παραγωγή του πλούτου, δηλαδή η μεταποίηση της ύλης με τρόπο που κάνει τη ζωή και την επιβίωση ευκολότερη.

Και πάλι εδώ, η ίδια η Φύση του ανθρώπου τον καθιστά ον με ατομικά κίνητρα που μεγιστοποιεί την κοινωνική του παραγωγή μόνο όταν το κάθε άτομο έχει ατομικά οφέλη από τους ατομικούς του μόχθους. Κάθε παρέκκλιση συνιστά σκλάβωση στην ισχύ της ωμής επιθετικής βίας, το οποίο είναι ο αληθινός νόμος της ζούγκλας. Η φορολογία, η υποχρεωτική σχολική και στρατιωτική θητεία, η επιβολή του κρατικού νόμου και των κρατικών περιορισμών, είναι μια κτηνωδία ανελευθερίας, μια άσκηση παρασιτισμού, που ως απολύτως επικρατούσα νοοτροπία στα ζώα τα κρατά ζώα και σέρνει τον άνθρωπο προς το επίπεδό τους.

Αποτελεί ιστορικά αποδεδειγμένη αλήθεια πως όποιες κοινωνίες εξασφάλισαν μεγαλύτερό ατομικό έλεγχο του παραγόμενου πλούτου στα μέλη τους, απελευθέρωσαν το μεγαλύτερο δημιουργικό δυναμικό στην ιστορία. Ενώ, όσες κοινωνίες υπέταξαν περισσότερο τους πολίτες τους στην ωμή αυταρχικότητα του Κράτους, έμειναν τόσο πολύ πίσω οικονομικά που η αγωνία της καθημερινής επιβίωσης επέστρεψε ισχυρότερη από ποτέ και μεταμόρφωσε τις ψυχές των ανθρώπων τους σε ψυχές ζώων.

Εξάλλου τι κρύβεται πίσω από το σοσιαλιστικό αίτημα για "κοινωνικοποίηση" του πλούτου παρά η φθονερή βούληση για νομή του από τους ισχυρούς που θα επιβάλλουν την κατάσχεση με τη ωμή επιθετική βία;

Κτηνώδες το συναίσθημα του φθόνου, κτηνώδη και τα παρασιτικά του αποτελέσματα, αποστερούν πρώτα από τον άνθρωπο τη λαχτάρα του για παραγωγικό μόχθο υπέρ εκείνων που αγαπά περισσότερο, αποστερούν από όλους τον πλούτο που κανιβαλίζεται χωρίς ευθιξία από τους ισχυρούς της κτηνώδους κρατικής βίας και, εν τέλει, αποστερεί από την κοινωνία το μέλλον της.

Ακριβώς για αυτό η ατομική ιδιοκτησία είναι συνδεδεμένη με κοινωνίες με υψηλή πολιτισμική παραγωγή και οι κοινωνίες με κολλεκτιβιστική ιδιοκτησία είναι βούρκοι της καθυστέρησης και λασπότοποι της κτηνωδίας.

Τα Γονίδια Καθορίζουν Τον Πολιτισμό
Θα ήταν αστείο να εξερευνούσε κανείς τη ζούγκλα με την ελπίδα να συναντήσει μια κοινωνία μαϊμούδων με μέλη της οποίας να επιδίωκε να συνάψει συμφωνία εμπορικής συνεργασίας. Τα γονίδια παίζουν σημαντικό ρόλο σε αυτό το οποίο είσαι, σε αυτό το οποίο μπορείς να γίνεις, στο επίπεδο της ευφυίας σου και στον βαθμό που μπορείς να τη χρησιμοποιήσεις για να υπερκεράσεις τα κτηνώδη ορμέμφυτα του φθόνου που κρατάνε τις κοινωνίες στον πάτο.

Υπάρχουν άνθρωποι όπως οι Νέγροι, οι οποίοι επιστημονικώς αποδεδειγμένα, είναι (κατά μέσο όρο) χαμηλής ευφυίας, και όπως οι ανατολικοασιάτες, οι οποίοι είναι (κατά μέσο όρο) δειλοί και εύκολα χειραγωγήσιμοι. Η ελευθερία δεν θάλλει ανάμεσα σε χαζούς και δειλούς, αλλά σε έξυπνους και θαρραλέους όπως οι Λευκοί. Δεν είναι τυχαίο επομένως που ο Καπιταλισμός δημιουργήθηκε και άκμασε στη Δύση και όχι στην Ανατολή ή την Αφρική. Οι υπάνθρωποι, όπως και οι μαϊμούδες, είναι ανίκανοι να υπερβούν ή να σταματήσουν τα ορμέμφυτα του φθόνου, να αντισταθούν απέναντι στο ψέμα και την υποκρισία. Για αυτό και το Κράτος, οι καταναλωτές φόρων, έχουν εκκινήσει τον πόλεμο κατά της Λευκής Φυλής. Τα κανιβαλιστικά τους συμφέροντα και η επιθυμία διασφάλισης της παρασιτικής λειτουργίας του Κράτους είναι ασύμβατα με Λευκούς πληθυσμούς. Ο ζόφος της αναδιανεμητικής κλεπτομανίας χρειάζεται το κατάλληλο έδαφος για να ριζώσει και αυτό το έδαφος το προσφέρουν πληθυσμοί υπανθρώπων γεμάτων φθόνο και ακρισία που είναι πρόθυμοι να ψηφίσουν όποιο κρατικιστή λαοπλάνο τους υποσχεθεί "κοινωνικά" αγαθά, "αντιρατσισμό" και "δημοκρατία" και παντελώς ανίκανοι να αντισταθούν όταν αυτός ο λαοπλάνος τους σκλαβώσει στα κάτεργα για να υπηρετούν αγόγγυστα την άρχουσα τάξη που θα καταναλώνει τον καρπό των "δίκαια φορολογούμενων" σκλάβων.

Θέλουν "πρόσφυγες", θέλουν νέγρους, θέλουν ασιάτες και μπάσταρδους, θέλουν γυναίκες και παιδιά, θέλουν παρενδυτικούς και χίπηδες, αλλά δεν θέλουν Λευκούς Χριστιανούς Άντρες. Θέλουν σκλάβους με νοοτροπία και ηθική σκλάβου και όχι ελεύθερους ανθρώπους, ελεύθερους από τον φθόνο, ελεύθερους από τη φορολογία, ελεύθερους για παραγωγή πολιτισμού και όχι για υπηρέτηση των ισχυρών της βίας.



Απέναντι στα σχέδια και την κοσμοαντίληψη του κρατικιστικού ολέθρου και του εγγενή κανιβαλισμού της δημοκρατικής αναδιανομής που οδηγεί την κοινωνία μας στο χείλος του γκρεμού, βρισκόμαστε εμείς οι γνήσιοι Φιλελεύθεροι, οι δαιμονοποιημένοι Καπιταλιστές, οι αγωνιστές της ελευθερίας από τον καταναγκασμό της βίας και της ελεύθερης ατομικής δημιουργίας που στηρίζει τον ανθρώπινο Πολιτισμό. Ο δικός μας τρόπος είναι ο τρόπος του Πολιτισμού και όποιο Έθνος το συνειδητοποιήσει πρώτο, εκείνο θα γίνει πρώτο μεταξύ των Εθνών. Ο τρόπος των κρατικιστών, ο τρόπος της βίας και της αναδιανομής, είναι ο τρόπος των παρασίτων, των κανιβάλων, είναι η τρόπος της ματαιοδοξίας, ο τρόπος της ζωής που τελειώνει με τον ατομικό θάνατο και ο τρόπος της κοινωνίας που σβήνει καθημερινά.

- See more at: http://libertyforgreece.blogspot.gr/2016/08/blog-post_30.html#sthash.l4dhfRB3.dpuf
2
Γιατί ο Τραμπ έχει 40% πιθανότητα να αποσοβήσει νέους πολέμους στη Μέση Ανατολή και να γλιτώσει εκατοντάδες δισεκατομμύρια από τους ΛΧΑ σε φόρους τα οποία θα πάνε στα διεφθαρμένα καθάρματα του military–industrial complex που συνεργάζονται με το Κράτος, να αποτελέσει μια ευκαιρία αναζώογόνησης της φυλετικής συνείδηση των Λευκών και να αναστείλει ή μειώσει τον ρυθμό μόλυνσης του Λευκού αίματος (του πλέον συμβατού αίματος με τον Καπιταλισμό). Ο Τζόνσον έχει 0% πιθανότητα να κάνει κάτι. Πολλές από τις θέσεις του, ιδίως στην οικονομία, είναι καλύτερες από αυτές του Τραμπ, αλλα αλλού είναι θολοκουλτουριάρης και συμβιβασμένος με το κατεστημένο π.χ. τάσσεται υπέρ του αφρο-σοσιαλιστικού κινήματος Black Lives Matter ενώ δεν πρόκειται να πάρει καμία ψήφο από τους σκυλάραπες. Γιατί απλούστατα οι σκυλάραπες είναι κατώτεροι γενετικά και θα φέρουν χειρότερα αποτελέσματα στην οικονομία και αυτό θα τους κάνει να θέλουν αυτά που έχουν οι άλλες φυλές. Πάντα. Άρα πάντα με τη δημοκρατία - που χωρίς την αναδιανομή δεν έχει νόημα να ψηφίσεις - οι σκυλάραπες θα ψηφίζουν αναδιανομή=κλοπή. Άρα ο Τζόνσον δεν είναι καν σοβαρός Φιλελεύθερος, είναι ιδεολογικά ψωλοχυμένος γιατί φοβάται μην τον πουν φασίστα οι κομμουνιστές.


3
Ιστορία και Ιδεολογία. / Re: The Decline and Rise of the Alternative Right
« Last post by Gary for President on August 29, 2016, 12:14:42 am »
Quote
το προβάδισμα της Κλίντον συρρικνώνεται ακόμη περισσότερο: την υποστηρίζει ένα 39% των πιθανών ψηφοφόρων, έναντι ενός 36% που τάσσεται υπέρ του Τραμπ, ενός 7% που τάσσεται υπέρ του Φιλελεύθερου Γκάρι Τζόνσον κι ενός 3% που υποστηρίζει την Τζιλ Στάιν, την υποψήφια του Κόμματος των Πρασίνων.

Γιατι ο πινοσέτ υποστηρίζει τον τραμπ και όχι τον Γκάρι Τζόνσον;
5




The Decline and Rise of the Alternative Right
By Paul Gottfried
This talk was delivered on November 23, 2008, at the H.L. Mencken Club.


If the H.L. Mencken Club can achieve that for which it has been formed, it should have an eventful and for those who disagree with us, profoundly disruptive future. We are part of an attempt to put together an independent intellectual Right, one that exists without movement establishment funding and one that our opponents would be delighted not to have to deal with. Our group is also full of young thinkers and activists, and if there is to be an independent Right, our group will have to become its leaders.

For years I’ve belabored acquaintances with the observation by stating that the paleoconservatives who had spent their lives butting their heads against the American conservative movement, were becoming less and less useful. Note that I do not excuse myself from this judgment entirely, for what I’m describing is my own generation and those with whom I’ve been associated. Paleoconservatives did an enormous service in the 1980s when they kept the neoconservatives from swallowing up entire the intellectual and political Right. They had performed something roughly analogous to what the Christians in Asturias and Old Castile had done in the eighth and ninth centuries, when they had whittled away at Muslim control of the Iberian Peninsula. But unlike the rulers of Castile and Aragon, the paleos never succeeded in getting the needed resources to win back lost ground. Unlike the medieval Spanish monarchs, they also didn’t have the space of several centuries in which to realize their goals.

But equally significantly, the curmudgeonly personalities that had allowed the paleos to stand up to those from the Left who had occupied the Right prevented them from carrying their war further. Although spirited and highly intelligent, they were temperamentally unfit for a counterinsurgency. They quarreled to such a degree that they eventually fell out among themselves. Soon they were trying to throw each other out of the shaky lifeboat to which their endangered cause had been confined. Of course considerable disparities in resources and contacts put these partisans into a weaker position than that of their enemies. But their breakdown into rival groups, led by competing heads, commenced early in the conservative wars, and (alas) it has been going on up until the present hour. The founding of our club came out of such a fissiparous event, of the kind that had occurred with some regularity on the Right during the preceding two decades.

Nor is it surprising that the same paleos who broke from the movement often imposed their own litmus tests. Or that their sectarianisms involved highly sectarian opinions over such questions as whether Elizabeth One’s defeat of the Spanish Armada or the later discomfiting of the Stuarts doomed Anglo-American societies to unspeakable moral and political corruption; or (supposedly even more relevant) whether the ethics of Irving Babbitt as selectively filtered through the aesthetics of Benedetto Croce can help save this country from anti-intellectualism or from the disciples of Leo Strauss. Or even more timely, whether being instructed in Babbitt’s view of the Higher Will would have mitigated the misfortune of having the stock market plunge. Although there are other such paleo ruminations that can be cited, I shall be merciful and spare my audience the heavy burden of having to hear about them.

The late Sam Francis used to conjure up an ideal-type essay that sprang from the archaic conservative mentality. It was a fifty-page study by a now deceased University of Georgia professor of English; and it dwelled on how Western society was going to rack and ruin because no one read Flannery O’Connor any more in light of Eric Voegelin’s Order and History.  There was, indeed, such an essay, which was not entirely a product of Sam’s fertile imagination and Menckenesque wit. And having read this literary-cultural exercise, I would have to agree that it typified a certain kind of paleo cultural commentary. It is moralizing aspiring to be scholarship. As a European intellectual historian, it seems to me that such tracts at their best strain to resemble something that might have been composed by a French counterrevolutionary two hundred years ago. But these reproductions operate at a higher level of abstraction without showing anything that strikes this reader as being historically relevant.While not all paleo polemics fit this description, many of them do—or at the very least, bear more than a vague resemblance to what is being caricatured.

And I’ve been struck by how often these jeremiads have been accompanied by either frantic endorsements of third- or fourth-party politicians or else mournful laments about how the barbarians are climbing in through our windows and how we should therefore prepare ourselves for pious deaths. The fact that I myself have sometimes written in this vein need not detract from my critical remark. My observation is arguably true even if I too am an aging paleo.

To put this into perspective: what is now called paleoconservatism did not grow out of resistance to the Reformation or French Revolution. It is the product of recent historical circumstances, and it assumed its current form about thirty years ago as a diffuse reaction to the neoconservative ascendancy. It was never unified philosophically, and its division between libertarians and traditionalists was only one of the many lines of demarcation separating those who began to call themselves “paleos” about 25 years ago. In 1986 I noted in an article for the Heritage Foundation’s Policy Review that most paleo thinkers were Protestants or Jews. They were also preoccupied with sociobiology, a discipline or way of thinking that had influenced them deeply. Today the paleo camp looks markedly different as well as much older, and it shows little interest in the cognitive, hereditary preconditions for intellectual and cultural achievements. And the despair about American society among paleos may be pushing some of them toward the liberal immigrationist camp, providing they’re not already there. Others of this group have become so terrified by those on their left that they pretend not to notice the stark fact of human cognitive disparities. This quest for innocuousness sometimes takes the form of seminars on educational problems centering on endless sermons about values and featuring rotating lists of edifying books. Presumably everyone would perform up to speed if he/she could avail himself/herself of the proper cultural tools. The fact that not everyone enjoys the same genetic precondition for learning is irrelevant for this politically motivated experiment in wishful thinking.

{Η επόμενη παράγραφος έχει μπερδέψει τη βούρτσα με την πούτσα. Είναι το Κράτος εκείνο το οποίο, με εσωτερική αναγκαιότητα, έχει βάλει στο στόχαστρο τον Θεσμό της Οικογένειας και έχει εκπονήσει και υλοποιεί ταχέως το σχέδιο υποκατάστασης των Λευκών με τριτοκοσμικούς υπάνθρωπους. Η ατομική ιδιοκτησία και η νομική απελευθέρωση των ΛΧΑ από τον πατερναλισμό του Κράτους αποτελούν τα μεγαλύτερα εχέγγυα της διασφάλισης και συνέχειας της Φυλετικής μας Καθαρότητας και της θωράκισης των παραδοσιακών δομών που εξασφάλισαν στον Δυτικό Πολιτισμό την εγγενή του ανωτερότητα}:
More recently we have been confronted by another problem on the right, namely groups that give little evidence of being what they claim to be. As far as I can tell, there is nothing intrinsically rightwing about denying the claims of family and society on the putatively autonomous individual. And the dream of living outside of the state in a society of self-actualizing individuals, opening themselves up to being physically displaced by the entire Third World, if its population chooses to settle on this continent, is not a rightist alternative to anything. It is a failed leftist utopia. It is one thing to deplore the modern welfare state as a vehicle of grotesque social change or for its violations of the U.S. Constitution. It is another matter to believe that all authority structures can be reduced to insurance companies formed to protect the property and lives of anarcho-capitalists. Such a belief goes counter to everything we know about human Nature, and even such an embattled anti-welfare- statist as H.L. Mencken never hoped to destroy all government. He loathed egalitarian democracy but not the traditional social and political authorities in which communal life had developed and which conforms to our intertwined social needs.

Having made these critical observations, I would also stress the possibility for positive change represented by this organization. We have youth and exuberance on our side, and a membership that is largely in its twenties and thirties. We have attracted beside old-timers like me, as I noted in my introductory paragraph, well-educated young professionals, who consider themselves to be on the right, but not of the current conservative movement. These “post-paleos,” to whom I have alluded in Internet commentaries, are out in force here tonight. And they are radical in the sense in which William F. Buckley once defined a true Right, an oppositional force that tries to uncover the root causes of our political and cultural crises and then to address them.

And when I speak about the postpaleos, it goes without saying that I’m referring to a growing communion beyond this organization. It is one that now includes Takimag, VDARE.com, and other websites that are willing to engage sensitive, timely subjects.

A question that has been asked of me and of others in this room is why we don’t try to join the official conservative movement. This movement controls hundreds of million of dollars, TV networks, strings of newspapers and magazines, multitudinous foundations and institutes, and a bevy of real and bleached blonds on FOX-news. This is not even to mention the movement’s influence on the GOP, the leaders of which dutifully recite neoconservative slogans. To whatever extent the GOP still has something that can be described as a “mind,” it is what neoconservative surgeons have implanted.

Why then don’t the post-paleos ask to be admitted to this edifice of power? Even as the beneficiaries of second- or even third-rung posts, our younger members would be better off financially than they are in their present genteel, hand-to-mouth existences. It is easy to imagine that even the secretaries at AEI, Heritage or The Weekly Standard earn more than many of those in this room. Movement conservatives certainly have the wind in their sails; and perhaps most of us have been tempted at one time or another to join them in order to benefit from their considerable wealth.

Allow me to suggest two reasons that most of us have not gone over to the Dark Side. One, that side will not have us; and it has treated us, in contrast to such worthies as black nationalists, radical feminists, and open-borders advocates, as being unfit for admittance into the political conversation. We are not viewed as honorable dissenters but depicted as subhuman infidels or ignored in the same way as one would a senile uncle who occasionally wanders into one’s living room. This imperial ban has been extended even to brilliant social scientists and statisticians who are viewed as excessively intimate with the wrong people, that is, with those who stand outside the camp that the neocons occupy and now share with neo-liberals and the center-left. I suspect that most of us, including those who belong to my children’s generation, would not be trusted even if we feigned admiration for Martin Luther King, Joe Lieberman and Scoop Jackson and even if we called for having open borders with Mexico and for attacking and occupying Iran. Even then a credibility gap would be cited to justify our further marginalization.

But there is another factor, beside necessity, which keeps us where we are. We are convinced that we are right in our historical and cultural observations while those who have quarantined us are wrong. This is indeed my position, and it is one that the officers of this organization fully share. But to move from theory to practice, there are two counsels that I would strenuously urge. First, we must try to do what is possible rather than what lies beyond our limited material resources. What we can hope to achieve in the near term as opposed what we might able to do in the fullness of time is to gain recognition as an intellectual Right—and one that is critical of the neoconservative-controlled conservative establishment. Although that establishment does permit some internal dissent, and has even provided support for a handful of worthwhile scholars, it is at least as closed as were the Communist Parties of Eastern Europe before the collapse of the Soviet Empire. But unlike that now vanished domination, the neocon media empire is not particularly porous, and with the help of the Left, it is more than able to keep out of public view any serious challenge from the right. It is precisely our goal to become such a challenge. And it is my hope that a younger generation will acquire the resources to do so and will know how to deploy them.

Second, if we wish to advance our cause, we must meditate on the successes of our most implacable enemies. The neocons marched nonstop through the institutions and treasuries of the Right and took them over almost without breaking a sweat. And they did so without themselves having to move to the right. In fact they converted the Right to the Left, by equating their mostly leftist politics with reasonable or non-extremist conservatism. They then pushed into near oblivion anyone on the right who resisted their transformations. And as one of their victims, I certainly begrudge them these successes. But as much as I might rage over neocon mendacity and movement conservative gullibility and cowardice, I can also understand the magnitude of the domination achieved. And as painful as it may be for us, we must try to grasp that in Machiavelli’s language, it was not just Fortuna but also virtu that was at work in making possible our enemies’ spectacular achievements. Their opponents failed not only because they were obviously outgunned but also because we were less well organized, less able to network, and less capable of burying internal grievances.

A friend once noted my ambivalence when I describe my enemies. My repugnance for their shallow ideas and grubby personalities has always been mixed with deep admiration for how they stick together like a band of brothers. It is this side of neoconservative history that we must keep in mind and imitate if we intend to climb out of the oblivion into which they have cast us. Our enemies may be vulgar but they are surely not fools. And their indubitable successes have much to teach anyone who hopes to supplant them—ultimately to do to them what they have done to us.

source
8
Θέλω να γίνω αριστερός.
Να γδέρνω, να μαδάω.
Να τρέφομαι απ’ το καθεστώς,
αυτό που … πολεμάω!

Θέλω να γίνω αριστερός.
Να παίρνω χορηγίες,
επιδοτήσεις, αρπαχτές,
κονδύλια, αργομισθίες.

Θέλω να γίνω αριστερός
και στη δεξιά μου τσέπη,
να βάζω όσα ο λαός
σε μια ζωή δεν βλέπει.

Θέλω να γίνω αριστερός,
χρυσά να ‘χω κουτάλια
κι όταν μαζί μου διαφωνούν
να σπάω και κεφάλια.

Θέλω να γίνω αριστερός.
Να έχω ασυλία.
Θολές παρόλες να πετώ,
να γράφω και βιβλία.

Θέλω να γίνω αριστερός.
Ένα με τους παρίες,
κοστούμι Αρμάνι να φορώ
δίπλα τους στις πορείες.

Θέλω να γίνω αριστερός,
ξερόλας τελοσπάντων,
κήνσωρ, Ιεροεξεταστής
και τιμητής των πάντων.

Θέλω να γίνω αριστερός.
Μονά-ζυγά δικά μου.
Ο πιο στυγνός δικτάτορας
να ωχριά μπροστά μου.

Θέλω να γίνω αριστερός.
Να μένω στην Εκάλη.
Φασίστες, ρατσιστόμουτρα
να είναι όλοι οι άλλοι.

Θέλω να γίνω αριστερός.
Να εισβάλω στη Βουλή.
Να καταλάβω … έδρανο,
να κοιμηθώ πολύ.

Θέλω να γίνω αριστερός,
την ανεργία να σκίσω.
Δούλους πολλούς, εισαγωγής,
τον τόπο να γεμίσω.

Θέλω να γίνω αριστερός,
να σπάσω τα ταμπού.
Κόκα, παρτούζα κι αστακοί
να γίνουν του συρμού.

Θέλω να γίνω αριστερός
για να υμνώ τη φύση.
Ν’ αφήνω οικολογικές πορδές,
να καλλιεργώ χασίσι.

Θέλω να γίνω αριστερός
και να πουλώ κουλτούρα.
Να εξαίρω καλλιτεχνικά σκατά,
ξεράσματα και ούρα.

Θέλω να γίνω αριστερός.
Να βγάζω και φιρμάνια.
Να κάθονται όλοι προσοχή
στη γκέι περηφάνια.

Θέλω να γίνω αριστερός.
Να βρίζω τον Χριστό.
Αλλοδαποί θρησκόληπτοι
να μ’ έχουν για αρχηγό.

Θέλω να γίνω αριστερός,
τις εκκλησιές να κλείσω,
μπούργκες να βλέπω ολόγυρα,
πολλά τζαμιά να χτίσω.

Θέλω να γίνω αριστερός
και πολυπολιτισμικός.
Τις παραδόσεις τού Έλληνα
να θάψω δια παντός.

Θέλω να γίνω αριστερός.
Μοντέρνος, ριζοσπάστης.
Δανδής και ανανεωτής.
Φελλός κι απεργοσπάστης.

Θέλω να γίνω αριστερός.
Τον Μαρξ ν’ αποκηρύξω.
Τους συνεπείς αριστερούς
στα Τάρταρα να ρίξω.

Θέλω να γίνω αριστερός.
Να είμαι χιπ και τρέντι.
Άνεργοι, εργάτες και φτωχοί,
να μ’ έχουν για αφέντη.

Θέλω να γίνω Πασοκτζής.
Αρχιλαμόγιο της Δεή(ς).
Από τη Ρόδο χιμπατζής.
Στη Σουηδία τζαμπατζής.

Θέλω να γίνω Πασοκτζής.
Σαν τον μπαμπά να'μαι νταής.
Να βγάζω και φωτογραφίες.
Να με θαυμάζουν οι κυρίες.

Θέλω να γίνω Πασοκτζής.
Φανατικός σαν Παοκτζής.
Και να με βάλουν και σε λίστες.
Μαζί με άλλους Σοσιαλήστες.

Θέλω να γίνω Πασοκτζής.
Με σπιταρόνα μπαταχτζής.
Γερμανική αυτοκινητάρα.
Και νοοτροπία Ελληνάρα.

Θέλω να γίνω Πασοκτζής.
Τα καλοκαίρια εμπρηστής.
Το κράτος να υπηρετώ.
Τον εαυτό μου να κοιτώ.

Θέλω να γίνω Πασοκτζής.
Το αμάξι μου να'χει ρεπρίζ.
Ναι δω το γιο μου Χρυσαυγίτη.
Και ας μου κλείσουνε το σπίτι.

Θέλω να γίνω Πασοκτζής.
Μεγάλος παρλαπιπατζής.
Τίποτα να μη μαρτυρήσω.
Και το μουσάκι να ξυρίσω.

Θέλω να γίνω Πασοκτζής.
Του ίντερνετ ο μαχητής.
Σλάβοι, Αρβανίτες και τρελοί.
Ολοι μαζί Σταλινικοί.

Θέλω να γίνω Πασοκτζής.
Ο πιο μεγάλος παπατζής.
Μέσα σε βόθρο να ξυπνήσω.
Με ανία να μελαγχολήσω.

Θέλω να γίνω Πασοκτζής.
Αλλά έγινα ένας θαθατζής.
Κάθομαι και κουράζομαι.
Με τα τουιτς ταράζομαι.

FIXED

9
Quote
Omphaloskepsis or navel-gazing is contemplation of one's navel as an aid to meditation.[1]

The word comes from Greek omphalos (navel) + skepsis (act of looking, examination).[1]

Actual use of the practice as an aid to contemplation of basic principles of the cosmos and human nature is found in the practice of yoga of Hinduism and sometimes in the Eastern Orthodox Church.[2] Some consider the navel to be "a powerful chakra of the body".[3][4]

However, phrases such as "contemplating one's navel" or "navel-gazing" are frequently used, usually in jocular fashion, to refer to self-absorbed pursuits.[5]


Αυτό που διαμορφώνει τον ρου ενός Λαού είναι τα θεμελιώδη δόγματα σύμφωνα με τα οποία βλέπει τον κόσμο και τον επεξεργάζεται. Η Ορθοδοξία, η οποία είναι μέρος της Ανατολής και καμία σχέση δεν έχει με την Ελλάδα που γέννησε τη Δύση, αντιμετωπίζει το ζήτημα της επεξεργασίας του κόσμου με τρόπο θεολογικά εσωτερικό. Πιστεύει, κατά πλατωνικό τρόπο, πως η αλήθεια είναι μέσα μας και ότι η Φύση, η οποία είναι έξω μας, είναι έξω από την αλήθεια και κατά προέκταση ψευδής. Έτσι οι κοινωνίες που διάγουν τον βιο τους υπό αυτήν την κοσμοθεωρία δεν μπορούν να αναπτύξουν υψηλό τεχνικό επίπεδο γιατί είναι φορείς μιας θεολογικά ορμέμφυτης αποστροφής προς τον κόσμο. Αυτή η κοσμοθεωρία οδηγεί στη γιόγκα, τη νιρβάνα, τα ναρκωτικά (Καρανίκας: η καριέρα είναι χολέρα!), τον ασκητισμό του "Αγίου" όρους, τα ψυχολογικά απωθημένα, την κατάθλιψη, την παχυσαρκία .

Για να βελτιώσεις τον κόσμο, τον φυσικό κόσμο, μέσα στον οποίο και μόνο εκεί θα κριθεί η φυσική σου επιβίωση, πρέπει να εμπλακείς σε αυτόν, να βυθιστείς ψυχικά, να συνδέσεις την ύπαρξή σου και τη σκέψη σου και την εργασία σου, με την ύλη που τον συναποτελεί. Η Ορθοδοξία δεν το κάνει αυτό, γιατί ανήκει στην Ανατολή. Επιμένει να ομφαλοσκοπεί και να περιμένει τη Λύτρωση υπομένωντας τα μαρτύρια της κρατικιστικής τεχνικής της καθυστέρησης, που η ίδια επέφερε στον εαυτό της. Δεν επιβιώνουν έτσι οι κοινωνίες. Χωρίς τη βουτιά μέσα στην ύλη στην οποία μας καλεί ο (Δυτικός) Χριστιανισμός, δεν υπάρχει αύριο.

Στον αντίποδα είναι οι αληθινοί Χριστιανοί της Δύσης. Άκουγα έναν πάστορα κάποτε [ιδιώτη, ο οποίος εθελοντικά δέχεται τις δωρεές των πιστών γιατί είναι ηγέτης και όχι δημόσιος υπάνθρωπος όπως οι δικοί μας κληρικοί θεομπαίχτες που επιμένουν να θάβουν τους κομμουνιστές και τους άθεους( και τολμούν να επικαλούνται και τον Κύριο θαβοντές τους) για να τα κονομάνε] και έλεγε ότι εάν αμαρτάνεις, παρατήρησε ότι αμαρτάνεις συνήθως χωρίς φως. Χωρίς να βλέπεις τον ουρανό, όντας κλεισμένος στους 4 τοίχους. Για να λυτρωθείς από την αμαρτία σου τότε, άνοιξε ένα παράθυρο, βγες έξω και κοίτα τον ουρανό. Έλα σε επαφή με τη Φύση, γιατί η Φύση είναι ο Θεός, και θα απαλλαχτείς από την αμαρτία. Βούτα στην ύλη, ικανοποίησε τις ανάγκες των συνανθρώπων σου στην ελεύθερη αγορά, ασχολήσου με τις θετικές επιστήμες, μάθε να σκέφτεσαι λογικά και όχι (μυστικιστικά, εσωτερικά) παράλογα.
10
Στο πίσω μέρος του μυαλού κάθε σοσιαλιστή είναι το πως θα αρπάξει αυτό που οι συνάνθρωποί του παράγουν και πως θα εκμηδενίσει την ελευθερία των άλλων υπό το πρόσχημα κάποιου δήθεν ευαγούς σκοπού με τον οποίον θα τους ξεγελάσει να συνεναίσουν στον εξανδραποδισμό τους.



Inside The LC: The Strange but Mostly True Story of Laurel Canyon and the Birth of the Hippie Generation Part 2
Dave McGowan
Center for an Informed America
Tue, 13 May 2008 21:58 UTC
"He was great, he was unreal - really, really good."

"He had this kind of music that nobody else was doing. I thought he really had something crazy, something great. He was like a living poet."

Image
©Steven Johnson

[Today's first trivia question: both of the above statements were made, on separate occasions, by a famous Laurel Canyon musician of the 1960s era. Both quotes were offered up in praise of another Laurel Canyon musician. Award yourself five points for correctly identifying the person who made the remarks, and five for identifying who the statements refer to. The answers are at the end of this post.]

In the first chapter of this saga, we met a sampling of some of the most successful and influential rock music superstars who emerged from Laurel Canyon during its glory days. But these were, alas, more than just musicians and singers and songwriters who had come together in the canyon; they were destined to become the spokesmen and de facto leaders of a generation of disaffected youth (as Carl Gottlieb noted in David Crosby's co-written autobiography, "the unprecedented mass appeal of the new rock 'n' roll gave the singers a voice in public affairs.") That, of course, makes it all the more curious that these icons were, to an overwhelming degree, the sons and daughters of the military/intelligence complex and the scions of families that have wielded vast wealth and power in this country for a very long time.

When I recently presented to a friend a truncated summary of the information contained in the first installment of this series, said friend opted to play the devil's advocate by suggesting that there was nothing necessarily nefarious in the fact that so many of these icons of a past generation hailed from military/intelligence families. Perhaps, he suggested, they had embarked on their chosen careers as a form of rebellion against the values of their parents. And that, I suppose, might be true in a couple of cases. But what are we to conclude from the fact that such an astonishing number of these folks (along with their girlfriends, wives, managers, etc.) hail from a similar background? Are we to believe that the only kids from that era who had musical talent were the sons and daughters of Navy Admirals, chemical warfare engineers and Air Force intelligence officers? Or are they just the only ones who were signed to lucrative contracts and relentlessly promoted by their labels and the media?

If these artists were rebelling against, rather than subtly promoting, the values of their parents, then why didn't they ever speak out against the folks they were allegedly rebelling against? Why did Jim Morrison never denounce, or even mention, his father's key role in escalating one of America's bloodiest illegal wars? And why did Frank Zappa never pen a song exploring the horrors of chemical warfare (though he did pen a charming little ditty entitled "The Ritual Dance of the Child-Killer")? And which Mamas and Papas song was it that laid waste to the values and actions of John Phillip's parents and in-laws? And in which interview, exactly, did David Crosby and Stephen Stills disown the family values that they were raised with?

In the coming weeks, we will take a much closer look at these folks, as well as at many of their contemporaries, as we endeavor to determine how and why the youth 'counterculture' of the 1960s was given birth. According to virtually all the accounts that I have read, this was essentially a spontaneous, organic response to the war in Southeast Asia and to the prevailing social conditions of the time. 'Conspiracy theorists,' of course, have frequently opined that what began as a legitimate movement was at some point co-opted and undermined by intelligence operations such as CoIntelPro. Entire books, for example, have been written examining how presumably virtuous musical artists were subjected to FBI harassment and/or whacked by the CIA.

Here we will, as you have no doubt already ascertained, take a decidedly different approach. The question that we will be tackling is a more deeply troubling one: "what if the musicians themselves (and various other leaders and founders of the 'movement') were every bit as much a part of the intelligence community as the people who were supposedly harassing them?" What if, in other words, the entire youth culture of the 1960s was created not as a grass-roots challenge to the status quo, but as a cynical exercise in discrediting and marginalizing the budding anti-war movement and creating a fake opposition that could be easily controlled and led astray? And what if the harassment these folks were subjected to was largely a stage-managed show designed to give the leaders of the counterculture some much-needed 'street cred'? What if, in reality, they were pretty much all playing on the same team?

I should probably mention here that, contrary to popular opinion, the 'hippie'/'flower child' movement was not synonymous with the anti-war movement. As time passed, there was, to be sure, a fair amount of overlap between the two 'movements.' And the mass media outlets, as is their wont, did their very best to portray the flower-power generation as the torch-bearers of the anti-war movement - because, after all, a ragtag band of unwashed, drug-fueled long-hairs sporting flowers and peace symbols was far easier to marginalize than, say, a bunch of respected college professors and their concerned students. The reality, however, is that the anti-war movement was already well underway before the first aspiring 'hippie' arrived in Laurel Canyon. The first Vietnam War 'teach-in' was held on the campus of the University of Michigan in March of 1965. The first organized walk on Washington occurred just a few weeks later. Needless to say, there were no 'hippies' in attendance at either event. That 'problem' would soon be rectified. And the anti-war crowd - those who were serious about ending the bloodshed in Vietnam, anyway - would be none too appreciative.

As Barry Miles has written in his coffee-table book, Hippie, there were some hippies involved in anti-war protests, "particularly after the police riot in Chicago in 1968 when so many people got injured, but on the whole the movement activists looked on hippies with disdain." Peter Coyote, narrating the documentary "Hippies" on The History Channel, added that "Some on the left even theorized that the hippies were the end result of a plot by the CIA to neutralize the anti-war movement with LSD, turning potential protestors into self-absorbed naval-gazers." An exasperated Abbie Hoffman once described the scene as he remembered it thusly: "There were all these activists, you know, Berkeley radicals, White Panthers ... all trying to stop the war and change things for the better. Then we got flooded with all these 'flower children' who were into drugs and sex. Where the hell did the hippies come from?!"

As it turns out, they came, initially at least, from a rather private, isolated, largely self-contained neighborhood in Los Angeles known as Laurel Canyon (in contrast to the other canyons slicing through the Hollywood Hills, Laurel Canyon has its own market, the semi-famous Laurel Canyon Country Store; its own deli and cleaners; its own elementary school, the Wonderland School; its own boutique shops and salons; and, in more recent years, its own celebrity reprogramming rehab facility named, as you may have guessed, the Wonderland Center. During its heyday, the canyon even had its own management company, Lookout Management, to handle the talent. At one time, it even had its own newspaper.)

One other thing that I should add here, before getting too far along with this series, is that this has not been an easy line of research for me to conduct, primarily because I have been, for as long as I can remember, a huge fan of 1960s music and culture. Though I was born in 1960 and therefore didn't come of age, so to speak, until the 1970s, I have always felt as though I was ripped off by being denied the opportunity to experience firsthand the era that I was so obviously meant to inhabit. During my high school and college years, while my peers were mostly into faceless corporate rock (think Journey, Foreigner, Kansas, Boston, etc.) and, perhaps worse yet, the twin horrors of New Wave and Disco music, I was faithfully spinning my Hendrix, Joplin and Doors albums (which I still have, or rather my eldest daughter still has, in the original vinyl versions) while my color organ (remember those?) competed with my black light and strobe light. I grew my hair long until well past the age when it should have been sheared off. I may have even strung beads across the doorway to my room, but it is possible that I am confusing my life with that of Greg Brady, who, as we all remember, once converted his dad's home office into a groovy bachelor pad.

Anyway ... as I have probably mentioned previously on more than one occasion, one of the most difficult aspects of this journey that I have been on for the last decade or so has been watching so many of my former idols and mentors fall by the wayside as it became increasingly clear to me that people who I once thought were the good guys were, in reality, something entirely different than what they appear to be. The first to fall, naturally enough, were the establishment figures - the politicians who I once, quite foolishly, looked up to as people who were fighting the good fight, within the confines of the system, to bring about real change. Though it now pains me to admit this, there was a time when I admired the likes of (egads!) George McGovern and Jimmy Carter, as well as (oops, excuse me for a moment; I seem to have just thrown up in my mouth a little bit) California pols Tom Hayden and Jerry Brown. I even had high hopes, oh-so-many-years-ago, for (am I really admitting this in print?) aspiring First Man Bill Clinton.

Since I mentioned Jerry "Governor Moonbeam" Brown, by the way, I must now digress just a bit - and we all know how I hate it when that happens. But as luck would have it, Jerry Brown was, curiously enough, a longtime resident of a little place called Laurel Canyon. As readers of Programmed to Kill may recall, Brown lived on Wonderland Avenue, not too many doors down from 8763 Wonderland Avenue, the site of the infamous "Four on the Floor" murders, regarded by grizzled LA homicide detectives as the most bloody and brutal multiple murder in the city's very bloody history (if you get a chance, by the way, check out "Wonderland" with Val Kilmer the next time it shows up on your cable listings; it is, by Hollywood standards, a reasonably accurate retelling of the crime, and a pretty decent film as well).

As it turns out, you see, the most bloody mass murder in LA's history took place in one of the city's most serene, pastoral and exclusive neighborhoods. And strangely enough, the case usually cited as the runner-up for the title of bloodiest crime scene - the murders of Stephen Parent, Sharon Tate, Jay Sebring, Voytek Frykowski and Abigail Folger at 10050 Cielo Drive in Benedict Canyon, just a couple miles to the west of Laurel Canyon - had deep ties to the Laurel Canyon scene as well.

As previously mentioned, victims Folger and Frykowski lived in Laurel Canyon, at 2774 Woodstock Road, in a rented home right across the road from a favored gathering spot for Laurel Canyon royalty. Many of the regular visitors to Cass Elliot's home, including a number of shady drug dealers, were also regular visitors to the Folger/Frykowski home (Frykowski's son, by the way, was stabbed to death on June 6, 1999, thirty years after his father met the same fate.) Victim Jay Sebring's acclaimed hair salon sat right at the mouth of Laurel Canyon, just below the Sunset Strip, and it was Sebring, alas, who was credited with sculpting Jim Morrison's famous mane. One of the investors in his Sebring International business venture was a Laurel Canyon luminary who I may have mentioned previously, Mr. John Phillips.

Sharon Tate was also well known in Laurel Canyon, where she was a frequent visitor to the homes of friends like John Phillips, Cass Elliott, and Abby Folger. And when she wasn't in Laurel Canyon, many of the canyon regulars, both famous and infamous, made themselves at home in her place on Cielo Drive. Canyonite Van Dyke Parks, for example, dropped by for a visit on the very day of the murders. And Denny Doherty, the other "Papa" in The Mamas and the Papas, has claimed that he and John Phillips were invited to the Cielo Drive home on the night of the murders, but, as luck would have it, they never made it over. (Similarly, Chuck Negron of Three Dog Night, a regular visitor to the Wonderland death house, had set up a drug buy on the night of that mass murder, but he fell asleep and never made it over.)

Along with the victims, the alleged killers also lived in and/or were very much a part of the Laurel Canyon scene. Bobby "Cupid" Beausoleil, for example, lived in a Laurel Canyon apartment during the early months of 1969. Charles "Tex" Watson, who allegedly led the death squad responsible for the carnage at Cielo Drive, lived for a time in a home on - guess where? - Wonderland Avenue. During that time, curiously enough, Watson co-owned and worked in a wig shop in Beverly Hills, Crown Wig Creations, Ltd., that was located near the mouth of Benedict Canyon. Meanwhile, one of Jay Sebring's primary claims-to-fame was his expertise in crafting men's hairpieces, which he did in his shop near the mouth of Laurel Canyon. A typical day then in the late 1960s would find Watson crafting hairpieces for an upscale Hollywood clientele near Benedict Canyon, and then returning home to Laurel Canyon, while Sebring crafted hairpieces for an upscale Hollywood clientele near Laurel Canyon, and then returned home to Benedict Canyon. And then one crazy day, as we all know, one of them became a killer and the other his victim. But there's nothing odd about that, I suppose, so let's move on.

Oh, wait a minute ... we can't quite move on just yet, as I forgot to mention that Sebring's Benedict Canyon home, at 9820 Easton Drive, was a rather infamous Hollywood death house that had once belonged to Jean Harlow and Paul Bern. The mismatched pair were wed on July 2, 1932, when Harlow, already a huge star of the silver screen, was just twenty-one years old. Just two months later, on September 5, Bern caught a bullet to the head in his wife's bedroom. He was found sprawled naked in a pool of his own blood, his corpse drenched with his wife's perfume. Upon discovering the body, Bern's butler promptly contacted MGM's head of security, Whitey Hendry, who in turn contacted Louis B. Mayer and Irving Thalberg. All three men descended upon the Benedict Canyon home to, you know, tidy up a bit. A couple hours later, they decided to contact the LAPD. This scene would be repeated years later when Sebring's friends would rush to the home to clean up before officers investigating the Tate murders arrived.

Bern's death was, needless to say, written off as a suicide. His newlywed wife, strangely enough, was never called as a witness at the inquest. Bern's other wife - which is to say, his common-law wife, Dorothy Millette - reportedly boarded a Sacramento riverboat on September 6, 1932, the day after Paul's death. She was next seen floating belly-up in the Sacramento River. Her death, as would be expected, was also ruled a suicide. Less than five years later, Harlow herself dropped dead at the ripe old age of 26. At the time, authorities opted not to divulge the cause of death, though it was later claimed that bad kidneys had done her in. During her brief stay on this planet, Harlow had cycled through three turbulent marriages and yet still found time to serve as Godmother to Bugsy Siegel's daughter, Millicent.

Though Bern's was the most famous body to be hauled out of the Easton Drive house in a coroner's bag, it certainly wasn't the only one. Another man had reportedly committed suicide there as well, in some unspecified fashion. Yet another unfortunate soul drowned in the home's pool. And a maid was once found swinging from the end of a rope. Her death, needless to say, was ruled a suicide as well. That's a lot of blood for one home to absorb, but the house's morbid history, though a turn-off to many prospective residents, was reportedly exactly what attracted Jay Sebring to the property. His murder would further darken the black cloud hanging over the home.

As Laurel Canyon chronicler Michael Walker has noted, LA's two most notorious mass murders, one in August of 1969 and the other in July of 1981 (both involving five victims, though at Wonderland one of the five miraculously survived), provided rather morbid bookends for Laurel Canyon's glory years. Walker though, like others who have chronicled that time and place, treats these brutal crimes as though they were unfortunate aberrations. The reality, however, is that the nine bodies recovered from Cielo Drive and Wonderland Avenue constitute just the tip of a very large, and very bloody, iceberg. To partially illustrate that point, here is today's second trivia question: what do Diane Linkletter (daughter of famed entertainer Art Linkletter), legendary comedian Lenny Bruce, screen idol Sal Mineo, starlet Inger Stevens, and silent film star Ramon Novarro, all have in common?

If you answered that all were found dead in their homes, either in or at the mouth of Laurel Canyon, in the decade between 1966 and 1976, then award yourself five points. If you added that all five were, in all likelihood, murdered in their Laurel Canyon homes, then add five bonus points.

Only two of them, of course, are officially listed as murder victims (Mineo, who was stabbed to death outside his home at 8563 Holloway Drive on February 12, 1976, and Novarro, who was killed near the Country Store in a decidedly ritualistic fashion on the eve of Halloween, 1968). Inger Steven's death in her home at 8000 Woodrow Wilson Drive, on April 30, 1970 (Walpurgisnacht on the occult calendar), was officially a suicide, though why she opted to propel herself through a decorative glass screen as part of that suicide remains a mystery. Perhaps she just wanted to leave behind a gruesome crime scene, and simple overdoses can be so, you know, bloodless and boring.

Diane Linkletter, as we all know, sailed out the window of her Shoreham Towers apartment because, in her LSD-addled state, she thought she could fly, or some such thing. We know this because Art himself told us that it was so, and because the story was retold throughout the 1970s as a cautionary tale about the dangers of drugs. What we weren't told, however, is that Diane (born, curiously enough, on Halloween day, 1948) wasn't alone when she plunged six stories to her death on the morning of October 4, 1969. Au contraire, she was with a gent by the name of Edward Durston, who, in a completely unexpected turn of events, accompanied actress Carol Wayne to Mexico some 15 years later. Carol, alas, perhaps weighed down by her enormous breasts, managed to drown in barely a foot of water, while Mr. Durston promptly disappeared. As would be expected, he was never questioned by authorities about Wayne's curious death. After all, it is quite common for the same guy to be the sole witness to two separate 'accidental' deaths.

Art also neglected to mention, by the way, that just weeks before Diane's curious death, another member of the Linkletter clan, Art's son-in-law, John Zwyer, caught a bullet to the head in the backyard of his Hollywood Hills home. But that, of course, was an unconnected, uhmm, suicide, so don't go thinking otherwise.

I'm not even going to discuss here the circumstances of Bruce's death from acute morphine poisoning on August 3, 1966, because, to be perfectly honest, I don't know too many people who don't already assume that Lenny was whacked. I'll just note here that his funeral was well-attended by the Laurel Canyon rock icons, and control over his unreleased material fell into the hands of a guy by the name of Frank Zappa. And another rather unsavory character named Phil Spector, whose crack team of studio musicians, dubbed The Wrecking Crew, were the actual musicians playing on many studio recordings by such bands as The Monkees, The Byrds, The Beach Boys, and The Mamas and the Papas.

To Be Continued ...

(As for the trivia question, the person being praised, of course, was our old friend Chuck Manson. And the guy singing his praises was Mr. Neil Young.)


πηγή
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10