|
Post by The Deceptionist on Aug 27, 2007 20:28:57 GMT -5
Sorry if there's already a thread for this here, but I've just been browsing TKIN when I found this thread.. 60if.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=Essential&action=display&thread=1088065816&page=1the bit that really caught my eye was this... and the accompanying text: "Yes Paul McCartney was really bald ... just like TODAY ... Thanks to JoJo" Generally I find the poster's comments a bit dubious, confusing or hard to believe but as this one has the 'JoJo seal of quality' marked on it I was intrigued; especially when I rethought some of the Paul > Neil connections. JoJo did you provide the footage, point it out or whatever? If so, could you perhaps tell me where its from - the TKIN post didn't really give much away I think I just had one of those oh-so-special 'enlightened but speechless' PWR moments
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Aug 27, 2007 20:44:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Aug 27, 2007 20:48:48 GMT -5
While Paul may have been folliclely challenged, there is only a remote (no #&*@% way) chance that he and Neil were the same person.
|
|
|
Post by The Deceptionist on Aug 27, 2007 20:56:39 GMT -5
well just the fact that paul seems to be wearing a wig is enough of an eyeopener, im still not entirely sold on the whole neil is paul thing, although I'm not entirely skeptical of it either. In fact, as far as Naul goes, my ass is planted firmly on the fence..
but - damn.. curiouser and curiouser [he said, Fauling straight through the rabbit hole]
|
|
|
Post by mommybird on Aug 27, 2007 22:21:08 GMT -5
I can't imagine why Paul would be wearing a wig in 1965. I do have a question, though. If he was wearing a wig, why in hell would he risk it flying off his head by behaving like that ? I would think that he would just do that cool head bopping motion ( which I have seen him do numerous times ) while he is playing his bass. That video makes no sense to me. Where exactly did that footage come from ? Is it vintage ? In other words, was it taken from a medium before 1986 ? With all the weird theories being espoused at TKIN, I find it a little suspicious that the footage of Paul appearing bald appears shortly before the "BRAINSTORM" that Paul had taken Feil's place. I'm not saying that the people at TKIN are making stuff up. I am saying that it's possible that they are being fed "ideas" by TPTB to steer them in the wrong direction and ultimately discredit them. This is all IMHO of course.
|
|
|
Post by The Deceptionist on Aug 27, 2007 22:44:41 GMT -5
I've had a look on youtube for some original footage and I noticed a very strange thing that I've never seen [or at least noticed] before at any other Beatles gig - all the French are singing along to 'can't buy me love' - sure beats just screaming your nuts off i guess... Perhaps the wig was designed to be extra durable, due to the fact that he liked to bounce around and bop so much on-stage, and that he was the famous Beatle-Paul, rarely out of the public eye. Plus the marauding fans and others who might try to pull it off his head [from what i can gather, lots of people thought their hairdo's were wigs in the first few years - and we've all seen how rough those 60's gals could be in Beatlemania mode]. If the wig was such that it was 'unbreakable' or whatever, then he may have just gotten careless.. perhaps he was too much in the orgasmic throes of performing on-stage and forgot about it completely.. Or, as per earlier posts on other threads and sites - he has a comb-forward [as opposed to a comb-over] to disguise just how far his hairline had already receded. www.beatlelinks.net/forums/showthread.php?t=31164the Beatles perform at Palais du Sports, Paris - June 20 1965 Edit: Having watched the whole show now, its interesting to note that this - shall we say 'slip' ? - occurs during the last, most frenetic moments of the concert; near the end of a JPM speciality 'Long Tall Sally' [the only song of the night where Paul really goes for it in a very physical way] - so, if indeed it were a wig it'd be easy to see how that song could knock it about a bit.
|
|
|
Post by B on Aug 28, 2007 2:27:41 GMT -5
But what if that's John? See first post here: invanddis.proboards29.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1177272928&page=1I know it's far-fetched, but johnpaulolivier wrote me at YouTube and pleaded with me to keep quiet about this; which makes me think he was genuinely concerned (which would suggest to me it might actually be true). I'm trying to find the pictures that someone posted where John, George, and Faul all have that strange triple wrinkle under their bottom lip. That's very peculiar. It may have been at TKIN. You can see it here a little bit:
|
|
|
Post by plastic paul on Aug 28, 2007 4:07:24 GMT -5
I don't think it's a wig, but rather long hair further back, brushed forward perhaps to cover a receding hairline.
That makes most sense to me if the balding JPM theory is to be believed.
|
|
|
Post by The Deceptionist on Aug 28, 2007 8:29:08 GMT -5
what gets me isn't just the fact that he was going bald - its how far along he appears to be in these stills [assuming its not a hairpiece] - and in 1965!! admittedly the blurred frames make it hard to distinguish, but you can clearly see a great deal of dome-age under that mop. poor feller
|
|
|
Post by The Deceptionist on Aug 28, 2007 8:58:11 GMT -5
I'm trying to find the pictures that someone posted where John, George, and Faul all have that strange triple wrinkle under their bottom lip. That's very peculiar. It may have been at TKIN. C'est ca? Personally I think it could just be closely cropped stubble, or said stubble casting a shadow - after all they look *similar*, not necessarily identical... or perhaps the lip wrinkle is a common feature on a lot of people... on second thoughts, if the hair is fine enough it can look a lot fairer under the right light. Maybe its the remnants of some twisted Illuminati initiation involving a three-way lip piercing... 'that'll teach 'em a lesson in brotherhood!' Hm.. I'm becoming more and more PWRgnostic every day; I don't think we'll ever really know the answers to any of these questions until you-know-who answers them (truthfully).
|
|
|
Post by B on Aug 28, 2007 9:22:58 GMT -5
Those are the pictures I was looking for, Deceptionist. Thank you for posting them. 'John' and 'George' have identical Adam's apples too. Sheesh!
|
|
|
Post by MikeNL on Aug 28, 2007 9:33:50 GMT -5
So what? my adam's apple also looks a lot like that... but the facial structure is just TOO diffrent. this is too silly, mainly because you just can't explain it why they were together at the same time.. it just doesn't fit
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Aug 28, 2007 14:52:42 GMT -5
Lennon and Harrison: White Album inserts.
Aspinal: Scan from Anthology book, on the plane somewhere on the Asian portion of the 1966 tour.
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Aug 28, 2007 16:57:36 GMT -5
I may have mentioned this on another thread some time ago. Perhaps the reason why the Beatles' image was of a "mop top" was a clever way to disguise Paul's high hairline, although I don't think he was bald, but perhaps the high hairline and they used not a "comb-over" but a "Comb-forward" thus, the mop top image we are familiar with, and it would be a way to cover the thinning hairline.
Just an idea..
|
|
|
Post by mommybird on Aug 28, 2007 17:59:15 GMT -5
That's been mentioned a few times in this thread, Rita. Since you are a Beatlephile of sorts, I would think that you'd know from which you speak. I think that's a pretty logical explanation. I'm typing one handed while holding a plate with calzone & cheese fries in my other hand. Not an easy task. Very messy eats ! ;D
|
|
|
Post by B on Aug 28, 2007 20:28:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mommybird on Aug 29, 2007 13:19:36 GMT -5
I was just thinking. I have that photo of John cutting Paul's hair. While looking for that photo, I came across this little gem. A Hairy Story by Bill Harry, Beatles' friend and founder of Mersey Beat Moptops? What do you mean! I never noticed anything particular about John, George, Paul, Pete or Stuart's hairstyles in the early days -- apart from the fact that initially some of them sported the traditional Tony Curtis style that was popular in Liverpool in the late fifties. It was a style referred to as a d.a. (duck's arse, because of the way the hair curled at the rear). I had mine done at Max the Mad Russian's, near the Majestic Cinema in town. Nor did I notice anything specific about their hair when they returned back from Germany. Looking at the photos of the time, taken by Astrid and by Mersey Beat photographers, I couldn't see anything that was radically different from the style most Liverpool youngsters and group members sported. Then, when Brian Epstein took them over, I noticed that not only did he spruce them up in mohair suits made by his tailor Beno Dorn in Birkenhead, but he took them to Horne Brothers at the corner of Lord Street and had lots of publicity photographs taken of them enjoying a new coiffeur by the unknown barber there. I say unknown, because no one these days could quote the name of the barber who gave them the style, on the instruction of Brian Epstein, when he took them to the fashionable barbers in April 1963. Dezo Hoffmann photographed them having their hair cut and was to comment, "The hairdresser was a friend of theirs who liked Astrid Kirchherr's idea of longer hair for the Beatles. He would groom and discipline their hair for them every week." Despite Brian and his Horne Brothers publicity pictures to herald a new Beatles image (he took them to the Empire Theatre to watch the Shadows, in their mohair suits, and pointed out how they bowed to the audience at the end of their act. John and Pete didn't like to abandon their leather gear, but they were outvoted. Once suited in mohair, with tidy shirts and tie, John again tried to rebel by unfastened the top button of his shirt when they went on stage, but Paul always stepped forward to fasten it again. Brian gave them neatly typed sheets instructing them not to swear or smoke on stage - paving the way for the Rolling Stones to adopt the image of 'the savage young Beatles', that Brian had carefully smoothed away), their hair style began to change initially in Hamburg. The Beatles in Hamburg The first steps were between the lovers, Astrid and Stuart. Millie Sutcliffe, Stu's mother said, "As for the haircut, it started when Stuart's hair was falling down and sticking out. One night Astrid had been moaning about his hair and then took him into the bathroom and cut it." Hunter Davies, in his authorised biography, writes: "Stu turned up at the Top Ten that evening with his hair in the new style, and the others collapsed on the floor with hysteria. Halfway through he gave up and combed his hair high. But thanks to Astrid, he tried it again the next night. He was ridiculed again, but the night after, George turned up with the same style. Then Paul had a go, though for a long time he was always changing it back to the old style as John hadn't yet made up his mind. Pete Best ignored the whole craze. But the Beatle hair style had been born." Although it's the 'authorised biography', this is inaccurate but, as writer Bob Spitz was to recall: "During an interview I did with Paul McCartney in 1997 for the New York Times, he confessed that almost half of the official Beatles bio -- done with Hunter Davies in 1967 -- was made up to spare girlfriends, wives, and family from some of the grittier side of the Beatles' legend. All of the nearly 1000 books on the Beatles were embroidered from that myth." As a result of the implication that Pete ignored the style, many people over the years suggested that this is one of the reasons that he was kicked out, that he was uncooperative by not adopting the hair-style. Yet Astrid states that she never considered attempting to adapt Pete's hair in that style because she considered it too curly. When I discussed it with Pete he said that he was never asked to try out the new hairstyle -- and he would have done so if he had been asked. Even Ray Coleman, in his book 'John Winston Lennon' writes, "Stuart, the first to have his hair cut and styled by Astrid faced John's scorn when, one night, he arrived at the club for work with what later became known as the Beatle haircut... Paul, always more conscious than the others about his appearance, was the next to ask Astrid to style his hair... John was the last Beatle to succumb to the Beatle cut. Only Pete Best declined, retaining his quaff and Teddy Boy aura that attracted the girls." As the last sentence about Pete indicates, writers speculate, they make assumptions, which I always think is a dangerous thing for writers to do. What evidence did he have that Pete declined? None, because Pete was never asked and would have tried the style if that was the wish of the other members. But Ray's claim that Paul and John then followed by getting Astrid to style their hair is also wrong. John and Paul didn't have Astrid fashion their hair. They returned to Liverpool with the same hair style they'd left in. When John received a sum of money from his aunt Elizabeth for his 21st birthday, he invited Paul to join him on a trip to Spain at the end of September 1961. They set off, but never got further than Paris, where they stayed for two weeks. They discovered that Jurgen Vollmer, a friend of theirs from Hamburg, was now living in Paris. They both decided that they wanted their hair fashioned in the way Jurgen had his hair, which was the way a lot of French youngsters had their hair styled. He was to say "I gave both of them their first 'Beatle' haircut in my hotel room on the Left Bank" and later confirmed, "I gave them the haircut. It was their idea to have it the same as mine. They left Paris, and never brushed their hair back again. That's the real story of the haircut. Don't let anyone tell you different." And in an interview when George Harrison was asked how the Beatles haircut came about, he said, "I only brushed my hair forward after John and Paul came back from Paris." In 'The Beatles Anthology,' John is quoted as saying, "Jurgen had a flattened down hair style with a fringe in the front, which we rather took to. We went over to his place and there and then he cut -- hacked would be a better word -- our hair into the same style." While Paul confirmed, "He had his hair Mod style. We said, 'Would you do our hair like yours? We're on holiday -- what the hell!" The hair style didn't raise any eyebrows on Merseyside, where it wasn't actually radically different from the hair style of the other local groups. Looking at photographs of the Beatles at the Cavern that I asked Dick Matthews to take for me I notice that John and Paul's hair was off their foreheads, while George's hair covered his forehead -- and John still had his sidies! In their first interview for a major British publication, London's Evening Standard, journalist Maureen Cleave mentioned their 'weird' hair: "French styling, with the fringe brushed forwards." But it barely raised any attention in the British media. However, it caused a sensation when the Beatles arrived in America in 1964. The affectionate term 'Moptops' was created and almost every comedian in the country cracked gags about their hair style. Hundreds of thousands of Beatles wigs were manufactured and it eventually led to the American youth growing their hair longer than had been previously acceptable for a young male. Personally, I thought the wigs were more akin to the hair style of Mo Howard from the Three Stooges. Ed Sullivan in a Beatles wig When the group first arrived in America photographers and journalists kept tugging their hair, asking them if they were wearing wigs.Wigmania took off! New York radio station WMCA ran a competition for listeners to paint or draw someone in a Beatlewig -- either celebrity pictures clipped from newspapers or photos of friends. The most popular subjects were: Nikita Krushchev, Mayor Wagner, Alfred E. Newman (of Mad magazine), Brigitte Bardot and the Jolly Green Giant. Capitol Records instructed all their staff to wear Beatle wigs during the working day until further notice and issued a memo: "Get these Beatle wigs around properly, and you'll find yourself helping to start the Beatle Hair-Do craze that should be sweeping the country soon." On their arrival in February 1964, the New York Herald Tribune reported: "The Beatles' hairstyle is a mop effect that covers the forehead, some of the ears and most of the back of the neck. During their first American press conference the group was asked questions such as 'Will you be getting a haircut?' and 'What's the greatest threat to your career -- dandruff or nuclear warfare?' Such questions continued throughout the press conferences during their autumn tour: 'What excuses do you have for your collar-length hair?' 'What do you do with your long hair in the shower?' 'Do you have any plans for a hair cut?' 'Does you hair require any special care?' and so on. When Paul was asked 'Do you ever go unnoticed?' he replied, 'When we take off our wigs.' A 60's joke picture: The Beatles "as we'd like to see them" The American fervour about the hair style swept the world and in Sweden it was referred to as the 'Hamlet' cut and in Germany it was described as the 'mushroom.' So far I haven't found out who was the first person, or publication, to coin the phrase 'moptop.' I was intrigued many years ago when I noticed a full page feature in a major British women's magazine which claimed that the Beatles hair style was based on a photograph of Agnes Flannery, mother of Joe Flannery, a Liverpool manager who was a close friend of Brian Epstein. Joe claimed that when the Beatles visited him at his Aintree flat early in their career they noticed a picture of his mother when young. Apparently, John fell in love with it. Joe says, "John picked up the photo, admired the hairstyle and said to Paul McCartney, 'That's the way I want my hair to look.'" Joe continued, "Compare the photo of my mother and John Lennon and the hairstyles are remarkably similar. I have spoken on a number of occasions with Astrid and she has told me that she never ever said she created the hairstyle. In fact the group went to a barber's at Horne Brothers at the corner of Paradise Street and Lord Street." Agnes said, "The picture that intrigued John was taken at a studio in Bold Street, Liverpool, when I was just sixteen, two years before I married... I'm sure many folk will be thrilled to learn the true story of how the Beatles came by their distinctive hairstyle which, incidentally, I'd created for myself by washing and trimming my own hair in that particular way." Pull the other one! Virginia and I used to go to Joe's flat when the Beatles were there, but I can't give any credence to this story. Bill Harry, born in Liverpool, attended Liverpool College of Art with John Lennon and Stuart Sutcliffe. He coined the phrase Mersey Beat and launched a newspaper of that name. He later moved to London where he became personal press officer to over 30 major acts including Hollies, Kinks, Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin. He was the first person ever to write regularly about the Beatles and has written more about the group than anyone else in the word. Published July 1, 2006 This article is Copyright © 2006, Bill Harry, and may not be reproduced on other web sites or in print, in whole or in part, without expressed permission Check out Paul's hairline in the 1960's joke photo. His forehead is definitely smaller than Faul's ! Paul Faul Hey, I just found the photo I was initially looking for:
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Aug 29, 2007 20:05:10 GMT -5
JPM had a smaller face, so Bill's forehead and hairline would be definitely higher than JPM's.
While I don't think he was totally bald, he may have had male pattern baldness and was just in the beginning stages. Had he lived, it would have been as obvious as his father's baldness.
|
|
|
Post by mindgames on Aug 30, 2007 3:15:04 GMT -5
Paul and Faul have the same off centered widows peak?
yes I have noticed early photos of girls not being very impressed with the Beatles while they where reported to be screaming thier butts off were those girls hired hands?
As far as niel looking like everybody, could it be that England is such a small place that the population has interbred for so man years that everyboy is closely or distantly related nd share similar features? So maybe its a regional thing?
|
|
|
Post by plastic paul on Aug 30, 2007 4:35:35 GMT -5
Hmmm, I wouldn't have thought so, though I have a similar trait!
|
|
|
Post by mindgames on Aug 30, 2007 5:40:02 GMT -5
my spelling is really off 2day! (remember to proofread mindgames! Plastic paul or you refering to the widow's peak?
|
|
|
Post by plastic paul on Aug 30, 2007 9:27:19 GMT -5
Yeah I was referring to the widow's peak!
|
|
|
Post by LOVELYRITA on Aug 30, 2007 18:34:54 GMT -5
I had read an article, but I can't remember where that the girls who were filmed at the Airport when the Beatles first arrived in the US were from a Catholic Girl's School hired to scream. With clever cutting of the band with a group of girls, I suppose it would seem like hysteria...IF we hear something long enough and often enough, we begin to believe it.
|
|
|
Post by mommybird on Aug 30, 2007 18:51:05 GMT -5
Now that I think about it, it was the perfect mind control experiment. Introduce the boys on public media ( television/ the movie screen) with a bunch of screaming girls in attendance. Before you know it, people going to see them in concert will feel that is the appropriate response to their presence. It's insidious !
|
|
|
Post by mindgames on Aug 31, 2007 4:04:25 GMT -5
Found it
The Satanic Roots of Rock Filed under:Brainwashing
May 27, 2003 - 14:47
by Donald Phau
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"
Any loving parent today would be horrified and shocked to learn that their sons and daughters are eagerly listening to such evil. Perhaps though, some may think privately, "If only we could return to the 'good old days,' with the music of the Beatles." Little do most people suspect that it was with those innocent-looking Beatles, that most of the trouble started.
Modern electronic-rock music, inaugurated in the early 1960s, is, and always has been, a joint enterprise of British military intelligence and Satanic cults. On the one side, the Satanists control the major rock groups through drugs , sex, threats of violence, and even murder. On the otherside, publicity, tours, and recordings are financed by record companies connected to British military intelligence circles. Both sides are intimately entwined with the biggest business in the world, the international drug trade.
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 . For example, much-admired "stars'' such as John Lennon of the Beatles and Keith Richard of the Rolling Stones, were heroin addicts. Richard had to obtain blood transfusions, replacing his entire heroin-laced blood supply, in order to get a visa to enter the United States.
The "rock stars" are also totally artificial media creations. Their public image, as well as their music, is fabricated from behind the scenes by controllers. For example, when the Beatles first arrived in the United States in 1964, they were mobbed at the airport by hundreds of screaming teenage girls. The national press immediately announced that "Beatlemania" had besieged the U.S.A. But the girls had all been transported from a girl's school in the Bronx, and paid for their screaming performance by the Beatles' promoters.
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. From 1963 to 1970, the Rolling Stones made over $200 million, yet the group's members were all nearly bankrupt. None of them had any idea of where their money went.
Between 1963 and 1964 the Beatles and the Rolling Stones laid siege to Western European and American culture. This two-pronged invasion from England was well-planned and well-timed. America had just suffered the shock of the assassination of President John Kennedy, while in the streets the mass-based civil rights movement had just held a Washington, D.C. rally, led by Martin Luther King, of 500,000 people. The rock counterculture would be used as a weapon to destroy such political movements.
Later in 1968 and 1969, years which saw a mass strike of students and workers in the United States and Europe, huge, open-air rock concerts were used to head off the growing discontent of the population. The rock concerts were devised as a means for mass recruitment to the drug-saturated, free-sex counterculture. For the millions who came to these concerts, thousands of tablets of the hallucinogenic drug, LSD, were made freely avaliable. These drugs were secretly placed in drinks such as Coca-Cola, turning thousands of unsuspecting victims into raving psychotics. Many committed suicide.
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. As will be shown, the same record companies who today promote Satanic "heavy-metal" rock have run covert operations to destroy the musical heritage of these great classical composers.
For the past thirty years, Western society has been under the gun of a deliberate plan of cultural warfare, with the purpose of eliminating Judeo-Christian civilization as we know it. These plans must not succeed. So that the reader can better combat this evil, we'll go back nearly thirty years, when those four innocent lads from Liverpool, England, the Beatles, were just starting out.
Creating the Beatles
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, served as a marketplace for prostitution and the circulation of drugs . Beatle biographer Philip Norman writes: "Their only regular engagement was a strip club. The club owner paid them ten shillings each to strum their guitars while a stripper named Janice grimly shed her clothes before an audience of sailors, guilty businessmen and habitues with raincoat- covered laps."
The Beatles got their first big break in Germany, in August 1960, when they obtained a booking at a jazz club in Hamburg's notorious Reeperbahn district. Describing the area Norman writes it had, "red-lit windows containing whores in every type of fancy dress, all ages from nymphet to granny...Everything was free. Everything was easy. The sex was easy... Here it came after you."
Far from the picture of innocence, the Beatles, even in their first performances, were always high on a drug called Preludin, "John (Lennon), would be foaming at the mouth, he'd have so many pills inside him...John, began to go berserk on stage, prancing and groveling...The fact that the audience could not understand a word he said, provoked John into cries of `Sieg Heil!' and `Fucking Nazis' to which the audience invariably responded by laughing and clapping."
Off the stage, the Beatles were just as evil. Norman continues, "while in Hamburg, John, each Sunday would stand on the balcony, taunting the churchgoers as they walked to St. Joseph's. He attached a water-filled contraceptive to an effigy of Jesus and hung it out for the churchgoers to see. Once he urinated on the heads of three nuns."
While in Hamburg, in June of 1962 the Beatles received a telegram from their manager, a homosexual named Brian Epstein, who was back in England. "Congratulations," Epstein's message read. "EMI requests a recording session." EMI was one of Europe's largest record producers, and their role in promoting the Beatles would be key in the future.
Under the the strict guidance of EMI's recording director George Martin, and Brian Epstein, the Beatles were scrubbed, washed, and their hair styled into the Beatles cut. EMI's Martin created the Beatles in his recording studio.
Martin was a trained classical musician, and had studied the oboe and piano at the London School of Music. The Beatles could neither read music nor play any instrument other than guitar. For Martin, the Beatles musicianship was a bad joke. On their first hit record, "Love Me Do," Martin replaced Ringo on the drums with a studio musician. Martin said Ringo, "couldn't do a [drum] roll to save his life." From then on, Martin would take the simple little tunes the Beatles would come to him with, and turn them into hit records.
Lockwood and EMI
EMI, led by aristocrat Sir Joseph Lockwood, stands for Electrical and Mechanical Instruments, and is one of Britain's largest producers of military electronics. Martin was director of EMI's subsidiary, Parlophone. By the mid-sixties EMI, now called Thorn EMI, created a music divison which had grown to 74,321 employees and had annual sales of $3.19 billion.
EMI was also a key member of Britain's military intelligence establishment.
After the war, in 1945, EMI's European production head Walter Legge virtually took over control of classical music recordings, signing up dozens of starving German classical musicians and singers to EMI contracts. Musicians who sought to preserve the performance tradition of Beethoven and Brahms, were relegated to obscurity while "ex-Nazi" Party members were promoted. Legge signed and recorded Nazi member, the late Herbert Von Karajan, promoting him to superstar status, while great conductors such as Wilhelm Furtwangler were ignored.
From the beginning, EMI created the myth of the Beatles' great popularity. In August of 1963, at their first major television appearance at the London Palladium, thousands of their fans supposedly rioted. The next day every mass-circulation newspaper in Great Britain carried a front page picture and story stating, "Police fought to hold back 1,000 squealing teenagers." Yet, the picture displayed in each newspaper was cropped so closely that only three or four of the "squealing teenagers" could be seen. The story was a fraud. According to a photographer on the scene, "There were no riots. I was there. We saw eight girls, even less than eight."
In February 1964, the Beatles myth hit the United States, complete with the orchestrated riots at Kennedy Airport, previously mentioned. To launch their first tour, the media created one of the largest mass audiences in history. For an unprecedented two Sundays in a row, on the Ed Sullivan Show, over 75 million Americans watched the Beatles shake their heads and sway their bodies in a ritual which was soon to be replicated by hundreds of future rock groups.
On returning to England, the Beatles were rewarded by the British aristocracy they served so well . In October 1965, the four were inducted into the Order of Chivalry, and were personally awarded the accolade of Member of the British Empire by Queen Elizabeth at Buckingham palace. Up from the Dregs: The Rolling Stones
The credit for the origination of today's blatantly Satanic "heavy metal rock," goes to the English group, the Rolling Stones. Their rise to fame was closely connected with that of the Beatles.
The Stones, as they were called, were widely characterized as the counterparts to the Beatles. "The Stones" were "mean,'' "dirty" and "rebellious," whereas the Beatles were the well-groomed "Fab Four." Though seemingly competitors, they were merely two sides of the same operation. The Stones' first hit record was actually written by the Beatles, and it was Beatle member George Harrison who set up the arrangements for their first recording contract.
Following the same game plan as the Beatles, in the spring of 1963 the Rolling Stones appeared on one of England's most popular family television shows, Thank Your Lucky Stars. Only this time, the reaction by the middle-aged viewers was quite different from that to the Beatles. Hundreds of angry letters were sent, with a typical letter stating "It is disgraceful that long-haired louts such as these should be allowed to appear on television. Their appearance was absolutely disgusting."
The program, however, had exactly the planned effect. Rolling Stones' manager Andrew Oldham was elated at the response. He told the group, "We're going to make you exactly opposite to those nice, clean, tidy Beatles. And the more the parents hate you, the more the kids will love you. Just wait and see."
In 1964, the Rolling Stones appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show, as the Beatles had done earlier. This time though, the coast-to-coast audience beheld the spectacle of the television studio being ripped to shreds by Stones fans. Sullivan said on the air afterward, "I promise you, they will never be back on our show." The publicity, however, was exactly what was wanted. Within a few months, the group's records were selling millions of copies.
The plan was now to use both the Beatles and the Rolling Stones as the means to transform an entire generation into heathen followers of the New Age, followers which could mold into the future cadre of a Satanic movement and then deploy into our schools, law enforcment agencies and political leadership.
Enter Satan
In his book, The Ultimate Evil, investigator-author Maury Terry writes that between 1966 and 1967, the Satanic cult, the Process Church, "sought to recruit the Rolling Stones and the Beatles." During this period, Terry reports that a photo of Rolling Stones leader Mick Jagger's longtime girlfriend, Marianne Faithfull, appeared in an issue of The Process Magazine. The picture shows her supine, as if dead, clutching a rose. Terry's book goes on to implicate the Process Church cult in the Charles Manson and Son of Sam multiple murders. It was the former lawyer for the Process Church, John Markham, who recently ran the frameup trial against Lyndon LaRouche.
A key link between the Rolling Stones and the Process Church is Kenneth Anger, a follower of the "founding father" of modern Satanism, Aleister Crowley. Anger, born in 1930, and a child Hollywood movie star, became a devoted disciple of Crowley.
Crowley was born in 1875 and was called the "Great Beast." He was known to practice ritual child sacrifice regularly, in his role as Satan's high priest or "Magus." Crowley died in 1947 due to complications of his huge heroin addiction. Before dying, he succeeded in establishing Satanic covens in many U.S. cities including Hollywood. Anger, like Crowley, is a Magus, and appears to be the heir to Crowley.
Anger was seventeen years old when Crowley died. In that same year, 1947, Anger was already producing and directing films which, even by today's standards, reek of pure evil.
Aleister Crowley
During 1966-1967, when the Process Church is reported to be recruiting in London, Anger was also on the scene. Author Tony Sanchez describes that Rolling Stones' Mick Jagger and Keith Richard, and their girlfriends Marianne Faithfull and Anita Pallenburg, "listened spellbound as Anger turned them on to Crowley's powers and ideas."
While in England, Anger worked on a film dedicated to Aleister Crowley, called Lucifer Rising. The film brought together the Process Church, the Manson Family cult, and the Rolling Stones. The music for the film was composed by Mick Jagger. Process Church follower Marianne Faithfull went all the way to Egypt to participate in the film's depiction of a Black Mass. The part of Lucifer was played by a guitarist of a California rock group, Bobby Beausoleil. Beausoleil was a member of the Manson Family, and Anger's homosexual lover.
A few months after filming under Anger's direction in England, Beausoleil returned to California to commit the first of the Manson family's series of gruesome murders. Beausoleil was later arrested and is now serving a life sentence in prison along with Manson. Having lost his star performer, Anger then asked Mick Jagger to play Lucifer. He finally settled upon Anton La Vey, author of The Satanic Bible and head of the First Church of Satan, to play the part. The film was released in 1969 with the title Invocation To My Demon Brother.
In London, Anger had succeeded in recruiting to Satanism the girlfriend of one of the Rolling Stones, Anita Pallenberg. Pallenberg had met the Rolling Stones in 1965. She immediately began sexual relations with three out of the five members of the group.
Anger, commenting on Anita, said, "I believe that Anita is, for want of a better word, a witch...The occult unit within the Stones was Keith and Anita...and Brian. You see, Brian was a witch too."
One of the group's friends, Tony Sanchez, writes of Pallenberg in his book, Up and Down with the Rolling Stones, "She was obsessed with black magic and began to carry a string of garlic with her everywhere--even to bed--to ward off vampires. She also had a strange mysterious old shaker for holy water which she used for some of her rituals. Her ceremonies became increasingly secret, and she warned me never to interrupt her when she was working on a spell."
He continues, "In her bedroom she kept a huge, ornate carved chest, which she guarded so jealously that I assumed it was her drug stash. The house was empty one day, and I decided to take a peep inside. The drawers were filled with scraps of bone, wrinkled skin and fur from some strange animals."
In 1980, the seventeen-year-old caretaker of Keith Richard's New England estate was found shot to death in Anita Pallenberg's bed. The death, ruled a suicide, was with Pallenberg's gun. Richard's house was located near the East Coast headquarters of the Process Church. According to an article in the English newspaper Midnite, a Connecticut police officer, Michael Passaro, who had responed to the "suicide'' reported "strange singing" from the woods a quarter mile from the Richard's mansion.
The newpaper continues, "There have been several bizarre satanic rituals in the area over the past five years. A local reporter attributed the outbreak of occultism to 'rich people taking Acid.'"
In 1967, reflecting their ongoing association with Anger and the Process Church, the Rolling Stones released their first rock album openly celebrating the Devil, titled, Their Satanic Majesties Request. A few months earlier, the Beatles had released their first album dedicated to the promotion of psychedelic drugs , Sargeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. The album contained a fantasized version of an LSD trip, called "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds", or L.S.D. for short. It became a top seller.
|
|