What exactly is this thing we call 'Culture?' How do you define it? And what is a 'Culture War?'
Seems to me if you asked 100 people what those terms mean you'll get 100 different answers.
A fundamental issue I have with all public discourse is the use and misuse of abstract nouns. Unless we define our terms and can objectively agree on those definitions, then we're just talking past each other.
For example, we've recently seen mass media celebrate the 50th anniversary of 'Hip Hop.' Who defined that? Where's the starting point, the stake in the ground that defines where Hip Hop began? Is it part of our 'Culture' or part of a 'Culture War?' I don't consider it part of MY culture.
Is 'Culture' something that government should support, like Canadian content laws on broadcast radio & TV, or funding of 'the arts?' Canadian content is a fairly clear definition, but who gets to decide what 'the arts' are?
Back in the 60's we had something called the 'Counter Culture' which produced some very interesting writing, film and music that was well outside the mainstream. Was that a 'Culture War' and if so, should we have rejected it in favour of mainstream culture? Where's the line? Who gets to decide?
Wasn't the counter culture of the 60s a social-engineering project of The Tavistock Institute, led (IIRC) by Aldous Huxley, whose objective was to destroy religion?:
Undoubtedly they had some influence - they might even have coined the term "Counter Culture" but I don't think they had nearly the effect that some people credit them with. Don't forget, much of what the intelligence agencies do is disinformation, which could include claiming authorship for something like the Counter Culture to discredit a legitimate, organic phenomenon, such as was seen in Laurel Canyon, Haight-Ashbury, Berkeley, or even Woodstock.
What's not included in these narratives is the fact that the movement, such as it was, had its origins in WWII, well before Vietnam became an issue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beat_Generation Arguably, the movement dates back even to Victorian times with the rise of spiritualist movements lead by such figures as Madam Blavastky & the Theosophists (good name for a band!) or the Golden Dawn Society. Bear in mind the movement was not an exclusively American phenomenon. It had its British and European counterparts, best example of which was probably the Beatles involvement with the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in 1968. I doubt Tavistock had much to do with that.
As someone who lived through that era, I can tell you it was all over the map. There was no center as such, and no overarching theory other than peace and love, a natural outgrowth of the horrors of the two preceding Great Wars plus Korea and Vietnam. People were searching for meaning in a culture which offered them nothing but conformity and crass materialism. No doubt the intelligence agencies capitalized on some of that, but it's definitely not the whole story.
Bear in mind when reading books like the one you linked to that no one writes a book with the premise that, "yeah, we looked into that and there's nothing there." Back then we were literally awash in books sensationalizing all sort of nonsense - everything from Satanism to Yaqui sorcerers to Eastern Mysticism to the occult societies of the 19th Century. Everyone had a kick at the cat. Whatever sells, right? Robert Anton Wilson even wrote a parody of that era with his Illuminatus Trilogy, which a lot of people took seriously, including a friend of mine who got caught up in it and became quite paranoid as a result.
One thing I learned from the experience is that people will believe just about anything, provided it's presented in a bright shiny package. The agencies know this of course, but I suspect most of their efforts to control the social dynamic ended in failure. Events back then were moving far too fast for anyone to keep up.
What exactly is this thing we call 'Culture?' How do you define it? And what is a 'Culture War?'
Seems to me if you asked 100 people what those terms mean you'll get 100 different answers.
A fundamental issue I have with all public discourse is the use and misuse of abstract nouns. Unless we define our terms and can objectively agree on those definitions, then we're just talking past each other.
For example, we've recently seen mass media celebrate the 50th anniversary of 'Hip Hop.' Who defined that? Where's the starting point, the stake in the ground that defines where Hip Hop began? Is it part of our 'Culture' or part of a 'Culture War?' I don't consider it part of MY culture.
Is 'Culture' something that government should support, like Canadian content laws on broadcast radio & TV, or funding of 'the arts?' Canadian content is a fairly clear definition, but who gets to decide what 'the arts' are?
Back in the 60's we had something called the 'Counter Culture' which produced some very interesting writing, film and music that was well outside the mainstream. Was that a 'Culture War' and if so, should we have rejected it in favour of mainstream culture? Where's the line? Who gets to decide?
Wasn't the counter culture of the 60s a social-engineering project of The Tavistock Institute, led (IIRC) by Aldous Huxley, whose objective was to destroy religion?:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7863459-the-tavistock-institute-of-human-relations
Undoubtedly they had some influence - they might even have coined the term "Counter Culture" but I don't think they had nearly the effect that some people credit them with. Don't forget, much of what the intelligence agencies do is disinformation, which could include claiming authorship for something like the Counter Culture to discredit a legitimate, organic phenomenon, such as was seen in Laurel Canyon, Haight-Ashbury, Berkeley, or even Woodstock.
What's not included in these narratives is the fact that the movement, such as it was, had its origins in WWII, well before Vietnam became an issue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beat_Generation Arguably, the movement dates back even to Victorian times with the rise of spiritualist movements lead by such figures as Madam Blavastky & the Theosophists (good name for a band!) or the Golden Dawn Society. Bear in mind the movement was not an exclusively American phenomenon. It had its British and European counterparts, best example of which was probably the Beatles involvement with the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in 1968. I doubt Tavistock had much to do with that.
As someone who lived through that era, I can tell you it was all over the map. There was no center as such, and no overarching theory other than peace and love, a natural outgrowth of the horrors of the two preceding Great Wars plus Korea and Vietnam. People were searching for meaning in a culture which offered them nothing but conformity and crass materialism. No doubt the intelligence agencies capitalized on some of that, but it's definitely not the whole story.
Bear in mind when reading books like the one you linked to that no one writes a book with the premise that, "yeah, we looked into that and there's nothing there." Back then we were literally awash in books sensationalizing all sort of nonsense - everything from Satanism to Yaqui sorcerers to Eastern Mysticism to the occult societies of the 19th Century. Everyone had a kick at the cat. Whatever sells, right? Robert Anton Wilson even wrote a parody of that era with his Illuminatus Trilogy, which a lot of people took seriously, including a friend of mine who got caught up in it and became quite paranoid as a result.
One thing I learned from the experience is that people will believe just about anything, provided it's presented in a bright shiny package. The agencies know this of course, but I suspect most of their efforts to control the social dynamic ended in failure. Events back then were moving far too fast for anyone to keep up.