|
In Reply to: Re: understanding TF as a social movement posted by excog on January 18, 2006 at 11:18:36:
As some one who was a teen in the late sixties and early seventies, I wanted to add that most youth thought Manson was a whack job and were appalled about what he did. He was seen as a freak and once the LaBianca and Tate and co. murders were committed he was as weird back then as a serial killer would be today. In fact, it seems that Guns and Roses and the youth of the eigthies resurrected and kind of glamorized Manson for a bit. But it did not go over on a broad basis.
Manson was appalling. As appalling as Jim Jones on a smaller scale as far as lives taken but not on deviancy.
Most 60's icons were people spearheading the discovery of eastern religions or no religion, mind expansion a la LSD and getting high on Marijuana, trying other drugs and then getting turned off to it when people became addicted to harder drugs in droves, turning the "Love and Peace" generation into a drug absorbed breeding ground for violence. The basic tenents though were self expression, discovery, search for different ways of life than 9 to five jobs.
It seems youth of all ages have found something to make themselves unique or to find attractive and then have turned on them by the media to define them. Eventually youth grow up but cults tend to retard people. Keep them in that state of mind where the leaders are "mamas" or "Dads" and the followers overaged children.
Every generation of youth has been defined by the media for what was popular in the day.
Sixties ws "Age of Aquarius" peace and love, and the beginning of sex, drugs and rock and roll.
Fifties was rock and roll and the beatnik generation.
Seventies ws sex drugs and rock and roll gone bad.
Eighties was the me generatio and sex drugs and Depeche Mode..
Nineties was "Generation X" with Kurt Cobain despair and courtney love smoking too many cigarettes and shooting too much heroin
Millieum generation?
