A fan group for Robert Anton Wilson

robert anton wilson, robert anton wilson quotes, robert anton wilson books, robert anton wilson explains everything, robert anton wilson audio, robert anton wilson illuminati, robert anton wilson maybe logic, robert anton wilson prometheus rising

Archive for February, 2012

War on Poetry?

Can any raw-fites help me find where raw talks of the TSOG war on
poetry,creativity, coffee houses speakeasy’s etc…? I am aware of the
French and Italian repression, but I know raw has many things to say
about these kinds of attacks, much like the ones on Pound.

.
posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comment (1)

keep your pot away from your dog(s)

http://www.latimes.com/features/lifestyle/la-et-potdogs6jul06,1,56353…

STYLE & CULTURE
When it’s pot versus pet, there’s a bad trip in store
In Northern California, man’s two best friends make a poor mix when
canine companions gobble their owners’ marijuana stashes.
By Andrew Strickler
Special to The Times

July 6, 2005

When Tank, a 3-year-old male pit bull mix, arrived with his owner at a
veterinary office in Humboldt County, his jaws packed with white
powder, it was clear that something was seriously wrong.

Earlier, Tank had mysteriously consumed an entire box of baking soda
– odd behavior, even for an animal with famously indiscriminate
eating habits.

But more disturbing was Tank’s demeanor. He sat trembling, his front
legs stuck out at an awkward angle, his dilated eyes fixed on a distant
point. A check of the heart revealed a coma-like 32 beats per minute,
far below normal.

Joseph Humble, the attending veterinarian, suspected poisoning. But
from what? The dog’s owner pleaded ignorance. Tank, distracted, wasn’t
saying.

A few minutes later, the mystery was solved. "The guy called me right
back and said, ‘Doc, I know what happened,’ " Humble recalls. " ‘The
dog ate some pot – kind of a lot of pot.’ "

Marijuana’s action on humans is well understood: Once its psychoactive
agent, tetrahydrocannabinol, better known as THC, is carried from the
lungs or stomach by blood to the brain, it binds to nerve cells and
activates the brain’s pleasure centers. Effects include sensory
sensitivity, motor impairment and an increased desire for Doritos.

The plant’s effect on canines is considerably less benign. Even a few
grams can cause staggering, vomiting, urinary incontinence and, in
severe cases, seizures and coma. "Some people may enjoy pot, but I
assure you dogs do not," Humble says.

Although no statistics are kept on marijuana poisonings, the nation’s
canine-to-pot ratio reveals potential for a problem. The American Pet
Products Manufacturers Assn. estimates that 43 million U.S. households
include a dog, while more than 25 million Americans fessed up on a 2003
government survey to having used marijuana at least once in the
previous year.

In Northern California, which is believed to have the highest
concentration of medical marijuana users in the country and where pot
cultivation is a popular hobby, vets face a preponderance of such
cases, with some attending to several zonked-out dogs a week.

But unlike in human medicine, where entire textbooks are dedicated to
doctor-client communication, there are no such rules for vets, leaving
them to their own strategies for broaching a touchy question: Any
chance the dog ate your stash?

Because marijuana toxicity can resemble the early stages of a
life-threatening poisoning by garden chemicals or antifreeze,
identifying the toxin quickly is critical. But due to pot’s shaky legal
status, many people are reluctant to admit that their pet is stoned,
and most vets choose to skirt the issue rather than confront owners.

"The classic question is, ‘Do you have teenagers?’ " says Edward
Haynes, a Mendocino County veterinarian who sees a spike in such cases
during the fall pot harvesting months. "Then you say, ‘Is it possible
that the dog came in contact with any recreational drugs?’ " he says.

Owning up to the truth

Even in cases where the owner admits that the dog was exposed to pot,
many are still reluctant to take responsibility. Humble, who says he
treats dozens of marijuana poisonings every year, says, "It’s always a
roommate’s or the neighbor’s. It’s never theirs."

As was the case with Tank. His owner explained to Humble that his
roommate had baked a tray of potent marijuana cookies, leaving a
warning that consumption should be limited to a quarter of a cookie.
Left alone, Tank gobbled the entire batch. And the baking soda? "The
animal had the munchies," Humble says.

Jeffrey Smith, a vet at Middletown Animal Hospital in Middletown,
Calif., says he engages in profiling to aid diagnosis. "The majority of
these cases, they tend to be young people, sort of ‘living life and
loving it’ types," he says. "They come in two or three at a time with
one pet, kind of nervous and looking at each other."

Other vets employ a mild form of blackmail. In cases where marijuana
poisoning is suspected but not owned up to, some vets explain that if a
more innocuous poison cannot be identified, their pet will need a full
treatment of intravenous fluids, a stomach pump and an enema –
costing the owner hundreds of dollars, not to mention a seriously bad
trip for the dog. "About two-thirds of people, you have to kind of
squeeze it out of them," says Smith.

Once marijuana poisoning has been established as the cause of the
patient’s distress, vets say the best approach is to monitor the dog’s
vital signs and wait. "Most of the time, they do fine if you just let
them sleep it off, just like people," says Haynes.

Because of the importance of distinguishing marijuana toxicity from
other poisonings, some vets call the 24-hour poison hotline run by the
ASPCA Poison Control Center in Urbana, Ill. Since 1998 the center has
consulted on about 600 cases of marijuana toxicity among animals from
around the country, with New York and California leading the list.

More than 95% of cases involved dogs, a disparity that does not
surprise veterinarian Caroline Donaldson, an ASPCA consultant who has
written about marijuana toxicity for the journal Veterinary Medicine.
"Dogs eat anything and everything. It’s the nature of the beast," she
says.

Although canines are clearly on the front lines of the pot-versus-pet
drug war, the ASPCA has documented a handful of cases involving cats,
rabbits and horses. Humboldt County vet Judy Horvath once treated an
iguana that fell unconscious after snacking on some buds supplied by
its owner.

"We had to hook it up to an electrocardiogram to even find a
heartbeat," Horvath says. The iguana came to several days later, shaken
but alive.

Is it animal abuse?

Such cases bring up the question of legal responsibility. Although 12
states, including California, have decriminalized marijuana, the
federal government still classifies pot alongside heroin and LSD as
among the most dangerous Schedule 1 controlled substances. In addition,
a 2004 California law obligates vets to report cases of animal abuse or
neglect, which could include animals irresponsibly exposed to toxins.

Melissa Stallings of the California Veterinary Medicine Assn. says,
"It’s really up to each vet to make a common-sense call. They have to
ask, does it rise to the level of abuse?" So far there have been no
reported cases of a vet turning in a pet owner for pot-related abuse.

Smith sums up the feelings of many vets regarding their role in drug
law enforcement. "My only concern is the animal," he says. "I don’t
have to be the local cop as well as the local vet."

Others feel obliged to take it further.

"A lot of times a kid will stash some pot in his room and leave the
door open. In goes the dog and out goes the evidence," Haynes says.
Once marijuana poisoning is established, he says he feels obligated to
inform parents, if only to protect a dog with impaired short-term
memory. "I’ve busted a lot of teenagers that way."

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comment (1)

neurology/perception/optics article (c.f. "event level" in General Semantics)

http://tinyurl.com/8vztm

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comment (1)

Linking McKenna and the Olympics

http://tinyurl.com/77lkl

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

Finally, the New Testament Explained

I am so happy I have stumbled across the excellent work of Tim Boucher:
Occult Investigator http://www.timboucher.com

Finally after all of these years he explains the New Testament here:
http://tinyurl.com/967vn

Basically, if you’ve seen the Godfather, you get the idea:

"It all sounds very mafioso, if you look at it strictly from that context.
"Well, I know Jimmy loves me because he had Johnny whacked… What? No I
don’t really know why, but he said it was so we could be together, and that
it would be good for business."

Maybe God had Jesus killed because they were rival mafia dons, trying to
take command of the same turf. It sorta makes sense, since the Old Testament
god was a real bastard, but Jesus was all about love and holding hands.
Maybe god actually teamed up with another gang leader, the Devil, and had
Jesus whacked, but then made up this big cover story about how the whole
thing was actually for our benefit. This, to me, sounds much more plausible
than the flimsy rationale of "God loved us so much that he let his son die
for us." That just doesn’t make any sense. I mean, that kind of shit would
NEVER fly on like CSI: My Nuts, Law & Schmorder or some other fucking
retarded cop/lawyer investigation tv show. Am I right or am I right?"

Thanks Tim

Brian

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

Erik Davis's contribution to a long article in Artforum International about Pynchon, Summer '05

[If anyone wants the whole article, I know a guy who’ll probably send
it to you.-rmjon23]

Erik Davis

When I first plowed through Pynchon, I was living in a notoriously
sleazy Berkeley co-op called Barrington Hall and read things only for
the flash: science fiction, esoterica, visionary poetry, ’60s and ’70s
counterculture literature. From where I sat, Pynchon’s true peers were
not Barthelme or Melville, but Philip K. Dick, the weirdos behind the
Principia Discordia, and Robert Anton Wilson, who penned The
Illuminatus! Trilogy with Robert Shea before writing the Cosmic Trigger
trilogy, which described how Wilson’s occult conspiracy fiction leaked
into his real life. All these heads tangoed with revelation and
absurdity, reveled in pulp, and experimented with forms that pulled
readers into the plot. The literary values that separated Pynchon from
the rest mattered less to me than the hunches and madcap mysticism they
shared. All these writers drew material from the posthuman petri dish
of California, whose spiritual peculiarities shaped my sensibility and
have lately been a research obsession of mine. Dick barely left the
state; Wilson wrote the Cosmic Trigger books in early ’70s Berkeley;
Principia was birthed after its authors had a vision of the goddess
Eris in an all-night bowling alley in Whittier in 1958 or ’59 (they
can’t remember). Pynchon thoroughly grokked the Golden State, as The
Crying of Lot 49, Vineland, and his 1966 essay on the Watts riots all
make clear (even the mysterious Wanda Tinasky sent her letters to
Mendocino County’s Anderson Valley Advertiser). All this makes sense,
because California is the visionary crossroads of technology, American
prophecy, and trash.

Pynchon remains the classiest of the literary heads, although I do
understand why, when hands are periodically wrung over the hollowness
of contemporary fiction, he is slammed by many for playing a detached
game of postmodern dodgeball. The yucks can grow thin. But the image of
Pynchon as David Foster Wallace in bellbottoms misses the oracular
import of his fictions, especially those that precede Vineland. Like
certain SF authors, Pynchon recognized the engineered character of
history–the wiring under the floorboards, the business of
technoscience, whose positive feedback loops force us all onto the
apocalyptic bus, whether we want to be there or not. Pynchon understood
that the site of epiphany–the spiritual core of modernism–had
migrated into these thickening networks of information, electronic
media, and chemical, even pharmaceutical, control. For Pynchon, the
Gnostic glimpse–the blinding flash of the Kirghiz Light–is no joke,
even if it is funny. It just no longer has a proper place; its center
is everywhere and nowhere, like the networks that entangle us all.
Pynchon is not detached–if anything, like Gravity’s Rainbow’s Byron
the Bulb, he is too plugged-in.

Erik Davis’s history of California spirituality, The Visionary State,
will be published by Chronicle Books next spring.

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

Guiliani Al Qaeda Mastermind?

Seems Rudi Guiliani was in London when the attacks happened. Coincidence?

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

check out "what's new" at:

http://rawilsonfans.com/

Does Cosmic Bandito RAWK or what? This site seems to have become a
major excavation project for a writer who once estimated he’d published
approximately 3000 articles since 1959,lots of them in obscure and
hard-to-find mags and minor journals and some of those maybe lost
forever.

…And some of those articles written under pseudonyms.

Has anyone here read the article by "Ralph Reid" from the 1963 ish of
Way Out at the site? Do you have any guesses as to WHO "Reid" "is"?

I find it innaresting en extremis to read RAW’s pieces from the early
1960s and to see his style and ideas develop over 45 some-odd yrs.

-rmjon23, writing from inside The Great Satan

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

article on problems with polling

48% for Taco Bell; 52% for Invading Iraq
By Matt Taibbi, New York Press
Posted on July 11, 2005, Printed on July 11, 2005
http://www.alternet.org/story/23442/
Did you know that polling is illegal in some countries? In Russia,
published polls are not allowed before an election; the same is true in
Nicaragua. In Belarus, polls are illegal in general — but then again,
so is everything else. Still, how interesting!

I think we take our survey freedoms for granted. Nothing else can
explain the appallingly low quality of our polling. Polling in this
country has degenerated almost entirely into a tool for describing
consumer behavior, where the goal of almost every well-funded survey is
to make a numerical determination about the strength of X product vs. Y
product in the general marketplace.

The brand names might be Taco Bell and Jack in the Box, they might be
Democrats and Republicans; the methodology is, to a degree at once
damning and hilarious, exactly the same. Take a look at the press
releases for two of the top two polls conducted by Zogby last week:

1. Coke Is It: Americans Choose Coca Cola over Pepsi by 47% to 28%;
‘Real Thing’ Leads Every Demographic; ‘Choice of a New Generation’
Unpopular With Younger Consumers — New Zogby Consumer Profile Finding

2. No Bounce: Bush Job Approval Unchanged by War Speech; Question on
Impeachment Shows Polarization of Nation; Americans Tired of
Divisiveness in Congress — Want Bi-Partisan Solutions — New Zogby
Poll

The degree to which polling methodology reflects the bias of the
interested (and usually commissioning) parties is seldom noted when the
polls are cited by reporters. For instance, pre-election polls are
almost always presented in their, final, less embarrassing, airbrushed
form — e.g., 51 percent for Bush, 49 percent for Kerry — when the
actual numbers are more like 26-24 percent, if you include nonvoters.

Respondents, when quizzed, about, say, their favorite fast-food
restaurant, are never asked the obvious cross-reference questions. Thus
you never see press releases that read like this: "74 percent of
Americans who cannot climb two flights of stairs without gasping for
breath said that McDonald’s was their favorite fast-food destination,
while a surprising 47 percent of respondents who ‘expect to be dead
within weeks’ said that the Wendy’s Big Classic was their ‘favorite
sandwich.’"

Our prominent polling agencies almost never take it upon themselves to
actually pose a new question. Instead, they almost always content
themselves with recording the answers to a question that in some very
public way has already been asked — usually in the form of a choice
presented by the media. Do you prefer Friends to Seinfeld? Is Michael
Jackson guilty or innocent? Are you for or against the invasion of
Iraq?

Regarding that last question, numerous polls conducted last week both
before and after George Bush’s bizarre Iraq address made headlines
across the country. The biggest was a CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll, widely
rereported under headlines like, "Support for Iraq War Plummets." Its
key result was a number indicating that 53 percent of Americans now
thought the war was a "mistake."

That single, solitary, unexpressive number — 53 percent — reveals the
utter poverty of the polling system. It’s a number that ought to
infuriate people on both sides of the issue. Remember, before the war
began, opinion surveys regularly showed support levels for the invasion
running at between 70 and 80 percent.

Here is how Steven Kull, a pollster for American Public on
International Issues, summed up the nature of Iraq support before the
war. In an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle on April 1, 2003,
Kull said he believed that 40 percent of Americans were firmly behind
the war, 20 percent firmly opposed it, and the remaining 40 percent
supported it "either out of deference to the president or a sense of
patriotism." He characterized the stance of the latter group as "pretty
soft."

Well, no shit. Just as Kull predicted, the 40 percent firm-support
number has remained an absolute constant since the beginning of the
conflict. In the CNN/Gallup poll last week, that same 40 percent said
they remained firmly in support of U.S. forces remaining in Iraq.

Clearly, it’s that "pretty soft" other 40 percent that’s slipping.
Those are the people I have a problem with, and it is with regard to
those people that our polling system failed us two years ago and
continues to fail today.

It seems fairly obvious that, in the course of the last few years,
roughly 25-30 percent of the country has been influenced by the steady
issue of news about increased violence and instability in Iraq.
Apparently, a large percentage of Americans who supported the war two
years ago have since become freaked out by the fact that, surprise,
surprise, people are dying.

Which invites the question: If these people can’t handle a few bad
headlines, what exactly was their level of commitment to begin with?
Pre-war polls, confined to the standard Coke-Pepsi either-or formula,
didn’t tell us much about that.

Maybe if the polls back then had been conducted differently, we might
have had different results. Imagine a March 2003 poll that posed the
following questions:

Would you yank your son out of college and send him to die for this
bullshit?

Would you yourself be willing to give your life for this cause? If yes,
grab your shit; there’s a bus outside.

Those should be the only kinds of polls we allow, when it comes to
questions of war. I mean, who the hell are these people who changed
their minds once the news started to turn sour? There are only two
explanations: They’re either unbelievable cowards, or they didn’t think
it through. In either case, if there were any justice, they would all
be rounded up and dumped buck-naked on the streets of Fallujah.

What’s most infuriating about this Iraq war is the degree to which it
represents the worst excesses of our highly developed consumer
reflexes. America in the age of reality TV is in love with making its
choice, casting its vote. It has been encouraged to enjoy a
narcissistic thrill in observing the consequences of its consumer
choices, often portrayed in TV shows as catastrophic or indescribably
dramatic.

Disgraced fat nerd has nervous breakdown after being voted off American
Idol. Plain girl rushes to plastic surgeon after being bounced from the
The Bachelor. Aloof weirdo voted into metaphorical death after failing
to properly conform on the set of Survivor.

Get that loser off the show, he has no voice; bachelor, choose the
blonde, the brunette’s nose is too big. When we vote, we are
extraordinarily impatient and exacting and judgmental, like movie
reviewers; we vote like customers who know the law says they are always
right.

In fact, the haughty self-importance of the median poll respondent has
become so axiomatic that it is now often built in to the polling
process, where it’s not uncommon to see surveys built around slavish
questions like the following: "If candidate X were to bend over and
kiss your ass, how likely would you be to vote for him?"

But for all the poll respondent’s smug airs, he only talks tough when
he’s in a crowd, and shielded by anonymity, identified only by his
number. I’ve seen this myself as a journalist. Interview someone on the
street, and he loves to hold forth and waste your time giving you his
great opinion. But ask for his name for the record, and he runs away
like a bitch.

A nation that indulges in anonymous casual cruelties like The Swan
should not be consulted in the same manner before a war. In matters of
life and death, stand up and be counted — by name, swearing on the
blood of your children. What kind of country goes to war whispering
"yes" into a telephone?

Matt Taibbi lives in New York. He covers politics for Rolling Stone and
the New York Press.

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comment (1)

Shameless Self-Promotion

This has nothing to do with anything other than my latest efforts to put the
next Markoff Cheney on television…

http://www.kron4.com/Global/story.asp?S=3462860

Brian Shields
San Francisco

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (5)