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 May, 2013

Think Hard, It'll Come Back To You

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2008/11/10/081110sh_shouts_allen

.
posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

Help Turn Rush Limbaugh Types into Pot Heads

Help us to find OxyContin using pain patients willing to try
Marijuana!

MAPS supporters are urged to actively help us recruit subjects for Dr.
Abrams National Institute on Drug Abuse-funded study of vaporized
marijuana in patients who are using OxyContin for pain. MAPS is
supporting this study by paying for travel and lodging for
participants who live outside of the San Francisco Bay area.

Supporters can help us by downloading flyers and posting them at
facilities such as medical marijuana dispensaries, and pain management
centers. We also welcome supporters to promote the study by posting
information on blogs and forums.

The study is designed for 24 subjects; 17 subjects have participated
and 7 subjects are still needed before the end of the year. If you
would like more information about how you can help us recruit patients
for this study, please contact rando…@maps.org.

For direct links to files and articles access http://www.psychointegrator.com

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (7)

Soft Drink of the Illuminati

I guess I’ll be drinking Dr. Pepper because of its 23 flavors.  Until
I’m reduced to 23 teeth, that is.  And then what?  Shall I grind the
remaining chompers into fangs as well?

As to the recent nuptials between one of the Geldof brood and an
unknown rocker, the fact that the 19- and 23-yr old’s "love" for
Crowley has been identified, if not leaked to the press as a way to
increase their profiles and therfore actually "advertised", suggests
one word: dilettante.

How often have empty-headed "rockers" co-opted Crowley as a way to
gain some sort of notoriety?  The Beatles placed a photo of Crowley on
the cover of the Sgt. Pepper’s LHCB album without ever suggesting that
they were really true admirers.  Crowley was always infinitely more
well-known in Britain, that’s all.  Jimmy Page, from Led Zeppelin, was
perhaps rock’s only "serious" student of Crowley, and even then, his
interest may have been driven primarily by the zeitgeist of the times
(60s & 70s) and his having a lot of time and money on his hands with
which one could indulge in serious study AND collecting.  I don’t know
the present status of his collection, but it is said to be the most
impressive private collection in existence.

Having said that, however, if Peaches Geldof and her new hubby happen
to be serious students (not bloody likely), then I offer sincere
apologies.  Do what thou wilt and all that…

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

Marilyn Ferguson dies (infl. on Robert Anton Wilson)

Author Marilyn Ferguson, New Age pioneer, dies
Elaine Woo, Los Angeles Times

Monday, November 3, 2008

Marilyn Ferguson, the author of the 1980 best-seller "The Aquarian
Conspiracy" and a galvanizing influence on participants in scores of
alternative groups that coalesced as the New Age movement, died Oct.
19 at her home in Banning (Riverside County). She was 70.

The cause was believed to be a heart attack, said her son, Eric, of
nearby Beaumont.

In 1975, Ms. Ferguson turned an interest in human potential into an
influential monthly newsletter, Brain/Mind Bulletin, which reported on
new discoveries in neuroscience and psychology. That work led her to
discern that a huge "cultural realignment" was occurring, a conspiracy
in the root sense of disparate forces all breathing together to
produce personal and social change.

"The Aquarian Conspiracy" was the era’s first comprehensive analysis
of seemingly unconnected people – scientists investigating
biofeedback, midwives running alternative birthing centers,
politicians encouraging creative government, a Christian evangelist
promoting meditation, an astronaut exploring altered states of
consciousness – who were "breathing together" in their break from
Western beliefs in medicine, psychology, spirituality, politics and
other fields.

Some critics found her views simplistic, such as R.C. Bealer, who
wrote in the journal Science Books & Films that Ms. Ferguson offered
"hyperbole of the ‘positive’ thinking huckster." Others accused her of
undermining Christianity by embracing alternative religions. "Marilyn
Ferguson was a very important communicator and networker in this whole
movement" to create an alternative consciousness, Fritjof Capra, the
Berkeley physicist and New Age figure who wrote "The Tao of Physics,"
a 1975 book that fueled the new thinking by showing parallels between
modern physics and Eastern mysticism, said in an interview last week.

Ms. Ferguson grew up in modest circumstances in Grand Junction, Colo.,
where she was born April 5, 1938. Her father was a bricklayer and
concert pianist; her mother was a homemaker who later ran an antiques
store.

She dabbled in college, attending Mesa College in Colorado for two
years and the University of Colorado for one year before becoming a
freelance writer. Her first book, called "Champagne Living on a Beer
Budget" (1968), offered financial advice and was co-written with her
then-husband, Michael Ferguson. She also wrote short stories and poems
that were published in women’s magazines.

After moving to Los Angeles in 1968, she began studying psychology and
collecting the information that formed the basis of her next book,
"The Brain Revolution" (1973), which explored new research on topics
such as hypnosis, meditation, extrasensory perception, memory and
genetics. She began practicing transcendental meditation herself.

She began to publish the Brain/Mind Bulletin, which at its peak had an
eclectic mix of about 10,000 subscribers, who included academics,
celebrities and pizza parlor operators. For 21 years, until she ceased
publication in 1996, it compiled news from journals and conferences
and featured interviews with vanguard figures.

As she began to lecture around the world, she found loyal readers in a
surprising range of fields. As she told the Boston Globe in 1988, one
night she addressed 500 farm wives in Canada, and the next morning she
gave a lecture for members of Congress. Al Gore was a fan of the book
and invited Ms. Ferguson to the White House, her son said.

In addition to her son, Ms. Ferguson is survived by two daughters,
Kris Ferguson of Los Angeles and Lynn Lewis of Oakland, and six
grandchildren.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/03/BAAH13SK74.DTL

This article appeared on page B – 3 of the San Francisco Chronicle

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comment (1)

massive electronic voter fraud expected for fascists

Check out the entry for today, 11-3-08:

http://www.velvetrevolution.us/

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (3)

Fuck Big Bird

      WASHINGTON (AP) – The Supreme Court spent an hour on Tuesday
talking about dirty words on television without once using any or
making plain how it would decide whether the government could ban
them.
      The dispute between the broadcast networks and the Federal
Communications Commission is the court’s first major broadcast
indecency case in 30 years.
      At issue is the FCC’s policy, adopted in 2004, that even a
one-time use of profanity on live television is indecent because
some words are so offensive that they always evoke sexual or
excretory images. So-called fleeting expletives were not treated as
indecent before then.
      The words in question begin with the letters "F" and "S."
The Associated Press typically does not use them.
      Chief Justice John Roberts, the only justice with young children
at home, suggested that the commission’s policy is reasonable. The
use of either word, Roberts said, "is associated with sexual or
excretory activity. That’s what gives it its force."
      Justice John Paul Stevens, who appeared skeptical of the policy,
doubted that the f-word always conveys a sexual image.
      "Isn’t it true that that is a word that often is used with no
reference whatsoever to the sexual connotation?" he asked.
      Fox Television Stations, owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp.,
and other networks challenged the policy after the FCC singled out
use of the words by Bono, Cher and Nicole Richie during awards
programs that were aired in 2002 and 2003.
      In each instance, a variation of the f-word was used either as a
modifier – as in Bono’s comment that an award was "really f—ing
brilliant" – or as a metaphor, as when Cher said, "F— ‘em," to
her critics.
      A federal appeals court in New York threw out the ban, saying
the FCC didn’t provide enough explanation, and the government
appealed to the Supreme Court. The appeals court also said, but did
not rule, that the new policy probably is unconstitutional.
      The court could avoid deciding whether the FCC policy violates
the Constitution and instead determine that the FCC did not
adequately explain the need for the new policy.
      It was hard to tell where the court is heading because three
justices – Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas – said
little or nothing.
      When the court ruled 30 years ago that the FCC could keep
profanities off the airwaves between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., television
broadcasts were the only source of images available to most
Americans.
      Today, the Internet, cable and satellite television are in
millions of homes, yet the FCC’s authority extends only to
broadcast television and radio.
      Solicitor General Gregory Garre, the Bush administration’s top
Supreme Court lawyer, said that despite the explosion of options,
"most Americans still get their information and entertainment from
broadcast TV."
      Garre said a broad ruling against government regulation of
broadcast indecency would create a world where anything goes.
      In an admittedly extreme example, Garre said, children could see
"Big Bird dropping the F-bomb on Sesame Street."
      Carter Phillips, Fox’s lawyer, said that increased usage of
profanity was unlikely no matter how the court ruled. Apart from
unscripted incidents on live television, broadcasters do not permit
the use of certain words on television, even during late-night
hours when they are free to do so.
      He urged the justices to strike down the policy as an
unconstitutional restriction on the networks’ free speech rights.
      C-SPAN asked the court to release a recording of the arguments
for airing shortly after their conclusion. The court grants such
requests from time to time, but turned down C-SPAN with no
explanation.
      —
      The case is FCC v. Fox Television Stations, 07-582.

      (Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press.  All Rights Reserved.)

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

Think Hard, It'll Come Back To You

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2008/11/10/081110sh_shouts_allen

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

Soft Drink of the Illuminati

I guess I’ll be drinking Dr. Pepper because of its 23 flavors.  Until
I’m reduced to 23 teeth, that is.  And then what?  Shall I grind the
remaining chompers into fangs as well?

As to the recent nuptials between one of the Geldof brood and an
unknown rocker, the fact that the 19- and 23-yr old’s "love" for
Crowley has been identified, if not leaked to the press as a way to
increase their profiles and therfore actually "advertised", suggests
one word: dilettante.

How often have empty-headed "rockers" co-opted Crowley as a way to
gain some sort of notoriety?  The Beatles placed a photo of Crowley on
the cover of the Sgt. Pepper’s LHCB album without ever suggesting that
they were really true admirers.  Crowley was always infinitely more
well-known in Britain, that’s all.  Jimmy Page, from Led Zeppelin, was
perhaps rock’s only "serious" student of Crowley, and even then, his
interest may have been driven primarily by the zeitgeist of the times
(60s & 70s) and his having a lot of time and money on his hands with
which one could indulge in serious study AND collecting.  I don’t know
the present status of his collection, but it is said to be the most
impressive private collection in existence.

Having said that, however, if Peaches Geldof and her new hubby happen
to be serious students (not bloody likely), then I offer sincere
apologies.  Do what thou wilt and all that…

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

massive electronic voter fraud expected for fascists

Check out the entry for today, 11-3-08:

http://www.velvetrevolution.us/

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (3)

Fuck Big Bird

      WASHINGTON (AP) – The Supreme Court spent an hour on Tuesday
talking about dirty words on television without once using any or
making plain how it would decide whether the government could ban
them.
      The dispute between the broadcast networks and the Federal
Communications Commission is the court’s first major broadcast
indecency case in 30 years.
      At issue is the FCC’s policy, adopted in 2004, that even a
one-time use of profanity on live television is indecent because
some words are so offensive that they always evoke sexual or
excretory images. So-called fleeting expletives were not treated as
indecent before then.
      The words in question begin with the letters "F" and "S."
The Associated Press typically does not use them.
      Chief Justice John Roberts, the only justice with young children
at home, suggested that the commission’s policy is reasonable. The
use of either word, Roberts said, "is associated with sexual or
excretory activity. That’s what gives it its force."
      Justice John Paul Stevens, who appeared skeptical of the policy,
doubted that the f-word always conveys a sexual image.
      "Isn’t it true that that is a word that often is used with no
reference whatsoever to the sexual connotation?" he asked.
      Fox Television Stations, owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp.,
and other networks challenged the policy after the FCC singled out
use of the words by Bono, Cher and Nicole Richie during awards
programs that were aired in 2002 and 2003.
      In each instance, a variation of the f-word was used either as a
modifier – as in Bono’s comment that an award was "really f—ing
brilliant" – or as a metaphor, as when Cher said, "F— ‘em," to
her critics.
      A federal appeals court in New York threw out the ban, saying
the FCC didn’t provide enough explanation, and the government
appealed to the Supreme Court. The appeals court also said, but did
not rule, that the new policy probably is unconstitutional.
      The court could avoid deciding whether the FCC policy violates
the Constitution and instead determine that the FCC did not
adequately explain the need for the new policy.
      It was hard to tell where the court is heading because three
justices – Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas – said
little or nothing.
      When the court ruled 30 years ago that the FCC could keep
profanities off the airwaves between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., television
broadcasts were the only source of images available to most
Americans.
      Today, the Internet, cable and satellite television are in
millions of homes, yet the FCC’s authority extends only to
broadcast television and radio.
      Solicitor General Gregory Garre, the Bush administration’s top
Supreme Court lawyer, said that despite the explosion of options,
"most Americans still get their information and entertainment from
broadcast TV."
      Garre said a broad ruling against government regulation of
broadcast indecency would create a world where anything goes.
      In an admittedly extreme example, Garre said, children could see
"Big Bird dropping the F-bomb on Sesame Street."
      Carter Phillips, Fox’s lawyer, said that increased usage of
profanity was unlikely no matter how the court ruled. Apart from
unscripted incidents on live television, broadcasters do not permit
the use of certain words on television, even during late-night
hours when they are free to do so.
      He urged the justices to strike down the policy as an
unconstitutional restriction on the networks’ free speech rights.
      C-SPAN asked the court to release a recording of the arguments
for airing shortly after their conclusion. The court grants such
requests from time to time, but turned down C-SPAN with no
explanation.
      —
      The case is FCC v. Fox Television Stations, 07-582.

      (Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press.  All Rights Reserved.)

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments