RAW quote: restriction of freedom (1975)

Discuss

24 Responses to “RAW quote: restriction of freedom (1975)”

  1. Stonewalker says:

    1975… good lord.  So painfully relevant today.

  2. Wreckrob8 says:

    Does a coincidence of interests amongst leaders amount to a conspiracy?

    • noen says:

      No it doesn’t. A coincidence is just that. It is an article of faith among conspiracy theorists that there are no coincidences and this is just plain ‘ol magical thinking, not reasoning.

      • Julian Fine says:

        When so many interests of a ruling class coincide for such a long period of time, one might reasonably suspect that they do not do so entirely out of chance.

  3. Jake0748 says:

    Why yes, usually it does.  Amazing, huh?

  4. Ultan says:

    To combat this, beyond much fine and fiery writing, RAW founded the Guns and Dope Party.
    Its platform:

    We advocate:
    [1] guns for those who want them, no guns forced on those who don’t want them (pacfists, Quakers etc.)
    [2] drugs for those who want them, no drugs forced on those who don’t want them (Christian Scientists etc.)
    [3] an end to Tsarism and a return to constitutional democracy
    [4] equal rights for ostriches.

    which is more fully fleshed out in “Position Paper #5″:

    Official motto:
    “Like what you like, enjoy what you enjoy,
    don’t be afraid to make slurping sounds,
    and don’t take crap from anybody”

    First order of business on assuming office:
    Fire 33% of the Congress [names selected at random] and replace them with full-grown adult ostritches, whose mysterious and awesome dignity will elevate the suidaen barbarity long established there.

  5. awjt says:

    Fnord spelled backwards is Dronf.  It also anagrams to Frond and Dr. F No.  Just sayin’.

  6. JonJonz says:

    So Trust fund Kiddies, keep spending you daddy’s money as long as you can. eat drink and be merry for tomorrow they come for you.

  7. katkins says:

    So close.  Except they’ve convinced us “that the entire population must have its freedom restricted in order to protect ” its freedom.

  8. Ambiguity says:

    Love RAW, I really do. But the thing I can’t really grok is how he was able to maintain his optimism in the way that he did. You know, given the lucidity and clarity of his observations and thought…

    Obviously he was a much better — and happier — man than I.

    • Mitchell Glaser says:

      I totally agree. So many SF writers peer into the future and see this dystopian nightmare. It must be hard to live with unless you think you are just writing cautionary tales.

  9. Mister44 says:

    If there is an afterlife, I think this RAW guy and Hitchens would have some interesting conversations.

  10. noen says:

    “The assassinations, you see, establish the need for such laws in the public mind. Instead of realizing that there is a conspiracy, conducted by a handful of men, the people reason — or are manipulated into reasoning”

    Well this is just more tiresome right wing conspiracy theory clap trap. The assassinations of JFK, RFK and MLK were not part of a secret grand government conspiracy. And conspiracy thinking is not actually “reasoning”. It’s reactionary and emotional, not thought.

    • Ultan says:

      Few results big enough to reach the public’s attention occur without people working together to make them happen. When those things are crimes, then “conspiracy” is the correct word.

      There is not one “secret grand government conspiracy”, there are many conspiracies, both in and out of government, most effectively secret,  and they often compete with one another, overlap and conflict. Because of the secrecy, one can seldom come to a firm conclusion about exactly what happened – which is one of the things that led RAW to “maybe logic”. His Illuminatus! trilogy is designed to adapt the readers’ minds to a state of radical uncertainty that allows a larger form of reasoning, one which does not depend on false certainty. The original quote is from a character in Illuminatus!, which is a work of fiction.  Any particular thing that a character says in the book should not be read as the firm conviction of the authors.

      In the particular case of the JFK, RFK and MLK  assassinations, substantial evidence exists that the official stories are incorrect and incomplete. Much of that evidence points to conspiracies and attempts at suppression of witnesses, evidence and proper investigation.

      The attempts to account for as much of the evidence as possible that you deride as “conspiracy theory” are usually not right-wing – certainly not in the case of RAW – the victims were, after all, politicians of the left, and the logical suspects likely disagreed with their political views. While these attempts to account for the evidence are often faulty, that does not mean that such attempts should not be made.

      • noen says:

        “Few results big enough to reach the public’s attention occur without people working together to make them happen. When those things are crimes, then “conspiracy” is the correct word.”

        I have no idea what you’re talking about (and I doubt you do either). I guess you mean that because the assignation of Kennedy was big and a crime it therefore *must* have been a conspiracy. Which is of course false.

        “There is not one “secret grand government conspiracy”, there are many conspiracies, both in and out of government, most effectively secret,  and they often compete with one another, overlap and conflict.”

        BS, you do not know any such thing.  You have no proof for single or multiple conspiracies. There have been of course secret government operations some which were not legal but that isn’t what you mean.

        “Because of the secrecy, one can seldom come to a firm conclusion about exactly what happened – which is one of the things that led RAW to “maybe logic”.”

        Another phrase for “maybe logic” is “making shit up” or “let me pull this outta my ass”.

        His Illuminatus! trilogy is designed to adapt the readers’ minds to a state of radical uncertainty that allows a larger form of reasoning, one which does not depend on false certainty.

        Yeah, that isn’t reasoning either. That’s just some bullshit Wilson made up so morons would buy his crap. There is no such thing as “maybe logic” or “larger form reasoning”. REAL reason also doesn’t depend on “false certainty” (Which is itself incoherent), real logic *delivers* certainty.

        “In the particular case of the JFK, RFK and MLK  assassinations, substantial evidence exists that the official stories are incorrect and incomplete.”

        No there isn’t. Oh there is a bunch a BS written by other conspiracy theorists where they quote other CT’ers but that isn’t evidence.

        “The attempts to account for as much of the evidence as possible that you deride as “conspiracy theory” are usually not right-wing”

        The majority of paranoid conspiracy theories originate on the right. The John Birch society being ground zero for this crap.

        “While these attempts to account for the evidence are often faulty”

        The attempts to account for the evidence by non-morons is in fact quite sound. Just because *you* can’t figure it out doesn’t mean that others have not. And just because you want to believe false conspiracy theories doesn’t mean it’s worth the time of others.

        • Brother Phil says:

          You seem to find these ideas rather threatening, from the vigour of your response.
          So what is it about them that scares you so much?

    • Thebes42 says:

      Actually, any theory about any conspiracy is a “Conspiracy Theory”, and any thinking about it is “conspiracy thinking”. Sound like you are against critical thought.

      Or, are you actually implying that criminals never act unlawfully in a coordinated manner?
      And, are you actually calling Robert Anton Wilson  a right-winger?
      Lolz – obvious troll is obvious.

    • Mark_Frauenfelder says:

      You’re right, Noen — it is “tiresome right wing conspiracy theory clap trap.”

      “All this inspired Bob Shea and me to start work on the gigantic novel which finally emerged as the Illuminatus trilogy. We made the Discordians the Good Guys and the Illuminati the Bad Guys in a epic of convoluted treachery that satirizes all conspiracies of Left and Right.” — Wilson, Robert Anton. “Operation Mindfuck.” Cosmic Trigger: Final Secret of the Illuminati. Berkeley, CA: And/Or, 1977. 54. Print.

      Good job! 

      • noen says:

        “a epic of convoluted treachery that satirizes all conspiracies of Left and Right”

        Yes, that is straight out of Alex Jones’ play book: “don’t believe the false right/left paradigm!” It is common to all conspiracy theories that they live in a parallel universe. They have to for the same reason UFO cultists do, their beliefs are irrational.

        Unless you take it as fiction, that would be ok, but I don’t think most of his readers do. How can anyone today read “The Cosmic Trigger” as anything other than pseudoscientific BS? There is no science in it. Once you’ve read it you’ll be as misinformed as if you read Deepack Chopra today.

        The only difference between Deepack and Anton is that Deepack markets to upper middle class housewives and Anton to pot smoking hipsters.

      • Ultan says:

        The paragraphs preceding the one you quoted may clarify what he meant by “all this”:

        …Thornley discovered that Allan Chapman, of Texas, one of Garrison’s aides, believed the JFK assassination was the work of the Bavarian Illuminati. Of course, I had been an expert on that subject (I thought) for a number of years, and [prosecutor Jim] Garrison’s involvement in it encouraged me to enter the belief system that Garrison was a paranoid or a demagogue or both. There simply were no real Illuminati; it was all a rightwing fantasy-a sanitized version of the tired old Elders-of Zion mythology. Although the underground press was absolutely fundamentalist in its allegiance to the Garrison Revelations, it was also intensely gullible and eager to believe all manner of additional conspiracy theories, the weirder the better. Most Discordians, at this time, were contributors to underground newspapers all over the country. We began surfacing the Discordian Society, issuing position papers offering non-violent anarchist techniques to mutate our robot-society. …

        … we planted numerous stories about the Discordian Society’s aeon-old war against the sinister Illuminati. We accused everybody of being in the Illuminati–Nixon, Johnson, William Buckley, Jr., ourselves, Martian invaders, all the conspiracy buffs, everybody.

        We did not regard this as a hoax or prank in the ordinary sense. We still considered it guerrilla ontology.

        My personal attitude was that if the New Left wanted to live in the particular tunnel-reality of the hard-core paranoid, they had an absolute right to that neurological choice. I saw Discordianism as the Cosmic Giggle Factor, introducing so many alternative paranoias that everybody could pick a favorite, if they were inclined that way. I also hoped that some less gullible souls, overwhelmed by this embarrassment of riches, might see through the whole paranoia game and decide to mutate to a wider, funnier, more hopeful reality-map. …

        New exposes of the Illuminati began to appear everywhere, in journals ranging from the extreme Right to the ultra-Left. Some of this was definitely not coming from us Discordians. …

        Other articles claimed the Illuminati definitely were a Jesuit conspiracy, a Zionist conspiracy, a bankers’ conspiracy, etc., and accused such worthies as FDR, J. Edgar Hoover, Lenin, Aleister Crowley, Jefferson and even Charlemagne of being members of it, whatever it was. All this inspired Bob Shea and me to start work on the gigantic novel which finally emerged as the Illuminatus trilogy. We made the Discordians the Good Guys and the Illuminati the Bad Guys in a epic of convoluted treachery that satirizes all conspiracies of Left and Right.

  11. Dee says:

    Hmmm…  Precient, yes.  Indicative, only maybe.

    I do agree with Ambiguity & Glaser:
    The almost reckless happiness of many who do seem to peer into the abyss of our likely futures can be disorienting.  But, it’s helpful to remember, many visionaries who’ve turned out to be correct were optimists and enjoyed – or seemed to – an disproportionate measure of peace.  Even in the face of shatteringly heart wrenching – and often prematurely fatal – personal lives, their vision seems to buoy and even sustain their creative labours.

Leave a Reply