You searched for ron paul | Page 4 of 16

Search"ron paul"

New issue of OVO, “Money” theme, features Klintron, Wes Unruh, and many more

April 19, 2008 / Klint Finley

ovo 18 money

The new issue of Trevor Blake’s OVO Magazine has many names familiar to Technoccult readers and/or Esozone attendees (and some not so familiar): Anonymous, Dmitry Babenko, Johnny Brainwash, Klint Finley, Witta Kelssling-Jensen, Vincent Al Ken, Ruggero Maggi, Mail Art Paul, Willi Melnikov, Thom Metzger, Emilio Morandi, No Institute, Wes Unruh, Carlos Valdez and Edward Wilson.

Download OVO 18: Money for no money.

In my article I explore the politics of alternative currencies, which is sadly more relevant now than I realized when I wrote it in October.

For those not in the know, OVO has been published by Trevor Blake since 1987. Trevor says of his work:

When I started publishing OVO I was just a self-important hayseed living in a small town making a dumb little zine among thousands of others. But OVO did accomplish a few things in the first fourteen issues. OVO was the first to publish several essays by Hakim Bey that later appeared in his book T.A.Z. The Temporary Autonomous Zone. OVO published work by Mike Diana long before his work drew the attention of State and Federal employees. Photographs of body piercing appeared in OVO two years before the Modern Primitives issue of Re/Search. The phrase ‘phone tag’ appears in print for the first time in the first issue of OVO. ‘Liberating Wednesday’ by PM, author of bolo’bolo, appears in OVO for the first (and only) time; this is nearly a decade before and fifty-two times more radical a suggestion than ‘Buy Nothing Day.’ Crop circles and the Men in Black are referenced at a time when they were still obscure. The first appearance of Ride Theory in print occurs in Ignatz Topolino’s contribution to OVO. And OVO was aware enough of the outer edges of scientific ethics to mention gene patents in the same year they first were granted.

I am honored to be a contributor to such a worthy publication.

Consciousness time travel: Paul Laffoley, the Invisibles, and the Voudon Gnostic Workbook

March 1, 2008 / Klinton

â€œpaul laffoley The Time Machine : GEOCHRONMECHANE : From The Earth

Apparently, the way time travel works on Lost is movement of consciousness through time and space to experience “retrocognition of the past and occasions of precognition of the future.” The breathtaking occult art of Paul Laffoley has dealt with this subject for years, most notably in his painting The Time Machine : GEOCHRONMECHANE : From The Earth – the plans to build a working time machine. More info can be found on Paul Laffoley here. He can also be heard explaining his time travel plans in his lecture at Esozone 2007.

I’m also reminded of the occult action comic The Invisibles, which I reviewed here. Characters in the Invisibles use a consciousness projection technique to travel through space and time. The source for the time travel techniques of the Invisibles is the book The Voudon Gnostic Workbook, a collection of materials Michael Bertiaux used to instruct his cult in Chicago.

However, Michael Szul of Key 64 points out that the Invisibles can travel to places in time that they haven’t been and don’t need a “host body.” He suggests that the time travel in this episode is more reminiscent of Slaughterhouse Five. Lostpedia has this to say on the subject:

Desmond, during one of his flashbacks/time travels, speaks to someone else in the military with him. His friend’s name is Billy. Billy Pilgrim is the main character in Slaughterhouse Five. The narration of the story of Billy Pilgrim begins: “Listen. Billy Pilgrim has become unstuck in time.” When Desmond is with Daniel in 1996 and Daniel is about to experiment on Eloise, he says that he is going to unstick her in time. Also, the narrator of Slaughterhouse Five, Vonnegut, says that he likes to call old girlfriends late at night. Desmond calls Penelope at night. When Desmond spoke with Mrs. Hawking, she said that events are structured and that the universe will course correct. In Slaughterhouse Five, Billy Pilgrim explains that , according to the Tralfamadorians, aliens who can see the fourth dimension, time is structured and events cannot be changed (we are like bugs in amber). When asked about the end of the universe, the Tralfamadorians explain that one of their test pilots presses a button that destroys the universe. Billy asks why they cannot stop the pilot from pressing the button, and they reply that the pilot always has and always will press the button. The moment is structured that way. Desmond’s purpose, according to Mrs. Hawking, is to turn the key and he cannot avoid it. The moment is structured that way. Billy Pilgrim sees the future, and even predicts his own death. Desmond predicted Charlie’s death and other events on the island.

New Key 64 with articles by Paul Laffoley, Jack Malebranche, and more

January 9, 2008 / Klint Finley

Find it all here.

Nick Pell says:

From the people who brought you occulture comes the latest, greatest issue of Key64. Since it’s relaunch this year, Key64 has brought you some of the most thought-provoking and controversial names in contemporary occultism, counterculture and fringe thought. Names like Padre Engo, Steven Grasso, and Thirty Seven. Key64 ends its first year with a bang, bringing you something old, something new, something borrowed and something blue.

Fresh from headlining esoZone: Designer Reality Expo, Boston’s most famous visionary artist Paul Laffoley explores some spooky synchronicities engulfing everything from Antonio Gaudi, the Rockefeller family, and the World Trade Centers. With his trademark homespun style, Paul puts his analytical precision and dry wit on the biggest psychic detective case of the 20th century- who killed heroic modernism?

No stranger to stirring up controversy, the Church of Satan’s Reverend Jack Malebranche is back at it again. This time he turns in a Nietzschean exploration of power, laying bare the egoic pretensions of the contemporary American middle class. With all the fury of a Spartan warrior, Rev. Malebranche evokes the best qualities of Anton LaVey’s hilarious honesty and a bare knuckle street brawl. Sure to be an instant classic.

The man behind the epic Laffoley Archive, Michael Coleman sounds off on the weirder memes from quantum theory and their consequences for contemporary esotericism. Ditch your Cartesian-Newtonian presuppositions and move into the 20th Century as Michael takes you on an odyssey through the multiverse. Fans of weird hard science take note.

BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE!

Nick Pell magnanimously shares the wisdom he’s gleaned on cult leaders. Don’t leave home without reading this!

Klint Finley eulogizes the risen master Lady Jaye and asks some pressing questions about the Broken Sex project.

Lillian Grace interviews Oliviero Toscani, magus of the world of advertising who has turned commercial enterprise into transgresive art.

Lupa brings magic out of the old and musty and into the vibrant and contemporary with her culinary adventures.

Edward Wilson explains retro-active magic for those of us still scratching our heads. Then he joins forces with world famous time traveler Wes Unruh to introduce you to the talismatic text.

Kelly Kennedy gives careful, detailed attention to a subject of much interest to contemporary occultists- building a literary pantheon.

Ikpir introduces Key64’s readers to the dark arts of black radionics and sonic manipulation.

Doctor Invisible reports from his Tesseract at the farthest reaches of the chronoverse.

Phase II Podcast: Paul Laffoley interview

November 25, 2007 / Klint Finley

Paul Laffoley is the first guest on our Phase II podcast, we discuss for over 3 hours alchemy, magick, psychotronics, art, Paul’s work on the WTC & his plans for building the Gaudi hotel and that barely scratches the surface. We feel unable to write a descent biography on this man, we reccomend looking at his work @ Laffoley.com and our archival coverage of him here at phase II (bet you didn’t even know we had a search feature).

Download from: Phase II.

Unofficial Paul Laffoley Site

August 26, 2005 / Klint Finley

Omega Point by Paul Laffoley

This site contains detailed scans of a few of Paul Laffoley’s paintings, less detailed scans of many other pieces, and some interviews. And a picture of Jason Louv and Richard Metzger in front of a couple of Laffoley pieces at Metzger’s apartment.

Paul Laffoley gallery and interviews

Paul Laffoley Paranoia Magazine Interview

December 27, 2004 / Klintron

Longish interview with Paul Laffoley in Paranoia Magazine:

RG: The painting you’re working on now is about Lovecraft?

PL: It’s called “Pickman’s Mephitic Models,” based on the story. Certain things about it many people don’t realize. Pickman was a real painter who lived between 1888 and 1926. Now, there’s a question mark [gesturing toward the writing in the margins of the painting], because Lovecraft claims that he turned into a ghoul. God knows how old he is now.

Full Story: Paranoia Magazine: Satan, God, H.P. Lovecraft and Other Mephitic Models: An Interview With Paul Laffoley

(via New World Disorder)

Proto-webs: Paul Otlet’s Universal Book

November 21, 2003 / Klint Finley

Box and Arrows article on Paul Otlet:

In 1934, years before Vannevar Bush dreamed of the memex, decades before Ted Nelson coined the term ?hypertext,? Paul Otlet envisioned a new kind of scholar’s workstation: a moving desk shaped like a wheel, powered by a network of hinged spokes beneath a series of moving surfaces. The machine would let users search, read and write their way through a vast mechanical database stored on millions of 3×5 index cards.

via Bill Seitz

Black Boys Seen as Older, More Responsible for their Actions Than Other Children

March 13, 2014 / Klint Finley

From a paper titled “The Essence of Innocence: Consequences of Dehumanizing Black Children”:

The social category “children” defines a group of individuals who are perceived to be distinct, with essential characteristics including innocence and the need for protection (Haslam, Rothschild, & Ernst, 2000). The present research examined whether Black boys are given the protections of childhood equally to their peers. We tested 3 hypotheses: (a) that Black boys are seen as less “childlike” than their White peers, (b) that the characteristics associated with childhood will be applied less when thinking specifically about Black boys relative to White boys, and (c) that these trends would be exacerbated in contexts where Black males are dehumanized by associating them (implicitly) with apes (Goff, Eberhardt, Williams, & Jackson, 2008). We expected, derivative of these 3 principal hypotheses, that individuals would perceive Black boys as being more responsible for their actions and as being more appropriate targets for police violence. We find support for these hypotheses across 4 studies using laboratory, field, and translational (mixed laboratory/field) methods. We find converging evidence that Black boys are seen as older and less innocent and that they prompt a less essential conception of childhood than do their White same-age peers. Further, our findings demonstrate that the Black/ape association predicted actual racial disparities in police violence toward children. These data represent the first attitude/behavior matching of its kind in a policing context. Taken together, this research suggests that dehumanization is a uniquely dangerous intergroup attitude, that intergroup perception of children is underexplored, and that both topics should be research priorities.

Full Story: Metafilter: “they cry because they are not allowed to be children at all”

This reminds me of how Ron Paul (or whoever was writing his newsletters) that only black male minors should be tried as adults:

We don’t think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That’s true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such.

Alternatives to Austerity, and a Left/Libertarian Alliance Revisited

February 22, 2011 / Klint Finley

When Thomas Friedman proposed that Americans needed to get used to making some sacrifices if we want to get the deficit under control, I wrote:

What’s the underlying cause of the debt crisis? Certainly Americans buy a lot of crap we don’t need, and on credit too. But consider:

–The decline in real wages in the US
-Obama only proposes to raise taxes on those making over $250,000 a year
-The bailout, at tax payer expense, bailed out the wealthy
–The wealthy routinely avoid paying taxes
-That 23% of the federal budget goes to defense spending (much of which goes to unaccountable private firms)

Who should we be asking to make some sacrifices?

Joseph Stiglitz offers a plan to reduce the U.S deficit he calls an alternative to austerity. Summarized:

Increase “high-return” public investments, even if it increases the deficit in the short term. I assume he means infrastructure.
Cut military expenditures. He doesn’t say how much.
Eliminate corporate welfare.
Slightly increase taxes for the top 1% of earners – by about 5%.

Stiglitz concludes with a dismal note:

There’s only one problem: it wouldn’t benefit those at the top, or the corporate and other special interests that have come to dominate America’s policymaking. Its compelling logic is precisely why there is little chance that such a reasonable proposal would ever be adopted.

This sounds about right to me, apart from the lack of specifics in some areas. It’s got me thinking, though – what essentials can the leftists and libertarians agree to? Could something like this be agreed upon:

Fix public infrastructure, even if it increases the deficit
Cut corporate welfare
End tax loop-holes for the rich
Reduce defense spending by at least 50%

Could we then agree to disagree about social welfare, tax cuts for everyone except the rich and tax increases for the rich? Would libertarians agree to increase public spending on infrastructure? Would the left be willing to put aside tax increases for the rich, or environmental regulations for the time being?

I’ve been cynical about the potential for a left/libertarian alliance since libertarians nearly universally supported Ron Paul in 2007. But now that Paul is trying to form a left/right alliance himself, perhaps it’s an idea whose time has come.

Christine O’Donnell on Church and State: Gaffe or Political Position?

October 20, 2010 / Klint Finley

By now you’ve probably seen the above video of Christine O’Donnell’s disbelief that the First Amendment establishes the separation of church and state. If not, start the video around the 5 minute mark and see for yourself.

O’Donnell’s campaign and the right are trying to spin this by saying O’Donnell was only expressing disbelief that the words “seperation of church and state” appear in the constitution (which they don’t). It’s clear, however, that that’s not what Coons is saying. Coons quotes the amendment and says that decades of procedural law establish the separation.

So it sure sounds like a gaffe. But a belief that the Constitution doesn’t separate church and state is a widespread belief in certain parts factions of the right.

Ron Paul wrote:

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

It’s a strange statement, since the Constitution is anything but replete with references to God.

Number of references to “God” in the Constitution: 0
Number of references to “Jesus”: 0
Number of references to “Christ”: 0
Number of references to “Lord”: 1 – in reference to the “year of our lord”
Number of references to “Providence”: 1 – In reference to how many representatives the Providence Plantations get.
Number of references to “Religion”: 1 – in the first amendment when stating that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

The Declaration of Independence does make one reference each to God and one to Divine Providence. But what of it? The Constitution is the law of the land, not the Declaration.

The idea that someone could be elected senator and not know what the First Amendment says is scary. But here’s another scary idea: the Tea Party knows what it says but still does not believe in the separation of church and state. That’s clearly the case with Ron Paul, though he seems to have little influence over the Tea Party movement anymore. However, according to the NAACP’s Tea Party Nationalism paper released today, there are a number of leaders within the movement who also believe that. And it all ties back, rather uncomfortably, to the Christian Identity movement.

So what do we have here – simple ignorance, or a theocratic agenda?

PS – Wes Unruh is doing a good job of following this stuff on Twitter.

Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑

Technoccult

Mutate Your Mind