The controversial antiwar writer Caitlin Johnstone apparently is a RAW fan, or at the very least is familiar with his work.
For example, here is the article "The Healthy Way To Hold A Conspiracy Theory" on her website, which cites RAW on reality tunnels.
She recently moved websites, her latest website is here.
8 comments:
As a writer she strikes me, at best, as a mediocre conspiracist, and I feel mildly irked that she rationalised her shtick (grift?) by quoting RAW. Her whole semantic approach looks, to me, like a 180-degree reversal of RAW's - the assignation of behavioural/psychological characteristics to large, loosely defined groups (usally political classes), the hyper-generalisations, etc. I'd write about this at length, but I really don't want to give her output oxygen. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but... (Not a criticism of Tom's post, btw - seems worth noting that she cites RAW).
Tom, as you know, Capitalist Pig (lol) Jim O'Shaughnessy frequently tweets about RAW and often recommends Prometheus Rising over twitter and to his podcast guests.
I was surprised and delighted with his podcast guest, geopolitical strategist Pippa Malmgren agreed with him about loving Robert Anton Wilson. Her thinking has the marks of maybelogic. She deals with real global conspiracies (Like the blowing up of the gas pipeline last year).
Couldn’t be happier CJ is familiar with RAW. She keeps the (incredibly dim) antiwar flame alive.
@quackenbush - I like what I've read from Jim O'Shaughnessy, although I don't know much about him. His mentions of RAW come across to me as expressing depth of reading and insight on Wilson. (He in turn has reposted a fair bit of my material, for which boost I'm grateful for). I've not heard of Pippa Malmgren before, or her comments on the gas pipeline, but I'm interested in the latter and haven't yet come to any conclusions about it (and doubt I ever will). Pizzagate, on the other hand, doesn't interest me much (one of Johnstone's early promotions). I read a lot of Johnstone's output when I was trying to figure out why it seemed so disproportionately widespread/viral. I went into "forensic" mode, so to speak (ie checking every goddamned claim/assertion) attempting to figure that out, and maybe I'll write about it some time.
Btw, on the "antiwar" designation, I've never personally come across anyone who wants a war - any more than than I've come across anyone who wants to torture puppies. Regardless of their other political views. So saying "antiwar", free of context, doesn't seem a meaningful description to me, since everyone I come across seems to adhere to it by default.
For some people, though, "antiwar", in the current context of Russia's brutal and relentless invasion of Ukraine, apparently means anti-assistance to Ukraine, but not anti-invading Ukraine with tanks or anti-killing of citizens in Ukrainian apartments with missiles over a period of years with no stopping. Johnstone seems to fall into this category of confusion over basic terms. I wouldn't call her an "antiwar" writer any more than I'd call her an "anti-torture of puppies" writer. Perhaps an "anti-intervention by Western funds and weapons but not by Russian forces" writer.
RAW said he was anti-invasionist, but not anti-violentist - I suspect he'd be sympathetic to the plight of Ukrainian people caught in this conflict, and listen to their views. Who knows whether he'd support providing assistance to Ukraine from the US, or in what form or by what measure.
I’d call the writings on her website pretty awful. Some people you don’t want on your side.
Leaving aside all of the claims I’m guessing are in dispute (such as the US squashing early peace deals, NATO’s aggressive history and alleged incitement of this war, et al), I cannot RAW supporting US involvement — billions in taxpayer funded weapons of death to fuel. Sympathy for an invaded people, rooting for them, condemnation of the invader, an “anything goes” view on self defense, yes. Direct participation in, even escalation? No way.
Curious, was there a US military intervention RAW did support? There are tens of dozens post WWII to choose
from and I can’t recall him mentioning a single one he supported.
Sloppy. Should have read: I cannot imagine RAW supporting US involvement — billions in taxpayer funded weapons of death to fuel one side. Sympathy for an invaded people, rooting for them, condemnation of the invader, an “anything goes” view on self defense, yes. Direct participation in the war by our government, and its escalation of it? No way.
Post a Comment