Did Bobby Campbell find a bit cut from 'Illuminatus!'?

In the comments for my Nov. 19 post, about the documents Bobby Campbell posted after going through the Ed Sanders papers at Princeton University's library special collections,  Jesse Walker posts a question about "Hodge Podge," a three page document written by Mordecai Malignatus, i.e. RAW. 

Jesse asked, "Is "Hodge Podge" one of the cut bits from Illuminatus!?

"(It is certainly the first place I've ever seen Robert Anton Wilson make a Merle Haggard reference. My worlds collide!)"

When I read it, it certainly seemed possible to me that it was a bit cut from Illuminatus!. 

I had the same question about "Anarchism and Crime," an essay featured in both the new Robert Anton Wilson book, A Non-Euclidean Perspective: Robert Anton Wilson’s Political Commentaries 1960-2005, and in Every Day is a GOOD Day, the new Robert Shea anthology. 

It was published in Green Egg magazine on May 1, 1974. It is attributed to both Wilson and Shea, which itself seems suggestive, and the date made me wonder if it became available after it was chopped out of the Appendix by one of the Dell editors making cuts in the book, or by Wilson and Shea when they were compelled by Dell to make cuts.

I should also note that RAW's old friend, Scott Apel, maintains that Wilson's book The Illuminati Papers includes material cut from Illuminatus!  And in fact, there is independent evidence that Scott is correct. 

My Beethoven synchronicity

Beethoven in 1813. (Source)

Monday was Beethoven's birthday and Eric Wagner wished me a "happy Beethoven's birthday." I didn't blog about him Monday as I try to follow the schedule for online reading groups, but I can write about him today. 

I have been a Beethoven fan for much of my life, and as I've written before, Robert Anton Wilson had a particular love of Beethoven. The essay about Beethoven in The Illuminati Papers, "Beethoven As Information," is my favorite short piece about Beethoven written by anyone, anywhere. 

Sunday I went to see a local community orchestra, the CityMusic Cleveland Chamber Orchestra, give a concert at a local Catholic church. The orchestra played Mozart's Violin Concerto No. 3 and Beethoven's Symphony No. 7, along with a piece by composer Leó Weiner that I wasn't familiar with,  the Serenade for Small Orchestra. 

The Beethoven and the Mozart made the concert an ideal bill for me. Although I've listened to a lot of Mozart, I am not particularly familiar with that work. Here is an article about the soloist, Sibbi Bernhardssohn, talking about  how "it’s probably the most perfect out of all the perfect violin concertos that Mozart wrote."

It certainly won me over. Later Sunday after I got home, I listened to a recording of it. My wife thought I was crazy to listen to a recording of something I had just heard. I thought it was crazy she would not want to hear it again.

The Seventh is perhaps the Beethoven symphony I have listened to the most. The second movement is particularly famous; when the symphony was first performed in 1813, it caused such a sensation that it was played twice. The movement is used to good effect in Zardoz, a 1974 science fiction movie that starred Sean Connery.  I saw it in high school, and it was an early example of a Beethoven piece making an impression on me. 

Late at night before I go to sleep, I often listen to the late night classical music program hosted by Peter Van de Graaff (it's very good). When I tuned in, the radio was playing a solo piano piece. To my amazement, I realized that the piece used the melody from the second movement of the Seventh. It turned out to be an obscure but interesting piece by Robert Schumann, WoO 31, "Studies in the Form of Free Variations on a Theme by Beethoven (1831–32)," played by Peter Frankl. Van de Graaff of course plays many famous pieces, but he's also good at discovering obscure but interesting ones. 

RAW on Beethoven

I have found during the pandemic that few things I do are as useful in keeping me in a good mood as listening to a great deal of classical music. Yesterday, after listening to a dose that included some Beethoven, I pulled my copy of The Illuminati Papers off the shelf and re-read one of my favorite short RAW pieces, "Beethoven as Information." I can't reproduce the whole thing without committing a copyright violation, but here is a paragraph:

Perhaps some mystics have achieved higher levels of consciousness than Beethoven (perhaps!), but if so, we cannot know of it. Aleister Crowley once astonished me by writing that the artist is greater than the mystic, an odd remark from a man who was only a mediocre artist himself (although a great mystic.) Listening to Ludwig, I have come to understand what Crowley meant. The mystic, unless he or she is also an artist, cannot communicate the higher states of awareness achieved by the fully turned-on brain; but the great artist can. Listening to Beethoven, one shares, somewhat, in his expanded perceptions; and the more one listens, the more one shares. Finally, one is able to believe his promise: if one listens to that music enough, one will never be unhappy. 

The Illuminati Papers is one of my favorite RAW anthologies. Probably not a coincidence that it apparently includes material cut from the appendices in  Illuminatus!  More on The Illuminati Papers here. 

A basic income guarantee

Robert Anton Wilson advocated giving everyone in the U.S. a guarantee of a basic income (in "The RICH Economy" in The Illuminati Papers, probably in some other places that don't immediately come to mind.) I've been intrigued by the concept but haven't found a really good discussion of the idea.

So I'm grateful to Michael Johnson for taking up the topic on his blog, in a posting entitled, "Missing Public Discussions: Universal Basic Income." Aside from his own comments on the subject, and from his discussion with the estimable Sue Howard in the comments, credit Michael for discovering a European philosopher, Philippe Van Parijs, who has thought and written extensively on the topic. Michael links to several pieces; my favorite was an essay, "A Basic Income for All," where Van Parijis discusses his ideas. Van Parijis also has written an entire book on the topic, Real Freedom for All, which I intend to track down and read.

A small minority of libertarian folks mostly go along with the libertarian program, but also favor social justice/a safety net/parts of the welfare state. Those folks are variously called "liberaltarians" or "left-libertarians" or "neoclassical liberals" or "classical liberals." I am (more or less) one of those folks. It's a good way to be alienated from just about any recognizable political movements; the "liberals" don't like you because you are too libertarian, while the "libertarians" don't like you because you favor letting the government help poor people. I think a few people at Cato and Reason may be closet liberaltarians; Will Wilkinson, formerly of Cato, came out the closet and was duly eased out of the organization.

Anyway, nobody cares what I think, but here are some thoughts, anyway (1) A basic income guarantee, coupled with a universal health care system, would provide a reasonable safety net. (2) Almost everyone would be better off, except for an army of bureaucrats who would lose their jobs, if all of the various components of the welfare state, such as Social Security, food stamps, temporary assistance for needy families, vouchers for farmers markets (yes, there is such a program) and so on were eliminated, replaced with a basic income guarantee that covered everyone, and (3) Almost everyone also would be better off if Medicaid, Medicare, Army hospitals, Indian hospitals, Federally Qualified Health Care Centers, etc. etc., were all eliminated and similarly replaced by a universal health care that covered everyone and followed one set of rules. I'll add that anyone who insists that such a system must be funded by the government and run by government employees, as it is in Britain, doesn't know enough about the subject to express an informed opinion.

Basic income enters political discussion in Germany

Over at alt.fan.rawilson, Sue Howard notes that there is a best-selling book in Germany titled (in English translation) "1,000 Euro for everyone. Freedom. Equality. Basic income." (The German title is "1.000 Euro für Jeden: Freiheit. Gleichheit. Grundeinkommen", by Götz W Werner and Adrienne Goehler.) Sue links this to Robert Anton Wilson's advocacy of basic income, for example in "The RICH Economy" in The Illuminati Papers.

Sue links to an article in Spiked about the proposal, commenting, "The first half of the review I go along with, pretty much. The second half seems, to me, a sort of logical travesty. Non sequitur in great abundance. But worth a read to see the weird forms that reactions to Basic Income take."

R. Michael Johnson, in reply, says this group "also seem resonant to RAW's economics."

In the U.S., to the extant that this is discussed at all, the proposal is linked to Milton Friedman's proposed negative income tax. The negative income tax recently has been advocated by Will Wilkinson, the liberaltarian commentator. I asked Wilkinson for an interview via e-mail, and he agreed, but alas I never succeeded in getting him to actually answer my questions.

Quoting RAW to the grads

Who do the college valedictorians quote? Robert Anton Wilson, of course.

Ann Clark, writing for the Santa Rose Press Democrat, pens a tribute to Santa Rose Junior College and looks back fondly at highlights of her student days. One happy moment:

"The highlight, however, was my May 1996 graduation where, as a valedictorian, I stood under a canopy of oaks on a hot May morning, quoting from Robert Anton Wilson's essay 'Ten Reasons to Get Out of Bed in the Morning' and telling my classmates how critically they are needed. I truly felt like a child of the college, wanting to honor my 'parent' by doing her proud."

The essay Clark mentions, one of RAW's more inspirational pieces, is reprinted in The Illuminati Papers.

Raymond Chandler and RAW

I have begun listening to an audiobook of Raymond Chandler's The Big Sleep, and I can see why Chandler influenced RAW's style; lots of wit, lots of energy, just as in the best of RAW's prose.

From an interview by Science Fiction Review, reprinted in The Illuminati Papers:

Wilson: My style derives directly from Ezra Pound, James Joyce, Raymond Chandler, H.L. Mencken, William S. Burroughs, Benjamin Tucker and Elephant Doody Comics, in approximately that order of importance. Chandler has also influenced my way of telling stories; all my fiction tends to follow the Chandler mythos of the skeptical Knight seeking Truth in a world of false fronts and manipulated deceptions. (Of course, this is also my biography, or that of any shaman.)

Addendum in 2024: When I realized  it was an abridged audiobook, I stopped listening. I only actually read the book in 2024. 

Some inspirational RAW thoughts

Lately, I've felt discouraged about the possibility of moving forward through political change. As I mentioned in a recent post, I saw little encouraging news in the latest election results. I have lately been thinking that perhaps politics seems like poor method for effecting change, and that energy and effort would seem to be better directed elsewhere.

Last weekend, I sat down with a copy of The Illuminati Papers and read Arthur Hlavaty's review of the book. I spotted Hlavaty's remark that Part Five of the Conspiracy Digest interview provides an "Inspiring answer to those who believe that the political reality tunner is the important one," as it seemed to directly address what's bothering me.

It seems to me Arthur referred to this question and answer:

CD. As a conspiracy theorist, I certainly do not try to "define others as in control." Despite my wishes, whoever is in charge around here, it certainly isn't me! Don't we have to discover the realities of power before we are likely to be able to improve the situation?

WILSON: As Mong-Tse said, "A man must destroy himself before others can destroy him." Perhaps you put too much energy into resentment, anger, denunciation, and similar negative energy states, and don't have enough positive energy surplus to achieve your goals. Perhaps you are too inpatient and expect "freedom to drop into your lap as a fairy's gift," as Nietzsche said. Perhaps you are looking on too small a time scale to see the grand evolutionary pattern of higher consciousness and higher intelligence ever emerging. Perhaps you are too attached to the superficial and temporary, and regard each setback as a total defeat, without seeing that intelligence always wins in the long run. Copernicus couldn't publish in his lifetime, Bruno was burned at the stake, Galileo was condemned and placed under house arrest, etc., but the new astronomy finally triumphed over Catholic orthodoxy. Dr. Reich died in prison of a broken heart, because he believed that those who jailed him really were in control and, hence, saw himself as a victim of injustice. Dr. Leary stayed high (through a sentence nine times as high as Reich's) because he knew that, even in prison, even in the solitary-confinement cell at the bottom of the maximum building at Folsom, he was more in control than his persecutors. He knew that because his ideas were creating the future; whereas the gang who locked him up can't even control the present, which is, in fact, falling apart all around them.

As I said earlier, the path of intelligence is all hard work, low pay, and a high probability that the fanatics of all ideologies will gang up on you. If a person can't accept that cheerfully, he or she should give up such a dangerous occupation, and join one of the coalitions of true believers or Establishmentarians. If any of the conspiracies really are as all-powerful as you think, it certainly would be a wise choice to join them, if comfort or status are your main concerns. We i the SMI2LE organization accept that we are living on the Planet of the Apes and that, as Charles Fort said, it doesn't steam-engine until it comes steam-engine time. The stupidity, brutality and banditry around us are what one should expect on a primitive planet with low technology and only a few hundred years of science. (As Gurdjieff said, "Fairness? Decency? How can you expect fairness or decency on a planet of sleeping people?")

Frankly, I'd find life a bore if I wasn't playing for very high stakes in a very high-risk situation. We do have the chance, now, for Utopia and even for immortality. If we who see this opportunity aren't smart enough, adroit enough, and fast enough to seize the chance, then we don't deserve to initiate the next stage of evolution. In that case, the age of the mammalian predators isn't ending, and we are deluded visionaries seeing a future that can't happen yet. The order of nature is nothing to be angry about. Meanwhile, until they shovel me under, I still think our side is winning, and that the power brokers you worry about are a bunch of dying dinosaurs.

Wilson seems guilty of being inpatient himself when he suggested that by this time, the time I write these words, we might have immortality, be migrating to cities in space, etc., but I still suspect that in a little bit longer run, many of his ideas may win out.