“I am awake only in what i love & desire to the point of terror -- everything else is just shrouded furniture, quotidian anaesthesia, shit-for-brains, sub-reptilian ennui of totalitarian regimes, banal censorship & useless pain ...”
― Hakim Bey
I will have to do a thread on Hakim Bey. His pirate governance model might be the real governance we can trust. He was associated with Robert Anton Wilson and at the very least we can fantasize along with his travels.
"Hans Ulrich Obrist: To begin at the beginning, how did you start writing?
Hakim Bey: I always wanted to be a writer, an artist, or possibly a cartoonist. Or a pirate. Those were my ambitions. But I didn’t have enough talent for cartooning. And I’ve discovered that art is very hard to do when you’re not sitting in one place. I don’t know if everybody finds this to be true. But when I took up a life of travel in the 1960s, I gave up art because writing is so much easier to do when you’re traveling. But I always felt equally called to all of these things. It’s a question of fate. Fate made me a writer more than anything else.
HUO: And how did you begin traveling?
HB: Well, when I was a child I was of course fascinated by adventure stories, figures like Richard Halliburton and other world travelers who wrote books for children, and National Geographic magazine—I inherited a whole closet full of National Geographic issues going back to 1911 from a friend. And then when I grew up, I became interested in Eastern Mysticism, the way everybody began to be in the 1960s. I specifically wondered whether Sufism was still a living reality or whether it was just something in books. There was no way of telling at that time. There were no Sufis practicing in America, or at least none that we could discover. I was a conscientious objector during the Vietnam War, and then we had May ’68, and that revolution failed. It clearly wasn’t going to happen. So I decided to make my trip to the East and discover whether Sufism was a living reality or not. And, of course, it turned out that it was. And so were a lot of other things that I hadn’t even anticipated, like tantric Hinduism, which I also became fascinated by while I was in India. So that all lasted from 1968 to 1980 or ‘81, when I went to Southeast Asia. I also went to Indonesia for a short, but very influential, trip. And after 1970 I lived in Iran, where I wrote criticism for the Shiraz Festival of the Arts. That’s how I got to meet Peter Brook and Robert Wilson and all the people that I later worked with or was influenced by. I also met an Indonesian artist named Sardono Kusumo, who I later found again in Jakarta when I was traveling in Southeast Asia. He gave me the names and addresses of all these uncles everywhere in Java who were all involved in dance, puppetry, or mysticism; a fantastic family. So I traveled around Java from uncle to uncle, and performance to performance. And they have a special kind of mysticism there called Kebatinan, which is kind of like Sufism but not quite. It’s different, and it would take a long time to explain why.
HUO: In 1974 and ‘75 you were part of the Shiraz Festival of the Arts, and you were also Director of the English Language Publication at the Imperial Iranian Academy of Philosophy in Tehran, where you published books by Henry Corbin, S. H. Nasr, etc.
HB: Well, it’s weird. When I was living in Iran, I was studying Sufism, and I needed a job. So I started working for the Shiraz Festival of Arts and freelanced for local newspapers. Everybody needed something written in English in those days. Pay was very good. And eventually this idea of forming an academy came up. But it involved taking money—not necessarily from the government, but from the Empress, the Shahbanu, the wife of the Shah. She was the patron of this organization. And as it turns out, she was—I should say is, as she’s still with us—a very intelligent and sensitive woman, quite aware of the ironies of her position. Basically her husband had told her that she could take care of charity and the arts. So she said, “Well, by God, I’ll do it,” and she did. And she was quite an activist. I have a lot of admiration for her, even though, as you know, the regime itself deserves no admiration at all. Incidentally, his family hated her, but let’s not go into that. In any case, she was the patron, and she set up this academy, and it was all very idealistic. People could come and study without taking a degree, or if their home institution wanted to give them credit that was fine too. We would sign their letters and so forth. But basically it was meant to be a pure research and teaching institution, not degree-granting, much more along the lines of traditional Iranian education in the madrasa, that style. She gave us a beautiful building in downtown Tehran, and we had it fixed up. It was quite beautiful and quite comfortable. And we had a budget to buy a library and a budget to publish and so forth and so on. It was all, you might say, at the expense of a very unpleasant political reality that I was kind of naïve about at the time. But I think what we ended up doing was fairly valuable and interesting. I mean, just the support that we gave to people like Henry Corbin was fairly important for world thinking, I believe. And even though we were in a kind of far away place, people came to visit us. When we invited somebody, they would become extremely curious. Even Ivan Illich, who certainly was no monarchist—quite the opposite! But when I got to know him I asked, “How come you accepted our invitation? How come you accepted this invitation from the Empress of Iran? It’s not like you.” And his answer was: “I was just too curious!”
HUO: At the moment I’m editing a monograph on Monir Shahroudy Farman farmaian, the pioneering Iranian artist, and she has been telling me something similar, that in the visual arts there was this moment in Iran—Andy Warhol went there…
HB: Money certainly had something to do with it. I mean, the Shiraz Festival of Arts offered so much money that every good left-wing artist in the world couldn’t say no, with a few noble exceptions, I would say. There were some who didn’t come. The Living Theatre never came. John Cage, sure, he came. So did Merce Cunningham, Karlheinz Stockhausen, the list goes on. Everybody came because there was incredible money. They would tell Stockhausen, “Come and put on every piece of music you ever wrote, in a beautiful town in the desert of Iran with minarets and domes and camels in the courtyard.” And how can anyone resist this!"
Last edited by R_Baird; 03-04-2016 at 11:42 PM.
If you find his words too high-falutin' you could attempt to say the same things in fewer words, and then you might find his words are efficient and jam-packed with content such that you might read a whole book and not get what he say in a paragraph or two. His acronym TAZ is for Temporary Autonomous Zone. I would call this a very thought provoking "I take responsibility for 'what IS'" state. When he says Wilson has a fantasy Illuminati playfulness, you might check into Wilson and see he admits he does not know that much about them, and yet he would be one by my definition.
I would love to discuss Jean Lafitte and why he founded or funded communism with Bey. I think he would grasp the teleological Sephardic hermeticism of the Lafittes and their entelechy of spiritual gnosis which allowed their probable progeny to hijack the US government as Colonel House.
"Here's a hypothesis:
History (small "h") is a kind of chaos. Within history are embedded other chaoses, if one can use such a term. Late "democratic" Capitalism is one such chaos, in which power and control have become exceedingly subtle, almost alchemical, hard to locate, perhaps impossible to define. The writings of Debord, Foucault, and Baudrillard, have broached the possibility that "power itself" is empty, "disappeared", and been replaced by the mere violence of the spectacle. But if history is a chaos the spectacle can only be seen as a "strange attractor" rather than as some sort of causative force. The idea of "force" belongs to classical physics and has little role to play in chaos theory. And if capitalism is a chaos and the spectacle is a strange attractor, then the metaphor can be extended: -- we can say that the "Republican" conspiracies are like the actual patterns generated by the strange attractor. The conspiracies are not causal- but, then, nothing is really "causal" in the old classical sense of the term.
One useful way in which we can, so to speak, see into the chaos that is history, is to look through the lens provided by the conspiracies. We may or may not believe that conspiracies are mere simulations of power, mere symptoms of the spectacle-but we cannot dismiss them as empty of all significance.
Rather than speak of conspiracy theory we might instead try to construct a poetics of conspiracy. A conspiracy would be treated like an aesthetic construct, or a language-construct, and could be analyzed like a text. Robert Anton Wilson has done this with his vast and playful "Illuminati" fantasy. We can also use conspiracy theory as a weapon of agit-prop. Conspiracies of "power" make use of sheer disinformation; the least we can do in retaliation is to trace it to its source. Indeed we should avoid the mystique of conspiracy theory, the fantasy that conspiracy is all-powerful. Conspiracies can be blown. They can even be defeated. But I fear they cannot simply be ignored. The refusal to admit any validity to conspiracy theory is itself a form of spectacular delusion-blind belief in the liberal, rational, daylight world in which we all have "rights", in which "the system works", in which "democratic values will prevail in the long run" because Nature has so decreed it.
History is a big mess. Maybe conspiracies don't work. But we have to act as if they do work. In fact the non-authoritarian movement not only needs its own conspiracy theory, it needs its own conspiracies. Whether they "work" or not. Either we all breath together or we each suffocate on our own. "They " are conspiring, never doubt it, those sinister clowns. Not only should we arm ourselves with conspiracy theory, we should have our own conspiracies-our TAZ's-our ontological guerilla commando hit-squads-our Poetic Terrorists- our chaos cabals-our secret societies. Proudhor said so. Bakunin said so. Malatesta said so. It's anarchist tradition."
Yes, many people including Jefferson and Marshall McLuhan have pinned the tail on the Donkey while also being complicit with the Powers that Be. So sayeth every idiot and conspiracy theorists. And I cannot say that any side is exclusively using every or any technique at any point in time. So how do I differ from any normal conspiracy fool? Bey tells us his friend Wilson (OTO and Crowleyan) plays with Illuminati fantasies. I can say he does the same with Assassin fantasies and their involvement with McKenna and the Deoxy website to Esalen groups with Huxley all make for good guessing at any combination of devil worshipping Discordian intrigue including NLP/MKUltra and Jesuits.
Any academic on the payroll is a PTB to some people. Anyone who is blamed by the PTB and their minions, is not to be blamed according to many people. It sure is a mess, and it is intentionally created by both sides since the Cathar experiment of the Illuminized ones failed to unite all religions and re-establish humanism under the flag of Jesus (Iesa and the Brotherhood of Man). And then you see me saying Jefferson was an Illuminati who owed the Rothschilds money just like Churchill's father. Yes, I can paint a better factual picture of the PTB than most conspiracy people. I can make excuses or rationalize why these things happen without adopted ad hominems or blaming the likes of Satan. I know what Luciferianism is and the history of all sides to the battle over our souls.
But you say you have your sources, and they say clear and simple things you can verify were said or done which prove it is all true, but you find yourself in bed with Hitler or devil-worshipping pulpit-pounders like Jack Chick and misogynists like Makow. Yes, Fritz Springmeier has some facts and so does Henry, and you do not like my spiritual inclinations that rail against some deity or boogeyman.
You have not read my work and do not know history as I do, and people like Hakim Bey, you say we are sophisticated disinfo agents and do not even accept or know each other anyway. I can tear his friends up and they can tear me apart you say. I will even acknowledge there have been times when people like Adam Weishaupt have engaged in the same behavior that Bonesmen or Bohemian Grove people do. You are justifiably disgusted with that and you shut down or decide it is all too much, and throw up your hands. I understand and I cannot even suggest you waste your life doing what will take a decade to research.
Last edited by R_Baird; 03-06-2016 at 11:53 AM.
When the world has more philosophers, artists and poet-terrorists (Bairds) and fewer militarists and priests; I propose there will be hope. That Hope will reign over nature and society with a beneficence beyond the imagination and intuition of those who insist they know they are conservative or liberal, green or groupie. Pet Projects get in each other's way and resources of every sort sit idly by waiting for traction and the motivation of the masses.
As long as it is 'cool' to go along with buzz words or clichéd nomenclatured jargon appearing to have a professional attitude rather than questing and questioning or interrogating as the first stage of communication (Per Socrates) we are engaging in mental masturbation and nothing changes. How can one learn through puking up answers rather than designing integrated questions?
As Bucky Fuller said - "Whenever I find myself complacent in knowing, I bite my tongue." It hurts to learn and as a society we have lost the joy of learning due to politically correct idioms of caring. Kurt Vonnegut coined the word 'carass' to capture the 'need' people have to appear to care for each other in a morass. Real caring is anything but the words you hear being thrown or bandied about as people hug and proclaim they are BFFs and admirers or insist they know what empathy and love means.
Teilhard de Chardin said we need a "Conspiracy of Love". Sounds awesome eh?!
To actually conspire requires knowing what other people think and feel. To make his one perfect thought or Template might take seven people with each of Howard Gardner's separate learning styles. Each one of us has all seven styles of learning I think, but we lose our ability to even use the strongest one when we do not use the others and instead we are forced to educate ourselves in institutions focused upon re-gurgitating tired and often false axioms. We aren't teaching people to learn if we are not teaching poet-terrorists who embrace the "waves of the marvellous" that V. Hugo said reading (Really reading) Shakespeare (a great poet terrorist or Bard) could enable.
Hakim Bey has spiritual Sufism and ecumenical intellectual ability we all could aspire to. His Ontological Anarchy has implications beyond truth and KNOWingnesses. He and I might agree we cannot know for certain yet, if we made a perfect thought or Template I am pretty sure we would say we had truth in that one area.
"In other words, if it is “true” it can not be the “whole truth”. It remains incomplete. It remains uncertain. Gödel’s theorem is a mathematical proof of the assertions of philosophers like Pyrrho and Hegel that there are no self-evident truths because everything must be proven by everything else and can not be completely proven. Gödel’s theorem stunned the field of mathematics and has huge implications in all fields. Being an abstract science, mathematics was supposed to be free of the uncertainty of the physical sciences. That 1 + 1 = 2 is supposed to be true, no matter how fallible our knowledge and perception is. But Godel comes along and proves that nothing can be proven in mathematics!
So there you have it. In philosophy, the physical sciences and pure mathematics, nothing is certain and you are free!"
Are you a God?" they asked the Buddha.
"No," he replied.
"Are you an angel, then?"
"Then what are you?"
Replied the Buddha, "I am awake."
Freedom from, or freedom TO
I seek for wisdom and what to DO
Just another rip off or partial understanding of hermetic teachings - but here it is.
Last edited by R_Baird; 03-05-2016 at 02:55 PM.
In all the neo-hermetic appropriation of the same philosophies throughout the last two millennia we must keep racist ideology uppermost if we are to actually be humanists or secular humanists in the Jeffersonian mode. Yes, Bey, Wilson and Mc Kenna as well as Aldous are just neo-alchemists despite some who say they are alchemists in the case of Huxley and Terrance McKenna.
Jean Lafitte was a pirate and alchemist or hermeticist (AKA humanist). Bey needs to stay closer to his childhood fantasies perhaps. Lafitte funded Marx and Engels on the way to attempting a true communism. All we can apparently hope for is that Esalen or some similar organization will be capable of making mankind free of religion and mind control as Lafitte intended. But the word Marxism is not going to be useful to that end. Communism never existed in any nation but it too is a useless word now.
"Marxism and Secular Humanism: An Excavation and Reappraisal
Edwin A. Roberts
The special issue of Nature, Society and Thought (NST), “Religion and Freethought” (volume 9, no. 2 ), is a commendable contribution to a dialogue long overdue within progressive intellectual circles. As a longtime active member of the skeptical and secular humanist community, on the one hand, and at the same time a proponent of dialectics and historical materialism on the other, I have often been frustrated by the lack of engagement between the two traditions. In my experience, a general disrespect exists among secularists for Marxism, which often is dismissed as a dogmatic or outmoded belief system similar to religion.1 I have also witnessed a general disinterest on the part of Marxists for secularism, which often is seen as providing nothing new or interesting to their own perspectives. In many ways both of these attitudes are the result of misunderstandings about what these two traditions actually stand for, and I believe that a more active dialogue between the two schools is necessary.2 As a first step in this direction, the contributions in the NST special issue are quite encouraging.
Two important articles are Norm R. Allen Jr.’s critical intervention into the important topic of religion and Black intellectuals and Lotz and Gold’s discussion of religion and the new physics (1996). As an African American, I appreciate Allen’s comments on Stephen Carter and Louis Farrakhan, which are insightful and long overdue in this context. Also commendable is his sharp analysis of the vacuity and confusion in the theology espoused by many Black intellectuals. Lotz and Gold’s review essay on the new “God-seeking” in cosmology and physics is important because it deals with an issue of pressing concern to many skeptics and humanists irrationalism within science itself. Their essay helps to show that such irrationalism cannot be fought simply by reference to extreme doubt or pure empiricism. Lotz and Gold make a good case for the claim that only a critical methodology like dialectics can enlighten us on how contradictory patterns of stability and disequilibrium can coexist in nature without encouraging irrationalist speculation. The most important essay in the collection is “The Challenge of Explanation” by Fred Whitehead (1996). It is stimulating, informed, and thoughtful on many levels, and sets a tone indicative of the direction I believe this debate should take. As an attempt to establish a firm groundwork for a Marxist engagement with the issue of religion and freethought, however, his discussion is lacking or incomplete, I believe, in crucial areas. I propose to continue this discussion by addressing some of the important weaknesses, points of contention, and possible areas of convergence existing between Marxism and secular humanism.
In what follows, I shall excavate much valuable but largely forgotten or overlooked material concerning this issue, and reappraise the chances of developing a better understanding among adherents of both schools. Four areas need greater investigation in order to advance our understanding of the relationship between Marxism and secular humanism. The first is the critical analysis of scientific explanations of religious phenomena. The second is a more through evaluation of specifically Marxist studies and critiques of religion. The third concerns the clarification of the role atheism plays in understanding the ontological, epistemological, and historical status of religion. The fourth is the reevaluation of the history of humanist and Marxist encounters, with a focus on the reasons why a convergence between these two essentially progressive intellectual trends has, to this point, proved so illusive."
Last edited by R_Baird; 03-05-2016 at 04:47 PM.
There are many great hermetic thinkers and finding so many in one place always attracted me to Esalen, even before I met Dottie. She was a top psychometrist for the California Department of Education and her story is a fantastic one I recount here. She was involved at Esalen and I should have gone with her, and met people like Joseph Campbell or his sometimes housemate Alan Watts who so many people told me I sounded like. The involvement with Stanford University on issues like globalization makes them a hotbed for the lunatic conspiracy types who never really study anything. I have dealt with this under the thread on Esalen and Eranos where many more alchemists and hermetic humanists were to be found. The link that follows is focused on psychedelics and it could just as easily mentioned the occult when you consider Wilson being OTO and everything I just said. That of course, also makes them a target for lunatics inside the Christian community who does not know Jesus or what his family studied and continues to study and learn about.
But the Discordian aspect of this is bothersome to me. I really do not like playing both ends against the middle despite what I like reading from Bey and Wilson. I also have been compared to T. McKenna and I probably would like him, but I never have experimented with drugs like he does. His work would be better without it, popularity is not something to be sought after if one has true integrity and finds that is what they are doing rather than great scholarship. None of the Magian Laws allows this kind of pursuit called Sophism by Socrates.
Then we get to sexuality and deviant behavior. I have absolutely no issue if two adults like Huxley and T. H. Lawrence seek to develop a relationship of trust including sexuality. I can even make an argument for some degree of training in spiritual aspects of advanced disciplines through Bhakti with younger people such as Da Vinci may have done with Salai or Aristotle with Alexander. Presumably the latter included a parental involvement, but it appears this is not the case with some of the people Bey/Wilson is intellectually supporting. In this regard you can count me as a militant antagonist!!
"There is an American anarchist named Peter Lamborn Wilson, who uses the pseudonym Hakim Bey for some of his writings. He is best known as the author of TAZ: The Temporary Autonomous Zone. I have never considered his work to be serious anarchist thought, but many others take a different view, and his work is available in at least a dozen languages. The issue I find worth discussing is that for over twenty years, Wilson/Bey has used anarchist arguments to promote pedophilia in his published work. This is no secret in North America, although his anarchist career is not in jeopardy.
Born in 1945 at New York, Wilson became involved in a revival of “Moorish Orthodoxy” at age twenty. He has a trust fund by way of his affluent family, and traveled to the Middle East (especially Iran) from around 1970 until 1978, and then from around 1980 through the mid-1990’s, he wrote poetry, prose fiction, philosophy, and literary criticism conjoining pedophile sexuality with anarchistic ideology and with Islamic mysticism. His venues include the NAMBLA Bulletin (organ of paedophile organisation the North American Man-Boy Love Association), Gayme, and the Acolyte Reader. Books by Bey on this thread have been published by Semiotext(e), Autonomedia, NAMBLA, Entimos Press, and Coltsfoot Press.
Hakim Bey has been recommended in many American media outlets, including “All Things Considered” in 2003, on National Public Radio. On 28 October 2004, Europe’s ARTE television network, on the show “Tracks,” broadcast an interview with Hakim Bey to tens of millions of viewers in both French and German. When I learned of the TV interview, I contacted ARTE and the small company that made the film. Both companies carefully acknowledged their error and regret. They intended no harm, but as a result of this sort of favorable exposure, Anarchist Pedophilia becomes more popular, its star philosopher more famous. Every December for at least ten years, New York’s Libertarian Book Club has sponsored Peter Lamborn Wilson’s annual “Chaos Day Lecture.” He now lives in New Paltz, New York, north of the city. I have met him on a few occasions, and I even arranged a lecture by him when I was new to anarchism, around 1992. In early November 2004 he led a workshop at a conference on secession in Vermont, where leading radicals of that state gave lectures against the Bush government.
Within the anarchist world, there has been a pedophile thread in evidence for over a century. The journal Der Eigene published at Berlin from 1896 until 1933, was pedophile and anarchist, with contributions from Adolf Brand, Edwin Bab, Elisar von Kuppfer, and John Henry Mackay under the pseudonym “Sagitta.” Mackay was a respected anarchist writer, and some of his books (both pedophile and not) are in print today in several languages. Outside of his own circle, however, the anarchists of his time were unaware of his “secret life.”
The anarchist-pedophile thread has never disappeared, but remained discreet until the 1970’s, when pedophiles emerged alongside the struggle homosexual rights, using friendly terms like “Pederasty” and “Man-Boy Love” for their ideas. Almost all gay and lesbian groups firmly disavow any connection between their activism and pedophile tendencies. Pedophilia is a separate issue, and it occurs just as frequently among heterosexuals as it does among homosexual people. As far as the question itself is concerned, let’s walk through what is obvious: knowledge is power, and children know almost nothing. People who know so little cannot give meaningful consent and are extremely vulnerable to exploitation. The use of anarchist philosophy to reverse this is opportunistic.
However, the distinction is not so clear among anarchists (at least in the United States), and Hakim Bey is very clearly a guru among those who understand sex between adults and children as a legitimate lifestyle choice, rather than as sexual abuse. When the editors of anarchist magazines have been approached with articles about Bey’s pedophile side, there has been an almost uniform resistance to any discussion. This has been explained in different ways, including that the issue was imaginary; that it would be too controversial and disruptive; that it was no more than a personal attack, and therefore without merit. The internet has been more open to the subject, but the general response is consistent. Anarchists leap into a debate about censorship when no censorship was suggested; they are generally unable to discuss the ethical ramifications of Bey’s use of anarchism to justify something that is exploitative and predatory; they often already know that Bey is pedophile, never deny it; some readers appreciate that the discussion of Bey’s pedophilia is exactly as relevant to discussing his work as any other part of the subject. The majority take the time to state their disapproval of pedophile sexual abuse, but the point does not occur in their minds as automatically as would the disapproval of other social problems, such as sexism or racism. Sometimes the matter needs to be explained. This writer has been in the awkward position of defending freedom of the Press, but then being unable to discuss literature that’s already printed. There seems to be a vaguely-defined code of silence, preserving the safe space for pedophile culture while pretending that it’s not there, mostly by means of the volunteer labor of anarchists.
The former curator of one anarchist archive acquired pedophile periodicals, presumably because Hakim Bey was writing anarchist literature in the pages of the magazines. The Labadie Collection at University of Michigan has carried the NAMBLA Bulletin and a few similar titles since the 1980’s. Anarchist bookstores in the US almost always carry Hakim Bey titles, but not the ones which can be understood only as pedophile material. One exception is Bound Together Books (San Francisco), which carries the Prison Diaries of NAMBLA Members and other NAMBLA literature. One member of the collective was quoted as saying that “to force the issue would destroy the bookstore.” I do not condemn the preservation of any literature, but I do observe that the anarchist scene provides venue and distribution for pedo-anarchist material and simultaneously refuses to examine the phenomenon.
In this writer’s opinion, the pedophile writings of Hakim Bey indicate a general deceit in his philosophy, and are evidence that his concept of the Temporary Autonomous Zone is inspired by opportunism, not by good will. He presents arguments for human freedom while actually wishing to create situations where he is free to put his deranged sexuality into practice. This is an abuse of anarchism, and new readers of Hakim Bey should take the pedophilia into consideration before being led “down the garden path.” Once the awkwardness has been overcome and we look at pedophilia as an item for discussion, we will make very short work of it. All attempts to justify the practice are morally idiotic, and the TAZ is no more than a “Neverland” on the anarchist landscape.
January 18, 2005
Subject : Peter Lamborn Wilson
Peter Lamborn Wilson, a.k.a. "Hakim Bey" founder of Semiotext(e) magazine (now known as Autonomedia). Student of Sufi philosophy through Walid al-Taha a.k.a Warren Tartaglia. Studied heretical Islam in Iran, North Africa in the late 1960's. Traveled in India and Asia. [Disinfopedia]
Pseudonym: Hakim Bey (catalog of Library of Congress, Washington DC)
Founder of the "Moorish Orthodox Radio Crusade" on WBAI (95.5 FM, NYC, Pacifica Radio). [Disinfopedia]
In 1965 a “brilliant junky 350-pound jazz saxophonist poet” named Walid al-Taha introduced him to the Moorish Orthodox Church, after which he disappeared into far-flung wanderings across the Muslim world soaking in all the classical texts and tattered heretics and local scenes he could find. In Iran he applied for a two-week visa and stayed for seven years, leaving when the Revolution came. He has become something of a living myth, an Old Man on the Mountain for numerous intellectual circles. Peter has written scores of books and articles (sometimes going by Hakim Bey), hosted his own radio show, “Moorish Orthodox Radio Crusade,” and was a founding member of the Ibn ‘Arabi Society (he remains an honorary fellow). [Sakhra-l'Assal, 2002]"
Last edited by R_Baird; 03-27-2016 at 02:56 PM.
Tags for this Thread