I walked into this late... (back from a break) and couldn't figure this
post out (at least the writer's perspective which seemed contradictory
to me), but on Leary vs. Nader, say no more. Nader hands down. The
Leary in this post is entirely compatible with earth-destructive
globalizing consumer capitalism --which is pretty close to where I had
him pegged anyway. Kind of proves the compatibility of the
counter-culture's 'cultural politics' with the Reagan revolution, as
Mark Lilla argued in an interesting piece in the New York Review of
Books (May 14, '98 --find it on the web; title: "A Tale of Two
Reactions").
Ted Morgan
radman wrote:
>
> Timothy Leary VS. Ralph Nader
> 6/16/2001
> RecurveTD2@aol.com
>
> Greetings,
>
> I am writing this email to you because I think you will get the most
> enjoyment out of it. Last year, I remember a very big free-for-all
> of conspiracy theorists coming to the aid of one Timothy Leary. It
> seems that someone had once again dug up the story about his arrest
> back in the late 60s, or 70s, I don't really know. But I am sure you
> know what I am talking about. It was rumored that Leary spilled his
> guts to the Feds, selling out many of his counterculture brethren, so
> that he could get off. Many of you came forward to heap much praise
> onto Leary, and to denounce the rumors. No doubt, it would take
> something very big to drive a wedge between you and the late Mr.
> Leary. Well, here goes...
>
> Ralph Nader.
>
> Voting for Nader was the biggest fad to hit college campuses last
> year since Capri pants. Any hippie, environmentalist, anti-big
> business, antigovernment, or other counterculture big wig worth their
> salt voted for Nader in the 2000 election.
>
> As tens of thousands of wasted voters wasted their vote on Nader,
> they helped to pave the way for Bush to sneak into the White House.
> But, I am not going to get into that big mess, not know anyway. I am
> hear to talk about Ralph Nader. And I am here to talk about Timothy
> Leary. And here it is.
>
> Your beloved Tim Leary would never have voted for Nader in a million
> years.
>
> Here's my proof..
>
> Recently, I had the good fortune of getting my hands on an old hippie
> magazine called "Head Magazine." This fine issue which I have is the
> NOV/DEC issue from 1976. Although the magazine was in terrible
> shape, I was still able the read the enclosed interview with Timothy
> Leary. The interview was conducted by one Allan Earle. Now, I won't
> bore you with the many subjects that were discussed in this
> interview. They talked about peace, love, LSD, blah blah blah. The
> usual stuff.
>
> What I want you to see, is the part of the interview that I have
> retyped below.
>
> Earle: "You don't foresee the possibility that we'll each other up
> before your visions materialize?
>
> Leary: I think the chances are less than one percent that we'll blow
> each other up. However, if we don't get things moving, if we don't
> migrate into space, you're going to have an anthill, an insect nest-
> like place. There's going to be more and more people. There's not
> enough energy, or material resources on this planet. And Ralph
> Nader, who is the biggest insect or monster of all, is an example of
> what our world's going to be like if we don't get our asses out of
> here.
>
> Earle: Why Ralph Nader?
>
> Leary: OK, Ralph Nader thinks our cars should be small, weak, drab,
> and slow. That's because Ralph Nader is drab, weak, and slow. Ralph
> Nader wants to put limits and there can be no limits. It's the
> genetic code's message. The message of evolution is expand, exploit,
> go faster,go farther, get higher, move out in every direction with
> more energy and power. And Ralph Nader would have us busted for
> cosmetics and cigarette smoking. I don't want to be too hard on
> Ralph Nader, I use him as the prophet or the guru of safety and
> security. Risk is the key to evolution, and that's what I am talking
> about."
>
> So, tell me. Who do you love? Leary or Nader? Because it is
> obvious to me how Leary felt about the man he called a "monster."
> And the next time you go ragging on Bush about his pro-oil agenda.
> Just remember these handy tips:
>
> When Bush talks about digging for oil in Alaska, remember what Leary
> would say,
> "The message of evolution to expand." "Risk is the key to evolution."
>
> When you get all teary eyed over gas-gluzzing SUVs, remember what
> Leary sez,
> "The message of evolution is to go faster." "There can be no limits."
>
> Oh yes, one last little nugget from you good pal, Tim Leary. Here is
> what he thinks of your beloved marijuana..
>
> "I think that marijuana makes you stupid but sensual. I've watched
> many of my friends and loved ones become more erotic and dumber--just
> going around with a glazed expression on their faces from their last
> orgasms to the next--and found them really quite boring. It was a
> great tragedy in my life that this happened to me personally. You're
> trying to get me to endorse drugs aren't you?"
>
> I just want to say, that I totally disagree with everything that
> Timothy Leary stands for. His idiotic idea of trashing this planet,
> then flying off into space only proves what a lunatic he was. While
> you blindly throw yourself onto any bombs thrown at his lasting
> image, I have been reading the facts. And the fact is that Timothy
> Leary would probably be a big Bush supporter. And would want us to
> bathe ourselves in oil, then drive our huge SUVs through the rain
> forrest, killing anything that got in our way. And why? Because
> it's evolution! It's genetic! We should slash and burn the earth!
> Then as he so stupidly put it, get our asses into space! What a
> lovely philosophy.
>
> I realize, that in today's counterculture, we do not have the huge
> mega-stars (Like Abbie Hoffman) to help lead us. We only have so
> called "leaders" who are here one day, then driving off in a SUV the
> next. People today love to wear their beliefs on their sleeves.
> People announce that they are against the WTO with great pride and
> arrogance. But, ask those same people what WTO stands for, or what
> they suggest is a better alternative, and you would see a lot of
> glassy eyed stares glaring back at you. We love to hoot and holler,
> and throw rocks at Star Bucks windows, but we still accomplish
> nothing. We love to kick up a big shit storm and burn stuff to the
> ground, but no one is willing to stick around and build something
> better in it's place.
>
> They run in, throw a few rocks, yell a few select chants, then we all
> go running home to our brightly lit homes, and DVD players, and
> SUVs. We all hate big-business, but damn if we don't love to buy buy
> buy!
>
> The whole point of this email is to serve as a warning and hopefully
> a wake up call.
>
> Just because Leary lived during the 60s, and was a well-known figure,
> does not mean that you knew all about him, and should obey his every
> word. Don't follow the mob. Even if that mob is made up of the
> coolest and best dressed people you have every known. Just because
> someone or something is big and shiny and looks nice, does not mean
> that it is worth your love. Even if everyone on earth tells you that
> it is. Leary included.
>
> Hugs and Kisses,
>
> Jeremy Bridges
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jul 26 2001 - 20:58:37 EDT