"Thelemites for Trump" Facebook page
-
@Takamba said
"
Man has the right to hire who he wants
Man has the right to make cakes for who he wants
Man has the right refuse those who would refuse him"Man has the right to love as he will
Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights. -
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"
@Takamba said
"
Man has the right to hire who he wants
Man has the right to make cakes for who he wants
Man has the right refuse those who would refuse him"Man has the right to love as he will
Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights."Yes. Unfortunately, the simple version (you reference) isn't understandable to the majority of people, hence why I had to break it down.
Man has the right to love as he will equals "hire who he wants," "make cakes" (or not, it is no odds), ETC.
Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights = "refuse those who would refuse them."For the other readers in this forum, let's discuss the difference between being aggressive and being assertive (simply).
Being aggressive is declaring what you believe you have the right to no matter who else may be diminished by your "rights". Being assertive is declaring what you believe are your rights whilst also recognizing the fair rights of others. Liber OZ is pure assertiveness, whilst some would attempt to use it aggressively. Be cautious of that.
-
Right, there's a difference between asserting one's own rights, and hypocritically using the asserting of one's own rights as an excuse to infringe on the rights of others.
The way I read Liber Oz, my right to live and exist is dependent on my non-interference with the rights of others. If I say I support Liber Oz, I'm saying that someone has the right to kill me if I would thwart their rights.That's what I'm cautious about.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"if I would thwart their rights."
That's not actually possible, though within the framework of the apparent it happens. The flower blossoms because it receives the adequate love of the Sun, but it sometimes fails to recognize that it itself is an adaptation or expression of or one with that Sun. It is concerned with its floweriness as opposed to its role as a blessing of the Sun.
-
Yes, it is quite possible to thwart a person's rights.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"Yes, it is quite possible to thwart a person's rights."
If one lives in a deterministic world, it is not possible to thwart a person's rights; but in the framework of Liber OZ, this isn't exactly necessary.
"Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights."
"those who would thwart these rights"
"those who would" They merely have to will it, want it, wish it, would it or should it to make them enemies of Will.
"these rights" These rights specific in Liber OZ -
If can preface any claim.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"Yes, it is quite possible to thwart a person's rights."
Yes, that's precisely what I said:
"within the framework of the apparent it happens."And by saying it how I did I most carefully excluded all possibility for mixing the planes. When it comes to the planes we must heed The Offspring when they say "you gotta keep 'em separated!" Now, could you thwart the rights of an Ipsissimus? DOES not that term refer to "that which is most itself"? Is that not our inmost expression? How would you even approach such a thing?
Away, far off, but never too far,
From within us shines the light of the Silver Star.And if I step on a flower the Sun will be fine.
-
The current plane is a discussion of "Thelemites" for Trump.
Discussion of whether one can thwart the will of an Ipsissimus seems off topic to me. Why would we have a Liber Oz if it doesn't really matter and we can't truly thwart each other's wills or harm each other?
Back to the topic:
The measure of success politically is: taking care of basic human needs, like food and shelter.
You vote correctly and you get health insurance and education, and increased longevity and prosperity. Which all lead to more people to the great work.
You vote wrong and you get huge wealth gaps. And some guy trying to peddle you a zen koan that says if you were more enlightened it wouldn't hurt so bad.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"The current plane is a discussion of "Thelemites" for Trump.
Discussion of whether one can thwart the will of an Ipsissimus seems off topic to me."
I only brought it up because it was related to where my original post in this thread was.
"You vote wrong and you get huge wealth gaps. And some guy trying to peddle you a zen koan that says if you were more enlightened it wouldn't hurt so bad."
Somewhere strange, somewhere new
There is only a part of you
That stands at the threshold of a golden dawn:
But you close your eyes
You believe the dream, you
Stare into there,
Though he says you must deal with it,
He never said otherwise,
And the trees grow,
The world goes on withon and without and withor our freedom
Because that love is true... -
According to Aleister Crowley, democracy isn't Thelemic in the first place: forcing people to participate in things just because an alleged majority says you have to. At least, according to Aleister Crowley - but never mind him, he's just a Class B kinda guy and product of his times (sexism, drugs, racism, dwarfism, those topics et al).
Vote the right way and the government gets out of people's way.
Vote the wrong way and the government is your mom and dad and knows better than you "and we're here to help."
-
A country can be any form of government, and still promote conditions suitable to Thelema. It could even hypothetically be a benevolent dictatorship, I guess. Though that's not commonly how dictatorships work, and there's still the issue of who replaces the benevolent dictator when they die.
There are a lot of values that a government can help promote, including prosperity, freedom for artistic freedom, religious freedom. And the US does pretty good in some respects. Though race and gender influence our job, wealth, and survival prospects too much and our pollution threatens to make the planet uninhabitable.
I'm not sure what the '80s talk radio bit about "mom and dad" government corresponds to in the real world, or what seeekinghga's comments been. But thank you both for showing to demonstrate fluffy peddlers of soothing koans for the politically disenfranchised.
Libertarianism is just nonsense designed to take away protections from the individual in favor of big corporations. But you're welcome to cite an example of a libertarian country that you think creates conditions that promote Thelema.
-
"We're with Thelema, and we're here to help."
Seriously? You've come to this incarnation to interfere with the Wills of individuals simply so you can sleep snuggly believing you've done no harm?
Even Jim has stated that not everyone's will is to be healed.
ah, but he's a Class B guy also, so maybe it doesn't count.
Whatever fits.
-
Every man and every woman is a star.
(Not just old, white, rich people and their corporations.)
Ok, so far we have (1) thought-ending scare blips about nanny state (2) attacks on my purpose in life and (3) misleading appeals to authority figures.
I usually see much better from you, Takamba.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"Every man and every woman is a star.
(Not just old, white, rich people and their corporations.)
Ok, so far we have (1) thought-ending scare blips about nanny state (2) attacks on my purpose in life and (3) misleading appeals to authority figures.
I usually see much better from you, Takamba."
Declaring "logical fallacy" in a muted debate seems a little self-taught by the Internet's trends to me. Saying that a person we know has here in these very forums stated without reservation that a person has to request the healing of the A.'.A.'.'s light and that not even that is guaranteed because it might be at odds with their Will (capital W version there for reasons) is not an appeal to authority, it's citing a source. Or are you saying Jim is not an authority and should be regarded as false in any premise attached to him?
I'm middle-aged, white, and living in a vehicle because I'm a beach bum.
so that was wrong too.Just because you don't like my opinion doesn't mean it is the wrong opinion to have and that it is not based on solid reasoning and long inspected ethical and moral questioning. Attacking my arguments with unsubstantiated word-smithing is fruitless. If you have information to support your claim that how you vote is based on your desire to expand the division of the classes and yet not once do you even acknowledge having read that I said it was the expansion of government powers, then say something. Insulting me personally does not score you debate points.
Point number 1: The Constitution exists to restrict government powers and rights.
Point number 2: Any responsibility you give to the government comes with the surrender of rights.Vote as ye will.
-
The old, rich, white, man was about the demographic Trump's policies are designed to support, not which ones you fit. I already knew yours.
I don't know what Jim's statements about requests for healing have to do with anything. What's misleading is pretending they somehow support your political opinions.
Despite your someone interesting 2 points, the constitution's first sentence contains its purpose:
"in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"
Maybe you could pick something measurable that you connect with making it easier for the most people to live their true wills, and describe how Trump has improved that metric?
So far the only bill he has signed is a tax bill, which gives 83% of tax cuts to the wealthiest 1% of the nation. It's an expansion of the class divide.
This ain't rocket science, no matter how much you want to spin the situation with mumbo jumbo. Trump's policies harm people, which hinders their ability to do the great work. It disproportionately harms women, non-whites, and the poor. I pray to Horus that we can eradicate his selfish, narcissistic, racist, sexist, fascist discourse from our politics within my lifetime, if not within yours.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"I'm not sure what the '80s talk radio bit about "mom and dad" government corresponds to in the real world, or what seeekinghga's comments been. But thank you both for showing to demonstrate fluffy peddlers of soothing koans for the politically disenfranchised."
I'll just say one thing more in this thread, then I promise you that I'm done. My first remark I made was a carelessness on my part. I'll admit that. I saw an opportunity to discuss a certain aspect of philosophy and went for it, completely ignorant of the politically charged agenda that this thread seems to be sizzling with. In no way was it my intention to say that "if life sucks then get more enlightened." And I'm pretty damn sure that at no point did I say anything which remotely resembles that admonishment, though people will extract what they want from the words of others. My wrongdoing is this thread is that I was off topic. It's a bad habit because on other forums I post on that's allowed with more leniency than it appears it is wanted here, which is fine. I apologize for my transgression and place myself at the mercy of the forum courts.
Bottom line. Our rights can be thwarted AND our rights can not be thwarted. It's dependent on one's perspective. That's all that I was implying, however poorly a job I did at doing so. It's right there in the very first sentence of my very first post in this thread. All of my talk of flowers and Suns and Ipsissimuses (sp?) was only for the sake of clarifying the philosophical implications of the first half of that sentence, I was not telling anyone what to do or what to be or what to think. Is it right to say that Liber Legis unfairly mocks the trevails of our lives because at one point it insists that "existence is pure joy" and that we are to "Remember" that?
Again, my apologies to Avshalom Binyamin and everyone else for [x:208u1qvn]going[/x:208u1qvn] being off topic and for that dreadful, horribly ill-conceived "poem" in my last post. It was simply never my intention to enter into a political debate. Shame on me for not pondering the title of this thread for more than a fraction of a second.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
-
"Politics" can mean almost anything - and the word often contains human psychologies battling it out over ideologies.
But "politics" also means something more administrative, a utility that society has to solve problems and administer solutions to commonly shared problems.
Sometimes, it is probably wise to put away any ideology, thelema or otherwise - if it interfers in solving real world problems that stare us in the face.
Did either Hillary or Trump come close to even reflecting my ideals? No, of course not. Hardly any candidate ever has.
An election is a practical choice which is more important than any ideology. How do we make this thing work? How do we get closer to having a more healthy society?
Democracy, for example - is inherently flawed (see 2016 election as recent example) yet as citizens, it is the only thing we have.
In 2016 we had a very very clear practical choice - and for many it was confused as an ideological choice. Ouch.
Now how would Thelema come in? In how we view ourselves in the world, and the world itself. We don't fear the collapse of the old order (sheesh who could deny that is not in full effect these days?).
We live in a time right now where while the old order is collapsing (including democracy) we have new emerging things that keep the "ideals" of the old order intact (for example openness and participatory) but can be updated to reflect a more efficient and "better" order. Cryptocurrency is one example of this, and of course the internet itself. Technology I believe is the central theme of the third chapter (this is only my interpretation) that is both collapsing the old and building the new.
-
Also, just a final thought of Liber Oz.
I always thought that line "the right to kill those who would..." was problematic, and for years suspected there was some hidden zen somewhere that I was missing.
Surely I don't have the right kill someone because I demand a salmon dinner and they refuse my request, and there are much better ways to solve a problem if someone is thwarting my rights than to kill them.
Then I did kinda get the joke - the contradiction that dangles like so much in Thelema and Crowlianity.
If you kill someone because you believe they are thwarting your rights, then by definition you are also thwarting all of their rights to do the same (independent if they are truly thwarting your "rights" or not) since you have extinguished their physical existence. So that extinguishes itself.
Also, if you are restricting your own will - then you're own thoughts are thwarting your rights, and verily and amen - kill those bloody thoughts with fire and vengeance, spit upon them and laugh at their misery.
-
It is very strange to me, this queasiness over Liber Oz.
Let's be clear: You don't "have" rights. The space of action you are allowed to move within by law is simply a part of the social order reproducing itself. Any OTHER rights you want to claim for yourself you will only get by demanding to be recognized, by through sheer force of will carving out a new space of action that might become permanent and universalized enough that it becomes part of a new reproducing order.
Any rights you are able to exercise right now are there because of historical reasons. The right to not be a serf exists because people have been ready to kill and be killed in order to secure that right.
There is absolutely no mystery in these lines, no hidden meaning. The right to kill means the right to kill. By retreating from this declaration you are taking complete comfort in the guaranteed permanence of the present order. One from which you will get a harsh awakening sooner or later. Even more odd is for a proclaimed Thelemite to take this position, someone supposedly striving to surpass this order in whatever way.
This feeling of unease looks to me little more than an expression of commonplace liberal pacifism. And liberal pacifism is always hypocritical - verbally extolling non-violence while practically defending a social order maintained by constant violence. This violence, by the way, is the secret guarantor of your rights as they stand, and it's a pretty crass way to maintain them at that.