"Thelemites for Trump" Facebook page
-
@Hermitas said
"Come on, Takamba, Av is saying the most relevant, practical stuff in this thread.
What are you suggesting instead?"
Victor is showing practical and relevant stuff. The word "most" in this case doesn't work as a "quantity" word because victors points are more in quantity (practical and relevant) and so, therefore, I have to believe your use of the word "most" is a qualitative descriptor, and opinion, or "fluff term" as understood in marketing.
Let's be practical. Decide we raise a civilization against violence, make them by design runaway or cower or simply ignore. Every so often there's a fluke birth. Kid can't seem to learn! Fucker is violent!
wham! your society is now down for the count. Gone. Wiped by the violence it preyed upon itself to wipe. Gone. Gone. Gone.
Practical? Relevant?
Gone. -
Look, when it comes to resisting tyrants... I'm good with it.
But the seemingly scandalous thing about Liber OZ is that it's not overtly limited to big, bad governmental threats where there would be a large consensus in justifying such an act of war.
It reads as if it is universally applicable, which.... I mean, you'd have to be a psychopath, but it does read as if it's universally applicable even to small scale situations like the maladjusted teen who isn't allowed to "dress as he wills" at school. That, of course, is why we furrow our brows and think, "What the hell?" But we're not given anything to qualify it, which is why it's such a scandal - something Crowley seemed to love fomenting.
I actually just read it as applicable to tyrannical governments and shake my head at the more scandalous interpretations.
What's your take? You gonna kill the school principal for enforcing the dress code?
-
Yes.
I get that we are stone age humans emerging from 6,000 years of patriarchy, and so it's going to be confusing to some of us to be living at such a time of peace and prosperity. There is a natural desire of the overwhelmed to blow it all up and return to simpler survival.
Or we could grow up. A person deciding on how to live in harmony with their True Will needs to consider the time and place of their birth, as well as their current time and place.
My current time and place is such that if someone wants to murder someone over the Liber Oz "right" to not bake a cake for homosexual people, my strategy would be to go hide in a corner and use my magic phone call the cops who have fast cars and big guns. But yeah, if someone wants to just use their fists, they can be my guest. Let success be your guide.
Back to the main topic: Trump's platform is a conscious rejection of the truth that every man and every woman is a star.
I don't need to have faith in the government to choose a more established, transparent process over a brain-damaged racist. I can look at the results, and choose the best option. And it's going to be flawed. That's ok.
Here's my invitation to Takamba, repeated:
"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?"
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"Interestingly, I have used up half of my life expectancy without this issue coming up once for me, personally. I may never encounter it. Thanks to the fact that people got together and figured out how to reduce violence in my part of the world."
It's certainly not unimaginable though. As a situation existing for other people, or as a situation that might exist for you some time in the future.
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"Yes, societies are established with violence (or the threat thereof) with the intention of regulating violence. In liberal, representative governments, the whole point is that more people get to decide how violence is allowed to be used, while fewer people actually have to use violence. Getting to be a pacifist is one of the perks."
I respect principled pacifism, and would be in that camp myself on many occasions, though there are things to critique about it. If you're merely delegating violence rather than exercising it yourself however, that is hardly it.
Violence in liberal democracy has been reduced to a certain extent. It remains a part of the normal functioning of society.
If one's project is to eliminate inter-human violence as far as is possible, and one's objection to Liber Oz comes from what one sees to be its glorification of violence,* I can get that. My problem is the trust in the guaranteed permanence of the present order that this reactive response often betrays.
- Regarding this part, it's still more complicated. There can be heroism in violence too, and non-violent interaction can easily be used in a top-down manner to palliate conflicts that need to be addressed. Furthermore, something might look non-violent, with the threat of violence still hidden underneath.
-
@Hermitas said
"Look, when it comes to resisting tyrants... I'm good with it.
But the seemingly scandalous thing about Liber OZ is that it's not overtly limited to big, bad governmental threats where there would be a large consensus in justifying such an act of war.
It reads as if it is universally applicable, which.... I mean, you'd have to be a psychopath, but it does read as if it's universally applicable even to small scale situations like the maladjusted teen who isn't allowed to "dress as he wills" at school. That, of course, is why we furrow our brows and think, "What the hell?" But we're not given anything to qualify it, which is why it's such a scandal - something Crowley seemed to love fomenting.
I actually just read it as applicable to tyrannical governments and shake my head at the more scandalous interpretations.
What's your take? You gonna kill the school principal for enforcing the dress code?"
The real scandalous thing about Liber OZ is that it's so damn simple that apparently it's easily missed.
Man has the right to live by his own law.
Okay. Simple. Argued? Well, let's add a clarification before any debate. The word is "Man." Crowley, in writing about this piece, told us the arguments he'd received (such as "why not 'mankind?') and he made clear. Man means mankind, not a man, not these men or those men, but all man. so..... not mankind because of the one syllable thing.
Unarguable.
Man has the right to eat what he will.
Well, not if it has to be stolen, right? It doesn't say that man has the right to own what he will, and since we have to own something (in a manner of speaking) before we can eat it, it should go without saying.
Don't pretend that Crowley was retarded and didn't think this through. The man was a master chess player, a record-holding mountaineer, an accomplished poet, and a general man about town; don't expect retarded arguments to actually hold up.
Man has the right to think what he will.
I dare you to argue with me! I dare you!
Man has the right to love as he will.
Fact is, some people even believe this isn't even a choice. They be born that way, baby. Rwawr!
and then finally, for those with weak stomach comes the final right. The last right.
Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights.
Again, the "Man" thing mentioned above. Not "a man," not "just men," not "some men," but "Man."
Now. As far as Trump goes; the law of change keeps me safe as far as I'm concerned. A lot of work-up over a little nothing.
-
@Victor said
"I respect principled pacifism, and would be in that camp myself on many occasions, though there are things to critique about it. If you're merely delegating violence rather than exercising it yourself however, that is hardly it."
Behaving violently oneself isn't somehow more noble.
I don't object to Liber Oz; I object to violence-glorifying interpretations of it.
I really wonder what any of this has to do with self-called Thelemites embracing white supremacy in the form of Trump.
@I said
"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?"
@Takamba said
""
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"
@Victor said
"I respect principled pacifism, and would be in that camp myself on many occasions, though there are things to critique about it. If you're merely delegating violence rather than exercising it yourself however, that is hardly it."Behaving violently oneself isn't somehow more noble.
I don't object to Liber Oz; I object to violence-glorifying interpretations of it.
I really wonder what any of this has to do with self-called Thelemites embracing white supremacy in the form of Trump.
@I said
"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?"
@Takamba said
""
"If I didn't answer that (and I'm still not answering), it's because a president's effectiveness takes years to measure. What I am seeing is an improved economic landscape, and improving. But I'm not a racist and not a Trump supporter. There seem significant "unscientific" methods by which you must reach conclusions.
-
Please look at the top of the thread for the topic.
Here's a statistical analysis of measuring Trump so far.
We're at the bear repellent level of causation for any improvements you are noticing from your van. My bear repellent lucky penny is working today too!
-
Okay, Av.
But every time you base an ethic on "Every man and every woman is a star," I hear this in the background:
"We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world."
Would you care to give your take? I really am interested, and I think that might be the justification for some of the Trumpers.
-
Liber Legis says lots of weird things.
The whole verse, by the way, is:
"We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world. Think not, o king, upon that lie: That Thou Must Die: verily thou shalt not die, but live. Now let it be understood: If the body of the King dissolve, he shall remain in pure ecstasy for ever. Nuit! Hadit! Ra-Hoor-Khuit! The Sun, Strength & Sight, Light; these are for the servants of the Star & the Snake."
I'm not sure how this translates to politics. Sounds pretty metaphorical to me.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"Please look at the top of the thread for the topic.
Here's a statistical analysis of measuring Trump so far.
We're at the bear repellent level of causation for any improvements you are noticing from your van. My bear repellent lucky penny is working today too!"
Topic? Listen bub...
The actual "topic" is "anyone seen it?" and it went from there to a discussion of [I paraphrase] "why would anyone conflate Trump's policies/natures/desires/plans/etc with anything remotely Thelemic?" and that discussion has continued (sans the occasional liberal interruption of "oh but that's awful! and should be restricted." I'm merely standing as devil's advocate about said concerns.
Now, where were we? Victor, go on.
-
"the occasional liberal interruption of "oh but that's awful! and should be restricted.""
I didn't realize my strong anti-Trump opinion was restricting you from your opinions. You best come Liber Oz me.
Seriously though, I'm out. We'll get to see in person whether our institutions can save the assault, or whether we'll descend into another century of madness, and I'll have to reclaim my share of violence from the state to become an American Nazi hunter in the back 9 of this incarnation. As glorious as that sounds, I hope for the former.
93
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"
"the occasional liberal interruption of "oh but that's awful! and should be restricted.""I didn't realize my strong anti-Trump opinion was restricting you from your opinions. You best come Liber Oz me.
Seriously though, I'm out. We'll get to see in person whether our institutions can save the assault, or whether we'll descend into another century of madness, and I'll have to reclaim my share of violence from the state to become an American Nazi hunter in the back 9 of this incarnation. As glorious as that sounds, I hope for the former.
93
"Apparently, you do not comprehend what's being discussed (although you believe you do).
"The word of Sin is Restriction."
"What we need are gun control laws!"
Go figure it out
-
-
@Victor said
"
My remarks on violence was simply stating a fact. The tree of liberty has been watered with the blood of tyrants and martyrs, to paraphrase Jefferson. "
Okay, but to your original point, Jefferson would be considered, clearly - apart of the old order, no?
"What does it then mean, this shirking away at the thought of violence? It doesn't make sense, unless this outward display of peacefulness actually masks the brutal exercise of power."
Violence is one thing, deluding ourselves that we have the "right" to kill those who would thwart our rights to eat a salmon dinner is another thing.
It's not that it is meek to reject violence, its just that using violence to solve any problem is stupid because it creates an environment where it is highly likely there will be retribution, creating more problems to solve a problem isn't a very elegant solution.
If anything was ever "old order", it would indeed be the delusion that killing other human beings creates a better life for ourselves. What's worse is the delusion that we have some sort of noble right to hack off someone's head should they dare to cross our sacred will.
Sure, I suppose if I was in a situation where it was my life or the guy trying to kill me, I would do what i had to survie, but that isnt what Liber Oz is about.
For most of us, the biggest threat to our own true will is our own delusion.
-
"
Let's be practical. Decide we raise a civilization against violence, make them by design runaway or cower or simply ignore. Every so often there's a fluke birth. Kid can't seem to learn! Fucker is violent!"
Football is violent. The universe is violent. Argumentation, when done well, is violent. That has little to do with killing someone.
Non Violence can be highly confrontational, and when it has been used historically, it achieved total success (see Gandi, MLK)
Aikido, for example, is a highly martial system with the strategy of directly confronting violence, aggression, and death.
I think you are defining "non-violence" as a meek position, and it isn't - it is just the smart and elegant position
"wham! your society is now down for the count. Gone. Wiped by the violence it preyed upon itself to wipe. Gone. Gone. Gone."
how did we get to a non-violent society all of a sudden being wiped out by violence? Not sure your thought experiment made sense.
"
Practical? Relevant?
Gone."You know, nuclear weapons carry the threat of a total destruction for all, kinda of also makes a strange peace.
-
@Hermitas said
"
"We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world."
""we"??? isn't that odd - Hadit is the self, who is the we this is referring to? "we", the collection of "hadits" is Nuit, yet this is not her chapter. It's little hints like this that to me - beg us to take a much deeper view of the face value of the words.
Do you really believe that Thelema, and the inherent mysteries, justify the killing of granny, cancer patients, and the starving?
If it did, Thelema would really be a low brow philosophy of the old order and I don't believe at all that is what this verse is implying. This verse is meant to stimulate something inside of us, stir up our own internal contradictions, bring our delusions to the forefront.
What do you think it means...to be a king? And, what is a king to begin with? Just a dude with all the power?
A king is in service to all of his kingdom.
Our psyches our also kingdoms, and unfortunately - our internal kingdoms are often run by our own internal idiots, not the *king (*spirit in woo speak)
Compassion is a feeling. Feelings are the most intimate self, they are not ideas or thoughts.
A "vice" is more akin to inspiration.
Compassion is an inspiration, which propels enlightened ideas. Compassion is a vice for kings, because kings are in service to all, and in the kingdom of our internal psychologies, a king is just a really beautiful, clear, honest, and expanding idea, especially an idea that can be of service, not just to our internal psyche, but to all of humanity, especially right now at this moment in history.
"Kings" can come to mean ideas born of the pure spirit in harmony with the universe (Nuit), not the meddlings of our own projections, characters, and bizarre interior psychologies plagued with the confusion of our own internal contradictions.
Those types of thoughts, the dark ones, the sad ones, the angry ones, the weak ones, not born of the king who is juiced up on inspiration born from compassion and the connection to all of humanity?
SPIT UPON THEM, laugh at their torment. They are just thoughts...after all. And THIS IS WHERE ALL THE VIOLENCE GOES. Get gorey with it. USE ALL CAPS. Treat fear and anxiety like the little bitches they are. They are standing in the way of the union of Nuit and Hadit.
Using violence against others in the world as a methodology of problem solving is just projecting our own internal contradictions on the outside world in a really tragic kinda a way. Nightmares.
(to me much of this chapter is role playing through the many internal contradictions an aspirant will resolve over the course of their devotion - I try to always remember to find the joke and the "leaping laughter". If I am not laughing, filled with compassion, and overflowing with awesome ideas, I'm only confused about Liber Al
-
This is a hopeless conversation. Reason can't seem to take hold.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
What is thy will?
It is my will to eat and to drink.
To what end?
That I may fortify my body thereby.
To what end?
That I may accomplish the Great Work.
Love is the law, love under will.Eating Salmon is not THE RIGHT. Eating is. It isn't about "A Man" who can do whatever his animal body desires, it's about "Man" being the supreme determiner of fate. If you keep boiling it down to "me" vs "you," on the individual scale of "that is my orange," then fight it out until the so-called "false-will" of the one who is mistaken dies. The individual need not die (but you may not understand what I am meaning because you prefer hyperbole and histrionic definitions).
Also don't forget the comment to the Law, "All questions of the Law are to be decided only by appeal to my writings, each for himself," in your desire to institutionalize your interpretations. Perhaps you are among those attempting to thwart these rights?
-
oh, and accusations of "old order." Yummy. Let's burn all the "old order." How do we know they are "old order?" I guess they might float when you try to drown them? Or sink? Weigh about the same as a duck? I don't know. That's beyond my pay grade.
Let the old ones be black. My prophet has purged them and rescued the good parts to keep.
Thank you.