Hitler and Master Therion
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"
@Takamba said
"Sorry about your loss, by the way."Spare me. According to your interpretation of Liber Oz, interfering with a racist who is spewing hate-speech is interfering with someone's right to think as they will. So the Nazi was justified in killing them.
"The Nazi was justified in Nuit's law because the dead man put himself in harm's way. According to man's law? That's a complicated story. I ask myself, if that particular Nazi hadn't been thrawted by interferers all his life (or some developmentally important period of his life), would he maybe not have become a Nazi? Would not his nature have taken him on a different course if it weren't for the interfering laws of man?
The men who died killed themselves. They sacrificed themselves in the eyes of Christ. I'm sorry for your loss of innocence. I'm sorry for their loss of justification, because the eyes of Christ do not work in the new aeon.
We can pick at any single detail you want. The problem is that an entire universe of events lead to that single detail and your arrogance thinks you can fix it all with punishment and restriction.
Yeah, it's like hanging around a bunch of neo-pagans when Jim takes his silence. No one has a clue but how to justify their own desire to be flakes. Next thing you know, Snowball, the entire thing will collapse.
Now tell me more about my eyes
-
The Abbey of Thelema was Crowley's own Ultimate Experiment in the practical application of the Law of Thelema. How do the ways that him and his protégés lived there compare to Nazi ideology? You see, this brings up one thing about Crowley the prophet, he would latch himself to pernicious ideals simply to promulgate his own religion.
@Takamba said
"The Nazi was justified in Nuit's law because the dead man put himself in harm's way."
The Nazi was justified for a time, perhaps, but the Nazi ultimately failed. End of story. The echoes of their voice are marginalized and vanishing. Even the bulwark of Hitler's expansionist agenda falls to the wayside. Perhaps the "slave" is not quite as powerless as first assumed, at least in combined fervor. The whole slave/master dichotomy solves no problems in philosophy or sociology other than the mass proliferation of Egoitism. The so-called "masters" betray nothing but their own hollow justifications of the aggrandizement of their own mundane (scale notwithstanding) mediocrity. A slave follows because they believe that they are helpless to do otherwise. To me it seems that talking about potential freedoms and doing one's own will, leaving others to do as they will, is the best recourse to universal emancipation from illusory bonds. That was, after all, Crowley's main intention.
-
seekinghga, I was referring to a specific "nazi" and incident. The lack of justification for the continued existence of Nazi Germany proved itself through history, and I agree with anyone else that it was a good thing. The problem that some don't recognize is that the egoistic world we are born into has to go through the same demands made on the individual during the evolutionary period (a twinkle of a dawning of a new age). There will be hell to pay. The Prophet knew it. Blood blood blood is what he saw. You get it, seekinghga. I get that.
My emotions are clear. I'm not attached to these things, I'm simply pointing things out.
-
You are attached to defending nazi rights.
You have invested energy in it. You've violated your own promise (to ignore my posts) because you're so invested in defending nazis.
"Man has a right to move as he will on the face of the earth "
"Man has a right to speak what he will"
The people on the train were just going home from work.
If a nazi telling people to get out of America, and calling them racial slurs isn't a violation of their will, then telling the nazi to shut up isn't either.
If the nazi was justified in murdering people for standing in between him and the victims of his verbal assault, then I'm justified in murdering nazis for existing.
The fact that you want to have it one way, in favor of the nazi, makes you a nazi sympathizer. You're not being mis-labeled.
-
-
@Takamba said
"My emotions are clear. I'm not attached to these things, I'm simply pointing things out."
I'm glad.
Though harping on the hate-fueled dregs of reality is a form of attachment. All thought is an act of creation..."And all these things fled away, for he understood them all, that they were but as old rags upon the Divine Perfection."
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"You are attached to defending nazi rights.
You have invested energy in it. You've violated your own promise (to ignore my posts) because you're so invested in defending nazis.
"Man has a right to move as he will on the face of the earth "
"Man has a right to speak what he will"
The people on the train were just going home from work.
If a nazi telling people to get out of America, and calling them racial slurs isn't a violation of their will, then telling the nazi to shut up isn't either.
If the nazi was justified in murdering people for standing in between him and the victims of his verbal assault, then I'm justified in murdering nazis for existing.
The fact that you want to have it one way, in favor of the nazi, makes you a nazi sympathizer. You're not being mis-labeled."
Here your mislabeling has gone and confused the entire situation into something isn't, but would be arguable if it were. I think that's called a Strawman, but this is only a rough approximation of a Strawman but I don't believe it was intended, just a failure of your ability to produce the right discourse for your desired victory. I don't defend the rights of Nazis, as you say, I defend the rights of all. It's when it transgresses beyond right and into behavior that violates others' rights. This is what you are not seeing.
Each specific incident will have to be handled on its own merits. A man has a right to think "wrongly" but he does not have the right to insist others agree with him. He has a right to speak offensively, but he doesn't have a right to take physical action that restricts the will of others (unless that right has been volunteered by others, such as voting for Police actions). I do not agree with racists, nor do black, brown, yellow, or red men that I associate with; but to hide the word nigger because it offends? That's just plain silly. I guess you don't think Tom Sawyer should be read in the fourth grade classes. It says nigger a lot. Oh, and according to some gang bangers I've met, a nigger is still a nigger no matter what color he is, but a black man can be something else. That's a quote from a black man. If it's racist, then I concede that.
Murder is not justified. And the man on the train may have attempted to murder someone, and according to the laws of man was wrong in doing so, and in the eyes of Jesus, the others who defended those women were right; but their deaths are justified in the heart of Nuit. They failed in one respect but succeeded I guess in another. There are eyes open to the real vastness of these issues and hopefully they won't linger too long on the superficials of race relations that makes all this still exist in this century when just near the end of the last century, whitey was convinced he'd solved these problems (obviously he hadn't).
You don't know me, you don't know jack. You don't seem to know when some things i say are intentionally out of line while within the context of an entire piece, it should be obvious. Instead, that one word triggered your liberal tarded ness. (see what I did, I called you a name but I didn't, you know, do it in a certainly genuine manner... so what meaneth that oh exalted one?)
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"
@mark0987 said
"these people have an indefeasible right to preach their hatred"@mark0987 said
"if you start telling people they are not allowed to say x because it offends you then you deserve to be killed."
Got it. Free speech for nazis, murder for people who speak up against nazis."
Here again you prove to have it wrong. Do you know there's a line where rights end? They end when they impinge upon the rights of others. Without knowing that detail, all these make believe arguments of yours seem real to you. They don't seem real to me. Everyone has the right to define their own universe. They have the right to define their own sphere. They have the right to define their own circle, provided that that circle does not impinge upon the circles of others. Where it does, they have a right to renegotiate. If force is called for, then the outcome of that force will teach more than just the width of a circle, it will teach others what to look for in the future. It's complicated but I suspect you'll understand enough.
Now, go and teach your children well - because that's the real root of the problem today.
-
Takamba,
You are doing to Av precisely what you are trying to teach him is wrong.
You are defending the free speech of racists while you seek to silence Av through “correction.”
You are biased against liberals, and it would be 20 times more intellectually honest if you would just admit that you are fighting him brother against brother in favor of Nazis instead of taking this high phony position of unbiased “correct” teaching. It’s just your own brand of hypocrisy.
-
Just an fyi, Takamba, in case you were replying to me, I've hidden your posts and won't see what you have to say (I assume--based on your post history--that it's something pro-nazi).
People: if your reasoning leads you to support the murder of innocent people by nazis, you can be 99.9% sure you're reasoning on the matter is disconnected from nuit.
-
@Hermitas said
"Takamba,
You are doing to Av precisely what you are trying to teach him is wrong.
You are defending the free speech of racists while you seek to silence Av through “correction.”
You are biased against liberals, and it would be 20 times more intellectually honest if you would just admit that you are fighting him brother against brother in favor of Nazis instead of taking this high phony position of unbiased “correct” teaching. It’s just your own brand of hypocrisy."
Here you have confused the planes. I'm strictly acting intellectually. I'm not telling anyone to stop, I'm telling them what I see wrong with what they are believing and saying. I'm not biased to libtards. I have many friends who are libtards. Hell, I spend two hours every morning in Starbucks. They love me there by the way, these libtarded green haired friends of mine. So I think you have me confused with someone in your head.
-
What I say applies to all. If the Nazis can't hear it, that's on them and the consequences will come. If anyone else also can't hear it, then the consequences will for them also come (death on a train?). There could have been "hope and help in other spells" for those dead bodies. There wasn't. That's not on me.
I have only a few times seen any pro-Nazi stuff here, and some of it I may have confused with humor. Others I'm watching to wait before I judge it. Those that I have argued with, it has been about their points (such as with you) and it's not my bad that you don't see it. I won't argue their love of pretty dress uniforms and desires for racial purity. That's there's to live with. I will argue with them when they get into areas that enforce on others those beliefs (ex. wanting to pass a law that encourages their behaviors).
We are all Nazis in some way. You cannot see a quality in another human being if that quality is not related in you. How you secretly marshal these qualities and how you publicly display yourself is what makes all the difference between these labels you espouse, these name callings that you believe you can use like weapons in an intellectual debate or discussion.
If I call you a faggot, what are you going to accuse me of? If I call you a libtard, what are you going to declare I do about it? But if I tell you that your reasoning is based on something not as universal as you think, do you think I have a better chance at convincing you to declare for yourself alliance to my ideals? This I believe in, you friggen Seinfeld sympathizer (not that there's anything wrong with that).
-
@Takamba said
"That's not on me."
And just what exactly is "on" you? To become the embodiment of an ideal is the curse of a Magus, according to the A:.A:.. I shouldn't judge Crowley by any other standard, he did that. Perdurabo. It's "on" you to do what? Be the voice for those whom you don't agree with but have a notion to promote? Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Your own freedom is not predicated on any standard of belief. There are no unbalanced situations in the moral compass of others which need or require translation, save for if you are intending to disclose discourse tending towards freedom. Maybe that's what you seek to do. But it's not overtly effective if no one is asking. Nazis and other scumbags do not create a wholesome atmosphere for discourse or discovery. And, like I've said to you before, NEVER CUT AGAINST THE GRAIN OF THE WOOD!
"This is the creation of the world, that the pain of division is as nothing, and the joy of dissolution all."
-
"Got it. Free speech for nazis, murder for people who speak up against nazis."
My post was more about the fact that Liber Oz isn't particularly practical within a society which is not wholly Thelemic. It is only practical in a society in which everyone follows their Will, or at least, the majority. Sadly we do not (yet) live in such a world.
I think people who preach hate out of fear and hate of another person's lifestyle which does not directly affect them as being unthelemic. However, if I was to live by Liber Oz I would not be allowed to tell them such. My point is that Liber Oz is not a document which is representative to our society.
Most Thelemites who are actually Thelemites would be of the opinion along the lines of "I really couldn't give a damn what you do behind closed doors." Within a society of Thelemites, such as the OTO, Liber Oz would work beautifully. I think Liber Oz was written for the OTO rather than the world as a whole at this moment in time.
-
Why don't we see more Thelemites or any other group criticizing and condemning what have the Tribe of Judah done through history until the formation of their new home in Palestine now? I don't see Thelemites or any other group pointing towards the blatantly inhumane passages of the Torah and Sanhedrin about anyone who isn't a member of their Covenant (descendant of Jacob), because that have been the bases of the actions of their leaders, and that's what Hitler fought against, he actually fought for all of humanity not just the German people.
Yes, there might be flaws in the Third Reich at the time that are against some Thelemic concepts and philosophies which we can argue about, but it's the core of the movement that is of benefit for all noble, free and strong individuals and races, something Crowley called for too. You just can't deny that he occasionally flirted and admired the fascists, seeing the parallels between his movement and theirs.
I'm against any kind of covenant between a certain group and a deity as representative link or anchor between the mundane and spiritual, the same way the Jews have been doing it, no Germans no any other group, as in this new age the individual is the central star and gravity of his own universe, but that also doesn't mean total demolishing and denying of racial reality and cultural frontiers.
Regardless holocaust happened or not; I will still stand with Hitler's cause.
-
Yeah....
I know... Let’s play count the Arabs in this photo.
Let me clue you in to something you may have missed: The resurgence of white-nationalism around the world isn’t because they want to be friends with Arabs.