The Law of the Strong
-
I'm just appalled by how fast this country is being dismantled. Today, in a blatant assault upon civil liberties and the right to privacy, the Senate passed an unconstitutional domestic spying bill that violates the Fourth Amendment and eliminates any meaningful role for judicial oversight of government surveillance. The closer we are to being free, the opposition will become stronger to try to keep us wrapped up and immobilized. The dollar is most likely in the process of being replaced by a new currency, and the americans will pay the price.
"the law of
the strong:
this is our law
and the joy
of the world." AL. II. 2"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." --AL. I. 40
"thou hast no right but to do thy will. Do that, and no other shall say nay." --AL. I. 42-3
"Every man and every woman is a star." --AL. I. 3
There is no god but man.- Man has the right to live by his own law--
to live in the way that he wills to do:
to work as he will:
to play as he will:
to rest as he will:
to die when and how he will. - Man has the right to eat what he will:
to drink what he will:
to dwell where he will:
to move as he will on the face of the earth. - Man has the right to think what he will:
to speak what he will:
to write what he will:
to draw, paint, carve, etch, mould, build as he will:
to dress as he will. - Man has the right to love as he will:--
"take your fill and will of love as ye will,
when, where, and with whom ye will." --AL. I. 51 - Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights.
"the slaves shall serve." --AL. II. 58
"Love is the law, love under will." --AL. I. 57
- Man has the right to live by his own law--
-
Why are you surprised? Any state has its own commercial and political interests to maintain and consolidate. A society on the lines of Liber OZ (self-ordered anarchy) is somewhat unlikely.
Best wishes,
Michael.
-
In all fairness to our plutocratic overlords, the 4th Amendment along with quite a few others were already destroyed with the PATRIOT Act back in '01 let laone the Homeland Security Act of '03... This just seals the deal on civil suits against telecoms.
I wouldn't confuse the American Constitution/Bill of Rights with Liber OZ/Do what thou wilt, either. The law of the strong? Technically these people are strong in the sense that theyve wedged their way into positions of powers and have been able to do what they've done.
IAO131
-
-
"I wouldn't confuse the American Constitution/Bill of Rights with Liber OZ/Do what thou wilt, either."
The spirit of the bill of rights and the american constitution were based on granting people basic rights. Even though the constitution was written before Liber Oz, and they were both written in two different countries and under different circumstances, they both had similar principle. The admission that you are a free individual.
I posted Liber Oz to give a point of reference in what things should look like, and how we are moving away form it.
"The law of the strong? Technically these people are strong in the sense that theyve wedged their way into positions of powers and have been able to do what they've done. "
And you think this is power? I think this is failure. REAL power doesn't have to do with what these people are doing... It's really a a bunch of cowards.
-
@Metzareph said
"
" Liber OZ (self-ordered anarchy) "self ordered anarchy??
i wouldn't call it anarchy. i don't think doing your Will is anarchy, but complying with the most sacred Law, the Law of Nature, something that 99% of people don't have a clue.
"Anarchy as a political philosophy is essentially self-regulation, which has affinities to Thelema. Somewhere or other (I don't have the passage to hand) Crowley observed that to 'Do what thou wilt' was to bid stars to shine, vines to bear fruit, water to seek its own level. This is to act in accord with intrinsic nature.
As far as politicians in positions of power are concerned, I'm with my old sparring partner IAO131 on this - these people are mostly powerful, strong-willed people.
Best wishes,
Michael.
-
@Michael Staley said
"Anarchy as a political philosophy is essentially self-regulation, which has affinities to Thelema. "
anarchy comes from the greek "without a ruler"... thelema is not about this. thelema is about discovering and doing your will.
it's a fine line, but it exists."As far as politicians in positions of power are concerned, I'm with my old sparring partner IAO131 on this - these people are mostly powerful, strong-willed people."
these people, lie, manipulate and enslave in order to maintain their position. see their legacy and tell me if this is not failure. power is not about enslaving. power is about liberating.
it's really a disgrace...
-
@Metzareph said
"anarchy comes from the greek "without a ruler"... thelema is not about this. thelema is about discovering and doing your will.
it's a fine line, but it exists."In Thelema you're listening to the Self and ones HGA, not another person. This not listening to another person is anarchy. You're living by your laws, not ones defined by another.
-
@kuniggety said
"In Thelema you're listening to the Self and ones HGA, not another person. This not listening to another person is anarchy. You're living by your laws, not ones defined by another."
In the end, your laws and my laws are ONE single Law... the Law of Thelema.
-
@Metzareph said
"
In the end, your laws and my laws are ONE single Law... the Law of Thelema."The law of Thelema may be the one single law, but that one single law of Thelema is Do what thou wilt. And I'm sure, our wills are not the same
-
@kuniggety said
"
The law of Thelema may be the one single law, but that one single law of Thelema is Do what thou wilt. And I'm sure, our wills are not the same"
Yes, of course, but to expand on what i meant, we seem to have different a purpose, but you and me are not different after all. Only on the plane of the physical we seem to be different.
"Let there be no difference made among you between any one thing & any other thing"
-
@kuniggety said
"And I'm sure, our wills are not the same
"I'm sure they are... meaning, if you follow their stream back far enough (probably farther upstream than the point that demarcates "yourself"), you'll find that your two separate streams are branches of the same river.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"I'm sure they are... meaning, if you follow their stream back far enough (probably farther upstream than the point that demarcates "yourself"), you'll find that your two separate streams are branches of the same river."
I think this relates to how you've argued before on these forums how when you dig deep enough, there is no true conflict in the universe. However, for all practical purposes, I believe there is.
-
@kuniggety said
"I think this relates to how you've argued before on these forums how when you dig deep enough, there is no true conflict in the universe. However, for all practical purposes, I believe there is."
There is no conflict in the universe.... the universe is fine.
but our failure to see that the universe is fine "creates the conflict"...
-
@kuniggety said
"I think this relates to how you've argued before on these forums how when you dig deep enough, there is no true conflict in the universe. However, for all practical purposes, I believe there is."
And far be it from me to disavow your beliefs
It may be a semantics issue, though. By conflict, I mean inherent incompatibility. I'm certain there is no such thing at any point in the universe. - I specifically do not use the word "conflict" in this sense to mean something like "struggle" or "combat."
-
The Will of the Universe Flows in one direction - & all Higher Wills move according to that same Flow. It is the lesser wills that appear to flow contrary - & thus result in pain. My Sufi friend used to say "To walk with the wind on your back is to walk with the force of God" - only recently have I been able to grasp the deeper meaning of his aphorism.
616
-
Very good.
My favorite variation is, "It's easier to ride the horse in the direction it's running." (An experienced horseman will understand that this doesn't mean the horse is picking the destination.)
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"And far be it from me to disavow your beliefs
"How dare thee... I shall fight ye to the death.
"It may be a semantics issue, though. By conflict, I mean inherent incompatibility. I'm certain there is no such thing at any point in the universe. - I specifically do not use the word "conflict" in this sense to mean something like "struggle" or "combat.""
I would agree with the semantics issue. The universe is a beautiful thing and there is no incompatibility. Just as I would agree that there is no incompatibility of my will with anothers. It may have been the will of Hitler to take over Europe but it was also the will of Churchill to defend it. Both wills are compatible with the universe but at conflict with each other.
-
Just one relatively minor quibble...
@Metzareph said
"The spirit of the bill of rights and the american constitution were based on granting people basic rights."
According to the framers, these rights could never be "granted" by the government; they were defined as *(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights:zctq2lds) (or unalienable). The issue of whom they really thought granted us those rights (usually termed "Divine Providence," but with a range of interpretations) is probably secondary.
I think it's right to worry when politicians speak of rights that the government "grants" to us (it happened once in the 2004 presidential debates), because in the back of their heads they leave the door open for the government to take them away. Of course, in practice, the constitution acts as a shared social contract, in which all of the participants have to agree that the rights in question do exist and should not be infringed upon by the government.
I think the intention behind Liber OZ was also to recognize existing rights, not to be a framework for granting them (or, Nuit forfend, enforcing them!).
Steve
-
@Steven Cranmer said
"Just one relatively minor quibble...
@Metzareph said
"The spirit of the bill of rights and the american constitution were based on granting people basic rights."
According to the framers, these rights could never be "granted" by the government; they were defined as *(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights:2qz5pb5z) (or unalienable). The issue of whom they really thought granted us those rights (usually termed "Divine Providence," but with a range of interpretations) is probably secondary.
I think it's right to worry when politicians speak of rights that the government "grants" to us (it happened once in the 2004 presidential debates), because in the back of their heads they leave the door open for the government to take them away. Of course, in practice, the constitution acts as a shared social contract, in which all of the participants have to agree that the rights in question do exist and should not be infringed upon by the government.
I think the intention behind Liber OZ was also to recognize existing rights, not to be a framework for granting them (or, Nuit forfend, enforcing them!).
Steve"
Thank you for correcting! This makes things easier to grasp.