Obama Nation of Desolation?
-
@Behahemi said
"youre a pretty ignorant fucko to assume so much about me, same with edward the mason and all you other shits who are shoved so far up your own asses it makes me stand back in amazement"
Drinking again?
This kind of response is not acceptable here.
Third warning issued, and you're about an inch from getting kicked off the forum.
-
I think you've been very accommodating. There should be a few things that are instant kicks to the curb on this forum. I think this is the case here.
Although I usually see your wisdom , I have to disagree with you on voting for the lesser evils, and not doing so being "a loss."
If you believe in a single payer health case system, as I do, why not vote for Nader? I know, I know, because he's not going "to win" and then McCain will win, etc. But, if one must do their true will, how can you vote against you will by not voting for a candidate who embraces all your beliefs? He's the only candidate--on in 45 states--calling for it (not to mention immediate withdraw from Iraq and bringing Bush and Cheney up on war crimes charges).
Is it a fair comparison to say the most restaurants don't serve cakes of light either? Or their menu is not the book of the law?
Just a thought. But I don't believe voting for an alternative is really a waste in a wider sense. I feel compelled to do so.
I wouldn't have made it to this forum if I only had to choose between Evolution or Creationism (if that analogy fits, and I think it does.)
I'll admit though, it's very disconcerting thinking that McCain may win. I certainly prefer Obama to McCain across the board.
But when one goes against their true will, it always seems to get you back later.
(If politics and true will are on different planes, then I may be the fool. Very hard to separate them. Perhaps this could be a new thread???)
-
@Nudor said
"I think you've been very accommodating. There should be a few things that are instant kicks to the curb on this forum. I think this is the case here."
Thanks for supporting our maintaining some standards here. I disagree with you on the above, because every single one of us is an ass now and again. Also, when I remove someone, I don't just delete their account - I usually make it impossible for them even to see the forum again thereafter without at least getting an entirely new Internet service provider. So it isn't a slight thing.
"Although I usually see your wisdom , I have to disagree with you on voting for the lesser evils, and not doing so being "a loss.""
I was speaking in purely mathematical terms. (And "lesser of two evils" is your phrase, not mine.)
"If you believe in a single payer health case system, as I do, why not vote for Nader?"
For one, after 2000 I'd never vote for Nader again for anything the rest of my life. Second, to vote for Nader - or anyone who stands no chance of winning - is to throw your vote away.
"I know, I know, because he's not going "to win" and then McCain will win, etc. But, if one must do their true will, how can you vote against you will by not voting for a candidate who embraces all your beliefs?"
For one, Nader does not embrace my beliefs in general. For another, I view a vote not as an act of self-expression, but as a specific intention to make a particular thing happen, so (for the reasons you stated) voting for Nader would be very much against my being even if I didn't already have a grudge against him.
"Just a thought. But I don't believe voting for an alternative is really a waste in a wider sense. I feel compelled to do so."
Then I would encourage you to do so.
-
Jim, thanks for answering clearly.
Mathematically, as you made clear originally, works to explain one side of the coin (and it explained your point very well). Lesser of two evils is not my expression, it's a common use phrase abused to death. I shouldn't have used it. No one is immune to habits of bad English. My slip. Lessen learned. However, the other side would be those people who want something to happen that A (McCain) or B (Obama) are not going to execute. If you want a particular thing to happen, like single payer health care, why vote for someone who does not want to make it happen?
Unless you want to stop the onset of another Republican administration, which of course, I would have to say, math applies without question. I would concede on that argument. I chose to dwell on single payer health care.
Since you did vote for Nader in 2000, he must have appealed to you on some level. But, need this go into a pro/anti Nader debate, I'll rest with your answers. Many Dems hold a grudge against Nader, but more Dems in Florida voted for Bush than Dems/Independents voted for Nader.
More importantly, I'm a bit sad that my later remarks didn't illicit response. Are true politics and true will on different planes? Cakes of light on restaurant menus, do we settle for A or B and not fight for a C as Thelemites?
Is it really a matter of stopping another horrendous era instead of electing your conscience? Am I missing something?
I could change to your POV perhaps with a Thelemic/magick argument as I've never come across a political one to move me yet.
I heard it said, first one must get rid of the bad, then bring in the real progression.
Perhaps I'll reconsider. This is not easy. But, in all fairness isn't this the purpose of a forum?
Declarative statements like: voting for anyone who stands no chance of winning is to throw your vote away don't cut quite cut the cake.
For example, Thelemically (or magically) if one must, or only does look at events and outcomes mathematically, then I know I'll have to work my way to get there. There would be some support for this, astrology (sidereal, Qabalistic formula, etc). And it would then be a part of the initiation process I have yet to attain.
This is the idea I hoped my post would illicit some responses on.
Where you stand is quite clear to me, and respected.
Damn, politics are always the bitch of the party!
-
@Nudor said
"However, the other side would be those people who want something to happen that A (McCain) or B (Obama) are not going to execute. If you want a particular thing to happen, like single payer health care, why vote for someone who does not want to make it happen?"
I think that's a very good point. And if you don't like either, then it isn't a matter of letting a vote slip away from the one of the two you would prefer more.
"Unless you want to stop the onset of another Republican administration, which of course, I would have to say, math applies without question. I would concede on that argument. I chose to dwell on single payer health care."
All other considerations behind, I think there are three syllables that force the issue: Su Preme Court.
"Since you did vote for Nader in 2000,"
No, I didn't. I wouldn't have, and didn't. (Sorry if my words misled. What I meant to indicate was that after Nader became one of the primary factors that put George Bush in office, I was pretty unforgiving.)
I will never ever ever cast a U.S. President vote for a third party candidate. If I'm going to do that, I might as well not show up to vote. Local candidates? Sure! New parties IMHO should take 30-40 years to build solid records of winning occasional elections at the local and state level in every state, and then launch a national agenda when they have history of winning in each state. But egos aren't going to let that happen.
"More importantly, I'm a bit sad that my later remarks didn't illicit response. Are true politics and true will on different planes? Cakes of light on restaurant menus, do we settle for A or B and not fight for a C as Thelemites?"
Too complicated for a quick answer. Could be yes, could be no. Actually, I did answer what I consider the core of this: I don't vote as an act of self-expression per se. I vote in order to produce a specific concrete result. The selected resulted can arise from a variety of inner motivations. True Politics are probably approximately as much True Will as, say, True Car Shopping. When it comes down to it, sometimes you just need a car that will get you around and meet certain minimal standards, rather than be an expression of your Inner Ideal.
"Is it really a matter of stopping another horrendous era instead of electing your conscience? Am I missing something?"
Isn't "stopping another horrendous era" consistent with the dictates of your conscience?
"Perhaps I'll reconsider. This is not easy. But, in all fairness isn't this the purpose of a forum?"
I think it would be a wonderful purpose of a forum!
"Declarative statements like: voting for anyone who stands no chance of winning is to throw your vote away don't cut quite cut the cake."
If I hadn't explained it, or the meaning wasn't evident, then I would agree. But I think meaning was clear, n'est ce pas?
"For example, Thelemically (or magically) if one must, or only does look at events and outcomes mathematically, then I know I'll have to work my way to get there."
The magical approach would be: Of all possible results, which one do you pick? (Magick must be consistent with what's possible.)
"Damn, politics are always the bitch of the party!"
Politics and religion... they both express both our shared commonality and our distinctive individuality.
-
A Mathematician recently published a study where they calculated the statistical probability that your vote would make a difference in the outcome of an election. The probability on average per state?
1 in 16,000,000.
It was much higher in some states. -
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
All of this just reminds me of Temple Lodge. (Politics and Religion.)
I know this is a semi-public forum, but Politics and Religion are things (I feel) shouldn't even be brought up. It tends to cause conflict. But then again, as we all know:
"But the keen, and the proud, the royal and the lofty; ye are brothers!"
"As brothers fight ye!" (Liber Al Vel Legis, III, 58 and 59.)
Interesting thread though:-)
Best wishes in working out things and getting EVERY ONES point across.
Love is the law, love under will.
As ever,
James
-
In the alternative view, religion and politics are the two things that must be brought up and discussed. These aren't only some of the most divisive things in human history, they are also two areas that have bound more people together than almost anything else. In these two topics we're able to see at once both our sameness and our uniqueness in a way few other topics permit.
-
93 Jim,
I understand completely. (I was just stating my perspective...That is all:-)
Best wishes.
93 93/93.'.
James
-
93,
There are two types of people who dont want you to talk about politics and religion: the people who control politics & religion, and the people who are too weak to engage in actual debate.
IAO131
-
Well I am glad that I found this site. No matter what people's beliefs or philosophies are, Obama's win is historical in a number of instances.
I am sure we've had Presidents who have been Masons. I wonder when we will have one who is a Thelemite?
-
"Politics is a topic that regularly comes up at the end of any lengthy discussion of metaphysics. This is because spiritual principles have been shared and examined, ideal social structures have been invented or proposed, and then someone eventually brings up the current state of society and the ruling government's position. The Ideal Administration is then compared to the contemporary Establishment and before you know it, revolution is in the air!
"This is exactly what has happened many, many times in the past. See any history book for further details. Pay attention to items like Illuminati and Freemasonry and the Founding of The United States. But you will have to seek out esoteric history books, for the Establishment's sponsored texts will certainly omit the metaphysical motivations and spiritual ideals.
"Also consider the fact that most countries in the world [today] are governed by dictatorships or repressive regimes. The United States and several of its allies in the "first world" offer what is perhaps the best that can be achieved under our current circumstances. Even this group of nations can be closely examined and found wanting. Political leaders are routinely unmasked to reveal their insincerity and corrupt practices. Legislators continuously sell out what is best for the whole in favor of special interests. People in positions of social and financial power constantly bully, manipulate and otherwise influence "free" beings into submission.
"Some ancient civilizations had ways of dealing with political corruption. They required that administrative office-holders take a vow of poverty, with the government then providing for their needs (and not at an expansive, expensive level), thus theoretically eliminating the personal profit motive. Other societies merely killed their kings and rulers if they didn't look after the people in a befitting manner.
"However, if you think you can personally influence the present conditions and direction of politics by magical means, take care! This is neither impossible nor even improper, but the Establishment does have its ways of sensing potential change agents, even if they are only working magically."
- Blazing Diamond
-
@Aum418 said
"93,
There are two types of people who dont want you to talk about politics and religion: the people who control politics & religion, and the people who are too weak to engage in actual debate.
IAO131"There are also those of us that realize that what the thinker thinks -- the prover proves (Robert Anton Wilson's). Unless the person that you are going to have the conversation with is looking to change their opinions (or doesn't have any opinion that they are attached to) -- you are not going to reach them or change their mind. You can debate them and beat them to a bloody pulp with the rules of logic (or any other weapon) and it doesn't mean you have changed ANYTHING. Unless they choose to think differently you are just as likely to have proven to them not that your opinion in a debate was correct -- but that you are a total jackass that they do not want share the same point of view with you. People process what they want to. Most of the time people only process the information that “proves” what they already “think”.
I do still debate people sometimes, but I don't delude myself into thinking I am going to change anyone else’s mind. I debate because I enjoy it (sometimes) and because it helps me to consider why I think as I do.
It might be useful to honestly ask yourself if you have ever seen a Hindu/Christian/Moslem in a religious debate suddenly throw up their hands and say "Alright! I was wrong! I am changing my religion!". I have never seen that, and I have never seen a hardcore Liberal or Conservative suddenly surrender what they already think in ANY debate. It is very possible that nearly all debates are a waste of time, and that some people don't debate because they don't want to waste their time.
For the record I think Obamas win was business as usual. Not one 3rd party was allowed on the ballot for President in my State. 3rd parties were also shut out of the debates around the nation. America had a choice between two Washington insiders both claiming to be for "change" and "outsiders" -- and that isn't much of a choice at all. All the real outsiders that would have meant truly historic change were blocked out of the process from the start. -
93 Frater Pantha,
VERY WELL PUT!!!
93 93/93.'.
James
Kohen ha-Gadhel
Albuquerque, NM -
I never argue with people, cuz for
- I don't give a shit what anyone else thinks
& - Learned a long time ago, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink!!
Fuck Obama btw.
- I don't give a shit what anyone else thinks
-
excuse me while i put on my Devil's Advocate Hat..
..ok.. 
it seems obvious to me that Capitalism in it's present form is completely incompatible with the ideal of "True Democracy" period. Capitalism requires Capital and necessitates Classism; the exploitation of the labourers & working class who remain underpaid and increasingly impoverished especially by the hidden tax of "Inflation", The concept of Capitalism is rooted in exploitation, and in the policy of the U.S today, it is effectively imperialism as seen in the attempt to control Eurasia, (in the name of a "war on terror") where the Majority of the world's human and natural resources are located. Obama is even more of an Imperialist than Mccain, right from initial debates he called for unilateral bombing of the sovereign country of Pakistan, simultaneously calling for increased troops in Afghanistan, inadvertently seeking to expand the U.S Empire further east, steadily encroaching on the border of China, Europe's/ U.S main threat to world-domination. How did the concept of democracy deteriorate into a two-party system ultimately controlled by the same interests? Why do people stand for this? Why are other voices drowned out of the media? The reason why one of these two parties always wins is because everyone already buys into the fact. If everyone voted for Nader would he not win? Or do the votes not really count? I think that anyone who blames Nader for Al Gore's loss is seriously naive, I mean com'on now?? Jeb Bush was the Governor of Florida at that time, and even a moderate would admit the Bush's are not the most forthright of individual's (hard to be when you're creating a dynasty). The war in Iraq is the greatest travesty in modern times, based on lie after lie, followed closely by the series of government bailouts for the rich, still there is no conspiracy? No global agenda?? Man I wonder how it feels to have the mind of a sheep?
Ron Paul is the closest thing to a step in the right direction, with his single most important policy of creating "Sound Money". And abolishing THE ABOMINATION OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How does one compete with people that create value out of thin air? Man this subject is Mind-Boggling to me. Government is a farce, in its present state, the unbearable and malevolent "Shackles of Mankind" and will eventually lead to mankind's atrophy and ultimate extinction if care is not taken. Furthermoe I cannot understand why England and by default conutries like Canada still bear allegiance to that ancient relic known as "Monarchy" & the good for nothing "The Queen" the very symbol of elitism and classism, which is inherently diametrically opposed to the concept of equal opportunity and hence "Democracy" although they claim she is merely "symbolic"( although we are not told symbolic of what?) in practicality this does not translate (just ask Dianna & Dodi Fayed), these concepts are simply incompatible, and you wonder why the average Englishman is so confused as to his identity. I could go on and on..but this is where I will stop for now. As a social animal man is extremely confused. -
what is wrong with monarchy not inherited monarchy, but the system where the strong leader steps up out of the confused and befuddled masses with a clear and wise course of action, and who has a plan and method to gain the respect of the people and organizes them to the common good.
In fact such a leader, creates the values, the virtues, the customs of the people, the leader is the WILL of the masses, the very essence of the people, made flesh. As such this King has the metaphysical Right to rule, not because he was voted by the majority, bot because the people elect the king (the people do not know what is best for them by conscious thought, only when its put into action and the king coerces the people through fire and hard times, to come out better off a superior people).
Such a King is not elected nor takes power by manipulation against the essence of the people, much less via economic prowess. instead such superior men are created, they are metaphysical creations, forged in the fires of initiations. The means to their creation are set forth in Crowley's letter to probationers. Where he names them Genius or Christs.
-
"Such a King is not elected nor takes power by manipulation against the essence of the people, much less via economic prowess. instead such superior men are created, they are metaphysical creations, forged in the fires of initiations. The means to their creation are set forth in Crowley's letter to probationers. Where he names them Genius or Christs."
Which Buddha or Christ do you imagine wanting to rule an Earthly kingdom?
I never can tell the difference between the ideal you think we should evolve toward and the "ideals" through which we have already evolved. What are you suggesting but what has been believed by every culture that has ever believed their king was the sun god? There is the ideal and the reality. They failed because of human frailty. Emerging from "the confused and befuddled masses with a clear and wise course of action"...? Yes, that would be the situation because there would be no stable transfer of power. When a challenger to the throne arose, would they have a swordfight to determine who had the divine right to rule?
I guess what I'm saying is that I can never get past the idea with your "ideal State" that we have already tried believing in that.
-
I see you think the future lies in believing something new, when in truth it lies not in believing in the ideas than were misrepresented via the failure of Christianity. The new aeon resides with the re-establishment of the solar-phallic king, not with the continuation of Christ's ideals that lead into nihilism.
-
I suggest you pull out a dollar bill and observe the symbolism.
To suggest that Equality and Democracy are the perversions of Christianity is simply to be uninformed.
Are you watching Iran at all?
Perhaps you need a vision of a collective Horus. I point you to the Declaration of Independence.
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
The system that these people created is *large enough *to allow societal evolution within it. Your ideal of a leader emerging from the masses... That's what already happens! It's what already has happened! In fact, they were so enlightened that they turned down the personal power and temptation of monarchy and, in that act, ensured we had a truly enlightened form of government.
There are two ways to transfer political power: by death and by vote. There will either be dynasties, bloody revolutions, or elections. You don't get a fourth option. Perhaps you will never seek to reproduce your genes. Those of us who will continue the survival of the species want stable, secure environments in which our offspring can not only survive but thrive. Whether you can step outside of your idealism long enough to see it or not, there's too much blood in your system. The rest of humanity seems to want to evolve beyond that constant, institutionally-based source of death, vendetta, and economic instability. The people will kill anyone who tries to force that on them again. There's your Law of the Strong right there...
See, it already works like you suggest! Rise up from the confused and befuddled masses to conquer and lead us if I am wrong!
Your ideal has already proven unworkable in Egypt and Rome - failed attempts... Democracy was born out of their ashes, and the United States was the first beacon State of the "Novus Ordo Seclorum." It's you who are lost in the past. I encourage you to get on board.
The weakness of democracy is identical to its strength. It moves with the level of enlightenment of the society. But you would have us be in the same situation as North Korea or Iran, led by men who are absolutely convinced of their right to obtain and protect their personal power.... again.
And as an aside, the very same version of Christianity that you loathe was given form by the "initiated monarch" Constantine, who called together and presided over the first Ecumenical Council at Nicea.
You may thank your own ideals for the Nicene Creed you hate.